Maintenance Analysis for Results

PM OPTIMISATION
Using PMO2000™ Reliability
Software and Methodology

A Tool for Improving Operations

and Maintenance
in the 21st Century

Information package
for organisations
with assets currently in use

By Steve Turner BEng MBA

OMCS International

1 Slough Road
Altona VIC 3018

Mob 61 3 419 397 035.

Office 61 (3) 9315 0330
Email [email protected]
Web site www.ReliabilityAssurance.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................3

THE REACTIVE MAINTENANCE SPIRAL ...................................................................3

REVERSING THE REACTIVE MAINTENANCE SPIRAL .............................................3

THE OPTIONS ................................................................................................................3
THE SOLUTION ..............................................................................................................4
PMO2000™ FROM A TO Z. ..........................................................................................5
OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................5
PROJECT RANKING ........................................................................................................5
STEP 1- TASK COMPILATION .........................................................................................6
STEP 2 - FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS .................................................................................6
STEP 3 - RATIONALISATION AND FAILURE MODE REVIEW ..................................................6
STEP 4 - FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS .....................................................................................7
STEP 5 - CONSEQUENCE EVALUATION .............................................................................7
STEP 6 - MAINTENANCE POLICY DETERMINATION .............................................................7
STEP 7 - GROUPING AND REVIEW ...................................................................................8
STEP 8 - APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................8
STEP9 - LIVING PROGRAM ..............................................................................................8
DECIDING WHEN TO USE RCM AND WHEN TO USE PMO. .....................................9
REVIEW OF THE RCM APPROACH ...................................................................................9
FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES ............................................................................................9
METHODOLOGY DIFFERENCES ......................................................................................10
FLEXIBILITY COMPARISONS ...........................................................................................11
BENEFITS OF SPEED.....................................................................................................12
W EAKNESSES OF STATISTICALLY BASED METHODS ........................................................13
KEY FEATURES OF A PM OPTIMISATION PROGRAM ...........................................13

IMPLEMENTING PMO2000™ .....................................................................................16

INTRODUCTION TO PMO2000™ - RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT SOFTWARE ....18

GENERAL DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................18
KEY FEATURES............................................................................................................18
SPECIFICATION ............................................................................................................20
CREATING INTERFACES BETWEEN PMO2000™ AND CMMS ..........................................20
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................22

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 2

Introduction
Maintenance is often the largest controllable operating cost in manufacturing, utilities,
heavy processing and mining industries. It is also a critical business function that
impacts on plant output, product quality, production cost, safety and environmental
performance. For these reasons maintenance is regarded in best practice
organisations not simply as a cost to be avoided but, together with reliability
engineering, as a high leverage business function. It is considered a valuable
business partner contributing to asset capability and continuous improvement in
profitability.

The Reactive Maintenance Spiral

Many maintenance organisations face an excessive level of reactive or breakdown
maintenance. This is expensive in terms of both maintenance cost and downtime
consequences.
The Vicious Cycle of Reactive Maintenance
Excessive reactive
maintenance also
contributes to a negative
performance spiral that at
best counters other
valuable improvement
initiatives and, in the worst
case, leads to an almost
completely reactive
environment. This can be
explained very simply.
When breakdowns occur
unexpectedly, resources
are deployed to reactive
work at the expense of Preventive Maintenance (PM). PM is missed due to scarce
resources being consumed by breakdowns. As PM is missed, more preventable
failures occur expanding the level of reactive maintenance. In many cases, the
situation is compounded by band-aid maintenance, and morale adversely affected by
long working hours under high pressure and continual fire fighting.

Reversing the Reactive Maintenance Spiral

THE OPTIONS
A challenge for many companies is to move out of a reactive maintenance cycle.
Intuitively, the answer lies mostly in the ability of an organisation to obtain more labour
resources or gain better access to the assets for maintenance. Most commonly, the
option of increasing labour resources is not available and asset maintenance periods
are constrained by factors external to the maintenance department. The only option
therefore is to increase the productivity or effectiveness of existing personnel and
make better use of the time allocated to maintenance.
The truism that "unless things are done differently, the past will continue" has never
had a greater place than in organisations caught in a reactive maintenance spiral.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 3

THE SOLUTION
In 1996 Strategic Industry Research Foundation1 (SIRF), in responded to industry
concerns that whilst RCM was a useful analysis tool, it did not suit the needs of
organisations that had existing maintenance programs and could not afford to start all
over again. SIRF recognised that the fundamental problem with RCM was that it is a
tool designed for use in the design phase of the asset life cycle and not once the asset
has been in use. Consequently it contains steps that add little or no value to the
objectives of the analysis. Conversely, PMO is a tool specifically designed to review
the maintenance requirements, failure history and technical documentation for assets
that are in use. PMO had been applied in the North American Nuclear Industry when it
had faced goals of increased asset performance, increased environmental and safety
targets, and reduced maintenance costs. PMO has received credit from the North
American Nuclear Power industry regulator as a Major Strength based on work
completed in a number of plants.
Over the past six years, an approach suitable for industries outside of Nuclear Power
has been developed by OMCS. This
program is known as PMO2000™.
Before PMO After PMO

Not Done
Over the five years of development a
Not Done

PM
startling outcome of the initial
PM

programs was that, almost without

exception, the companies involved

to Do PM
Resources
found the following weaknesses in
to Do PM
Resources

their maintenance strategies:

