Welcome to the CP Panel Discussion: Operational Efficiency

Mark your calendar for the 2013 CP Panel Discussion Webinars: March 21, 2013: Energy Efficiency April 18, 2013: Cyber Security May 16, 2013: Dust Control June 20, 2013: Pump Selection
Register for the 2013 Series at: www.ChemicalProcessing.com/cpseries
For technical issues, please click on the Tech Support button on the bottom center of your screen.

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

CAN YOU HEAR ME? The webinar has started. If you cannot hear me speaking: 1. Please check to make sure your computer mute button is turned to OFF 2. Please log off and log back in 3. If you still cannot hear me, please click the Tech Support button at the bottom of your screen
Sponsored by:

Moderator Traci Purdum Senior Editor ChemicalProcessing.com

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Joining us today:

Bernie Price CEO Polaris Veritas Inc Renard Klubnik Applications Engineer Meggitt Sensing Systems

Moderator Traci Purdum Senior Editor ChemicalProcessing.com

Sponsored by:

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Bernie Price CEO Polaris Veritas Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

IMPROVING OPERATIONAL ACCURACY (A Few Precepts)

The Journey to World Class Performance Potential to Gaining 10% + OEE The Error & Issues Pyramid Why Operating Accuracy is Critical to Success
Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

TYPICAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE FOUR Lead/Com 75 % STABLE OPERATING STATES Planned work 85%
Error Rate 1: 40
Pd/M based 50-75% BP/RCA implemented 12-24/yr +Action Teams Lead/Com 30 Planned work 50-65% PdM based 10-50% BP/RCA implemented 6-/yr

Error Rate 1 : 400

Lead/Com 100% Planned work >95% PdM based >75% BP/RCA implemented / shared >24/yr.

WORLD CLASS OPERATIONS

OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE

PROACTIVE PRECISION

Lead/Com - 0 Planned work <20% PdM work <10% BP/RCA implemented <X/yr

PLANNED

REACTIVE

Stable Sustainable Cultures

Responsive Work
ORIGINAL MAT BY LEDET ENTERPRIZES

Planned Work

Proactive & Disciplined Routine Problem Solving

NATURE OF BEHAVIOR
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Problem Solving Focused Organizational Learning Polaris Veritas, Inc

OEE

TRANSITIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE TO WORLD CLASS

INSTITUTIONALIZATION LINKING WRITTEN BEST PRACTICES TO FORM A PROCESS RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDES A STRONG AUDIT PROGRAM ADOPTION & OWNERSHIP

90%

COMPLACENCY
WE INVENTED IT HERE !

DANGER ZONE

> THE PERCIEVED NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT

80%

75%

DEVELOPING A PROBLEM SOLVING CULTURE THE COMMITMENT THRESHOLD IT ALL SEEMS TO BE WORKING ? ENTHUSIASM AFTER EARLY WINS EMPLOYEE EMPOWEREMENTGETS STARTED

ERROR PROOFING
ACCEPTANCE

65 %

UNDERSTANDING DEFECT ELIMINATION

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS TEAM WORKING

65%

START CONDITION MONITORING

< 60%
START PLANNING & SCHEDULING IMPROVING COMMUNICATION FORMING TEAMS & EXPLAINING PROCESS NON AWARENESS ACCEPTANCE STARTS HERE

IT IS OK BUT - TOO MUCH EFFORT

UNAWARE

Polaris Veritas, Inc

+ REDUCING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE TIME

>

FATALITIES

CATASTROPHIC FAILURE MAJOR UNPLANNED

SERIOUS

MINORS & NEAR MISSES

PROCESS INTERUPTION

UNSAFE BEHAVIOR

MINOR DEFECTS

EXTENDED PLANT S/D SERIOUS PROCESS UPSET MINOR DEVIATION AFFECTING OTHER PYRAMIDS POTENTIAL ERRORS UNDETECTED

PRODUCT RECALL MAJOR ISSUE BEFORE DELIVERY

ISSUE DETECTED BUT RECOVERABLE IN PART UNRECOGNIZED DEFECTS

Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

ONE PYRAMID FOUR FACES

Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

SIMILAR TECHNIQUES FOUR FACES

Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Sources of Defects/Errors
Published research at MIT, DuPont and others discusses five sources of defects and their ratio to one another: Maintenance materials Maintenance workmanship Raw materials Equipment / Process Design
7% 18% 5% 25%

