Context is crucial when you’re providing, receiving, or understanding information. Consider the following process-industry examples. While we’ve touched on them in past articles and presentations over the years, they reflect how the true picture of an issue or situation can be distorted from lack of context.
In the early 1990s, the presenter at a technical conference showed images of a great number of process pumps with stainless steel (hydraulic) tubing connected to each bearing housing. Other images depicted outdoor storage yards with plastic oil-mist tubing. It was noted that plastic tubing was perfectly acceptable for stored equipment, but steel tubing was needed in a process unit.
The reason why stainless-steel tubing was to be specified for machines within the boundaries of an oil refinery’s process units had to do with fire issues. Heat from fire in a nearby pump could melt plastic tubing in an otherwise unaffected machine. The real message, though, would tend to be lost or badly misinterpreted if all that we remember is the part of the sentence stating “. . .plastic tubing is perfectly acceptable. . .”
In the late 1970s, an ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) panel discussion arranged for four end-users to report on the successes of plant-wide oil mist lubrication. One panelist worked for an offshore employer. As he spoke about his site’s experience, he projected several 35-mm color slides on a large screen.
The other panelists immediately pointed out that the plastic (!) tubing running from the various manifolds to their respective bearing housings were too long. They sagged and allowed low spots to exist. Coalescing oil collected in those low spots and prevented oil mist from reaching the bearings. A refinery’s newsletter later reported that oil-mist systems were prone to unexplained random bearing failures, but it did not spell out the reasons why (which were in plain sight).
There’s not enough time or space here to relate even a fraction of the many tales and anecdotes that are being passed along over a few beers at barbecues. Of course, examining facts and becoming familiar with the underlying science would make eminent sense. Facts are worthy of being brought to the attention of every functional layer in a reliability-focused organization. Opinions, anecdotal banter, and sentences quoted out of context can pose serious risks to the safety and profitability of a plant. When opinions take over, deviations from the original quality norms tend to become the “new normal” and repeat failures are experienced.
Partial information can be misleading. I probably knew this when I was in my early teens and pleaded with my mother to hear the full story before administering punishment. And I was reminded of the effects of partial information about 55 years later, in 2002 or 2003.
Our 7-yr-old granddaughter had come to visit and read aloud the next-to-last page of a book review that stated, ”Heinz Bloch can look back on 36 years of failure. . .” When I came out of my shock, I asked her to please turn the page. I breathed easier when she read the top line with the last two words of that sentence: “. . . analysis experience.” Indeed, context matters.TRR
Editor’s Note: Click Here To Download A Newly Updated List Of Heinz Bloch’s 24 Books
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.
Tags: reliability, availability, maintenance, RAM, asset management, professional development, workforce issues