♦ Many PM tasks duplicated other
tasks.
Effective PM Useless PM
♦ Some PM tasks were done too
often.
♦ Some PM tasks were done too late.
♦ Some PM tasks serve no purpose whatsoever.
♦ Many tasks were intrusive and overhaul based whereas they would be far more
effective, less costly and in harmony with production needs if they were condition
based.
♦ Some condition-based inspections were overly intrusive and there was sufficient
failure data available to set a safe life and eliminate the frequent stoppages for
inspection.
♦ Some condition-based tasks could be far more effective and efficient if modern
diagnostic tools were used.
In almost every environment, a significant amount of misdirected maintenance labour
was found. In some areas it was found that no more than 13% of the PM being done
was properly focussed. Obviously, this low level of PM effectiveness contributed
massively to poor maintenance labour productivity and low availability of the plant.
In addition, most organisations were surprised to find that a significant part of their

1
In June 2000, State Government funding was removed from SIRF. Maintenance activities conducted by SIRF were adopted by
SIRFrt (refer to www.sirfrt.com.au) under government grants.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 4

maintenance strategies were done informally or outside of a controlled system and
therefore difficult to plan, organise and control.
PM Optimisation programs now continue in twelve major Australian Companies in
manufacturing, mining, processing and oil and gas sectors. Professionally developed
and supported software is now available for sale as is a variety of implementation
approaches, and a range of training programs.

PMO2000™ from A to Z.
OVERVIEW
The PMO2000™ process has nine steps. These steps are listed below and discussed
in the following pages.
Step 1 Task Compilation
Step 2 Failure Mode Analysis
Step 3 Rationalisation and FMA Review
Step 4 Functional Analysis (Optional)
Step 5 Consequence Evaluation
Step 6 Maintenance Policy Determination
Step 7 Grouping and Review
Step 8 Approval and Implementation
Step 9 Living Program

PROJECT RANKING
It should be noted that a full PMO2000™ assignment, there needs to be some form of
criticality or system ranking process. This may be done by reviewing the equipment
hierarchy, and subdivide it into appropriate systems and/or equipment items for
analysis. Having performed this task, the criticality of each of the equipment
items/systems identified is assessed in terms of their contribution to the client
organisation’s strategic objectives. Higher criticality systems tend to be those that will
have an impact in the following ways:
♦ Have a high perceived risk in terms of achieving safety or environmental objectives,
♦ Have a significant impact on plant throughput, operating or maintenance costs, or
♦ Are consuming excessive labour to operate and maintain.
Having conducted the criticality assessment, this is used as the basis for assessing
which equipment items or systems should be analysed first, and the overall level of
rigour required for each analysis.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 5

 Figure 1 - Sources of Preventive Maintenance
STEP 1- TASK COMPILATION
Operator
PM Optimisation starts by Computerised Condition
Rounds.
Maintenance Monitoring
collecting or documenting the Management Rounds.
existing maintenance program Systems.
(formal or informal) and
Contractor Memory and
loading it into a database via a Schedules. Tradition
spreadsheet. It is important to
realise that maintenance is
Vendor
performed by a wide cross Lubrication
Maintenance Standard
Rounds.
section of people including Manuals. Operating
Procedures
operators. It is also important
to realise that in many organisations,
most of the Preventive Maintenance Figure 1 - Sources of PM Programs
program is done by the initiative of the
tradesmen or operators and not documented formally. In this situation, task
compilation is a simple matter of writing down what the people are doing. It is common
for organisations to have an informal PM system in operation whilst it is rare for an
organisation to have no PM at all.
Figure 1 illustrates the sources of PM programs.

STEP 2 - FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS Task Interval Trade Failure

Step 2 involves people from the shop Task 1 Daily Operator Failure A
floor working in cross-functional teams Task 2 Daily Operator Failure B
identifying what failure mode(s) each Task 3 6 Months Fitter Failure C
maintenance task (or inspection) is Task 4 6 Months Fitter Failure A
meant to address. Figure 2 illustrates Task 5 Annual Electrician Failure B
the output of Step 2. Task 6 Weekly Operator Failure C

Figure 2 - Illustration of Step 2

STEP 3 - RATIONALISATION AND FAILURE MODE
REVIEW
Through grouping the data by failure
mode, task duplication can be easily
identified. Task duplication is where the
same failure mode is managed by PM Task Trade Cause
conducted by more than one section, and Task 1 Operator Failure A
is most commonly found between Task 4 Fitter Failure A
operators and trades, and trades and Task 7 Greaser Failure A
condition monitoring specialists. In this Task 2 Operator Failure B
step, the team reviews the failure modes Task 5 Electrician Failure B
generated through the Failure Mode Task 3 Fitter Failure C
Analysis and adds missing failures to the Task 6 Operator Failure C
list. The list of missing failures is Failure D
generated through an analysis of failure
history, technical documentation (usually Figure 3 - Illustration of Step 3
P&IDs) or the experience of the team.
Figure 3 illustrates the output of Step 3. Note the addition of a new failure cause “D”
that has been identified during this step.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 6

STEP 4 - FUNCTIONAL
ANALYSIS Task Trade Cause Function
The functions lost Task 1 Operator Failure A Function 1
due to each failure Task 4 Fitter Failure A
mode can be Task 7 Greaser Failure A
established in this Task 2 Operator Failure B Function 1
step. This task is Task 5 Electrician Failure B
optional, and may be Task 3 Fitter Failure C Function 2
justified for analyses Task 6 Operator Failure C
on highly critical or Failure D Function 1
very complex
equipment items, Figure 4 - Illustration of Step 4
where sound
understanding of all the equipment functions is an essential part of ensuring a
comprehensive maintenance program. For less critical items, or simple systems,
identifying all of the functions of an equipment item adds cost and time, but yields no
benefits. Figure 4 illustrates Step 4.

