Skip to main content

justify PM; into the bathtub...


While not often discussed, Avid Andy has been known to have some serious flashbacks.  Hallucinogenic drugs from parties long ago or dropped one time too many times as a child, your guess is as good as mine.  Andy recalled the time, years ago when we just stopped performing maintenance on exhaust fans under "x" CFM.  Sure, reliability advances in the product, declining costs, were all contributors to us changing our maintenance routines.  Could it be time to once again re-assess our approaches, this time on unitary systems under "x" tonnage?  Do we have any idea how to even approach such a decision?  Certainly IIoT promises to give us more information in the future, once we have the data to model; however, might we reflect back on fundamental logic around MTFB (mean time between faults) and EOL (end of life) calculations.  My favorite visual is sketched as the image above, some liberties to the traditional "bath tub" theory were taken. 



Shown are three main columns, decreasing, constant, and increasing failure rates.  As you might imagine, everything runs great to start, and most of you reading this believe that when proper maintenance is performed we can minimize the issues during the "constant" failure rate time period.  To illustrate this point you can see the contrast of the green line (when proper PM is performed) and the red line (when little to no PM is performed).  The purple line represents failures seen at start-up or shortly thereafter, also known as infant mortality (don't shoot the messenger, this is really the term).   This chart, and the aforementioned explanation, is probably making all of the service companies happy, patting their backs saying "yep, I told you so".



Down deep inside, after nearly four decades in the service business, I really want to believe.  Unfortunately the missing point of data is cost or financial impact.  This post leaves me with more questions than answers; how long do I really want a unitary system to run, heck after 10 years the efficiency and control gains have been significant.  If I saved my money by performing minimalistic PM at the beginning, put that money in a contingency fund and paid for increased equipment failures, would I be money ahead?  Has the cost and reliability of say, a 5 ton package unit come down to the point where we should only be changing filters (isn't this what 90% of home owners are doing already?)?



These questions / reflections are healthy, you should be challenging yourselves on making sure that we are all focused squarely on maximizing customer value.  Always in business, and especially in these rapidly changing times, you must be excellent at pivoting.



-----

Next post:  from the field to the office

Thoughts?  feel free to leave replies or direct message

See all of the "last mile worker" posts here:  http://lastmileworkersolutions.com

-----
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

why transform?

Why do I want to change, who said anything was wrong with my stack of papers and sea of Excel files?   We solve problems, that is a key characteristic of any successful service organization, if it isn't broke why fix it?   Often, when discussing a transformation from paper or cobbled together systems to a cohesive digital approach, folks struggle with the gap between what they currently do and how digital tools can help.   You really need to look at where the pain points are in your organization and how these compare to your business objectives.   Consider writing down these points on the whiteboard in no particular order, spend a few days shuffling and consolidating into a prioritized list.   Once you have the "why" and the "what" identified, the old remaining step is "how".   Some of the most popular observations over the years have been; Slipping through the cracks :   you know, not the major muscle movements, instead those little i...
Post a Comment
Read more

expert at everything...not a problem

Well... I would say sometimes there certainly is a perceived notion that one person is an expert at everything. For the worker "everything" may be defined as the specific area in which you were hired or are constantly scheduled. Our opinions are frequently influenced off of past experience, or information we've received from their coworkers. Unfortunately this only gives us partial insight to that workers expertise and often is limited to their most recent history. Narrowly focused accounting is made of the skills that this individual possess. Come on, can't we figure out a way to leverage all of the skills of a particular worker? One of the challenges has always been that relationship between the activities which need to be accomplished and the myriad skills of individuals within your workforce. In addition, even if you could inventory and get a pretty good handle on the skill sets, they are constantly changing (with any luck) and thus the ineffective process of ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Digital distance

As influential Irene entered the dispatch department this hot July afternoon all that she heard was the tapping of keyboards.   The energy felt like a controlled, almost clinical environment.   It wasn't that many years ago when the sense of chaos, wrapped in genuine human concern for our clients, filled the room with a much different feeling.   Could it be that our ambitions to become more efficient, by leveraging technology has simply created a reason for us not to communicate verbally with one another?    Hasn't the idea all along been centered around our ability to spend more time with our customers? Making each and every one of them feel as if they are our most important client?   Certainly I'm not suggesting we go back to big chief tablets and number two pencils.   Yet, we need to reflect and strike a balance between digitization and delivery. By pure coincidence, avid Andy was composing a memo attempting to give his opinion, without tr...
Post a Comment
Read more