An Enterprise Approach to Reliability – Ash Grove’s Maintenance

Excellence Process (MEP)

By:
Ryan Farr, former Corporate Reliability Manager and current Assistant
Maintenance Manager - Leamington, Ash Grove Cement Company

Abstract

Ash Grove Cement Company’s Maintenance Excellence Process (MEP) is a multi-site, Enterprise
Reliability Strategy (ERS) that is 10 years in the making. This paper discusses the initial MEP vision, the
MEP objectives, the organizational structure behind the implementation, the major subjects covered
during the implementation, lessons learned, and the ultimate impact on the bottom line of the company.

Introduction

Enterprise Reliability Strategies (ERS) yield significant cost reductions and increases in real production
capacity without capital investment in new equipment. Under the leadership of President Chuck
Wiedenhoft, Ash Grove Cement Company is now 10 years into its ERS journey. Called MEP (for
Maintenance Excellence Process), the initial objectives of this effort were:

1. Reduce Maintenance Cost per ton of production by 20%

2. Reduce Kiln Stops Due to Maintenance by 50%
3. Increase Kiln Uptime by 5%
4. Reduce Inventory Costs by 20%
5. Reduce Man-Hours per ton by 20%
6. Increase level of Planned Maintenance to 85%
7. Reduce Recordable Accidents by 20%
8. Improve Employee Skill Levels
9. Establish reliable equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement records.
10. Enhance morale among management and the hourly workforce as they learn to enjoy a proactive
environment instead of surviving in chaos.

At its core, MEP is a system for accomplishing work – a set of processes and procedures that describe an
effective way to manage assets on a daily basis. To be effective, these processes must be widely
understood and followed by the entire work force; they cannot simply exist in the minds of a few
experienced workers.

In MEP, work processes focus on two main areas: Productivity & Proactivity. Productivity - increasing
the output (work completed) per unit of input (labor & materials) - results in cost savings. Proactivity -
acting in advance to deal with unexpected difficulties - allows a plant to identify and solve problems
before they become costly emergencies.

The most productive situation occurs when workers are able to complete the jobs they were assigned at
the beginning of the day. To accomplish this, the scope of the job must be understood, the necessary
resources (labor, material, tools) must be identified & verified, custody of the equipment must be
coordinated, and the entire plant must exhibit clarity, consensus, & commitment for the priorities on the
daily schedule. This involves heavy focus on work planning (the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the work order)
and work scheduling (the ‘who’ and the ‘when’ of the work order).

In order to identify asset problems proactively, equipment must be regularly inspected and monitored.
Visual inspections must be specifically defined based on the possible ways (modes) in which that

978-1-4244-3698-9/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE 1

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 equipment can fail. Effectively implemented condition monitoring technologies allow the plant to measure
operating parameters such as vibration, temperatures, amps, voltage, and wear particles in lubrication.
When conditions creep outside of defined parameters, it must trigger a response (inspection during
scheduled downtime, spare part replacement) in order to add value to the plant.

The essence of MEP is captured in both its vision statement and its logo. When a corporate initiative is
branded with these symbols, it falls under the MEP umbrella and management structure.

Fig. 1 – The MEP Vision Statement and Logo

Preparing for the Implementation – Organizational Implementation Structure

As Ash Grove prepared to roll out its ERS, three groups were formed to guide the implementation. First,
an Executive Steering Committee staffed with vice-presidents from Manufacturing and Manufacturing
Services set the long-range strategy and chose the topics of importance. Ken Rone – the Vice-President
of Corporate Maintenance – was chosen as the executive champion of the initiative. Second, a
consulting firm was retained to help guide the Steering Committee. These consultants had expertise in
work process development, work process implementation, and reliability engineering. They also brought
an outsider’s objectivity to the analysis of each plant’s current reliability situation. Finally, an MEP Task
Force staffed with Plant Managers, Maintenance Managers & Corporate Support personnel was formed.
The Task Force focused on the tactical details of the implementation and reported directly to the MEP
Steering Committee.

In 2001, when MEP transitioned from the planning phase to the implementation phase, each plant was
asked to form a MEP Action Team. These teams were accountable for plant-specific implementation
details such as the redefinition of roles & responsibilities for some employees, establishment of meeting
times & agendas, and identification of training requirements. Membership on this team at minimum
included the Plant Manager, Production Manager, Maintenance Manager, Planner, Purchasing Agent,

2
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 and a Crew Supervisor. By having cross-functional representation on the Action Team, broad
organizational buy-in was achieved.