STEP 5 - CONSEQUENCE EVALUATION Task Trade Cause Function Effect

In Step 5, each failure mode Task 1 Operator Failure A Function 1 Operation
is analysed to determine Task 4 Fitter Failure A
whether or not the failure is Task 7 Greaser Failure A
hidden or evident. For Task 2 Operator Failure B Function 1 Operation
evident failures a further Task 5 Electrician Failure B
determination of hazard or Task 3 Fitter Failure C Function 2 Hidden
operational consequence is Task 6 Operator Failure C
made. Figure 5 illustrates Failure D Function 1 Operation
Step 5.
Figure 5 Illustration of Step 5
STEP 6 - MAINTENANCE POLICY
DETERMINATION
Modern maintenance philosophy stems from the premise that successful maintenance
programs have more to do with the consequences of failures than the asset itself.
In this step, each failure mode is analysed using Reliability Centred Maintenance
(RCM) principles. This step establishes new or revised maintenance policies. During
this step the following become evident:
Ø The elements of the Cause Function Effect Policy Interval
current maintenance Failure A Function 1 Operation Inspect Daily
program that are cost
effective, and those that Failure B Function 1 Operation No PM
are not (and need to be
eliminated), Failure C Function 2 Hidden Test Annually

Ø What tasks would be Failure D Function 1 Operation Inspect Weekly

more effective and less
Figure 6 Illustration of Step 6
costly if they were
condition based rather than overhaul based,
Ø What tasks serve no purpose and need to be removed from the program,

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 7

Ø What tasks would be more effective if they were done at different frequencies,
Ø What failures would be better managed by using simpler or more advanced
technology,
Ø What data should be collected to be able to predict equipment life more accurately,
and
Ø What defects should be eliminated by root cause analysis.
Figure 6 illustrates Step 6.

STEP 7 - GROUPING AND REVIEW

Once task analysis has been completed, the team establishes the most efficient and
effective method for managing the maintenance of the asset given local production
factors and other constraints. In this step it is likely that tasks will be transferred
between trades and operations people for efficiency and productivity gains.

STEP 8 - APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION

In Step 8, the analysis is communicated to local stakeholders for review and comment.
The group often does this via a presentation and an automatic report generated from
the PM Optimisation software. This software details all the changes and the
justification for each.
Following approval, the most important aspect of PMO2000™ then commences with
implementation. Implementation is the step that is most time consuming and most
likely to face difficulties. Strong leadership and attention to detail are required to be
successful in this step.
The difficulty of this step increases markedly with more shifts and also with
organisations that have not experienced much change

STEP9 - LIVING PROGRAM

Through Steps 1 to 9, the PM Optimisation process has established a framework of
rational and cost effective PM. In the "Living Program", the PM program is
consolidated and the plant is brought under control. This occurs as reactive
maintenance is replaced by planned maintenance. From this point improvement can
be easily accelerated as resources are freed to focus on plant design defects or
inherent operational limitations.
During this step, several vital processes for the efficient management of assets can be
devised or fine tuned as the rate of improvement accelerates.
These processes include the following:
Ø Production / maintenance strategy,
Ø Performance measurement,
Ø Failure history reporting and defect elimination,
Ø Planning and scheduling,
Ø Spares assessing, and
Ø Workshop and maintenance practices.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 8

In this step it is the intention to create an organisation that constantly seeks to improve
its methods by continued appraisal of every task it undertakes and every unplanned
failure that occurs. To achieve this requires a program where the workforce is
adequately trained in analysis techniques and is encouraged to change practices to
improve their own job satisfaction and to reduce the unit cost of production.

Deciding when to use RCM and when to use PMO.

There is no doubt that conventional and statistical approaches to RCM have assisted
industry gain better control of their assets and manage them more intelligently.
However, it has long been considered that both methods have weaknesses and have
not lived up to expectations.

REVIEW OF THE RCM APPROACH

According to the standard SAEJA1011 Issued Aug 1999, any RCM program should
ensure that all of the following seven questions are answered satisfactorily and are
answered in the sequence shown:
1. What are the functions and associated desired standards of performance of the
asset in its present operating context (functions)?
2. In what ways can it fail to fulfil its functions (functional failures)?
3. What causes each functional failure (failure modes)?
4. What happens when each failure occurs (failure effects)?
5. In what way dose each failure matter (failure consequences)?
6. What should be done to predict or prevent each failure (proactive tasks and task
intervals)?
7. What should be done if a suitable proactive task cannot be found (default actions)?
FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES
RCM and PMO2000™ are both methods used to define the complete maintenance
requirements of physical assets.
Nowlan and Heap (1978) coined the term Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) as a
process to be used to draw up maintenance programs for new types of aircraft before
they entered service (Moubray, 1997). Thus it was a zero-based tool developed for
use in the design phase of an asset’s life cycle.
In the absence of better methods, since Nowlan and Heap, RCM has been applied
retrospectively to plants well into their life cycle. In over 20 years since its derivation,
RCM has failed to become a day to day activity performed by most organisations. Few
organisations have applied RCM to anything other than their most critical assets
suggesting that there need to be alternate paths to the creation of maintenance
policies rather than starting from scratch.
In response to this need, PMO2000™ was developed as a process of review for assets
that have an established maintenance program (formal or informal) but where that
maintenance program was inefficient or misaligned with business needs.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 9

