Advancing the Reliability and Maintenance Standards of Electrical Systems with Alan Ross In this episode, James interviews Alan Ross, former Vice-President of Reliability at SDMeyers and President of the Electric Power Reliability Alliance. Alan Ross has been involved with electrical systems for roughly 30 years and is now dedicated to transforming the industry by educating [...]

Bonus Episode-Advancing the Reliability and Maintenance Standards of Electrical Systems with Alan Ross

A weekly Maintenance and Reliability podcast covering common industry challenges and what you can learn from them. Each episode dives deeper into critical issues and explains how you can begin correcting theses maintenance flaws today. Sharing new tips and techniques to help you achieve industry best practice and shining a light on widely debated maintenance topics with special guest experts.

Your host and founder of High Performance Reliability James Kovacevic, will take you on a weekly tour of his 13+ years of shop floor experience, along with special guest that lend an expert look inside your maintenance departments problems and concerns. 

Plane, train, or automobile, however you’re traveling to work Rooted In Reliability is compatible for listening on the go.

Technology

Tech News

Podcasting

Gadgets

Software How-To

Business

Investing

Careers

Management & Marketing

Business News

Shopping

Management

The Frustrations of Reliability: From Strategy to Synergy with Bob Latino and Ken Latino
Welcome Bob and Ken Latino to the Podcast. Bob has been to this Podcast before discussing defect elimination and is an author involved with RCA and other reliability items. Briefly, Ken, can you introduce yourself. 
I worked with Bob and my other brother at our family businesses called Reliability Centre for about 15 years. I later left for a small start up called Meridian being involved in reliability softwares.  I also worked as a reliability manager at a Paper Mill for 10 years then went to GE. Presently doing consulting work Prelical.

In this episode we covered:

There is a lot of frustration in reliability. Where do you see it comin from?
What do you think reliability means to any plant manager or operations manager out there?
How do we break this cycle of frustrations?



There is a lot of frustration in reliability. Where do you see it comin from?
Everybody in the industry wants reliability but a lot of people do not understand what it takes to move from a reactive culture to being proactive.
When reliability is successful nothing happens in terms of breakdowns hence it is difficult to recognize the efforts of the department.
 
It doesn't matter which industry it is. It has always been about organisational culture. 
It comes down to the decision making skills of the workforce. If you give the team bad tools they will make bad decisions. With good tools they will make good decisions. Every outcome stems from someone triggering it or taking inappropriate action.
 
Sometimes you set up RCM and after a month of practice it fails. We have to ask if we communicated the right expectations upfront; what it takes and how long it takes to get the results, the right culture.
I do not blame as much the people that do bad RCAs as much as the people that accept them because they are condoning it. The people in charge are considering the practices as routines to just get the minimum requirements.
 
Is the level of frustration similar for both the tradesman in maintenance and those in management?
It's  a different frustration for the line worker because they communicate potential points of breakdowns before they happen with no response from upper management. I believe the management hardly understands because they believe they have people for all departments who are supposed to respond to failures.
Earlier in the 1970s reliability was not being practised because so many people were focused on fixing failures and no resources were left for preventing them. Reliability was being considered subordinate to maintenance and that is one of the frustrations.
 
The job descriptions of those intended to support reliability maintenance such as planners are not clear even to superior staff. It becomes frustrating because they are meant to work for the same organisation.
Organisations adopted the idea of reliability by merely changing the title from Maintenance Engineer to Reliability Engineer without actually changing the function. This brings failure to the execution of reliability.
 
What is reliability? 
It is the equipment, process, and human reliability with an emphasis on the human reliability side. Having the greatest tools does not help if you do not have the right mindsets to prevent failures. It is similar to safety when you communicate that you want zero harm and so people fail to report injuries to not mess the metric.
 
What do you think reliability means to any plant manager or operations manager out there?
They would say,  my equipment doesn't fail. 
 
