Complexity in ISFA (in-service fluid analysis): Part XIX

Jack Poley | TLT On Condition Monitoring November 2014

A sense of urgency, as well as an effective CM program, is essential to success.

 

THANKS TO TECHNOLOGICAL GAINS IN THE LAST DECADE, holistic condition monitoring (HCM) is upon us. It is likely, owing to costs, that only super-critical machines will be outfitted with lube and vibration sensors and comprehensive, on-site ISFA. These monitoring techniques are all part of the HCM model.

It is expected that reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) concepts and exercises will be employed to identify the machines that are candidates.

Non-critical machines will continue to be monitored more conventionally by today’s dominant format, the off-site full-service laboratory (Tier 3). Many large companies may choose to install their own labs, availing the notion of Tier 2 (on-site) for more timely information. Some companies will adopt a mixture of the two notions, perhaps having Tier 2 in their larger plants but utilizing a regionally convenient lab for satellite operations. These may prove more practical (cost-effective) than outsourced testing.

What exactly is a super-critical machine? It’s a machine whose unavailability prevents work from being accomplished (i.e., production comes to a halt or is significantly curtailed and revenue is halted or significantly diminished.) Such a machine is considered essential. The machine doesn’t necessarily have to be among the most expensive in the mix, just essential. Some practitioners fail to make this distinction. Let’s face it, all machines are critical to some extent, so the term is vague. With super-critical, we’ve defined the one qualification the machine must possess—it must be essential to the extent its absence completely halts a process that generates revenue.

I would expect few to quibble about the above prelude (i.e., it is mostly common sense reasoning. But what about actually moving programs into place?) Talk, just like writing, is cheap. Actions define the commitment and sense of urgency in a CM program. At this time, many CM programs are deficient or, at best, marginal. There are several reasons why this is so, and they vary from installation to installation. Certainly there are some well-ensconced programs that enable companies to squeeze substantial savings and take most of the money off the table, but I assure you that is not the dominant mode at this particular time in CM history.

The good news is that there seems to be a movement toward resolving this shortfall, and, if I’m still writing about ISFA and CM a decade from now, perhaps I’ll exhibit a less strident tone. But my concerns, for now, are what isn’t being done correctly. I exhort managers to reassess their commitment to CM implementation by cementing the necessary ingredients and actions and insisting they be followed.

Downtime gets management’s attention, even more than repair or even the replacement cost of a critical machine. Maximization of revenue is the only reason CM and ISFA are employed, a point I emphasize ad nauseum. It stands to reason that maximum savings is highly correlated to the quality of one’s CM program and both the follow-up and diligence applied to using the information from the CM process.

Many a program fails to live up to its implied promise because it is based on rote installation without a stated goal. Additionally, follow up is marginal or lacking altogether. This lethal combination, or its result, is money left on the table. It happens entirely because a sense of urgency is initially lacking.

Is lacking a sense of urgency solely top management’s fault? Probably not, because managers and implementers down the chain of command may have omitted, or not properly followed, some important steps in the process. CM, like many practices, is a chain of multiple steps and facets, each with its own element of criticality toward the outcome. Some of these facets are crucial, and failure to recognize that can all but derail otherwise good intentions. Nevertheless, urgency begins with top management.

I’ve been witness to disappointingly few fully availed CM programs, let alone HCM programs that are new to the fray. I’ve been at the ISFA branch of CM for 50-plus years and seen billions saved, but I’m still convinced that billions were left on the table. Why is this so? Again, it’s a lack of recognition (a.k.a., a lack of urgency that seems to cause companies to be content with what they believe has been achieved.) They base this achievement on face value alone. Savings, yes (absolutely) are often substantial; maximized savings―absolutely not.

The Achilles heel of good CM is that it conveys quite a bit of savings in the form of low-hanging fruit, the obvious easy pickings. This causes many companies to be sated relatively quickly such that they don’t look for the additional money on the table. It’s good enough. In these cases, sufficiently hard assessments are not made because it is obvious that the program is working, based on known component (machine) saves. The company moves on to other priorities, satisfied it has CM under sufficient control (i.e., it’s cash flow positive), as perceived.

How zealous should companies be in getting the missing billions left on the table? That’s a very important question. Zeal should be a function of ROI. If CM, in any form, costs less than it yields, it is a candidate. But if it breeds complications that are hazy or seemingly marginal, maybe it’s best that one draw the line at such a point. However, if one has never properly performed the ROI exercise, how does that line get drawn with enough accuracy? It probably never does, unless urgency enters the equation.