METHODOLOGY DIFFERENCES
The central difference
between RCM and RCM RCM - All Failure
PMO2000™ is the way in Functions Modes to be
reviewed
which failure modes are Functional Failures
generated.
PMO Same PM
♦ RCM seeks to analyse Current PM Program
every failure mode on Failure History
Technical Documentation
every piece of equipment
within the system being PMO Pool of Failures
Preventable
Failure
analysed. to be reviewed Modes
♦ PMO generates a list of Figure 7 Illustration of how RCM and PMO produce the
failure modes from the same result.
current maintenance
program, an assessment of known failures and by hazard analysis of technical
documentation - primarily Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs).
The differences in the two approaches mean that PMO2000™ deals with significantly
less failure modes than RCM and arrives at the failure modes in a far quicker time
frame. PMO2000™ selective coverage means that the maintenance program that
results will be the same regardless of whether PMO2000™ or RCM is used (figure 7).
Other differences are discussed in the following paragraphs.

1. FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS

The focus of good equipment design is to ensure high levels of reliability,
maintainability and operability over the equipment life cycle. At the design stage, this
means attempting to eliminate all high likelihood and high consequence failures
It is therefore, not surprising that when reviewing the complete set of likely failure
modes using RCM analysis, that by far the greatest number of outcomes, or
recommendations, are “No Scheduled Maintenance”. This is to say that for the failure
modes left in the design, either:

♦ Their likelihood is very low therefore the cost of a preventive or predictive task is
likely to be more than the cost of failure, or
♦ There is no technically feasible predictive or preventive maintenance task known to
manage them.
In the author’s experience, rigorous RCM analysis of equipment in accordance with the
standard shows that, on average, about 80% of failure modes result with the policy of
No Scheduled Maintenance.
This number rises with electronic equipment such as a PLC and falls with equipment
that has a high number of moving parts such as a conveyor

2. ROLLING UP OF FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS WHERE LOGICAL

RCM treats each failure mode independently. This results in the same analysis being
documented many times but resulting in only one task being recommended for all the
failure modes listed. Using RCM this is unavoidable no matter how experienced the
analysis team may be.
PMO2000™ starts from the maintenance task and therefore many failure modes can
Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 10
 Task Failure mode analysed (rolled up)
Perform Vibration Gear wears, or cracks. Gear bearing fails due to wear.
Analysis on the Gearbox mounting bolts come loose due to vibration.
Gearbox Gearbox coupling fails due to wear.
Table 1. Illustration of Failure Mode Analysis using PMO

Function Functional Failure Failure modes

To provide 20 hp of power to the fan No power whatsoever Gear wears.
such that the fan spins at 200 rpm.
No power whatsoever Gear cracks due to fatigue.
No power whatsoever Coupling fails due to wear.
No power whatsoever Gearbox bearings fail due
to wear.
Table 2. Illustration of Failure Mode Analysis using RCM

be listed against the one task. This significantly reduces the analysis time by reducing
the records that need to be dealt with. The concept can be best described by
reference to Tables 1 and 2.
It can be seen from Table 1 that providing vibration analysis was a technically feasible
and cost effective task to prevent all these failure modes from occurring unexpectedly,
PMO2000™ would consider the failure modes as a group.
Conversely at Table 2, RCM can be seen to have created a lengthy analysis process
compared with PMO2000™. Accepting that the resulting maintenance program will be
the same the route to this result covered four times the administration and probably
double the analysis time. Furthermore, with decomposed failure modes, there is
additional administrative effort required to roll them back up and link the four failure
modes to the one task.
3. Optional Functional Analysis
RCM begins with a complete functional analysis of the equipment whereas with PMO
the effort expended on functional analysis is discretionary. This is primarily because
consequence evaluation is performed at Question 5 of PMO2000™. As consequence
evaluation implicitly involves understanding what loss of function is incurred, additional
functional assessment is a duplication2 of effort.
Done properly, functional analysis consumes 30% of the total RCM analysis time and
is the lowest value adding activity of the process.

FLEXIBILITY COMPARISONS
FILTERING OF FAILURE MODES BY TRADE
RCM analysis cannot regulate or filter which failure modes are analysed at which time.
Therefore, RCM analysis requires the presence of all trades simultaneously. With
PMO2000™ it is possible to review the activities of a particular trade on a particular
piece of equipment or site. This is because PMO2000™ begins with maintenance
tasks that can be filtered by trade. This is particularly useful when the activities of one
trade are ineffective or inefficient and need to be reviewed in isolation from other
trades.
There have been highly successful PMO2000™ analyses performed exclusively on
either operator rounds, on instrumentation rounds, on lubrication rounds, on vibration

2
This point is also relevant where functions are hidden, as the loss of hidden functions will result in consequences that are
conditional on some other failure occurring.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 11

analysis rounds etc. This type of focus is not possible using RCM.

