New Technologies, Management Methods Focus of Paper Industry Maintenance ’98

Mill and plant managers, maintenance superintendents, mechanical and E&I personnel, and operations professionals gathered in Atlanta in October 1998 to learn and interact during the 12th annual Paper Industry Maintenance Conference & Exhibition, a targeted pulp and paper industry event sponsored by Pulp & Paper and Idcon Inc. Attendees spent time in educational workshops and conference sessions—as well as an extensive supplier exhibit of maintenance equipment and services—to learn about new maintenance management strategies and available technologies.

Workshop topics included gear drive maintenance and troubleshooting, the basics of bearing maintenance, and alignment tools and techniques. General sessions focused on such topics as reliability centered maintenance, root cause failure analysis, maintenance management issues, instrumentation technologies and issues, and computerized maintenance management system implementation and use.

The following are summaries of a few of the presentations made at PIM ’98. Several of the conference presentations will be the basis for upcoming Pulp & Paper articles throughout the year. For more information on presentations made at PIM ’98 and upcoming Paper Industry Maintenance conferences in 1999, please see the boxed item at the end of this article.

MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS. Grahame C. Brown, a director at Browmaicon Pty. Ltd. in Australia, made a presentation on “Performance-Based Maintenance Contracts.” In his presentation, Brown first discusses the advantages and disadvantages to outsourcing maintenance, indicating that “outsourcing . . . is not the solution to all maintenance management problems.” He then comments that if a mill’s “maintenance management and delivery is not operating at or close to world-class level, the contracting out of part or all of your maintenance activities is one option.”

Brown points out some of the general issues that need to be weighed when considering contract maintenance and compares the advantages and disadvantages of maintenance contracting on several facility cultural issues, such as client discipline, “ownership” of a plant, incentives, and planning. He goes on to explain the various types of maintenance contracts—ranging from basic labor hourly rate to a performance-based partnering/alliance relationship and their effect on key parameters and performance indicators. He then begins detailing specifics of a partnership arrangement.

Brown’s definition of performance-based maintenance contracts is “contracts that specify desired results rather than describe a process to achieve them.” He adds later, “As the contract relationship focuses on outcomes, the contractor has flexibility on how to achieve these outcomes. The contractor may seek to improve the mainte- nance process, implement continuous improvement, and invest in new technology. A performance-based contract is aiming at the long-term relationship. The contractor’s clear objective should be to perform so well that the client would not consider going out to tender again.”

With this performance-based arrangement defined, Brown details the work that must go into developing a specific, working contract, such as contract documentation, developing performance measures, implementation, and incentive schemes. He concludes with some general discussion of what results can be expected by developing these contracts.

SIMPLER INSTRUMENTATION. In a presentation titled “Instrumentation and the Maintenance Manager,” Allan Hottovy, sales consultant at Advanced Manufacturing Solutions Inc., says that “manufacturers of automated online machine condition monitoring equipment have been very quick to add the newest features to their equipment.” Hottovy comments, however, that the basic function of the monitoring system is sometimes overshadowed by these “bells and whistles,” which add to a system’s cost but aren’t always utilized.

Hottovy encourages maintenance managers to first use lower-cost monitoring techniques to provide operators immediate notification of “unsatisfactory” operating conditions. “If the maintenance manager follows the concept that machine condition monitoring systems should only tell him if his equipment is good or bad and not analyze for the root cause, he can drastically reduce the cost of his continuous monitoring system.

Hottovy suggests that if the system indicates the operator has a problem, the operator would then contact an analyst. This expert could then bring the appropriate test equipment onsite to solve the problem. “Only if needed, a detailed analysis of the system should be performed. Based on these results, the appropriate corrective action can be performed,” Hottovy says. He goes on to give an example of an instrument solution to a motor driven gearbox that is attached to a load service.

ROOT CAUSE FAILURE ANALYSIS. Robert J. Latino, v.p. of strategic development at Reliability Center Inc., made a presentation on the essentials of conducting a successful root cause failure analysis. In his abstract, Latino points out that industry statistics show that approximately $60 billion is spent annually on industry training, with many firms involved and competent in providing training in the area of root cause failure analysis (RCFA).

But he notes that the same statistics show that only about 20% of the people trained ever utilize their new learning in the field. He goes on to discuss four items necessary for conducting a successful RCFA—the student/analyst, the RCFA method, the training, and the work environment.

In discussing the student/analyst, Latino comments that when a failure occurs, plant management assigns a task team led by the recognized expert in the plant. Latino says this can be an error, since experts have a tendency toward preconceived conclusions about problems and lead the team toward those conclusions. Latino suggests that the team leader should be a facilitating role instead of a participating role.

Latino says that there are numerous RCFA techniques available on the market, all with the same basic goal of determining the cause and effect relationship that causes a failure. It is the analyst’s responsibility to evaluate the various methods and automation tools to meet the facility’s analytical needs. He goes on to describe some basics of an RCFA method.

For training, Latino says that the problem with many classroom training programs is that there is usually no expectation of personnel using that training when they return to the field and no performance measurement in place to determine the success of a training program. He lists five considerations when designing a training program—have a reason to train, provide knowledge training, provide skills training, set expectation of field use, and measure performance.

Finally, Latino describes a work environment free of administrative barriers that will allow those trained in RCFA to use their newly acquired skills. Part of this, he says, is that “managers must start to take an active role in what concepts and practices that their people are being trained in. This means attending course overviews of the classes that are being taught.” He suggests several ways that management can show support, including providing time to perform analyses, providing resources to validate hypotheses, and providing recognition for successful analysts.

For more information on proceedings from Paper Industry Maintenance ’98, contact the Miller Freeman Inc. Distribution Center at (800) 848-5594.

For more information on attending the Paper Industry Maintenance Canada Conference & Exhibition, May 3-7, 1999, at the Hilton Bonaventure, Montreal, Que., or the Paper Industry Maintenance ’99 Conference & Exhibition, October 11-15, 1999, at the Cobb Galleria in Atlanta, Ga., contact Debbie Mann at (817) 255-8021.