提高维修及其可靠性的流程(5).ppt

The Cargill Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices Workshop Here’s an example of this. A plant spent 40% of its maintenance budget on modifications that didn’t create much value. The modifications were wants not needs. By analyzing the work type data in their CMMS, the site realized just how much was spent on modifications. It also identified the need to upgrade the site’s MOC policy as they found changes that had not been documented on permits and on the equipment lists. In more than one example, sites have triggered an environmental permit issue unknowningly by modifying the equipment for a want or need that was not put through the MOC process. Another site was struggling to get out of the reactive mode. The level of emergencies it experienced didn’t allow any schedule to be maintained. The site reviewed its work priority history and found that 50% of the work orders were classified as emergencies. A team reviewed a sampling of these work orders and found that only 10% met the criteria the site had established for emergency. 20% were identified as process modifications and the remainder were a priority 3. The site reissued the policy on emergency work and trained all the lead persons on this policy. At another site, a review of pump MTBF indicated the number was getting worse. A RCA team looked into this and determined that the vendor had changed suppliers for the shafts they were using which were not up to the OEM specs. The site created a procedure and spec. to address this issue. The Cargill Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices Workshop Echt de focus op vragen en op antwoorden wachten Plant 1, komen niet op 100%….. 35 % un-reporten Plant 2, Doen wel aan PdM maar met de resultaten wordt niets of veel te weinig gedaan Pretenders, is ook in module 2 besproken Plant 3, Of deze plant is nieuw en er wordt nog veel aangepast op het maintenance budget, of ze gebruiken hun eigen mensen om projecten goedkoper te maken (sites die hun eigen m