MEASURE PHASE | Site Instrumentation Failure

Reduction
 Identification of Input and Process Indicators

Input Indicators Process Indicators Output Indicators

Number/availability of
skilled manpower
Average knowledge index
of workforce
Availability of right tools/
accessories
Procedures / maintenance
regime followed
No of test equipment
Analyzer/ Detector Sensor Instrument Failure Rate
Failure
Control Valve Passing Issue
Control Valve Stiction Issue
End of Life of Local
Instrumentation

Workmanship related errors

Availability of Spares

Input - SIPOC
Process - Functional Deployment Map
VSM indicators such as Process Cycle Time, Uptime, Yield, Value-Added Time, Batch Size, Available Time
Changeover Time, Value-Added Time
 Cause and Effect Diagram

Process People

Analyzer/ Detector Sensor Average knowledge

Failure End of Life of Local index of workforce
Instrumentation
Control Valve Passing Number/availability of
Issue skilled manpower

Control Valve Stiction Workmanship related

Issue errors

Instrument
Failure Rate
Quality of tools employed
by workforce.
Time Taken to arrange
Availability of right Spares
tools/ accessories Temperature/
Availability of Spares Pressure variations
No of test equipment
Exposure to foreign
Availability of media
Procedures / consumables
maintenance regime Corrosion /
followed environmental factors

Machine Material Environment

 Cause and Effect Matrix
Instrument Failure Rate   <<<<Output Indicators

10   <<<<<<<<Importance

 
 
       

--------- Correlation of
----- Input/Process Indicators ----- Input to Output ---------   --------- Total ---------

X1 Number/availability of skilled manpower 1 10 10

X2 Average knowledge index of workforce 1 10 10
X3 Availability of right tools/ accessories 3 10 30
X4 Procedures / maintenance regime followed 9 10 90
X5 No of test equipment 3 10 30
X6 Workmanship related errors 3 10 30
X7 Availability of Spares 1 10 10
X8 Analyzer/ Detector failures due to weak sensors/ probe 9 10 90
X9 Control Valve failure due to passing issue 9 10 90
X10 Control Valve failure due to stiction issue 9 10 90
X11 Failures due to End of Life of Local Instrumentation 9 10 90

Scale : 0 = None, 1= Low, 3= Moderate, 9= Strong

Note: Add output from Team Charter to Y. Circle those X’s that
are prioritised.
 Cause and Effect Matrix
Instrument Failure Rate   <<<<Output Indicators

10   <<<<<<<<Importance

 
 
       

--------- Correlation of
----- Input/Process Indicators ----- Input to Output ---------   --------- Total ---------

X12 Quality of tools employed by workforce. 3 10 30

X13 Time Taken to arrange Spares 1 10 10
X14 Availability of consumables 1 10 10
X15 Temperature/ Pressure variations 1 10 10
X16 Exposure to foreign media 3 10 30
X17 Corrosion / environmental factors 9 10 90

Scale : 0 = None, 1= Low, 3= Moderate, 9= Strong

Note: Add output from Team Charter to Y. Circle those X’s that
are prioritised.
 Process Indicators for Measurement

Shortlisted Process Indicators for Measurement Operational Definition

Procedures / maintenance regime followed X4 Availability of procedures and a PM regime that are critical for
upkeep of Instruments
Analyzer/ Detector Sensor Failure X8 Sensor/ probe damage leading to instrument failure

Control Valve Passing Issue X9 Failures due to passing of control valves

Control Valve Stiction Issue X10 Failures due to stiction of control valves

End of Life of Local Instrumentation X11 Failures due to Instruments reaching their end of life

Corrosion / environmental factors X17 Number of Instrument failures due to corrosion or environmental
factors.
No of test equipment X5 Number of test equipment i.e pressure source or HART
communicator etc required for instrument maintenance
Availability of right tools/ accessories X3 Availability of Right Tools & Accessories required for proper PM
& CM of Instruments

Scale : 0 = None, 1= Low, 3= Moderate, 9= Strong

Note: Add output from Team Charter to Y. Circle those X’s that
are prioritised.
 Measurement Plan
Process Indicators for Operational Who Will When Will Data Be How Will Data Be Sample Size
Measurement Definition Collect Data Collected Collected

Availability of Right Inspection & Checking

Abdul Rehman
Availability of right Tools & Accessories of Toolkits available with
X3 (Instrument January 2018 Aes and Descon
15
tools/ accessories required for proper PM
AE) Technician
& CM of Instruments

Procedures / Availability of MAK SAP PM Plan &

maintenance regime X4 procedures and a PM (Instrument January 2018 Instrument Departmental
followed regime. Engineer) Procedures

