Several years ago, during a round of technical pump-related communications with a reliability engineer in Europe, he sent a particularly thought-provoking note. This engineer worked for a prominent oil refiner and, clearly, wanted to let me know all that glitters is not gold.
Based on various comments I had heard and received from others over time, I knew this correspondent wasn’t the only plant professional to feel that way. The gist of his message to me was as follows:
“Thank you for your email. I consider its advice a lesson in common sense. Of course, we are engineers who should make decisions that reflect applicable knowledge, instead of mere opinions. Our advice to management must be rooted in science, experience, well-researched and authoritative technical texts, fact-based case histories, and relevant published articles. Personally, I like to read, read again, then ponder what had I read. Almost everything is documented somewhere, and we can be certain there is always someone in the world who has encountered the same problems or failures. But I consider it more important and worthy of our appreciation that some still unselfishly share their experience with others.
I endeavor to do the same with colleagues in other refineries and at Technical Universities in my home country.
Yet, the problem I often encounter in an operating plant is that reliability professionals are expected to act as both superman and politician. There are managers whose hope it is that the reliability engineer knows everything and, thus,
does not require background data, or that this professional has access to outside experts who will contribute much time and effort with neither pay nor even a “thank you” for their valuable input.
Back at the plant, and with limited time and many budget constraints, what is often left are several layers of uninformed managers who tend to make decisions based on opinions rather than facts. We, for our part, try to convince management that there are times when our technical expertise and factual knowledge deserve to be heard. That is certainly the case with process-pump lubrication, and my colleagues have made this observation as well. It’s not that the pump manufacturer does not know much about issues traceable to inexperienced specification writers, but rather that our goals differ from those of the manufacturers.
Nevertheless, our work can become unnecessarily complicated whenever managers disregard what we have absorbed over the years. There are many times when we could offer wisdom beyond that displayed by the manufacturer’s inexperienced technicians. As diligent readers, our reliability professionals are frequently able to explain technology-backed reasons for defect development. If allowed, we could often suggest the types of experience-based steps that would solve problems.”
I thanked the writer for his comments and the time he spent providing this feedback. I believe the frustrations that he expressed reflected (and still reflect, today) the real-world situation in many process plants around the globe.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. Email him at heinzpbloch@gmail.com.
Tags: reliability, availability, maintenance, RAM, asset management, professional development, workforce issues
.