Is it realistic?
No.
 
Most managers measure reliability by MTBF.
It is a terrible metric. It is important to trend it but it is not proper to make decisions solely on it.
 
The frustration then comes from the way we measure reliability. Managers assume that we will not have failures. Failures will still occur but it is a matter of how often. Are we eliminating certain types of failures?
From an FMEA curve standpoint people may start reporting the small issues rather than the more severe ones. You find that you are tracking it at risk level rather than at the consequence level.
Often people do not even know what failures are, much less what reliability is.
While working at the hospital, people rated fall with harm and without harm differently enough to not treat them with the same seriousness. The conditions for fall still existed but we didn’t have the right drivers to help us assess the near misses.
You have to have a certain group looking at potential breakdowns as you have others focused on the present ones.
 
How do we start reducing these frustrations?
Pick the smaller subgroups of equipment. Pick the critical equipment and apply the reliability principles. Having the subgroups brings success to build on. You also have to tell people what you are doing to make your successes visible.
 
You have to pick small areas to work on and communicate the right expectations upfront.
You have to be consistent in your reliability practices because it is very easy to fail if you are not. A lot of frustrations also stem from high turnover rates that prevents consistency. The remaining people do not have the right systems to sustain reliability.
 
You have to have the right systems that support skill transfer such as refresher training, and processes to institutionalise the practices rather than base it on one champion. 
For a tool like RCA, you have to ensure that the newcomers understand perceptions from the more experienced team members on how systems work and people think. Otherwise they will slip back to their reactive culture.
 
How do we break this cycle of frustrations?


Start small
Build on success
Educate
Teach people how to make a proper business case.

There are several easy wins in highly reactive environments that can be pursued.
 
Find the best way to communicate what you do and your achievements. Reliability engineers can take sales and marketing courses. 

Show your people that they have value by listening to them.
Proactively utilise RCA even without a breakdown to eliminate defects that hinder great performance

 
Why arent many reliability people  not doing these things?
The first question they need to ask is on practicality. Ask the people if the initiative is practical.
 
Eruditio Links:

Eruditio
HP Reliability
James Kovacevic's LinkedIn
Reliability Report

Bob Latino and Ken Latino Links:

Bob Latino LinkedIn
Ken Latino LinkedIn
Prelical.com
Root Cause Analysis: Improving Performance for Bottom-Line Results, Fifth Edition 5th Edition

Download RSS iTunesStitcher
Rooted In Reliability podcast is a proud member of Reliability.fm network. We encourage you to please rate and review this podcast on iTunes and Stitcher. It ensures the podcast stays relevant and is easy to find by like-minded professionals. It is only with your ratings and reviews that the Rooted In Reliability podcast can continue to grow. Thank you for providing the small but critical support for the Rooted In Reliability podcast!
The post 316-The Frustrations of Reliability: From Strategy to Synergy with Bob Latino and Ken Latino appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

316-The Frustrations of Reliability: From Strategy to Synergy with Bob Latino and Ken Latino

Prioritizing Initiatives with Paul Daoust
Welcome Paul to the Podcast. Paul is the founder of Scio Asset Management. Although, briefly, tell us about yourself.
I have almost 30 years experience in engineering reliability maintenance and both strategic and holistic asset management. At Scio we are providing frameworks for leadership in asset management that is based on first principle decision making. Also launching Assetiers that is a platform for leaders to discuss the challenges that we have in asset management.

In this episode we covered:

There are challenges in prioritising where to allocate resources in asset management. Have you seen this?
How do we prioritise the initiatives that are already in place such as lean manufacturing, Six Sigma, 5S and reliability maintenance?
There are diminishing returns in pursuing reliability best practice. Do we always have to be the best in class in these practices?



There are challenges in prioritising where to allocate resources in asset management. Have you seen this?
That is a primary challenge. It goes to the strategic organisational goals in terms of delivering value from the available resources. Resources are both fast in that there is lots of money and people to invest and they are scarce in terms of budgetIng. It is the leadership's job to direct the resources to maximise value.
 