PMO IS SELF REGULATING IN TERMS OF INVESTMENT AND RETURN

PMO2000™ is highly effective where equipment has numerous failure modes but
where the vast majority of these are either random, instantaneous or not of high
consequence. A simple example would be a mobile telephone. Mobile phones have
hundreds of functions. To define the functions of a mobile phone would take many
hours depending on how rigorous the group was in defining performance standards.
The other point here is that RCM if done diligently would require the input of specialist
electronics engineers to define the failure modes properly3. Conversely, PMO2000™
would require only the operators as electronic failure modes would not form part of the
pool of failure modes that are currently addressed by PM nor part of the failure history
to any great extent.
PMO2000™ would take no more that 20 minutes to complete the analysis in total and
realise that the only maintenance that is required is to do with managing the
consequences of battery deterioration

BENEFITS OF SPEED
Experience in the US Nuclear Power Industry was that over a large number of
analyses, PMO2000™ was on average six times faster than RCM (Johnson, 1995).
PMO2000™ is considered to be a much faster approach than the approach taken by
Johnson.
The positive effect of deploying a process of maintenance analysis that is six times
faster than RCM for the same given outcome cannot be overstated. The benefits are
listed below:

♦ Resources to perform analysis are generally the most valuable and scarce on site.
The less resource intensive the program (for the same results) the less the
organisation will suffer from the loss of its most valuable people.
♦ Efficient analysis allows the organisation to be implementation intensive rather than
analysis intensive.
♦ Maintenance analysis is subject to diminishing returns. PMO2000™ is cost
effective on all items of the plant whereas it is difficult to justify RCM on any other
than critical assets because of the high fixed cost and the inflexibility of the process.
♦ Where the maintenance of failure modes that have safety or environmental
consequences is considered suspect, the use of PMO2000™ will allow these
issues to be dealt with much faster than by using RCM as they will be eradicated
plant wide six times faster.
♦ First line supervisors who invest in the program get rewarded with labour
productivity improvements six times greater. PMO2000™ targets a return on
analysis time of 5 to 1. That is for every man-hour invested in analysis, five man-
hours will be returned to the department every year. At this rate, line supervision is
prepared to invest their resources. At a rate six times less, they often become
uncooperative.

3
In fact what happens in reality is that RCM facilitators “Black Box” the item which is to say that RCM in its strict use can not cope
efficiently with analysis of such assets.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 12

WEAKNESSES OF STATISTICALLY BASED METHODS
Many organisations that have tried statistical methods have found that the outputs are
frequently poor and misdirected due to the guesswork needed to compensate for a
lack of data and other subjective production and accounting inputs. They also tend to
ignore the valuable contribution to condition monitoring made by the operators.
Another drawback found in the use of statistical packages is the low involvement of
shop floor personnel. This leads to
omissions in the analysis.
PM Optimisation is six times faster than Conventional RCM for existing plant.
The overall results of an incomplete Effort Time Benefits
or misdirected program are problems
Conventional
with implementation with the shop RCM
floor personnel failing to embrace the
schedules.
PM
By contrast, PMO2000™ decision Optimisation
diagram conforms to SAE JA1011,
Issue Aug1999. This means that
analysis is more experiential and
empirical than purely statistical methods. PMO2000™ therefore relies heavily on the
knowledge of the shop floor personnel and their understanding of the data. This
creates a high degree of ownership and a direct responsibility to make maintenance
work.
In final contrast, many statistical methods use algorithms that are based on flawed
assumptions and do not conform to SAE JA1011 even though their name suggests
they do4. This amplifies the errors caused by poor data and can result in serious levels
of reactive maintenance of over expenditure.

Key Features of a PM Optimisation Program

PMO QUICKLY FORMS THE BASELINE FOR EFFECTIVE RELIABILITY ENGINEERING AND DEFECT ELIMINATION
There are two important points that allow effective reliability engineering and defect
elimination. These are discussed below:
1. The first is bringing the plant failures from unexpected events to controlled
corrective action.
In many organisations, reliability problems are seen mostly as problems with design or
production methods. Experience tells us that the majority of reliability problems
experienced by plants that are overly reactive, is a result of lack of maintenance or
care rather than the design. Before expensive redesign is considered, organisations
need to ensure that appropriate maintenance is being performed and then decide if the
equipment is fit for purpose rather than assuming that the maintenance is adequate
and the problem must be a design issue. The fundamental strength of a PMO2000™
program is that all maintenance tasks add value so there it makes good business
sense to complete 100% of the program. Through the program a move reducing
breakdown maintenance creates productivity improvements that clear the path to allow
this to occur. After a short while, failures caused by lack of maintenance are rare.
2. The second is having a system where all the maintenance strategies (including

4
Readers interested in learning more about where these algorithms are flawed can contact the author.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 13

 operator rounds, condition monitoring rounds lube rounds, contractor PM etc) are
stored in the one place and stored in such a way that each strategy or task is linked
to a specific or set of failure modes.
In most, if not all Computerised Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS), there is
no link between the equipment, its failure modes and the maintenance strategy. As
much of the maintenance strategy is stored outside of the CMMS, the effort required to
first assess if an unexpected failure was a result of lack of maintenance is a very time
consuming and often a “hit and miss” affair. PMO allows for quick and efficient
reference to the equipment failure modes and the current strategy. Moreover, in the
living program, PMO2000™ software allows for an efficient and controlled means of
changing the strategy.

