Quite some time ago, I had a very candid discussion with the Reliability Manager of a prominent multi-national oil company. One of his concerns involved what he considered a rather puzzling fact: Many companies that experienced repeat failures of rotating equipment (especially process pumps) had employees who were members of certain technical and/or professional societies. The manager was basically questioning the merits of encouraging such membership.
FAST FORWARD TO TODAY
We might indeed ask ourselves just how effective members of such societies have been over the years.
Have they been able to make a significant dent in the frequency of repeat failure incidents? Have they been motivated to understand, advocate, describe, and promote targeted and truly results-oriented training? Have they been successful (or even interested) in putting a stop to buying from the lowest bidder? Have they accepted the professional’s role of exposing products that add little or no value to an enterprise?
As we all know, blindly purchasing from the lowest bidder and cutting out real training and true mentoring will often lead to equipment that is maintenance-intensive or unreliable. In the process-machinery sector, the emphasis should have been on maintenance avoidance decades ago.
Note that such an emphasis would require intelligent procurement, active support of the best vendors, and issuance of knowledge-based (and then fully enforced) specifications. Professional knowledge comes from suitable education. For true professionals, acquiring a relevant education requires conscientious reading.
In the case of upgrading existing equipment, adding value would require that every maintenance event be viewed as an opportunity to upgrade. The feasibility of upgrading must be determined well ahead of the maintenance event. Whenever justified, the maintenance/reliability professional must seek an active involvement in calculating, and making known, the monetary value of these endeavors.
BOTTOM LINE
The ever-present pseudo-training must be identified for what it is: a waste of time.
Real training is a two-way street. It is well defined, supported in equal measure by employer and employee, requires motivation and effort by all concerned parties, and represents an investment in personal time. The intrinsic present and future value of that type of training is intuitively evident. Such training is certainly pursued in the education of children and adolescents. Linking it to the economy would be considered absurd.
I believe there are untapped opportunities for technical and professional societies and their local subsections. Moreover, there is ample evidence that employers and employees must finally come to grips with the training issue.
During the past few years, some vendor-manufacturers have decided to discontinue Lunch-and-Learn training. They have realized (belatedly) that actual decision-makers stay away from such events, and only those interested in a free lunch typically attend.TRR
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Heinz Bloch’s long professional career included assignments as Exxon Chemical’s Regional Machinery Specialist for the United States. A recognized subject-matter-expert on plant equipment and failure avoidance, he is the author of numerous books and articles, and continues to present at technical conferences around the world. Bloch holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering and is an ASME Life Fellow. These days, he’s based near Houston, TX. Email him directly at [email protected].