How do we prioritise the initiatives that are already in place such as lean manufacturing, Six Sigma, 5S and reliability maintenance? Do we go for easy wins or strictly focus on our strategic goals?
I think it is multifaceted in the sense that we can focus on things like lean manufacturing that improve people's capabilities but at the same time focus on business processes to have good, better, and best practices. Organisations need to assess the value in all their practices. And if there is value then what is the cost of going for the best practice?
 
There are diminishing returns in pursuing reliability best practice. Do we always have to be the best in class in these practices?
The Law of diminishing returns might manifest for people who are in production especially if you calculate cost per unit. However, when a company reaches maturity, there is always room for improvements. The  Beauty Curve  shows that improvement at maturity frees up resources to be utilised in other areas. It has a compounding effect.
This is why companies that carry out best practices deliver more value since they already have a culture of continuous improvement. This runs counter to what is believed as The Law of Diminishing Returns.
 
The challenge is whether going for those incremental values is worth it and how to prioritise the allocation of the freed up resources to continue problem solving.
There is also a question of where to start. The key is to pick a place where you believe there is need and work on it. The less mature and more reactive the organisation is the more the opportunities. The key for less mature organisations is to first focus on the people and free up capacity. They have to work hard to reduce reactive maintenance and reallocate the people to places where they can solve more problems that prevent recurrences.
 
Once we have freed up these resources, how do we prioritise their reallocations?
You need to focus on the strategic goals such that everything you do is aligned with the objectives. You have to test the alignment of the improvement initiatives to the strategic goals. Make sure that there is value in making the investment. You also need to ensure that you start initiatives in amounts that you can manage. Do not overload people because there are normal roles that they have to perform other than the initiatives.
There are alternatives that can bring improvements such as increasing work rate, improving business processes, bringing in new techniques but you need to be careful in making the choices.
 
Sometimes it’s not even a resource problem but a change problem where there are to many changes at a time.
People always seem aligned when they are assigned roles in these initiatives. But when you ask them whether they have the resources or time to prioritise the initiatives you will start to see the gaps.
If you examine all the tasks based on the strategic goals you will eliminate those that do not contribute to the expected deliverables including  skunk works .
 
The freed up capacity needs to be allocated towards the goals so that the time and resources are not lost even as we drive innovations..
That is for the visibility of all the activities in the change initiatives. I like to use Hoshin Kanri because it shows the medium terms strategies which are the initiatives and measuring the practices towards the value that you want. It shows the dynamics in the initiatives and you can make changes in the business processes.
I also like to use FAST goal setting where we start high in the frequent discussions about the goals. We need to understand the dynamics of initiatives and how we are influencing or failing to influence things to take action..
 
When we reach a point where the expected value isn't being realised, do we pause or do we push through till the expected value is realised?
The answer is both. There is a time and place to put a stop to initiatives that are not working and the same for those that we need to push through with. You need to look at the business case and the underpinning assumptions. If the assumptions were wrong then that's a reason to stop the initiative.
The other issue is execution where if you can solve the challenges then you can push through. But if you cannot then there is a reason to stop.
There is also the sunk cost fallacy where organisations do not want to build a reputation for not completing the things they start. But there is also a question of the future value of the already sunk cost in a failing initiative and whether there is opportunity in redirecting the resources to other more productive areas or not. We need to both be brave in stopping initiatives or smart in reallocation.
There is a lot of uncertainty in our knowledge but we have to be honest with our organisations. Do not make false assumptions and focus on the few initiatives.
 
