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

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

Size matters

Could it be that "best intentions" would not be enough to chip through the hardened exterior of this organizations habits, thought Frustrated Frank.   As the digital transformation honeymoon period slipped into the rear-view mirror, the burden of change seemed to settle into place.   Frank, it is no longer about the tools, instead it is each person's rationalization of why these tools will make them stronger; habits are challenging, continued Andy.   On one hand, if it works why fix it, and the other hand growth requires continuous innovation.   The organizational structure has an impact, flat organizations require compelling reasons to change.   For instance, significant pain points within the business resulting in lost revenue, market or corporate dictated edicts.   Without these, change lacks a sense of urgency and is at the discretion of the local management, the larger the operation, the greater the number of management layers, the higher pro...
Post a Comment
Read more

In$pired

As the steam from Avid Andy's coffee fogged his glasses on this crisp January morning, he reflected on last year and thought enthusiastically about the year ahead.   Sometimes the noise of business is deafening, we rarely take the time to contemplate our moves, instead are often thrown one direction or another.   Hey, face it, if you are reading posts to gain perspective you fall in the group of folks who pride themselves as obsequious hoop-jumpers.   We live to help others and expect that all of those around us feel the same way.   I just love Influential Irene.   Okay, it is out in the open, she is an inspiration for me and so many others.   Irene reminds folks every year, without fail, these three statements which she fondly refers to as "the punchline" (although this is no joke).   Businesses, of any size, will be successful if they remember that it is people that make a company.   Put this advice into practice, today: Sincerity |...
Post a Comment
Read more