Number of test
equipment i.e pressure
Faisal Nazar
source or HART I&E Workshop Inventory
No of test equipment X5 (Instrument January 2018
communicator etc List
AE)
required for instrument
maintenance

Analyzer/ Detector Sensor/ probe damage MAK IRRs from SMIS, All failures recorded
failures due to weak X8 leading to instrument (Instrument January 2018 Instrument & Operations from Jan 2017 to Dec
sensors/ probe failure Engineer) Log Book 2017

MAK All failures recorded

IRRs from SMIS,
Control Valve failure due Failures due to passing from Jan 2017 to Dec
X9 (Instrument January 2018 Instrument & Operations
to passing issue of control valves Log Book
2017
Engineer)
 Measurement Plan
Process Indicators for Operational Who Will When Will Data Be How Will Data Be Sample Size
Measurement Definition Collect Data Collected Collected

MAK IRRs from SMIS, All failures

Control Valve failure due Failures due to stucking
X10 (Instrument January 2018 Instrument & recorded from Jan
to stiction issue of control valves
Engineer) Operations Log Book 2017 to Dec 2017

Failures due to End of Failures due to MAK IRRs from SMIS, All failures
Life of Local X11 Instruments reaching (Instrument January 2018 Instrument & recorded from Jan
Instrumentation their end of life Engineer) Operations Log Book 2017 to Dec 2017

Number of Instrument
MAK IRRs from SMIS, All failures
Corrosion / failures due to corrosion
X17 (Instrument January 2018 Instrument & recorded from Jan
environmental factors. or environmental
Engineer) Operations Log Book 2017 to Dec 2017
factors.
 Measurement System Analysis

Type of MSA ( GRR or Attribute  Attribute Agreement Analysis

Agreement Analysis)

To gauge the repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy of the data

collected for the number of Instrument failures from January 2017 to
Purpose of MSA
December 2017

Location of Study  Engro Polymer And Chemicals Ltd. (EDC-VCM & PVC)

Type of Data ( Discrete or Continuous)  Discrete

 Measurement System Analysis

Attribute Agreement Analysis ( Discrete Data)

Date of Test 21-Jan-2018
No of Appraisers 3
No of Samples 10
No of Repeats 2
Type of Standard (Data Courtesy Operations) Instrument Failures (Pass, Fail)
Results
Kappa Value ( Acceptable Only If
Categories
>0.7)
All Appraisers versus Standard 0.8931
Between Appraisers 0.8167
Within Appraisers 0.8565 0.7222
Each Appraiser vs. Standard 0.9267 0.8594

Attribute Agreement Analysis - Pass or Fail  PASS

 Measurement System Analysis

Percent/CI: Within Appraiser Agreement

120.00

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
AAq MAK MARS

Percent/CI: Each Appraiser vs. Standard Agreement

120.00

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
AAq MAK MARS
 Measurement System Analysis

Fleiss' Fleiss'
Within Appraiser Agreement: # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% LC 95% UC Kappa P-Value
AAq 10 9 90.00 55.50 99.75 0.7802 0.0068
MAK 10 9 90.00 55.50 99.75 0.7980 0.0058

MARS 10 9 90.00 55.50 99.75 0.7802 0.0068

Fleiss' Fleiss'
Each Appraiser vs Standard Agreement: # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% LC 95% UC Kappa P-Value
AAq 10 9 90.00 55.50 99.75 0.8901 0.0000
MAK 10 9 90.00 55.50 99.75 0.8990 0.0000
MARS 10 9 90.00 55.50 99.75 0.8901 0.0000

Fleiss' Fleiss'
Between Appraiser Agreement: # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% LC 95% UC Kappa P-Value
10 8 80.00 44.39 97.48 0.8167 0.0000

Fleiss' Fleiss'
All Appraisers vs Standard Agreement: # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% LC 95% UC Kappa P-Value
10 8 80.00 44.39 97.48 0.8931 0.0000

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet
 Process Capability Study (DPMO)

Number of Complaints regarding Instrument Failure

Sample

Defects Number of cases where Instrument was found faulty

Opportunity for Defect Instrument Failure or Actual Process Upset

Process Sigma Level Calculator - Discrete Data

 
Sample Data (user inputs):
Number of units n 430
Total number of defects observed d 291
Number of defect opportunities per unit o 2
 
Sigma Shift (typically +1.5 for long term data)
  1.5
 
Results:
Defects per Unit dpu 0.676744186
Defects per Million Opportunities dpmo 338,372.1
Defects per Opportunity dpo% 33.84%
      Yield yield% 66.16%
Process Sigma Level sigma 1.917