PM OPTIMISATION IS BASED ON SOUND ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES.

PM Optimisation utilises the RCM principles and concepts that have been successfully
applied in the airline industry for over 30 years and in other industries for nearly 20
years. These principles have successfully improved operational reliability of civil
aviation aircraft by over 10,000% during this time. Whilst PMO2000™ utilises the RCM
principles, the implementation approach that is utilised by the airlines and other
providers of “classic” RCM consultants has serious practical weaknesses in an
industrial environment, as discussed earlier. PMO2000™ applies the RCM principles
and concepts in a manner that is more highly focused on benefits realisation in an
industrial environment than traditional RCM approaches.

PM OPTIMISATION RECOGNISES AND RESOLVES PROBLEMS WITH DATA ACCURACY.

While PMO2000™ utilises existing failure history as one input to the PM review, it also
recognises that in most organisations today, the data that is contained in CMMS
systems is likely to be inaccurate and incomplete. Frequently, one benefit that arises
from using in-house personnel in this way is a significantly increased recognition,
amongst shopfloor people, of the need for accurate data recording on Maintenance
work orders. When successfully harnessed, this can drive significant cultural change
towards increased data accuracy and a focus on “management by the facts”.

PM OPTIMISATION MAKES EFFECTIVE USE OF SCARCE LABOUR RESOURCES.

In these days of “lean” organisations, any improvement effort that requires the
involvement of in-house labour, whether from the shopfloor, or support staff, must be
sure to use these labour resources in a highly productive and effective manner.
Unlike other approaches, PMO2000™ is strongly productivity focussed. PMO2000™
makes best use of the involvement of shopfloor personnel by:
Ø Having an analyst collect and consolidate existing failure data prior to review by
shopfloor work teams,
Ø Focusing effort on those failure modes which are currently causing problems, or
which are currently subject to some form of PM. In classic RCM analysis, more than
50% of failure modes that are analysed result in No Scheduled Maintenance.
PMO2000™ reduces the time and effort wasted on these failure modes.
Ø Taking a more targeted approach to the development of equipment function
statements than classical RCM (and in many cases, eliminating the need for
function statement definition at all).

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 14

In effect, PM Optimisation rationalises what is being done, and adds to that what needs
be done that wasn’t in place previously. In doing this, PMO2000™ can be six times
faster at analysis than conventional RCM, thus shifting the resource intensity from
analysis to implementation.

PM OPTIMISATION IMPROVES THE PRODUCTIVITY OF OPERATORS AND MAINTAINERS

Not only does PMO2000 make most effective use of operators and maintainers time
during the course of the PMO analysis, it also significantly improves the productivity of
operators and maintainers during the course of their daily duties. It achieves this in
two ways.
First, PMO2000™ successfully identifies areas where there is overlap between
operators’, maintainers’ and contractors’ duties, and effectively resolves any
duplication or communication issues involved. For example,
Ø Vibration Analysis contractors may be being used to monitor bearing vibration on
certain pumps on site.
Ø Operators may be being required to monitor these same bearings for audible noise
during the course of their daily rounds, and
Ø Tradesmen may be expected to replace these bearings on a routine basis during
scheduled pump overhauls.
In this case, PMO2000™ would rationalise this situation by resolving the conflicting
maintenance strategies in place for the bearings (condition-based vs scheduled
replacement), and by resolving the duplicate inspections being performed by both
contractors and operators. In most organisations, where PM programs have grown in
an informal manner in response to specific situations and events, our experience has
been that there is significant duplication of this type.
Second, PMO2000™ ensures that the person with the appropriate skills to perform a
specific task is the one that is allocated that task. In most organisations, skilled
tradespeople are being utilised to perform routine visual inspections that require no
specialist trade skills. On the other hand, operators are already working in the area,
and have the necessary skills, and time, to perform these inspections. In the team-
oriented forum of the PMO review meetings, we frequently find that operators volunteer
to take on these additional duties, and tradespeople are happy for the operators to
perform them. This releases tradespeople’s time to perform work that better utilises
their specialist skills, and which they find more interesting. The result is a general up-
skilling of the trades workforce, with a focus on performing higher quality, precision
maintenance.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 15

PM OPTIMISATION IS ADAPTABLE TO SUIT SPECIFIC CLIENT SITUATIONS AND OBJECTIVES
A major feature of the PMO2000™ process is the ability of the technique to be applied
with various levels of rigour whether the system depending on the criticality
assessment. This contrasts with other approaches, which apply the same level of
rigour (and time, effort and expense) to the analysis of all systems, regardless of their
criticality and regardless of the size of the benefits to be obtained from the analysis.
For highly critical equipment items, where a more “classic” RCM approach is required,
including identification of all equipment functions, consideration and analysis of all
possible failure modes, and where compliance with International Standards for RCM
Analyses are required, PMO2000™ will apply this level of rigour. Even in these
situations, however, the nature of the PMO200 0 process means that these rigorous
analyses are still completed more quickly than “classic” RCM processes. For less
critical items, where the time and effort involved in a high level of rigour cannot be
justified, PMO2000™ takes a more streamlined and focused approach. In this way,
PMO2000™ is highly focused on maximising the return for effort involved in reviewing
routine operations and maintenance tasks.