Leading each plant’s Action Team was a Site Champion. This individual received special, intensive
training on MEP concepts – they frequently travelled to other plants, to training conferences, and to
workshops sponsored by the consultants. The Site Champions were drawn from a diverse group of plant
roles: Maintenance Managers, Planners, Production Superintendents, Plant Engineers, and Clerks. The
unifying trait in all Site Champions was that they “gotta really want to do it.” Their role was one of
influence – they had to sell the MEP concept to their peers on a daily basis in addition to overseeing the
tangible deliverables of the MEP implementation. In other words, they “gotta get it”.

Consultants were also retained to support the implementation. During the early stages of the
implementation, consultants were organized by geography, each becoming the primary coach of several
plants. During latter phases, consultants were organized based on subject matter expertise and travelled
throughout the Ash Grove system.

Collectively, these groups all contributed towards the creation of the official Maintenance Excellence
Processes. These rules & procedures are defined via a series of flow charts, PowerPoint presentations,
and instruction sheets.

Fig. 2 – The Organizational Implementation Structure

Although the organizational structure was critical to implementing this reliability-based concept across an
entire enterprise, it would not have been possible without executive support. For several years during the
implementation, our President made it clear that MEP was the company’s top priority. This clear and
consistent message ensured that each plant stayed focused on implementing the MEP deliverables.

Preparing for the Implementation – Standardizing the Data Structure

A key element that must be in place before an organization can undertake an ERS is the standardization
of the data collection structure. Standardization ensures that performance indicators are effective, that

3
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 problem identification is matched with the correct solutions, that all tools - especially software tools - are
effective resources for plant personnel and that accurate communication can occur between locations.

Ash Grove has both wet process and dry process plants in its system. These plants also vary in terms of
equipment age, employee age, workforce turnover, geography, organizational structure (union & non),
work culture, and plant history. Prior to 1998, some plants had chosen their own computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS). Ash Grove’s first step towards standardizing its data
structure came with the enterprise-wide purchase of a CMMS called Avantis. This tool is a fully functional
CMMS that supports all of the work processes required for achieving the MEP objectives.

In addition to mandating a common CMMS at all plants, a universal equipment numbering scheme was
adopted. This new, hierarchical numbering methodology was a difficult transition to make – especially for
workforces with low turnover rates. Unfortunately, there were no shortcuts. For a number of years after
the new numbering scheme was adopted, workers used both the old & new numbers in their daily
communications. Conversion booklets had to be written to assist with the transition. CMMS discipline,
employee turnover, and the passage of time all contributed toward the ultimate acceptance of the new
system.

Equipment classifications also had to be standardized. To accomplish this, a corporate ad hoc committee
was formed to group common equipment with a common name. Over a period of several months, each
plant conformed their old naming conventions to the new one. Weekly conference calls were held with
the ad hoc committee in order to clarify the instructions, debate the categories, and in some cases,
propose new names. The CMMS became the enforcer of this new standard, as “unapproved” names
were not available in the system.

Preparing for the Implementation – Establishing Equipment Criticalities

It also became necessary to establish equipment criticalities. Criticality rankings improve reliability by
concentrating resources on the most important equipment. They are a key factor in determining how
often preventive maintenance tasks are performed, in choosing work orders for the Daily & Weekly
Schedules, and in deciding where to apply Condition Monitoring technology. All equipment is important,
but not all equipment is equally critical.

Criticality Rankings were determined as follows:

1) Significant Impact
a) Impact on one or more kiln lines resulting in an immediate (within 24 hours) loss of revenue
greater than $100,000 from the sale of cement, or
b) Loss of life, body part, permanent disability, or lost time injury, or
c) Reportable environmental emission, or
d) Equipment loss/damage/repair costs greater than $100,000.

2) Measurable Impact
a) Loss of revenue greater than $100,000 only if the equipment is not repaired within 48 hours, or
b) Impact on one or more kiln lines resulting in an immediate loss of revenue less than $100,000 but
greater than $10,000, or
c) Impact on Criticality 1 operating equipment during Emergency operations, or
d) Potential injury to plant personnel because temporary barricading measures are unacceptable, or
e) Potential reportable environmental emission.

3) Potential Impact
a) Potential for loss of revenue greater than $100,000 but adequate storage capacity is normally
kept during operation, or
b) Could lead injury to plant personnel but temporary barricading measures are acceptable, or

4
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 c) Repair costs greater than $1,000.

4) No Impact
a) If equipment is not operational for any duration, there will be no loss of revenue (no effect on
clinker or cement production either in quantity or quality).
b) Minimal repair costs of less than $1,000.

Implementation – Work Processes

After the common data structure was in place, the MEP Task Force created the implementation schedule.
The approach that was chosen was a “phased” approach. Every six months, work processes,
performance indicators, and associated standards were developed and implemented across the
enterprise in small, digestible chunks.

