How reliable is your training?
Ever since I started working, everywhere I worked had training. As we all know, training is the backbone of preparation to perform our assigned duties in any position we hold. I cannot think of a single job in the world that does not require some kind of training to at least improve performance of the task. The question becomes, “What kind of training do I need for this job?” Throughout the years, I have attended and provided many different types of training, and every instance was different. Some training seemed lackluster and really did not provide much benefit for the time spent, and other training sessions were the winning ticket.
What does this have to do with reliability engineering?
Reliability engineers have to deal with a lot of different failure causes, including the human-related kind. Many times, the human-related cause of the failure is the result of a lack of training or improper training. Too often, we just say that the technicians or operators need more training. I believe this is the same problem we are facing in other areas of our society. Just throwing money or, in this case, “training” does not necessarily solve the problem. It really falls down to finding the right tool for the job.
Sometimes, reliability engineers do not have anything to do with training other than when it deals with “reliability”. In many cases, they do not need to be involved unless there is a problem with human-related issues. “Operator error” or other human-related causes are often overlooked or deflated until they become this huge looming cloud that can’t be avoided.
As a reliability engineer, I think it is a good idea to have a place where you can note different cases of human-related issues and what the core deficiencies are most likely to be. From this information, the training can be adjusted to meet the needs of the company.
Some ways of using the information for training decisions include:
- General or specific
- Informal or formal
- On the job (OJT), classroom or computer-based
All of the training types are not equal, and just picking something because it is related to that area does not mean success. If there is no training that is related to the specific issues, then some investigation should be performed to identify proper training. In cases where there is already training provided, there should be a review of the training to verify it is the best and most effective training - and if not, what are the other possibilities?
Reliability engineers have direct input to trades, tools and parts requirements for the maintenance that must be performed. Why not have reliability engineers give direct input into the training which affects all of these areas?
Related posts:
- Just how do you start a reliability program? Where do I start? I have heard the question many...
- Skimping on the training puts your CMMS project at risk Training for users of a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)...
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment and subscribing to the email alerts or RSS feed.
Filed Under: Featured, Reliability Engineering | Tags: training
Comments
By Ian Knight on January 15th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Hello Robert
Looking at the function / objective / goal of reliability engineers, perhaps sumarised down to a basic of “delivering the corporate cost savings from installed reliability initiatives”, then some key decisions on what training is needed in the organistion can be determined from the old statement of “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”.
The knowledgable folks all agree that RCFA is an important function in a Reliability Engineers job spec and the reason being that the information hidden in failed or damaged components, is a literal gold mine of evidence for the need of the what training is necessary to prevent failures reoccuring.
Two training areas I am an advocate in to improve rotating function reliability is Lubrication and Bearing handling and maintenance. There is a lot of folks around delivering courses in these disciplines (suppliers, knowledgeable individuals, alliance free service providers) but I really question has anybody addressed the total need of maintenance skills training that can be effective, given the restraints of distance, pressures of work to prevent release to attend courses, and maintaining participant interest. etc.
E Learning talks in our industry are currently in hypo drive, however computer based training for technical maintenance skills I believe needs to be combined also with some class room lectures and practical work sessions. Otherwise we run the risk of a loss of interest of the maintenance folks. i.e. a form of B learning. I am myself working with a dedicated few to develop a B learning concept based on bearing handling and maintenance training.
A question I would like to see some comments on is “can we create a maintenance folks industry certified certifcate course in reliability driven maintenance practices and what should such a course contain”?
I would start with the following course titles”
Bearing handling and maintenance
Lubrication understanding
Oil Analysis and filtration (or cleanliness management)
Alignment practices
Understanding condition monitoring technologies
RCFA
Ian Knight
Enluse BV
By Rob Apelgren on January 15th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Thanks for the addition of perspective Ian. Great points and I agree that maintenance training needs a combination of methods and practice. I also think that more emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring that the maintenance personnel are properly trained and maintain an appropriate level of training for their position. There are a lot of educational programs for management and engineering but I think tha maintenance education should be just as important.