PM OPTIMISATION MOTIVATES PERSONNEL

PMO2000™ quickly revitalises the motivation of the people working within the process
of maintenance. In doing so, performing the analysis can result in step improvements
in both human resource and plant productivity. The PMO2000™ approach also
motivates improvements in many other aspects of asset management apart from the
maintenance analysis: Some of these areas are:
Ø Production / Maintenance Strategy,
Ø Performance measurement,
Ø Failure history recording,
Ø Defect elimination,
Ø Work order management, and
Ø Spares management.

Implementing PMO2000™
A full scale PMO2000™ implementation program generally starts with some
workshops or briefings introducing key decision-makers to the process. The objective
of these sessions is to lay the groundwork for ensuring successful implementation.
Prior to this however, most organisations choose to trial the PMO2000™ process on
one or more equipment items or systems. In this environment, the workshop is
strongly facilitator lead. Following the trial, the benefits, costs and implementation
issues are assessed, and a decision reached on whether, and how, to roll out
PMO2000™ on a wider scale within the organisation. Following a trial, the take up rate
has been 100%.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 16

Three implementation options are available, as outlined below.

OPTION 1 - PMO2000™ CONSULTANT PROVIDES FULL TIME PROJECT MANAGEMENT, TRAINING AND FACILITATION
This approach is suitable for companies in the following situation:
Ø Limited internal management resources to drive the program,
Ø Poor asset management systems and documentation,
Ø Large opportunity to improve uptime and this opportunity translates to significant
increases in profitability.
Ø Moderate or poor record of implementing new systems and modern
management philosophies.
OPTION 2 - PMO2000™ CONSULTANT PROVIDES PART TIME TRAINING, WORKSHOP FACILITATION AND LIMITED PROJECT SUPPORT
This approach is suitable for companies in the following situation:
Ø Can dedicate one full time resource to the project.
Ø Good standard of asset management systems and procedures.
Ø Isolated areas of opportunity to improve and moderate impact on profitability.
Ø Good record of successfully implementing new systems and modern
management philosophies.
OPTION 3 - PMO2000™ CONSULTANT PROVIDES TRAINING ONLY
This approach is suitable for companies in the following situation:
Ø Can dedicate a team of specialist tradesmen and engineers to the project full
time. This usually applies to sites that have a full time reliability group or
section.
Ø Advanced asset management systems.
Ø Deriving profitability through advanced reliability engineering practices.
Ø "Implementing change" is a way of life.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 17

Introduction to PMO2000™ - Reliability Improvement Software
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
PMO2000™ is a Windows based industrial maintenance and failure analysis tool
designed for the following:
Ø Defining plant maintenance requirements, and
Ø Performing reliability growth programs.
Whereas today's Computerised Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) are
excellent administrators, PMO2000™ provides the expert information system, analysis
logic and wisdom behind the CMMS' asset management strategy. PMO2000™ has
been designed specifically to fill the hole left between CMMS information and reliability
strategy. It is a rapid implementation system that can be used to deploy either PM
Optimisation or the more formal approaches to RCM analysis.
PMO2000™ is a tool that stores the maintenance strategy / program for a company's
assets and electronically outputs these into documents (normally MS Word) easily
accessible to most CMMS. Electronic linking with CMMS can be examined on a case-
by-case basis.
A major feature of the software is the ease with which changes to strategy can be
made and documented as plant or operating conditions change. Using PMO2000™,
the maintenance strategy can be instantly changed and output into schedules with the
stroke of a few keys.
PMO2000™ has empirical thought processes and is ideal for organisations where
failure history data is sketchy. Use of the software can be tailored to suit the level of
analysis required and the significance of available data.

KEY FEATURES
Key features of PMO2000™ are as follows:
Ø User interfaces are designed for use by shop floor personnel who may have limited
computer literacy.
Ø Task analysis can be completed in only one screen.
Ø Full implementation can be completed in three screens as follows:
Ø Analysis,
Ø Approval, and
Ø Implementation Verification.
Each screen can be password protected using an inbuilt security protocol.
Ø The software steps ensure consideration and consistency of the conditions to be
inspected, the limits of acceptability and the action to be taken if the limits are
exceeded.
Ø Both PM Optimisation and RCM methods are fully supported. Zero based Failure
Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is a feature included for use in the
design of new equipment whether the design is a totally new concept or an upgrade
of a previous model. The software is therefore a living tool from the equipment
Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 18
 concept design to decommissioning.
Ø Maintenance analysis can be completed rapidly using single screen analysis or,
where required, rigorous analysis using cost benefit calculations. All analysis can
be fully costed and the returns calculated by in-built intelligent cost calculators.
Ø Cloning or duplication of maintenance analysis is fully supported by drag and drop
facility similar to the copy and paste function in Windows Explorer. This removes a
significant administrative burden where there are many items of identical plant or
where there is a need to apply unilateral maintenance policy to groups of common
components with like failure modes and similar failure consequences. This also
makes available features such as equipment and strategy libraries.
Ø Single tasks can be assigned to multiple hierarchical schedules such as monthly,
three monthly, six monthly and annually. The order that the task appears on each
schedule can be set for each schedule independently. There is therefore no need
to retype each task on each hierarchical servicing.
Ø The labour content for each schedule can be calculated by adding the content for
each individual task or by assigning a global labour content for the schedule as a
work package.
Ø All changes to the maintenance program are archived on final approval for
implementation. At any subsequent time, the rationale for changes to each task
can be easily viewed no matter how many changes are made to the same task.
Ø Work arising from the analysis (such as writing operating procedures or assessing
modifications) is allocated to people during the analysis via the software.
Management of this work can be controlled via the software.
Ø Following implementation approval the relevant maintenance schedules are
electronically and automatically updated. Maintenance schedules can be linked to
CMMS via Hyperlink functions.
Ø Whilst there are several inbuilt reports, the report writing functionality is limited only
by imagination as the database can be queried and reported on using MS Access,
Excel or other like tools.
Ø The system can be used and operated by many people at once using a centralised
database.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 19