Phase 1 was designed to establish a core competency in work management fundamentals: Work ID,
Work Planning, Work Scheduling, Work Execution, and Work Documentation. Under Work ID,
employees were taught to write work requests in Avantis as soon as equipment problems were detected.
This was often a change from the past – where workers informally kept a mental note of potential
problems. Perhaps the most common change involved the role of the Planner. In the past, Planners
often had a more clerical role within the maintenance organization; they were a buffer between the
computer and the worker. In MEP, the primary focus of the planner is to anticipate needs, identify
resources requirements (parts, materials, tools, etc.) and review the jobsite before jobs are assigned to
crafts. Organizing the Planners around this function was often a significant change in their roles &
responsibilities. Another work management fundamental is for daily crew schedules to be formal, on
paper, and discussed openly during a tightly facilitated meeting. When the corresponding daily
assignments are made, work orders must be handed out each morning before the worker executes the
job. Upon completion, documentation has to be specific and timely – no more closing comments that
simply say “complete” or “fixed.”

Once these work management fundamentals were in place, subsequent phases addressed more
advanced work processes such as Basic Failure Analysis, Weekly Scheduling & Inventory Management.
The work process roll-out schedule as follows:

1) Phase 1
a) Work Identification
b) Basic work order planning
c) Daily work order scheduling
d) Work Execution
e) Work Documentation

2) Phase 2
a) Contingency Work / Reactive Maintenance
b) Weekly Work Order Scheduling / Backlog Management
c) Basic Failure Analysis
d) Maintenance Shutdown Planning & Management

3) Phase 3
a) Inventory Control & Warehouse Management
b) Design Management
c) Advanced Work Order Planning

For each work process sub-phase, the reliability consultants began the implementation by writing draft
flow-charts & instruction sheets. These tools were then reviewed and modified by the MEP Task Force.
Once approved, the MEP Task Force chose a “pilot” plant to test out the concept. This 3-5 week
intensive pilot further refined and expanded on the initial training tools. After the pilot phase was

5
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 complete, the Site Champions were brought to a central location for training. During this training session,
a formal roll-out schedule to the remaining plants was developed. Consultants travelled to each plant to
monitor progress and provide coaching.

Implementation – Maintenance & Parts Strategies

50 years ago, the importance of preventive maintenance was not widely understood. Equipment failed.
Maintenance was a necessary evil. Emergencies just happened. When emergencies did occur, overtime
was always approved, parts were expedited from across the country, and the problem was solved in a
very expensive matter.

Once the benefits of preventive maintenance were more widely accepted, many plants simply put an
experienced individual in charge of inspecting the equipment. Often times, this individual was able to
detect problems earlier than anyone else. However, equally common was for no one at the plant to know
exactly what that individual was inspecting. The details were not written down – they existed only in the
Subject Matter Expert’s head. This was fine, as long as the Subject Matter Expert was at the plant. But
what happens when he leaves?

In order for specific knowledge to remain at the plant once an experienced individual leaves, the details of
the inspection must be written down. It is with this objective in mind – to have a system of maintenance
that always stays at the plant – that MEP focused on Maintenance & Parts strategies.

The building blocks for these strategies were Failure Modes, Effects, & Criticality Analysis (FMECA). In
the simplest terms, the FMECAs highlight the potential mode by which a piece of equipment can fail to
perform the function for which it was designed. Once these modes are identified, improvement actions
are developed and prioritized in order to prevent the recurrence of that failure.

Based on the equipment nomenclature that Ash Grove standardized across its plants, reliability engineers
were contracted to write general FMECAs for these categories. These individuals wrote drafts that were
reviewed by Ash Grove subject matter experts. Upon approval, these documents became the foundation
for specifically defined preventive maintenance events.

Fig. 3 – Sample portion from an FMECA for a Criticality 1 Gearbox

6
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The maintenance strategy defined a task that must be performed by a worker with a defined skill set
(mechanic, electrician). The task includes a description of an inspection or event, a defined frequency for
that inspection, whether the equipment must be shutdown or running in order for the event to occur, and
guidance on how long it should take for a skilled employee to perform that event. Many maintenance
strategies are visual inspections; others involved condition monitoring technologies such as oil analysis,
vibration analysis, or temperature readings

In some situations, no inspection or task can be designed to prevent a defined failure mode. For
example, there is always a possibility that a driver may accidentally run over a nail with his car while
driving down the road. There is no realistic inspection or monitoring tool that can detect that puncture
hazard. Therefore, the proactive driver keeps a spare tire in the car at all times. This is analogous to the
MEP Parts Strategy. These parts should be immediately available to the plant at all times, either in the
on-site warehouse or via a consignment relationship with a vendor. The part stocking policy is contingent
on factors such as vendor leader times and the predicted failure time window.