Eruditio Links:

Eruditio
HP Reliability
James Kovacevic's LinkedIn
Reliability Report

Paul Daoust Links:

Paul Daoust LinkedIn
Paul Daoust Past Episodes
Scio Asset Management
The Asseters.org
Power Curve
Is your strategy good enough to move you up on the power curve?
Speed of Business

Download RSS iTunesStitcher
Rooted In Reliability podcast is a proud member of Reliability.fm network. We encourage you to please rate and review this podcast on iTunes and Stitcher. It ensures the podcast stays relevant and is easy to find by like-minded professionals. It is only with your ratings and reviews that the Rooted In Reliability podcast can continue to grow. Thank you for providing the small but critical support for the Rooted In Reliability podcast!
The post 315 – Prioritizing Initiatives with Paul Daoust appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

315 - Prioritizing Initiatives with Paul Daoust

Clean Energy with Howard Penrose
Welcome back Howard to the Podcast. Howard is the founder of Motordoc and is heavily involved with IEEE and SMRP. Though, briefly, tell us about yourself. 
My entire career has been about electric machines and systems from my time in the Navy. I later had short stints both in repair business and teaching at the University of Illinois. I also ran the energy resources at the University. I later went into the test equipment industry and afterwards started a repair shop named Motordoc. Currently involved in a lot of ESG projects and Utility works in solar energy and wind turbines. Also I am the vice chair of American Clean Power.

In this episode we covered:

Do the utilities know what they need to ramp up for?
What are the industrial facilities doing especially in degasifying their energy through electrification?
How are we to take advantage of this clean power if the infrastructure cannot support it?



Our discussion today is about the impact of clean power on the grid, generation and supply. Any concerns?
None so far but the application of wind and solar energy has been ongoing since 1984 although initially at a smaller scale. In the 1990s the decommissioning of older coal power generation plants started because they were too expensive to run and maintain. There was an increased demand and supply for wind and solar equipment as the cost of fuel increased.
In the meantime, the grid itself hasn't significantly changed since the 1910s apart from the changes made in communications. So we have come up with some variations for voltage corrections but based on the same old technology. We have installed VFDs and computers onto the grid introducing new instabilities that affected the reliability of the grid and its bulk power.
The introduction of solar and wind energy onto the grid has faced challenges whereby the controls in the system that are supposed to correct voltages cause damages to the turbines.  The old method of building the distribution systems is causing resonance back to the turbines. This causes the generators to fail and wear and tear on the machines.
 
Have you seen a challenge in getting access to the grid for clean energy by companies that are going for degasification of their energy sources?
Yes. Emerald and Berkeley National Labs faced a challenge of introducing 1.4tW worth of data to the grid that was broken. It also happened in Texas where they have islanded their grid. So when they had a breakdown it became difficult to supply power to them. There are 246 deaths attributed to this failure in Texas.
The current grid is not able to move power from remote  to local locations. Smart grid was introduced for its flexibility and resilience  to be adjusted to changing conditions. The main issue is to ensure that the distribution systems can support the power generated. We are currently witnessing through electrical signature analysis that the power generated exceeds the bulk power of distribution systems is too soft.
 
How are we to take advantage of this clean power if the infrastructure cannot support it?
The utilities have struggled with it too. But a solution that we are seeing is that a lot of companies have developed their own power generation. The smart grid systems are also being used to direct power through relays to where it can. A more significant solution is the bipartisan infrastructure build-through. This has converted some localised grid systems to national grid towards the end of 2021. We also just launched the department of energy study portion which partly is meant to provide loans for utilities to be able to build out and repair the grid since some of the equipment is so old. Firstly, the initial corrections have to be put in place and then an  increase of 60% in US grid size by 2035 to maintain where we are. By 2050 we have to be thrice the present size.
There are several challenges including; technology changes that have to be made, NIMBY( not in my backyard) also causing a pushback to expansion. There is also a challenge of islanding the distribution systems where the supply is local, especially in remote areas.
 
The pushback to infrastructure expansion in Canada is similar and causes a ripple effect in the sense that local businesses end up facing challenges in power supply. 
It’s because of the lack of  an understanding of the requirements to avail power by the general public.
 