Operational Accuracy

45% +

Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Creating Awareness Errors are everywhere

Our (societys) negative and confusing attitude to errors: The banana skin Funniest home videos = Pain, shame and embarrassment for someone Cover mistake up as quickly as possible
Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Creating Awareness
Limbic response Anger, Fear, Jealousy etc. Our addiction to the adrenaline rush Action and thriller movies, etc. The lightning fast limbic system will seek and create balance when there is none. Frontal Lobes Rational Thought, Sense of Purpose, Aesthetic Appreciation Like computers, the brain uses complex task sharing, short cuts and pastes information to speed operation (schema). At any point in time, it might have multiple mental processes going on that you are not aware of and have no control of. We have little personal control of how and why the brain does all of this. Limbic responses frequently seize control of your mind - (cerebrum) rather than you control it. Frontal Lobe Hijacking Process Worry (Preoccupado) Stress, Fatigue And Boredom makes the (downshifting) and error rate increase.
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency
Polaris Veritas, Inc

Creating Awareness & Non Penal Workplace

Some Limbic behaviors can destroy cohesion of the Large Team.
In football, nobody knowingly drops a pass. In life, nobody knowingly makes an error. But there still are many dropped passes and errors Criticism, blame and punishment destroys teamwork Refer to: www. Human Error. com - Professors Panko, Reppening, and Stout www.serendip.brynmawr.edu

See Book Reality Check What Your Mind Knows but Isnt Telling You by David L. Weiner

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Polaris Veritas, Inc

Professor Raymond Panko - The Human Error Expert

STUDY ACTIVITY ERROR RATE 0.5% 1.1% 0.5% 30% 52% 65%

Baddeley & Longman [1973] Chedru & Geschwind [1972] Dhillon [1986] Dremen and Berry [1995]

Entering mail codes. Errors after correction. Per mail code. Grammatical errors per word. Reading a gauge incorrectly. Per read = 1 : 200 Percentage error in security analysts' earnings forecasts for reporting earnings. 1980 / 1985 / 1990. That is, size of error rather than frequency of error. Errors per medication in hospital, based on data presented in the paper. Per dose. = 1 : 60 Error rate per keystroke for six expert typists. Told not to correct errors, although some did. Per keystroke. S sample (speech errors). Per word W sample (written exam). Per word 10 undergraduates write for 30 minutes, grammatical and spelling errors per word Keypunch machine operators, errors per character February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Edmondson [1996] Grudin [1983] Hotopf [1980] Hotopf [1980] Hotopf [1980] Klemmer [1962]

1.6% 1% 0.2% 0.9% 1.6% 0.02% to 0.06%

Polaris Veritas, Inc

WORSENING PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS (error rate)

WHEN
THE FREQUENCY OF OPERATING ERROR (THERP)
LOW STRESS MODERATE STRESS HIGH STRESS EXTREME STRESS AND THREAT

EXTENDED UNEVENTFUL VIGILANCE -

NORMAL ACTIVITY UPSET OPERATING CONDITION START UP / SHUT DOWN

1:2 5 (OR WORSE)

APPROACHING LOSS OF CONTROL

INATTENTIVE BLINDNESS

ACTUAL < 1: 250

OBJECTIVE < 1: 400

TASK LOAD & FATIQUE
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency
Polaris Veritas, Inc

When?

(% Time Risk %) Low Risk - STABLE OPERATION (95% - 5%) Extended uneventful vigilance Getting locked into a sub routine (schema) - Inattentive Blindness Normal activity Boredom Start-Up and Shut-Down Continuous process plants Low level of Engagement Upset Operating Condition Emergency Operation Time of day / night High Fatigue Overtime - extended periods without breaks Counter progressive shift rotation Not warming up after long break lack of practice Unfamiliar Team Make Up Concentrate improvement effort on transitional situations after analyzing error patterns.
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency
Polaris Veritas, Inc

High Risk - TRANSITIONAL OPERATION (5% - 95%)

When Are Most Errors MadeTRANSITIONAL HIGH RISK

RELIABILITY / LIFE REDUCING STEPS

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Polaris Veritas, Inc

How can we improve?

