Comments on: Keep maintenance simple: Use senses and sensibility

By: Rob Apelgren

Rob Apelgren — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:22:40 +0000

Great comments! I think there are times when monitoring technologies are the only way to go and times when simplicity is the best. The environment in which you work should be a definite driver on what you can use. I was a maintenance supervisor in a ductile iron foundry and in some places in the plant the environment was bad enough you couldn’t think stright but others were very sense friendly. I say don’t just use it because it is there. Use what is the most safe and cost-effective methods available.

By: Cliff Williams

Cliff Williams — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:59:06 +0000

The problem with senses is that for each individual they are different. As I worked in the steel industry many years ago when hearing protection was for ’sissys’ I suffer from hearing loss - so to me everything sounds fine. People also get a little desensitized by being in the same areA each day - particularly around smells. Modern technology has built on our senses and even though I still believe in the operator or maintenance being around equipment is our first line of defense, I don’t think we should assume it can effectively replace monitoring technologies.

By: Michael Whittaker

Michael Whittaker — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:09:49 +0000

Agree with the use of own senses on “non-critical” failure modes, but, if the investment is already made in predictive technologies, for the more vritical assets/failures, then why not use them extensively?

Having gone through the RCM facilitation training and worked as a reliability consultant with a Condition Monitoring technology company, I have always baatled with the “spin” of applying VA to critical assets or not doing a simple task using your own senses, because that is a cost - these business-driven philosophies work great if the maintenance is performed as a profit-centre or under a contract, but in most cases organisations run their maintenance functions as cost-centres, so why not encourage operators and maintenance technicians to do the touch and feel tasks, that they like to do as well as doing the advanced techniques?

I guess what I’m saying is use the resources and skills available sensibly, based on knowledge of the failure modes, but ensure that you also encourage reporting and feedback to Planning. Ensure that you also understand the criticality (severity) and if possible the likelihood of failure failure, so you can prioritise what work is important and encourage the maintenance (and operators) to focus all their skills, senses and tools to the things that have the biggest impact on the business, at least cost.

By: Mark Brunner

Mark Brunner — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:14:34 +0000

I’ve always been a fan of look, listen and feel. Particularly from operations and trades. They usually understand the equipment and are in the best position to see early signs of failure.

I don’t believe it replaces VA, thermography etc, but in the absence of not having this equipment, it is the obvious place to start a CM program and should include encouraging operators to report instead of accept the status quo.

By: Robert Schindler

Robert Schindler — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:14:38 +0000

Good points, Rob. The use of visual aids helps the technician and operator spot those changes in the process that alerts us to problems. It’s a great idea to use the gauge face stickers, setting range tags, and other visual guides that show at a glance where the needle should point, where the chain slack should hang, and the correct range for the flow readings. I also like the use of the green-amber-red system for SCADA displays to alert operators.

By: Maintenance Training

Maintenance Training — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:48:13 +0000

Proper maintenance training involved sticking with you senses.