In order for these Maintenance & Parts strategies to be living documents – information that is used on a
daily basis - they should exist in Avantis or a comparable CMMS. Immediately, this raised concerns
among some employees. They felt that being asked to write down the details of their inspections (which
in some cases they had been doing for years) was demeaning or implied that the company didn’t trust
their experience. Obtaining buy-in from these individuals was imperative and this is where the
“salesmanship” of the Site Champion was critical. Site Champions had to convince their peers that
writing down inspections served the long-term interests of the plant and often revealed details that would
otherwise be glossed over.

After buy-in was achieved (or decision rights were clarified), the inspections were loaded into Avantis.
Several issues had to be immediately addressed. The first challenge was to properly “group” inspections
into logical chunks of work. For example – many maintenance strategies only take 10 minutes to
perform. Writing a work order for each 10 minute inspection is a data management nightmare –
especially when there could be 60 such tasks every day of the week for one person. However, if too
many inspections are chunked onto one work order, the result becomes a vague document without clear
instructions. What is the optimum grouping?

A second problem involves ownership. Prior to MEP, some plants already had specifically defined PM’s.
They owned the details of what they created. If someone from outside the plant attempted to write each
inspection for them, they had difficulty buying-in to that task. Whether that inspection came from another
Ash Grove site, was written by a professional reliability engineer, or came directly from an OEM manual,
people tended to ignore inspections that they did not participate in writing.

The final problem revolved around the frequency of the inspection. Many of the original maintenance
strategies suggested weekly inspections. However, after many months of doing the same inspections
every week, PM specialists started to notice that they weren’t identifying new work. Other plants found
weekly inspections necessary. Some found that if the Maintenance Strategy said once a quarter, they
were having too many unanticipated failures.

None of these problems could be solved a priori. Each plant had to specifically own every detail of the
PM’s they were generating. This included the details of the inspection, the frequency of the inspection,
and the way the inspections were clumped together as a schedulable event. It was not possible to set up
a PM system perfectly in the beginning from outside the plant, and then stand back and watch it run for
ever more.

The notion of continuous improvement – or “micro-tweaks” - became a part of the PM vernacular. No

plant was allowed to follow an inspection schedule simply because it existed. Plants were encouraged to
add inspections, stream-line inspections, change frequencies, and constantly evaluate past assumptions.
Maintenance Strategies became supplemental tools – a reference manual – rather than an absolute law.

7
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 An Enterprise Approach to Reliability – 10 Years in the Making

Each year, the Ash Grove MEP Steering Committee measures its compliance with the original goals. The
results have been clear:

1. Reduce Maintenance Cost per ton of production by 20%. This goal was achieved in 2004 and
has been mostly sustained since that time.
2. Reduce Kiln Stops Due to Maintenance by 50%. This goal was achieved in 2006 but has stayed
more consistently at 30%-40% under the baseline.
3. Increase Kiln Uptime by 5%. This was achieved in early 2005 and has been sustained.
4. Reduce Inventory Costs by 20%. Although a sizable amount of dead inventory was eliminated
from every plant, this goal was not achieved and was de-emphasized after 2005.
5. Reduce Man-Hours per ton by 20%. This goal was achieved in 2004, exceeded in 2005, and
has been sustained at a 25% reduction over baseline levels.
6. Increase level of Planned Maintenance to 85%. This goal was achieved in 2003 and has been
sustained.
7. Reduce Recordable Accidents by 20%. This goal was achieved in 2007.
8. Improve Employee Skill Levels. A Corporate Training Czar was established in 2006 and skill
levels are largely believed to have improved.
9. Establish reliable equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement records. A huge
improvement at all plants, the value of which has been greatly appreciated after recent
retirements and plant demographic shifts. Invensys, developers of Avantis Pro, routinely
recognizes Ash Grove as one of the most sophisticated users of its product
10. Enhance morale among management and the hourly workforce as they learn to enjoy a proactive
environment instead of surviving in chaos. This goal – with a few exceptions – has been
achieved.

Ash Grove employees make the point that MEP stands for Maintenance Excellence Process, not
Maintenance Excellence Program. A process is something that exists in perpetuity; a program has a
defined end. The work processes associated with MEP have become the new normal for Ash Grove
plants. It has brought an organized, systematic approach to the way work is performed. It has ensured a
continuity of knowledge after experienced workers retire. As Ash Grove looks to the future of its
Enterprise Reliability System, it knows is has a strong and profitable foundation to stand on with MEP.

8
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 30,2022 at 09:55:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.