A system that works.. It must be non penal A method that most people are familiar with Assumes that Management has a major role in setting up the situation that allows errors to be made
Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Operator Lead Team - Primary Analysis

Write down: What/How the error was made When Where Why Estimate the cost of making it. Then classify the error for later analysis (see list) Lack of Planning Not enough Information, Lack of training, Lack of personal capability / attention / attitude / hurry / overload Indicate if it is unique - personal to you, or latent or systemic. (Have other people made the same mistake?)
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency
Polaris Veritas, Inc

Dealing with our Errors as Individuals

What/How: Where: When: Why: Classification: Antecedent: Behavior: Hit a wayward shot Approaching a green, ball lands among trees Anytime Has an unrealistic belief in own golf skill Hurry / Judgment Doesnt practice Conservative Decision Making

Predisposed to rush / hurry. Inadequate level of Engagement Consequence: Ball hit tree and bounced into hazard + 4 Strokes Action to Eliminate Problem

1. Solution Study and practice Conservative Decision Making 2. Take lesson in course management 3. Get more practice

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Polaris Veritas, Inc

WHO Error Rates for the 95%

INDIVIDUALS GIVEN ADEQUATE TRAINING AND SUPPORT

COMPETENT PERFORMANCE

OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE OVER CONTROL

EXPRESSIVE PERSONALITY

SIMPLIFIED PICTORIAL S O P S

STRUCTURED ERROR REDUCTION / REVIEW PROCESS

A POKE YOKE APPROACH TO JOB DESIGN REMOVAL OF HURRY CONFUSION CLUTTER & STRESS THE USE OF CONSERVATIVE DECISION MAKING PROCESSES NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS

COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Polaris Veritas, Inc

OBSERVATION OF ERRORS THE OBJECTIVE

MAJOR

MANAGERS SEE ONLY 8 OF 39,000

VISIBLE
SERIOUS

Need Root Cause Analysis

INVISIBLE
Need error proofing

CORRECTABLE ERRORS

MINOR ERRORS

POTENTIAL ERRORS

THE NUMBER OF ERRORS HE CURRENTLY SEES

FULLY ENGAGED HE SEES ALL THE ERRORS + POTENTIAL ERRORS February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency
Polaris Veritas, Inc

Report Observed Actual Situation or Activity with Potential for Error - Example
POTENTIAL OPERATING DEVIATION REPORT SHIFT (Optional) WEEK ENDING DESCRIBE SITUATION OR INCIDENT (50 WORDS) DO NOT INCLUDE NAMES

ANALYSIS COLUMN LEAVE BLANK MAXIMUM OF THREE ASSOCIATED DEVIATIONS

Hey ! This looks like an bear trap to me ?

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency
Polaris Veritas, Inc

OFI # 8431 THIS IS A BEAR TRAP

QHSE OFI Originators Manager Date Reported Reporting System SUMMARY INFORMATION Potential Operating Error Describe in 50 words or less ________________________________________________________________________
Product quality Operational Process >>> Audit Finding Supplier Quality Customer Complaint __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ KEY PHRASE Potential Operating error __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Remedial Action What it will take to fix the problem Time and Money and when it will get done and by whom KAIZEN TEAM Action Results of Action ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Investigation General comments __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Root Cause - Quick Phrase __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Corrective / Preventive Action fill out after job complete Actual Dollars Spent and saved