Do the utilities know what they need to ramp up for?
No. The traditional methods of forecasting demand for electrification has failed because we
did not have a history of utility scale green energy until 2002. The technology and policy surrounding this issue is facing challenges because it is relatively new (20years of age).
 
What are the industrial facilities doing especially in degasifying their energy through electrification? Are the utilities looking at the impact it will have on the grid?
There are models in places like Quebec where everything has been electrified. The companies have to monitor the grid and supply sources of the areas that they build their facilities to be able to harness the energy.
There is a push for changes through public policy and the general public but it will take time to execute electrification. Mistakes will be made along the way because the changes face multiple challenges such as power distribution timings, capacity and laws.
 
There are challenges in forecasting demand as well.
Companies need to match the plant degasification targets, forecasting, and practices with the corporate and public policy objectives. Because the company’s needs fluctuate.
We have to look at the impact each consumer or facility consumption will have on the grid and other users.
 
Eruditio Links:

Eruditio
HP Reliability
James Kovacevic's LinkedIn
Reliability Report

Howard Penrose Links:

Howard Penrose LinkedIn
American Clean Power Association
SMRP.org
Motordoc.com
Past episodes with Howard Penrose

Download RSS iTunesStitcher
Rooted In Reliability podcast is a proud member of Reliability.fm network. We encourage you to please rate and review this podcast on iTunes and Stitcher. It ensures the podcast stays relevant and is easy to find by like-minded professionals. It is only with your ratings and reviews that the Rooted In Reliability podcast can continue to grow. Thank you for providing the small but critical support for the Rooted In Reliability podcast!
The post 314 – Clean Energy with Howard Penrose appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

314 - Clean Energy with Howard Penrose

Decarbonization and the Impact on Maintenance with Steven Dobie
Welcome Steven to the podcast. Steven is a co-host of another podcast called Maintenance Disrupted. However briefly, tell us more about yourself.
I am a maintenance and reliability engineer in the mining industry who has been in tech for a couple of years. Presently working with a centralised maintenance group focused on keeping equipment and trucks running longer.

In this episode we covered:

Are you being impacted a lot by sustainability i.e decarbonization, electrification?
How does this impact people from a maintenance person's perspective?
What are the other ways to produce power?



Within your industry you are being impacted a lot by sustainability i.e decarbonization, electrification and such, aren't you?
Yes. Presently we have aggressive targets regarding decarbonization such as by 2030 we have to reduce our GHE by 33%. And by 2050 we should be a net zero company. It is a big challenge because it is not only our equipment that contributes to our carbon footprint at the mine site. There are other sources within our operations.
 
How does this impact people from a maintenance person's perspective?
The biggest issue is skill set. There  is a challenge in taking the existing workforce and training them to handle a new decarbonization program and later maintain the equipment.
 
It is a huge challenge. Take for instance a changing a traditional boiler that is gas fired or coal powered to an electric one. Their operation and maintenance will be different. 
Exactly. The challenge is also a shortage in electrical infrastructure. Electrification will require addition of these infrastructure and that needs to be factored in the decarbonization process.
 
The challenge is if the existing electrical infrastructure can support an additional load coming on to the grid. We have to assess the amount of upgrade needed during the decarbonization process to avoid redoing it just shortly after an upgrade. There are so many unknowns to be prioritised especially in determining what is realistic.
Looking at the future we need to make a lot of changes on the infrastructure that haven’t been done in a long time. The equipment is old. However, currently there doesn’t seem to be a plan in place given that 2030 is only 8 years away. That is a short time to plan for the infrastructure changes needed to achieve the decarbonization goal.
The Canadian Government just announced that no internal combustion engines shall be sold for passenger vehicles after 2035. But what does that look like for the charging infrastructure in place. Most towns and neighbourhoods are unable to support multiple vehicle charging at the same time.
 
