Preventive maintenance (PM) of production machinery would be a commonsense piece of cake if it weren’t for conflicting priorities. OEMs have every good intention when they outline PM requirements for their equipment. Maintenance specialists will adopt or adapt the OEM recommendations to fit their respective environments. Reliability specialists will monitor the PM effectiveness as it pertains to machine performance and then optimize the tasks and frequencies. All is well, so far.

When it comes to deploying required PMs, however, things aren’t so straightforward. In some cases, production leadership may be reluctant to release a machine for PM for a variety of reasons. They might complain about increased problems after the last PM. Or insist a machine is needed for a long production run, thus delaying a scheduled PM for a week that turns into a month or more.

In other cases, as we’ve all seen, shortcuts are taken or PMs are rushed. A good example of this is a maintenance technician hurriedly opening a machine, scanning it for squeaks, rattles, and leaks, then pencil-whipping the PM sheet, and proclaiming the work complete. And don’t forget the cases of PM tasks becoming outdated as a result of machine changes, the eventual decline in reliability that follows.

LET’S ALL PAY ATTENTION
Now is the time to pay close attention to preventive maintenance efficiency and effectiveness. As RAM pros, we should perform follow-up inspections of completed PMs for critical machinery where equipment reliability and performance has changed or been irregular. And, just as important, we should talk with those performing the PMs. They’re on the front line. Here are some cases where paying attention paid off:

“It’s about time somebody asked. My notes have gone nowhere.” This statement was associated with a routine follow-up on completed PM sheets that were on file in a maintenance office. For more than a year, a technician had been leaving written comments and suggestions, and noting where changes on a machine were made, but nobody had responded in person nor revised any of the PM tasks. Once the situation came to light, it was amazing how many PM task revisions were undertaken. Technicians at the site were pleased that somebody had “finally” listened. And yes, the machine in question performed much better than previously; the PM efficiency improved; and the technician who did all that writing/documenting became actively engaged in machine-related improvements.

In a similar situation, a maintenance mechanic stated, “We were PM-ing something that was removed from the machine years ago, but nobody changed the paperwork.” In this case, a mechanic reassigned to the area had discovered this PM error. A subsequent review of the completed PM sheets, however, confirmed that the missing equipment had been PM’d regularly by other mechanics for months.

“Show me where the $20 bill is in this machine.” For several months, a maintenance manager had suspected a relatively new technician was pencil-whipping the PMs on a very critical machine. At some point before a PM came due, the manager stuck a $20 bill behind a component that had to be unlatched for inspection and lubrication. After the PM was completed and the paperwork filed, the manager found the $20 bill exactly where he had placed it. In that case, falsifying company records was grounds for termination.

“The new crew PM’d the wrong machine! This is extruder 13 not 10.” In this case, machine numbering did not follow the order in which the units were laid out on the plant floor. The first nine machines were in sequence. Years later,  though, four more machines were moved in from another area. And, unfortunately, they retained their original machine numbers in the plant’s maintenance-management system. To make matters worse, a contractor installed those four units in random order. The fix?  nothing more than putting identification signage or large labels on the machines.

THE BOTTOM LINE
As RAM professionals, we should always be listening to the people who are actually performing PMs. We also should be performing periodic follow-ups (or audits) when PMs are completed on critical machines. Making sure that whatever is documented on PM task sheets is accurate and being performed makes sense, too.

Paying attention to the people who are involved in PMs (on the front line and elsewhere) is one of the most important parts of any reliability improvement initiative. After all, as I’ve been preaching for many years, reliability is more about people than it is about machines and technology.TRR

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bob Williamson is a long-time contributor to the “people-side” of the world-class-maintenance and manufacturing body of knowledge across dozens of industry types. His vast background in maintenance, machine and tool design, and teaching has positioned his work with over 500 companies and plants, facilities, and equipment-oriented organizations. Contact him directly at 512-800-6031 or bwilliamson@theramreview.com.