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Polaris Veritas, Inc

Some Typical Operational Mistakes

Missing a step from a procedure Misreading a gauge Not sealing (or reporting) process leakages / blockage Using incorrect tool or apparatus Over / under fills vessel or tank Not receiving or passing on a report from interfacing shift team Transposing digits in a number series Incorrectly positioning valves Repeatedly resetting an alarm or other protective devices without action Slow delayed required action Not turning off idle equipment Not making a decision when one was required Ignoring a process oscillation / instability Failure to notify others of observed defects Misunderstanding a request and not asking the instructor to repeat request Change room shift changeovers Operating equipment without understanding or authority not having been trained Not leaving something in a secure mode Operating something too fast or slow Removing a safety device or identifying tab Operating equipment known to be defective without reporting it Improper feed rate or load Adding wrong material to batch Working on equipment while it is running Not referring to operating procedures as required Not using (and signing) the correct checklist where one exists Not preparing equipment / work permits for repair after written request Not understanding and being afraid to ask about the chemistry or physics involved Interrupting another person in the middle of a complex task

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Polaris Veritas, Inc

Error Proofing The Issues Why Operator Lead

Endemic

denial, cover-up and collusion around personal error

(for good reason)

Need a method of understanding and determining the true sources and nature of the errors Need a means to let the operating teams themselves focus on the behaviors problems and reduce the number and severity of errors they make over the long term This is CRITICAL if the level of ENGAGEMENT is to be lifted We use approaches and techniques first developed for safety improvement The methods work on all four - Safety, Quality, Operations and Reliability There are four inextricably linked triangles >>>>>>
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency Polaris Veritas, Inc.

Having Collected the Data - the Analysis Phase

Use the process facilitator and the Operator team Leader

Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Classifying Mistakes The Ten Buckets

Not understanding the consequences of the action. Not using conservative Approach - judgment. Lack of clear work instructions Cluttered Presentation Confused Priorities Inadequate person-to-person and person-to-group communication Insufficient individual knowledge, accountability or skills training Inadequate tools and equipment Lack of a well defined Standard of Performance Lack of personal capability / attention / attitude / hurry / overload Lack of understanding of the risk of and management of change Insufficient recognition of appropriate effort * Lack of Tactical Administration (identifying the periods and individuals for High Level Engagement) - Leadership (vision) *
* These are linked
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency
Polaris Veritas, Inc

Reducing the potential for error

A kaizen like process Managed by operators for operators

Polaris Veritas, Inc

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Renard Klubnik Applications Engineer Meggitt Sensing Systems

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Operational efficiency Where does vibration monitoring fit in?

Operational efficiency represents the life-cycle cost-effective mix of preventative, predictive and reliability centered maintenance technologies. When combined successfully with equipment calibration, tracking and monitored maintenance management can target reliability, safety, and system efficiency. In terms of vibration monitoring, operational efficiency includes how machine faults are handled and how that effects the facilitys bottom line.

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Managing vibration The first step to operational efficiency

Treating each piece of rotating equipment as an asset Every asset has a value associated with it Asset value will be related to its importance to manufacturing process Documenting the vibration level of each asset Determining the significance of the vibration level of each asset Use known standards (ISO 10816) Compare within your own facility (or corporation) Determine the extra cost of running an asset at a high vibration level Operational cost for keeping a unit in service Repair/maintenance cost

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Technologies for improving efficiency

Vibration

Oil analysis
Wear particle analysis Motor current analysis

Thermography

Alignment
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Why choose vibration?

It has been stated by more than one source that the vibration signal contains the most non-intrusive information about the condition of a machine

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Why choose vibration?

Of all the technologies available, vibration analysis casts the widest net of capturing the most machine faults A partial list of faults that can be detected with vibration
Balance Alignment Roller bearing wear Looseness Gearbox faults Oil whirl Pump cavitation Structural resonances Motor rotor & stator problems (loose rotor/stator slots)

All or anyone of the above can contribute to poor efficiency

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Maintenance programs

Maintenance programs are usually grouped into three categories Reactive Preventive Predictive 55% 32% 13%

This breakdown is opposite of what it should be...

