If biological health depends on the quality of food we ingest a maintenance department will thrive on a diet of “good” data that it will convert to optimal decisions.
Data analysis covers a vital role in maintenance management. Yet most managers doubt the analytic capability of historical data stored in their EAM work order systems. This article will assist the maintenance engineer in assessing and then improving the effectiveness of his organization’s maintenance data procedures.
Three types of data feed the maintenance decision process:
- Age data: Age data consists of records of failure mode instances, their working ages at the time of renewal, and whether maintenance was provoked by a) failure, b) potential failure, or c) a decision to renew a part or component that did not fail. The third of these failure mode ending event types is called a “suspension”.
- Condition monitoring data: Internal variables such as vibration, oil analysis, temperature, and other measurements are selected to track the deterioration of a part or failure mode. External variables monitor the stresses on an asset that eventually lead to a failure or a “potential failure”. External and internal monitored variables constitute valid data sources for predictive maintenance.
- Business data: While age and condition monitoring data can support a decision based on probability alone, only business data, specifically, the cost associated with a failure relative to the cost of its mitigation, will add the ability to attain an optimizing objective. Optimized maintenance procedures will accomplish, in a verifiable way, stated enterprise objectives such as maximum availability, minimum cost, maximum profitability, or a desired mix of objectives.
Current technology enables the acquisition of precise condition and business data. On the other hand, deficient age data in the EAM captured via the work order remains the final obstacle to optimal maintenance decision making. We offer here a simple method to verify the quality of your EAM data with regard to its ability to support maintenance decision optimization. The analysis will often identify systemic causes of inadequate data. The steps are:
A. Extract a sample of age data covering a period of 3 or 4 or more years. The format of the data should be as follows:
B. Extract a sample of condition monitoring data covering the equipment over the same period as A. Add as many condition data columns as you need. The format of the data should be as follows:
C. Complete the form:
[files_fm_upload]
D. Give us a week to analyze your data. We’ll provide in a dashboard correlation statistics as to:
- Whether the quality (consistency, accuracy) of your EAM work order data entry procedures can support optimal decision modeling. And if so,
- Whether and to what extent your condition monitoring data has predictive capability.
## Post Tree Navigation
LRCM
- CMMS Impediments to Reliability Analysis
- Components of continuous improvement
- How to start LRCM
- Justifying Living RCM Certified
- Leading and lagging performance numbers
- Living RCM Certified – Consulting Services
- LRCM – Reporting failure modes of rotable components
- LRCM and HSE
- LRCM Justification Template
- LRCM reliability analyst survey results
- LRCM reliability technician survey results
- MESH – RCM knowledge continuous improvement
- Motivation, leadership, training
- PAS-55
- RCM – Dashboards
- Reliability engineer’s work cycle
- Service vs. maintenance
- Streamlined RCM and LRCM
- Structured free text
- The role of media in living RCM
- The winning paper at the XIV International Congress of Maintenance
- Two philosophies in maintenance improvement
- Waiting for CMMS maturity
- What is a pilot project?
- What is the difference between RCM and LRCM?
- Achieving Reliability from Data outline with video
- Course brochure – Living RCM Certified
- Deepwater Horizon
- Elevator description of LRCM
- How does LRCM “improve” RCM?
- Living RCM Certified
- Living RCM Certified eLearning
- Living RCM Certified® and ISO 14224
- LRCM – off the maintenance improvement radar
- LRCM-EXAKT – a general solution
- MESH Basic reliability analysis on the work order
- Mesh Living RCM Certified brochure – Mesh Cloud Service
- Obtener confiabilidad a partir de los datos – esquema del curso
- RCM – Analyst course outline
- RCM – feedback suggestion mechanism
- RCM – Living RCM
- RCM – LRCM dashboards
- RCM – feedback – suggesting a new failure mode
- Training course in achieving reliability from data
- Two kinds of decision making in maintenance
- Two LRCM purposes
- Videos
- Why Living RCM works
RCM
Reliability Analysis
- Achieving Reliability from Data
- Challenges to Achieving Reliability from Data
- Data analysis precedes reliability analysis
- Data is the key to the way forward
- Defeating CBM
- Does historical age data have value?
- Failure declaration standards
- Free text on the work order
- How much data is required for RA?
- How to assess EAM and CBM predictive capability
- Interpreting failure data
- LRCM – Reporting failure modes of rotable components
- Maintenance software
- Mesh: 12 steps to achieving reliability from data
- RA requires LRCM
- Reliability analysis in 2 dimensions-Part 2
- Sample selection
- So you’re getting an EAM
- Take the EAM data health check
- The CMMS barrier to RCM
- The data barrier to analysis
- The reliability data Catch 22
- Thoughts from a mine maintenance engineer
- Variations in a sample
- Warranty for haul trucks
- Weibull exercises
- What’s the right data?
- A survey of signal processing and decision technologies for CBM
- Achieving reliability from data
- CBM Defined
- Conditional failure probability, reliability, and failure rate
- Conditional probability of failure
- Conditional probability of failure vs. hazard rate
- Criticality analysis in RCM
- Diagnostics versus prognostics
- Difference between LRCM and EXAKT
- EXAKT’s Three Modules
- Expected failure time for an item whose maintenance policy is time-based
- Failure analysis for reliability analysis
- Failure probability prior to attaining MTTF
- FAQ
- FMEA according to Wikipedia
- Is “random failure” really random?
- Leading and lagging performance numbers
- LRCM and the Failure Finding Interval
- MTTF is the area under the reliability curve
- Myths about RCM in heavy mining equipment
- Non-rejuvenating events
- Optimal PM and spares strategies – exercises
- Performance metrics – Low and High level KPIs
- Problem statement
- Purpose of RA
- RA – Micro (day-to-day decision) analysis
- Random failure and the MTTF
- Random failure is exponential reliability decay
- RCM – Living RCM: Achieving reliability from data
- RCM vs RA
- Real meaning of the six RCM curves
- Reliability analysis is counting
- Reliability trend yes Weibull analysis no
- Remaining Useful Life Estimation Using Hybrid Monte-Carlo Simulation and Proportional Hazard Model
- Safety Instrumented Systems
- TBM or CBM?
- Terminology in LRCM
- Thinking RCM
- Time to failure
- What is PM?
- What is the scale parameter?
CBM
- A survey of signal processing and decision technologies for CBM
- Automating CBM
- Building a CBM decision model
- CBM Exercises
- CBM Optimization
- Combined analysis for early predictive maintenance
- Deploying the CBM model
- EXAKT cost sensitivity analysis
- EXAKT needs LRCM
- EXAKT vs Weibull
- Measuring and Improving CBM Effectiveness
- Optimizing a Condition Based Maintenance Program with Gearbox Tooth Failure
- RCM – Reliability analysis in more than two dimensions is CBM
- Smart CBM demo
- What is Maintenance Decision Automation?
- Confidence in predictive maintenance
- Diagnostics versus prognostics
- Inspections – CBM and others
- Inspections or CBM?
- Internal and external CBM variables
- NAVAIR and the PF interval
- Objectivity in condition based maintenance decisions
- Optimized interpretation of CBM data
- P-F Interval a red herring?
- PF interval from the failure rate
- PM, PdM, Proactive Maintenance
- Predictive analytics
- Temporary fix work orders
- The elusive P-F interval
- LRCM-EXAKT – a general solution (71.7%)
- Does historical age data have value? (68.6%)
- How to start LRCM (40.4%)
- Temporary fix work orders (40.4%)
- ACIEM conference paper on LRCM (40.4%)
- What’s the right data? (RANDOM – 31.4%)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.