RCM & Purac
America
by
Brian Stevens MRG, Inc. & Jim Schlader,
CMRP, Purac America
Abstract: RCM analysis is a powerful tool to
change attitudes and practices for both maintenance
and operations personnel. This case study examines
how Purac America successfully used RCM to improve
high cost, underperforming equipment. Maintenance
spend fell from 7% of RAV to 4% of RAV and production
increased from 50% to 133% of rated nameplate
capacity.
Introduction
Purac’s
RCM process fundamentally changed a plant that was
struggling to survive into a profitable, highly
competitive enterprise. They achieved this result
through a carefully planned, measured approach that
heightened awareness of the need to “manage the
consequences of failure” and developed the capability
to do so. This paper documents the process that Purac
followed and provides some insight into their success.
Initial Conditions
This
facility was designed and built to produce lactic
acid, something that it failed to do after
commissioning in the early 1990s. Indeed, the
facility underwent two false starts before Purac
joined as a joint venture partner and product began to
flow in 1996. Lactic acid production is delicate and
its production can create harsh conditions. Prior to
the RCM work, it was not uncommon to find deep
potholes in the concrete flooring where leaks
accumulated. Outward signs of production struggles,
such as the flooring potholes, were confirmed by the
failure of output to exceed 50% of nameplate and the
facility’s maintenance expense running at 7% of RAV.
The facility was modified further by a redesign
project in 1999, which failed to significantly improve
production or maintenance performance.
Road to Success
New
plant leadership went in search of a process that
would identify both production and maintenance
issues. Rather than immediately launching into the
RCM process, Purac partnered with MRG to identify
foundational issues. By developing a master equipment
list and ranking all assets according to criticality,
they were able to design an efficient PM program. In
addition, Purac undertook several root cause failure
analyses. By clearly defining what was required to
maintain the equipment and beginning the practice of
informing operations of how their practices impacted
equipment, these activities laid the groundwork for
successful RCM.
Purac
and MRG, working together, then designed a series of
interlinked steps to turn around the operational and
maintenance performance of the facility. The steps
consisted of System Definition, Logistics, Tool
Development, Implementation Planning and
Sustainability.
The RCM
process began with the definition of key systems. In
all, 33 systems were identified and their boundaries
were defined. Systems ranged from a simple Plant
Compressed Air System to a Highly Advanced
Distillation Process. Subsequently, the group
prioritized the relative importance of each system to
establish the order in which they would be addressed.
A number of criteria were used to prioritize these
systems, including criticality ranking, work history,
and process complexity.
After establishing the order in which the equipment
would be addressed, the group then identified who would
participate in the analysis of each system. Purac and
MRG emphasized that representation from all areas in the
facility was essential to the success of the program.
The group assembled teams, including:
-
Craftsmen
-
Operators
-
EHS
-
Automation
-
Management
-
Engineering
The group
placed a very high priority on involving operators of
each system in the analysis.
Because
most team members had not participated in an RCM
analysis and to better reinforce the mission of the
team, all team members participated in a two-day
training prior to beginning the analysis. The training
stressed the fundamentals of RCM, such as defining all
functions of the system, failure modes, effects, and
causes and introduced the terminology and tools of the
process. The trainings established a baseline
understanding of RCM techniques that enabled the teams
to be productive from the beginning of each system
analysis.
Purac
viewed experience with RCM and an ability to drive the
process forward as the criteria for selecting an RCM
facilitator. The RCM process was also designed to
include a Recorder capable of acting as a second
facilitator. The Recorder is a key role to maintain
energy and balance during the analysis sessions. On the
basis of the design of the desired process and the
selection criteria, Purac chose MRG to facilitate the
RCM sessions.
Purac and
MRG made a concerted effort during the early phase of
the project to publicize the goals of the process and
the activities associated with attaining the goals. The
group published a detailed schedule for the analysis of
all 33 systems, including:
-
Date
-
Time
-
Personnel
-
System
The
schedule allowed a clear understanding of what systems
were being addressed and showed progress towards an
intermediate goal of completing the analysis of all
systems.
Each RCM
analysis began with the development of a functional
block diagram that detailed each system. Each diagram
included the equipment, instrumentation, major valves,
piping and associated numbering systems. During the
development of the diagrams, each team revisited the
system boundaries to assure that all key functions were
included. The functional block diagram was constantly
displayed during the RCM sessions to help guide the
analysis.
The RCM
analysis followed Failure Modes and Effect Analysis
(FMEA) forms that were distributed to all team members
during the analysis. In addition, the FMEA forms were
also “filled out” by the group on a large white board.
The facilitator and recorder used the white board to
guide the process and to display progress.
The
results of the RCM sessions led to the development of
detailed action item lists, which affected a wide range
of existing processes, including:
-
Standard Operating
Procedure development and revision
-
Preventive
maintenance procedure development and revision
-
Predictive technology
deployment
-
Plant design
recommendations
-
MRO process
development or revision
-
DCS programming
changes
-
Operator directed
maintenance actions
-
Contractor
re-evaluation
The team
prioritized, assigned and then managed the
implementation of the action item lists. Attention to
detail at this step was essential to the ultimate
success of the RCM project. As with any organizational
change, the RCM process requires changes to the people,
process and system dimensions of the organization. The
system dimensions of the organizational change were
supported by Purac’s CMMS. The RCM teams modified
workflows as required.
Sustainability
The people
dimension of the RCM changes was a primary focus area
during the development of the RCM program. The
Purac/MRG group strove from the outset to involve as
many people as possible. This enabled the people who
would ultimately be affected by the changes to take
ownership of them. Most participants enjoyed the
analysis process and even the most experienced personnel
learned something new about their system. Indeed, the
process instilled a focus for the entire operation on
“how can we correctly identify the failure mode and put
the controls in place to mitigate the consequences of
that failure.” The group maintained the early momentum
by providing ongoing training for operators and
maintainers that directed them to review the applicable
RCM for their system continuously. As a result, a
system was started to recognize the efforts in problem
resolution using the RCM thought process. Finally,
Purac made every possible effort to publicize successes.
Results
Purac’s
RCM process has yielded long-lasting results that can be
tied directly to top and bottom line results.
Maintenance costs have been cut by more than 50% since
the inception of the program, while production has been
boosted from less than 50% of nameplate capacity to
significantly that level. In balance, the RCM program
has generated a double digit ROI amounting, cumulatively
to more than $10 million.
Click
here for more Maintenance Conferences
|