SPECIFICATION
The operating system requires a minimum of Win95 and will therefore run on all
successors Win98, NT, Win2000 and Win XP and XP Pro.
Minimum screen resolutions are 800 by 600 pixels.
Minimum hardware configuration is 400 MHz Pentium with 64 Mb of RAM and 20 Mb
of free disc space growing to 100 Mb for large sites.
Software is developed in Delphi V5 using a Microsoft Access database. MS Access
licenses will not be required since PMO2000™ comes bundled with Access driver
DLL’s.
Reporting and schedule merge capability can be through MS Word, RTF. Adobe
Acrobat or Crystal Reports.

CREATING INTERFACES BETWEEN PMO2000™ AND CMMS

There are three approaches to using PMO2000™ task information. These are
described below:

USING PMO2000™ SCHEDULES MODULE AND CMMS HYPERLINK

PMO2000™ has been designed to create PM work orders in Microsoft Word. These
can also be made into PDF files if the user has access to Adobe Acrobat reader. For
this reason, a direct electronic interface between PMO2000™ and any modern CMMS
is not a necessity.
This method entails planning and scheduling the work through the normal functionality
of the CMMS. The work package in the CMMS system is then hyperlinked as an
attachment to the work order. Any comments and records are fed back into the CMMS
against the work order, along with the man-hours, materials and other normal inputs.
This is the most common use of PMO2000™. The reasons organisations prefer this
arrangement are as follows:
• this is the most simple and error free method, and
• the schedule layout and content can be user defined so end user needs are
specifically addressed.

CREATE A SECONDARY INTERFACE MODULE.

PMO2000™ can output schedules in MS Excel format. This option is as follows:
1. Export the PM schedule from PMO2000™ into Excel,
2. Export Corrective work from the CMMS into Excel.
3. Merge the scope of work into the one system (Excel, MS Access, MS Project or
similar) and issue the single work plant for the outage in a format that suits local
needs.
The advantage of this approach is that the corrective maintenance can be scheduled
within the PM routine which reduces the documentation required and makes the
execution of the work very simple.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 20

CREATE AN ELECTRONIC INTERFACE.
PMO2000™ can be seamlessly interfaced with established CMMS such as SAP and
MIMS. The interface requires mapping of three tables only. Technically, the matter is
not difficult. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that the uncontrolled changes
are not made to either system. The primary defence against this is by introducing
restrictions on those that can effect changes to both systems. This control feature
exists on PMO2000™, MIMS and SAP hence the matter becomes one of defining a
workable process, allocating responsibilities and training those who carry
responsibilities.
This approach is actually the least preferred for the following reasons:
• CMMS software is often inflexible in its ability to have various layouts hence
much of the information inside of PMO2000™ such as acceptable limits,
corrective action, warning at task level, pictures and calibration points either
have to be merged into one field or omitted completely.
• Many schedulers use a secondary package to schedule work and not the
CMMS. This means that electronic interfaces add no value in these
circumstances.
Many times the equipment structure in the CMMS is a mess and considered too hard
to fix. Clients in this situation usually opt to use PMO2000™ to redefine the equipment
structure. Because of the differences between the equipment structures, interfacing is
not possible until the CMMS is fixed.

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 21

References
References are available for Australian sites that have successfully implemented PMO
using each of these implementation models. Current users of our PMO2000™ or
predecessor methodologies include:
Chemicals, Oil and Gas
Ø Aera Energy (Implementing PMO2000™ even after winning the 2002 North
American Maintenance Excellence Award)
Ø Singapore Refinery (Singapore)
Ø OilSearch (Papua New Guinea)
Ø Santos (Cooper Basin)
Ø Caltex Terminals (Singapore)
Ø Pertamina (Indonesia
Ø Australian Vinyls

Mining and Minerals Processing

Ø Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance

Ø BlueScope Steel (two sites to date)
Ø One Steel (two sites to date)
Ø Rio Tinto
Ø Austral Coal
Ø Worsley Alumina
Ø Xstrata Copper (ex MIM)
Ø Hillside Aluminium (South Africa)

Manufacturing, Food and Beverage

Ø Foster’s Australia (Former Carlton United Beverages)

Ø Goodman Fielder
Ø Cerestar (Holland)
Ø Amcor Fibre Packaging

Power

Ø Siemens Power station Philippines

Johnson L.P (1995) "Improving Equipment Reliability and Plant Efficiency through PM Optimisation at Kewaunee Nuclear
Power Plant" SMRP 3rd Annual Conference, Chicago Illinois.
Moubray J M (1997) “Reliability – centred Maintenance”. Butterworth - Heinemann, Oxford
Nowlan F S and Heap H (1978) “Reliability – centred Maintenance”. National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia.
PMOptimisation web site at www.pmoptimisation.com

Copyright OMCS International Written by Steve Turner [email protected] Page 22