The power generation is also low.
We have been shutting down our coal power plants but the smart grids aren't generating as much. The maintenance technicians are also not centralised and have to drive around maintaining distributed infrastructure on the smart grid. Managing the team has also changed.
 
There are alternative ways to produce power such as wind and solar that we can generate for ourselves.
Mines already do that. They have built dams, gas and coal powered plants for power generation. Handling a dam however is a challenge. Solar power can only reliably work for a year. There are mu;tiple problems to solve.
 
Power generation for electrification affects maintenance programs in a significant way. Be it using power from the main utility supply or microgeneration. How are you preparing for it?
Companies are not ready for the huge impact. The good thing is that there are wind and solar power generation schools coming up. On the other hand, the skill sets needed are just the same as those required for the old electrical equipment. So we just need to expand on those. The electrical infrastructure is the same but at a different scale.
The key is bringing in the right training program early enough to bridge that skill gap needed to support a large scale infrastructure.
 
There are also issues with the supply chain since multiple companies are ordering for these parts and equipment needed to upscale the infrastructure. This affects lead time and therefore early planning is needed
There is a mismatch in what is available and what we need in the decarbonization process. How do we improve the manufacturing of the equipment and parts needed or even do it locally?
The process is tough and the capital is intensive to purchase parts as simple as semiconductors.
 
The supply chain issues forces us to look farther ahead in the decarbonization process but we aren’t sure if the technology will even be available by then. 
Whichever means we use to bring the parts and equipment from overseas need to be decarbonized as well. Making the supply chain shorter will definitely reduce the carbon footprint towards net zero.
There is also a question of a more targeted supply from smaller facilities rather than one big facility and this impacts the number of technicians and infrastructure needed for those facilities.
We are waiting to see a demand increase and a shortage of the workforce supply.
 
What do you recommend to help people get ahead of this?
Attend training courses on decarbonization.
 
Eruditio Links:

Eruditio
HP Reliability
James Kovacevic's LinkedIn
Reliability Report

Steven Dobie Links:

Steven Dobie LinkedIn
Maintenance Disrupted Linkedin
Maintenance Disrupted

Download RSS iTunesStitcher
Rooted In Reliability podcast is a proud member of Reliability.fm network. We encourage you to please rate and review this podcast on iTunes and Stitcher. It ensures the podcast stays relevant and is easy to find by like-minded professionals. It is only with your ratings and reviews that the Rooted In Reliability podcast can continue to grow. Thank you for providing the small but critical support for the Rooted In Reliability podcast!
The post 313 – Decarbonization and the Impact on Maintenance with Steven Dobie appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

313 - Decarbonization and the Impact on Maintenance with Steven Dobie

Cost vs Benefit of Inspection with Dane Boers
Welcome Dane back to the podcast. We last talked about asset modelling and factors that influence those assets. Today we will talk about optimising strategies; how we determine cost vs benefit of strategies. But first, give a brief introduction of yourself and Modla.
Modla is an asset knowledge and analytic platform. The vision is to capture subject matter expertise and knowledge around an asset and business processes. It then combines that with data for continuous improvement. We have worked in the utility industry; particularly water and electricity.

In this episode we covered:

How do we determine the probability of finding a defect to establish inspection frequency?
Are organisations looking to optimise inspections to ensure the benefits are worth the costs?
Can you borrow a task in an FMEA from another organisation?



You were a reliability engineer, right?
Yes. I started out in mining and transitioned to reliability and asset management. I was interested in the combination of engineering principles and the business side in reliability.
 
A lot of organisations are looking to optimise inspections to ensure the benefits are worth the costs. Is this something they should be concerned about?
A recommended approach would be to start from ground zero; activities such as inspections and condition monitoring are inherently information gathering as they do not interfere with the asset's operation. The key is to determine the information you are looking for and the expected value it should add.
This determination will be affected by the monitoring frequency, operation factors such as timing, and detection probability.  You need to prove that the task will add value before performing it.
I do not recommend adding default tasks out of perhaps an OEM manual to the system without determining its value.
 
