B. Straker, JEM Advisors, Houston, Texas; T. HANSON, JEM Advisors, Mississippi; R. KENYON, JEM Advisors, Temecula, California; G. LADNIER, JEM Advisors, Daphne, Alabama; and G. McLEOD, JEM Advisors , San Rafael, California
Effective routine maintenance begins with effective leadership. Leadership requirements for a robust routine maintenance program include some high-level deliverables:
Apply rigor to planning and scheduling. For three decades, many companies have realized significant benefits by successfully implementing robust routine maintenance planning and scheduling processes. Most of this success can be attributed to a clear understanding and application of both activities. Planning is the “what and the how” and requires the planner to visit the worksite, whereas scheduling is the “who and the when” and can generally be carried out remotely.
Many organizations use maintenance planners and schedulers in their routine maintenance work processes to lighten the burdens of the frontline supervisor, as well as the craft-persons, which allows them to be safer and more efficient.
It is the responsibility of the planners to visit job sites so they can properly identify the materials, tools and procedures needed to perform a proper maintenance task and estimate the craft and time required to complete each step. The scheduler is responsible for coordinating with operations to properly schedule repairs to align with operational needs and skills availability.
When organizations combine these two tasks into a single role (i.e., a planner/scheduler role), the results are often unsatisfactory. This person seldom gets to the field to properly plan the job and order the correct materials. As a result, the planner/scheduler often spends valuable time changing the schedule to correct for the poorly made plans and missing/incorrect materials and procedures.
It is recommended to keep the two tasks separate. If an organization has a small maintenance team (company and contractors) that can only justify one position for both planning and scheduling, that practice will only be successful if a well-disciplined individual can separate their time spent in the field for planning and office time for scheduling. Unfortunately, the natural conveniences will entice the individual to spend more time in the comfortable office and less time in the field (hot, cold, rain, snow) completing proper work plans and bills of materials for the work.
Few computerized maintenance management systems (CMMSs) are configured to support effective scheduling. While such systems serve as an effective communications tool, they are not designed properly for scheduling functions. CMMS vendors have yet to develop a solution that provides a management window to observe the schedule loading by craft by day. Consequently, seasoned practitioners have created a work-around by downloading the backlog and building the schedule using Excel (or similar) programs and sorting by day/craft.
The successful and thorough application of planning and scheduling processes depends a great deal on the amount of work these key individuals can perform on a week-to-week basis. As a rule, the ratio of planner to technician is 1:12 (maximum), and the ratio of scheduler to technician is 1:40 (maximum).
Process safety management (PSM). Proper routine maintenance is a critical component of effective PSM, which aims to prevent hazardous incidents in industries that deal with chemicals, oil, gas and other dangerous materials. Routine maintenance plays a crucial role in ensuring a safe and efficient work environment and ensures that equipment and processes are operating as intended, reducing the risk of unexpected failures that can lead to accidents or hazardous incidents. Regular inspections, repairs and replacements of equipment parts prevent minor issues from escalating into major hazards. For instance, a small leak in a process facility, if not promptly addressed, could lead to a major release of toxic substances.
All process industries are governed by strict safety regulations and standards that are designed to protect workers, the environment and the public—regular maintenance helps ensure compliance with these regulations. Failure to maintain equipment not only endangers lives but also exposes the company to legal liabilities and financial penalties.
Equipment basic care and housekeeping. Best practice is when operators perform basic care and condition monitoring activities. These knowledgeable and well-trained individuals understand the value of preventing and predicting equipment failure where they perform or assist in most routine maintenance activities. Additional training with support from maintenance and reliability personnel is typically required to make this successful.
Equipment and systems will operate with higher reliability if they receive frequent basic care and thorough housekeeping. Neglected equipment will often perform less reliably. The routine practice of general equipment basic care and housekeeping is a staple of best-in-class companies and facilities in maintaining reliable operations over the lifecycle of equipment. Facility reliability and maintenance strategies should include a robust plan for field accountability for equipment care and facility housekeeping. Note: One of the advantages of housekeeping is creating ease in field observation of when conditions change for a piece of equipment, whether dynamic or stationary.
Ensuring the quality of maintenance execution. The quality of maintenance execution ensures that maintenance activities are performed to meet or exceed standards and specifications. Higher-quality maintenance work equates to improved equipment reliability and less frequent rework, which in turn directly affects maintenance spending. Key elements of quality maintenance execution include:
Routine corrective, reliability-based and preventive maintenance (PM) should be completed with quality as the basis. Quality repairs ensure that equipment is returned to service and performs per design (FIG. 1).
PM, predictive maintenance (PdM) and risk-based inspection (RBI) programs. The proper execution of PM, PdM and RBI will minimize integrity and production risks. Results analyses will allow the optimization of the frequency and application of tasks, and continuously improve the baseline reliability and maintenance program—this maximizes maintenance cost effectiveness, as well as availability and reduced associated production impacts. Additional analyses of unexpected equipment failures will allow further improvement or the addition of PM, PdM or RBI, where it was inadequate.
These programs should also be continually analyzed and optimized by the appropriate facility personnel. This is a core role of a reliability engineer or technician for PM and PdM and an engineer or inspector for inspection results. The results of PdM, PM and inspections should be evaluated for future frequencies, particularly if there are multiple PdM or inspection readings without significant change or multiple PM activities with no problems found or calibration changes required. In these cases, it may be prudent to increase intervals—with proper management of change (MoC) evaluation—provided none of these are regulatory-driven (significant history is usually required to merit occasional exceptions to regulations).
Conversely, where unanticipated failures have occurred [corrective maintenance work orders written against failures that have unacceptable health, safety, security and environment (HSSE), production losses or high maintenance costs], the frequency or type of PdM, PM and inspections may require re-evaluation. This will enable the detection of the type of failure mode and the cause, or indicate that the inspections must be completed on a higher frequency. If a program is in place, the investigation should consider a potential breakdown in the system from intended detection to intervention, as this may be systemic. This will reduce other similar types of failures.
Performance management. “What gets measured, gets managed” remains a true statement for routine maintenance. Establishing the proper metrics that monitor the roles/products of planners, schedulers, operators, technicians and engineers—as well as reviewing the quality of their deliveries—is a key responsibility of the owner of the routine maintenance program. The effective monitoring of these indicators, including timely interventions, will drive the desired performance.
Successful RM programs select a good mix of work processes metrics and results metrics, as shown in TABLE 1. Most programs focus solely on the results, which are often impacted by external factors. However, focusing on work processes will drive the desired outcomes if those processes are properly designed and managed.
The authors’ company offers expertise and significant hands-on experience and knowledge to support the implementation of effective routine maintenance programs. HP
BILL STRAKER has more than 40 yr of oil and gas experience, with an emphasis on maintenance, reliability and operational readiness. He works with JEM Advisors and other companies.
TOM HANSON has more than 40 yr of oil and gas experience, with an emphasis on operations, maintenance, reliability and operational readiness.
REX KENYON has more than 50 yr of oil and gas experience, with an emphasis on maintenance, reliability and operations. He now works with JEM Advisors.
GARY LADNIER has more than 40 yr of oil and gas experience, with an emphasis on operations, systems completion and commissioning. He now works with JEM Advisors.
GAVIN McLEOD has more than 40 yr of oil and gas experience, with an emphasis on systems completion and commissioning.