ANALOGY
Most audiophiles welcomed the enhanced listening experience from hi-fi and the rapid follow-up of stereo sound. Many, if not the majority, could distinguish, with pleasure, the fuller sound or warmth of vacuum tube circuitry in amplifiers compared to the more brittle sound from transistorized amplifiers, but few could distinguish a benefit from having gold-plated plugs on connecting cables, reputed to enhance the listening experience with better conductivity to deliver all sonic information.

• When stereo sound became available, few wouldn’t buy into it.
• When high-priced amplification was offered, a substantial number bought into it to receive a fuller experience.
• When gold-plated connectors on conducting cables were offered, only golden-eared audiophiles could appreciate them—or thought they could.

THE CM COROLLARY
If management cannot calculate an ROI (including safety benefits and public relations) from a given activity, there is no purpose in doing it.

So what are the necessary ingredients? How many ways can a program go wrong? Here are the primary ones:
1. It’s never begun (lots of talk and planning). Pilots started and stalled (nothing really accomplished).
2. It’s implemented without quantifiable (but realistic) expectations and goals.
3. It’s implemented without accountability—no one is responsible and/or empowered to:
a. take representative samples in timely fashion*
b. take action on abnormal/urgent/critical reports*
c. provide feedback to the lab (Why does the lab need feedback?)
d. vet the report and commentary itself*
e. vet the vetter (not a redundant notion).
4. A mathematics-based assessment of ROI is not conducted, thus the savings stop at low-hanging fruit.
5. There is no sense of urgency (We come full circle).

One of the reasons that a sense of urgency is not always instilled in management’s decision to adopt or revamp a CM program is because of the history of oil analysis, now better stated as ISFA. ISFA implies that something must occur after the fluid’s test data are presented. What must occur is the evaluation of the data to assess the machine’s condition.

In 1975, I tried to debunk the oft-accepted myth that oil analysis is easy to implement and sustain. I started a company that performed ISFA, omitting the words “oil,” “analysis” and “lab” in its name. The idea was to bring into view the notion that the testing of the fluid is not an end but a means to assess component (machine) condition, the true end. This so-called end is tricky; the evaluator (whoever that may be) renders commentary and advice. It rarely is spot on, but it needs to be reasonably accurate and appropriate.

Some customers have personnel quite capable of evaluating data for their operation. Some do not. In the latter case, it is up to the lab to supply the evaluation aspect. Sometimes, however, the lab might not have a person with appropriate expertise for a particular application or operation. Our field, CM, needs more work effort in this area because it’s been neglected or subordinated by the notion that the test results are most important. In fact, all the processes are important and essential, otherwise there’s no usable outcome. And, yes, evaluation is the most important process of them all.

That’s, perhaps, the initial end for the tester and the evaluator, but it’s not the end for the customer, who now must take this information and apply it to the machinery being CM’d. This, too, can be a tricky exercise. Work orders need to be formed that fit the company’s operations and CM objectives.

And if ROI is going to be realized (i.e., calculated with accuracy), feedback is necessary to substantiate effective detection and mitigation of machine problems that have been identified. If the lab is the evaluator, then the lab needs to receive this feedback, too, so that it can vet and improve its commentary.

Here are quick tables (Figures 1 and 2) of CM responsibilities for both the lab and customer. These notions should be applied to all parts of a CM program, not just ISFA.


Figure 1. The laboratory responsibility


Figure 2. The customer responsibility 

We won many battles in attempting to define and implement ISFA at a high level, but we haven’t won the war—at least not yet. Thus, oil analysis is used as often as ever to refer to ISFA, but at least a portion of our customers got it and did what was necessary to ensure a truly satisfactory, even outstanding, outcome. They worked with us, educating us in the process, and everyone benefited. It is not an easy process. It requires continuous effort, not just sample, analyze and report. It’s not just a data-gathering blood test. Such an analogy, though meant to be flattering, is actually a disservice to the activity and to the would-be diligent personnel who need to make CM happen.

The tables above are a good start in understanding what needs to be done to launch and sustain an effective CM program (and to take a lot more money off the table). More flesh will be applied to that skeleton in future articles.

*All these snippets will receive more in-depth attention in future articles.


Jack Poley is managing partner of Condition Monitoring International (CMI), Miami, consultants in fluid analysis. You can reach him at jpoley@conditionmonitoringintl.com. For more information about CMI, visit www.conditionmonitoringintl.com.