You can't just borrow a task in an FMEA from another organisation because the operational contexts vary. 
The consequences of it failing are going to be different. However, it is also dependent on the business maturity. Sometimes an organisation lacks the capability to do a detailed analysis of expected outcomes and so copy pasting from another is an approach.
Although, it is risky to blindly trust it.
 
How do we determine the probability of finding a defect to establish inspection frequency?
Both inspecting at a high frequency and spacing out the intervals can yield the same results because failure modes happen when they happen. The probability of finding a defect is almost 100% for obvious defects such as corrosion. It gets more complex when technologies that distance the operator from the underlying defect need to be analysed. At such a point, you might need to ballpark everything and adjust the frequency based on your operational context to improve on it.
 
We look to understand how a failure occurred in between our inspections without detection. For instance, changes in vibration indicate a misalignment that wasn't picked during inspection or failure to carry out lubrication by the operator. How do we isolate such events to prevent them from skewing the data we collect on defect detection? 
You have to use all the different tools together i.e combine SMEs and data analysis to confirm or deny hypotheses.  None in isolation.
 
Lessons from machine learning are clear that you cannot just let statisticians build models independently from SMEs. Also you cannot have SMEs isolated from staticians. They need to be interdependent. 
Even in failure analysis, you need to confirm whether the data you are seeing makes sense. You need the technical side to understand what is happening in the real world.
 
But you need data sets to make a business case for the changes you need to make. 
Management is using data-driven decision making but it is important to include the SMEs in the justification of the changes. The justification given by an SME is as equally important if not more valid than the data.. This is because the data has issues, assumptions, and non adjusted parameters.
 
When optimising maintenance tasks we should use liable analysis based on a single failure mode and not mixed failure mode.
The condition monitoring techniques that you might use may not pick up those multiple failure modes and this complicates the justification.
To justify an inspection, look at what would happen if it is not done. Compare that with the suggested inspection intervals, probability of detection of failure modes then link them to the failure modes.
Definitely, interventions will be needed and these need to be planned in terms of overall cost. Compare all these activities to absence of the inspection. The difference yields the value added.
 
The cost is built up from labour rates, supplies, periods of technology use. To link these, should they have a list of failure modes?
The more you understand the assets and its failure modes the more accurate your answer will be. But if you do not have the failure level information you can use the estimates. Let the SME estimate the costs and benefits of doing or not doing the inspections.
The analysis does not need to go down to details; it can be basic as long as the logic is sound and documented then improve on it.
 
The key is to learn, do an RCA and find out why the inspections did not catch the failure modes or were they just random. 
When critical assets fail and an RCA is done, there are failure detection probabilities that need to be picked during the exercise. There is ofcourse a tradeoff between overinspection and lack thereof. However, do not be quick to write off your logic because it did not detect multiple failures. Instead, work on improving the logic.
 
Eruditio Links:

Eruditio
HP Reliability
James Kovacevic's LinkedIn
Reliability Report

Dane Boers Links:

Dane Boers Linkedin
Modla Linkedin
Modla – Collaboration and Asset Analytics
Past episodes with Dane Boers

Download RSS iTunesStitcher
Rooted In Reliability podcast is a proud member of Reliability.fm network. We encourage you to please rate and review this podcast on iTunes and Stitcher. It ensures the podcast stays relevant and is easy to find by like-minded professionals. It is only with your ratings and reviews that the Rooted In Reliability podcast can continue to grow. Thank you for providing the small but critical support for the Rooted In Reliability podcast!
The post 312 – Cost vs Benefit of Inspection with Dane Boers appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Bonus Episode-Advancing the Reliability and Maintenance Standards of Electrical Systems with Alan Ross

Download our free app to listen on your phone