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Setting up a reliability centered approach

Looks at maintenance as manageable cost not necessary evil Run to failure cost $$$ Unscheduled down time Higher wages (overtime) Lost production Unsafe conditions for the machine and personnel

Estimated savings on energy bills of 5-20% for plants that use some form of reliability centered approach

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Reactive maintenance programs A run till it breaks mentality

Advantages Appears to be low cost because nothing is spent until a unit fails Disadvantages Increased cost due to unplanned downtime of equipment High labor costs, especially if overtime is needed Cost with repair or replacement of equipment is usually higher due to expedited last minute purchases Possible secondary equipment or process damage from equipment failure Inefficient use of staff resources
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Preventative maintenance programs

Actions performed on a time- or machine-run-based schedule that detect, preclude, or mitigate degradation of a machine Advantages
Cost effective Flexibility allows for maintenance periodicity adjustment Increased component life cycle Energy savings Reduced equipment or process failure Estimated 12-18% cost savings over reactive maintenance programs Catastrophic failures can still occur Labor intensive Includes performance of unneeded maintenance No data collected from machines Work can be pushed off by other needs
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Disadvantages

Predictive maintenance programs Measurements that detect the onset of a degradation mechanism
Advantages Increased component operational life/availability Allows for preemptive corrective actions Decrease in equipment or process downtime Decrease in costs for parts and labor Better product quality Improved worker and environmental safety Improved worker moral Energy savings Estimated 8-12% cost savings over predictive maintenance program Disadvantages Investment in diagnostic equipment Investment in staff training Savings potential not readily seen by management
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Do machines need to be monitored? Consider the total cost of the machine

Consider the cost of placing the asset on a condition monitoring program View the cost in terms of lost production plus repair cost Most successful plants using a balanced approach use
Predictive (all technologies) Preventative Reactive 45-55% 25-35% 10%

This is opposite of what must studies show to be the actual breakdown of these technologies

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Predictive (vibration) programs What types of vibration monitoring programs make sense for your plant?
On-line monitoring Permanently installed sensors with constant data acquisition Ability to store vibration data automatically for historical records Post fault- identify behavior that led to a fault Pre fault- take correction action to avoid the fault Shut down capability real time decision making process to prevent any type of catastrophic failure Costly- >$100,000 in install and maintain Training cost Requires cost of machinery monitored to be >$1MM or lost production to be of equal magnitude

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Predictive (vibration) programs

Hand held route based programs Labor intensive Possible permanently installed sensors for high risk locations Trending of vibration based on machine characteristics Historical record of data possible Does not provide shut down capability Equipment and on going training cost Initial investment hardware and training >$50,000 On-going training >$5000/yr/person

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Predictive (vibration) programs

Loop powered sensors, 4-20 mA signal Process industry interface Provide continuous indication of vibration level Does not provide detail of vibration, only overall values Overall values used for decision making on go/no basis Minimal cost to implement and maintain <$1000 per point monitored

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Benefits of implementing some sort of vibration monitoring program

Increased maintenance productivity

Reduced equipment downtime

Savings with lower material

Months average payback

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

How to implement operational efficiency at your facility Increase management awareness

Management buy in and awareness is crucial Develop a maintenance mission statement Formulate a maintenance plan Integrate key members from other departments that can participate

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

How to implement operational efficiency at your facility Track operations and maintenance activities
Commit to tracking operations and maintenance activities by identifying your troubled equipment and systems Make a list of these systems and prioritize them in terms of criticality Commit to addressing at least one of these troubled systems Begin base-lining System operations and history System maintenance and history System costs, time to service, downtime, resulting overtime, etc. Commit to implementing some form(s) of diagnostic, metering, or monitoring equipment Commit to trending the collected tracking and diagnostic data Take to time to understand the data Develop appropriate cost justification metrics (usually plant specific)
February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Broadcast your success within your organization!

Select, request funding for, and complete first Operational Efficiency project Start small, pick a project that will be a winner Carefully document all findings Present success in terms management will understand Strive to highlight this success Capitalize on visibility opportunities Consider writing an internal success story/case study

Choose the next piece of equipment...and repeat!

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Thank you for attending todays Webinar!

Look for an email from us with a link to download the entire Presentation from todays event.
View the 2013 CP Panel Discussion Webinars at: www.ChemicalProcessing.com/cpseries

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency

Questions for our Panel?

Bernie Price CEO Polaris Veritas Inc polarisver@aol.com
281 280 0550 (Office) 281 793 5643 (Mobile)
Webinar Sponsored by:

Renard Klubnik Applications Engineer Meggitt Sensing Systems

February 21, 2013 Operational Efficiency