Inspection, in its most basic form, has been around forever. However, like most things in life, what you get out of an activity depends entirely on what you put in. This column is about radical reinvention of the whole concept of machine inspection. It has little to do with conventional practices of doing daily machine rounds.

With Inspection 2.0, you don’t just “look” at a bearing, seal, coupling or pump. Instead, you “examine” these components with a keen and probing eye. Inspection 2.0 is intense and purposeful. It seeks to penetrate and extract information from what’s been referred to as machine sign language. Inspection 2.0 requires polished linguistic skills to translate this sign language into prescribed activities and instructions that stabilize reliability.

The technologies of machine condition monitoring have been advancing at a near break-neck pace in recent years. These innovations will continue for decades to come. Still, for the vast majority of machines, there is currently no fault-detecting technology more effective than the razor-sharp and relentless focus of a human being.

The potential of a human being as a condition monitoring instrument is enormous. This potential depends on transformation, specifically from the going-through-​the-motions inspections of the past to mission-intensive detective work inspections of the future. That is the essence of Inspection 2.0.

The post Why Inspection 2.0 Is Your Best Strategy for Early Fault Detection appeared first on Tesibis.

I have written several articles on inspection recently, as I strongly believe it is foundational to condition monitoring, machine reliability and asset management. My last Machinery Lubrication column introduced the term “Inspection 2.0” to differentiate conventional inspection practices from the intense, probing and purposeful methods needed to optimize benefits. As common as inspection activities may be in any plant, Inspection 2.0 is largely untapped in my opinion. In fact, it is delusional to imagine world-class reliability without the coexistence of world-class inspection.

Inspection 2.0 borrows from many battle-tested philosophies, including the practice of autonomous maintenance advanced by total productive maintenance (TPM) doctrine. However, not detailed in these philosophies is the “how-to” to move an organization past the inspection status quo to the real game-changing opportunity that eludes their view. I plan to address these differences and the “how-to” tactics in several upcoming Machinery Lubrication articles.

This article introduces the concept of machine readiness as a critical enabler to Inspection 2.0. An inspector who is eager to determine the state of machine health – good or bad – needs help from the machine. What hurts, where does it hurt and what are the symptoms of being hurt? Information exchange, like basic communication, is a two-way street. There is a need to enhance the quality of machine-transmitted conditions so the inspector gets a clear and complete picture of the state of the machine’s health.

The post Getting Machines to the Proper State of Inspection Readiness appeared first on Tesibis.

The well-known KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) was first coined in the 1960s and began widespread use in the U.S. Navy shortly thereafter. While it started as a design principle for engineers, it has since been applied to any activity or creative endeavor that has had the propensity to become unnecessarily complicated.

What becomes overly complicated also becomes, by default, poorly understood and sparsely used. Conversely, the greater genius in design and engineering lies in achieving the design objective through simplicity and pureness of form.

This can be applied to the world of oil analysis in many ways. Increasingly, oil analysis has become engulfed by complex analytical chemistry and mathematical algorithms. This science is successful when it takes the complicated, such as an array of particles of varying shapes, sizes, textures, colors and compositions, and puts their formation into plain English (e.g., cutting wear on cylinder walls).

The post How to Visually Inspect the Health and State of Oil appeared first on Tesibis.

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.

Having spent nearly my entire career in the field of lubrication, I’ve become increasingly aware that for many companies, the practice of neglecting lubrication has become deeply engrained in maintenance culture.

For these companies, changing such practices is like trying to turn an ocean liner. I’ve become convinced that their complacency is not simply a case of ignorance, but rather follows a pattern strangely similar to addiction.

After all, I’ve taught the virtues of modern lubrication to legends of organizations, only to see many of them quickly and irrationally relapse into their past destructive habits. This typifies addictive behavior.

These observations were the impetus for the topic of this column. In keeping with the addiction theme, I’ve modeled a plan for recovery using words and concepts resembling the highly successful 12-step program that serves as the cornerstone of recovery for the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) organization. After all, if lubrication neglect is an addiction then perhaps it should be treated in similar fashion in a program of 12 steps.

For companies afflicted with this addiction, casual intervention may not simply be enough. Instead, an ultimatum must be declared. Otherwise, past practices and bad habits will gradually return. Like other addictions, denial is the heart of neglect. The 12-step program discussed below brings the denial issue front-and-center. Until denial is acknowledged and addressed, no other progress can logically be made.

The post 12 Smart Ways to Revive a Neglected Lubrication Program appeared first on Tesibis.

Inspection 2.0 is rooted in some of the most fundamental and time-honored maintenance principles. One of them is total productive maintenance (TPM). Today, it’s hard to play an active role in the field of maintenance and reliability without encountering and embracing TPM. Honestly, it is delusional to think otherwise.

World-class maintenance organizations understand the intrinsic value of a well-tuned and culture-driven TPM program. World-class TPM programs are fundamentally powered by keen observation. You can’t fix what you can’t see. Therefore, all progress hinges on the power of observation. Allowing you to see is the bedrock. Improve the quality of inspection and, by default, you improve the quality of TPM and all the benefits that TPM seeks to achieve. It’s that simple!

The origin of TPM can be traced back to the Japanese automobile industry in the 1960s. It has many similar elements to the quality movement that was advanced in Japan during the same period. However, it wasn’t until 1988 that the western world learned of TPM when two seminal English texts were published on the subject by Seiichi Nakajima. From that point, TPM spread across the vast global maintenance and reliability landscape.

TPM has similarities and overlapping features with other branded maintenance philosophies, including reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), condition-based maintenance (CBM) and asset management (see Figure 1). However, its strongest difference is the active and responsible role of machine operators and small groups toward maintenance prevention and improved asset utilization.

The post Inspection 2.0: The Cornerstone of World-Class TPM appeared first on Tesibis.

When most of us refer to inspection, we are thinking of running machines inspected routinely, say on daily rounds. Unarguably, this type of on-the-run inspection is critical to machine condition monitoring, but other types of inspections are important as well.

At its best, inspection seeks and finds the “precursors” to failure, also known as root causes. This is job one, for sure. Next, inspection must hunt down those elusive incipient failure conditions (the earliest detectable state) that can be as difficult as the sound of a “pin drop” for our senses to detect.

The time horizon when inspection should incur spans from cradle to grave. I’ve emphasized in past columns that Inspection 2.0 is a continuous state of vigilance.

The moment you let your guard down is exactly the time when the enduring Mr. Murphy makes his entrance. To fend off risk and vulnerability, the wise and reliability-intensive organization performs inspection across multiple states.

The post The 5 States of Machine Inspection 2.0 appeared first on Tesibis.