I first met Ron Moore in the early 1990s. He is known as an icon in the reliability community and is the author of an excellent book entitled What Tool? When? This book tackles a delicate subject that is both difficult and controversial.

Moore examines and contrasts the world’s most notorious and respected philosophies in the field of maintenance and reliability. These include lean manufacturing, kaizen, total productive maintenance (TPM), Six Sigma, reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), root cause analysis (RCA), predictive maintenance (PdM) and others.

Which of these philosophies does a user organization really need? Is there a priority order or logical sequence to their use? Which produces the greater benefit or return for the lowest risk or investment? How sustainable are they? These are all great questions that require an answer, especially for those seeking a major transformation in their maintenance and reliability programs.

For those of you in the reliability field, this book is a must read. Lectures and interviews with Moore can also be found on YouTube and in the “Rooted in Reliability” podcasts for an abridged understanding of his main themes.

The post Philosophies of Transformational Change and ICML 55 appeared first on Tesibis.

One of the best examples of courage is the man who asks to hear what he doesn’t want to hear. While it’s human nature to fear or dread bad news, the wisest among us will frequently ask for it. Why? Because winners change what losers want to leave the same.

Change starts by asking or investigating what’s wrong. This quest begins the assessment stage of programmatic transformations in reliability. Assessments are also referred to as audits, surveys, benchmarking and gap analysis. It can’t stop there. The next step is equally difficult and perhaps moves you out of your comfort zone. You must accept or acknowledge what is wrong. Many people instinctively want to play defense. You’ve seen how they respond during a substance-abuse intervention. Denial may even lead to lashing out at others to shift focus. Tunnel vision and denial impair real progress.

The post The Power of Truthful Assessments in Jumpstarting a Reliability Transformation appeared first on Tesibis.

There is no greater influence on the state of lubrication than training and human behavior. I often say, “You earn what you learn.” I do not say it because it rhymes or it sounds cool. I say it because, to me, it is an unvarnished fact.

The words “optimum” or “optimization” are commonly used in maintenance and reliability. Their use refers to a balancing of costs, opportunities, benefits and risks. Common examples include PM Optimization (PMO) or the Optimum Reference State (ORS). Can “optimum” be applied to training and education? Most certainly!

Figure 1 is the Education Needs Chart (ENC) for Lubrication Technicians. On the chart are three plotted lines and three zones. The upward sloping green line is the cost of education relative to the amount of education received. The precipitously downward sloping orange line is the cost of ignorance related to the financial consequences of not investing in training for lube techs. The cost of ignorance is largely defined as opportunity cost, such as opportunity to reduce repair costs and downtime. The blue line is the total of the two: cost of ignorance plus cost of education.

The vertical Yellow Zone relates to a state of under-education and the high associated opportunity costs (penalties). The Blue Zone on the right relates to a state of over-education. Note the cost penalty of over education is negligible. The center Green Zone relates to the optimum level of education; not too much, not too little. The point of diminishing return is roughly the left edge of this green zone.

Note, this version of the chart only applies to lubrication technicians. Different version of the chart would be used for lubricant analysts and lubrication engineers.

The post The Golden Age of Lubrication appeared first on Tesibis.