All Member Open Forum

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​Hello Oscar,

My first question is whether or not the PM WO in question has addressed the failure mode of the pump ? If it has, then I would consider it as a reactive/corrective activity, a schedule breaker since it was not planned previously. If executing the PM WO has no bearing on restoring the pump to near new or new condition, then I would consider it proactive (preventive) in nature. You would have done it eventually, anyway.
​​

------------------------------
Ed Espinosa, CMRP, CRL
Asset Management & Reliability
Puget Sound Energy
Bellingham WA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hello Ed

The nature of the work, we could consider it proactive (although we know that a common bad practice would be doing corrective repairs which scope is similar to a PM WO). Here the deal is that it was an activity that was not schedule, that is why when we are talking about metrics, it is a schedule breaker and flagged as reactive. 

I agree, that having these opportunities to perform PM work when the asset / equipment is offline will normally take place and a decision will be made, most likely in favor of the business, but it is something that you did not previously planned or scheduled.

Thanks!

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 03:53 PM
From: Edward Espinosa
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​Hello Oscar,

My first question is whether or not the PM WO in question has addressed the failure mode of the pump ? If it has, then I would consider it as a reactive/corrective activity, a schedule breaker since it was not planned previously. If executing the PM WO has no bearing on restoring the pump to near new or new condition, then I would consider it proactive (preventive) in nature. You would have done it eventually, anyway.
​​

------------------------------
Ed Espinosa, CMRP, CRL
Asset Management & Reliability
Puget Sound Energy
Bellingham WA

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​Oscar,

The case that you present and others have responded to describes what I and others see as a "best practice".  Taking advantage of an opportunity to perform Preventive Maintenance.  

Your question seems to involve trying to capture three things, at least, that you may be trying to describe with one label. 
The type of work activity that is taking place (Corrective, Preventive) 
The schedule impact of the event (Priority) and
The nature of an "asset event" (Failure, Condition Assessment, Restoration) 

In work I have done with a number of companies, when analyzing work history data to assess reliability or failure rates, we often have to infer the true asset event type from the other two.

The scheduled execution of a PM is generally assumed to be a Planned assessment or restoration event.  It either confirms or alters the condition of the asset.  It is executed within the definition of your planning and scheduling policies and practices.  It is not necessarily Proactive (depending on your definition) and it is not Reactive. 

In the case you describe, the "asset event" is an asset failure.  A Breakdown of some kind.  Historically failure events are seen by the creation of a Corrective work order.  A corrective work order may be executed in a Planned fashion, generally reflected by the stated Priority of the work order (e.g. Must do Now, Must do in 24 hours, Do as Planned Work, Do when resources available, etc.).  Depending on that priority the work is Planned or Reactive.  The "failure event" implies that there was restoration work done and so the asset condition is, after replace or repair, better than before the event.

The execution of Preventive work, or taking credit for Preventive work, done during an unplanned opportunity window, whether the work is on the asset that actually failed or on another asset that is in the same "Planning Group" (i.e. Lock Out/Tag Out) is generally a "best practice" that potentially reduces the need for additional Planned Outage time.  There needs to be a clearly defined practice within your organization for how the work done is documented.  There are many ways that can work to produce "good data" for this case.  Effective analysis of the data requires that a consistent means of recording be used.

------------------------------
Roger Shaw
Sr. Consultant
GE Digital
Salem CTGE Digital
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hi Roger,

Indeed a lot of different situations can be happening when my scenario happens, you indeed talked about having proper Work Identification which could help us define a few different options to answer it properly.

Here the main question we have is that, not asking ourselves why the asset is down, digging into a maintenance plan to get a PM work that was not planned and scheduled just yet, if we are talking about metrics, will fall into reactive maintenance.

As you point out, the practice needs to be clearly defined in the organization, so all key roles involved know how to deal with all these situations.

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Accenture
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2019 07:54 AM
From: Roger Shaw
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​Oscar,

The case that you present and others have responded to describes what I and others see as a "best practice".  Taking advantage of an opportunity to perform Preventive Maintenance.

Your question seems to involve trying to capture three things, at least, that you may be trying to describe with one label.
The type of work activity that is taking place (Corrective, Preventive)
The schedule impact of the event (Priority) and
The nature of an "asset event" (Failure, Condition Assessment, Restoration)

In work I have done with a number of companies, when analyzing work history data to assess reliability or failure rates, we often have to infer the true asset event type from the other two.

The scheduled execution of a PM is generally assumed to be a Planned assessment or restoration event.  It either confirms or alters the condition of the asset.  It is executed within the definition of your planning and scheduling policies and practices.  It is not necessarily Proactive (depending on your definition) and it is not Reactive.

In the case you describe, the "asset event" is an asset failure.  A Breakdown of some kind.  Historically failure events are seen by the creation of a Corrective work order.  A corrective work order may be executed in a Planned fashion, generally reflected by the stated Priority of the work order (e.g. Must do Now, Must do in 24 hours, Do as Planned Work, Do when resources available, etc.).  Depending on that priority the work is Planned or Reactive.  The "failure event" implies that there was restoration work done and so the asset condition is, after replace or repair, better than before the event.

The execution of Preventive work, or taking credit for Preventive work, done during an unplanned opportunity window, whether the work is on the asset that actually failed or on another asset that is in the same "Planning Group" (i.e. Lock Out/Tag Out) is generally a "best practice" that potentially reduces the need for additional Planned Outage time.  There needs to be a clearly defined practice within your organization for how the work done is documented.  There are many ways that can work to produce "good data" for this case.  Effective analysis of the data requires that a consistent means of recording be used.

------------------------------
Roger Shaw
Sr. Consultant
GE Digital
Salem CTGE Digital

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​Hello Oscar,

The term "Preventive Maintenance Work getting executed Reactively" needs to be looked at in the following way...

In my experience it's not uncommon for a Preventive Maintenance Work to be executed in advance of the Schedule Date (System Triggered) taking advantage of the window of Opportunity...The Opportunity could be a stoppage of the Asset for any reason like Asset stopped for any other Major Job (e.g. Modifications), Plant Shutdown (Unplanned), Plant/Asset not being run due to Business Reasons etc....

In such cases, the PM Work Order (from the PM Plan that's is auto-scheduled) would be "Manually Called" by the Planner to take up the Work on the Asset on the given Opportunity. However we need to validate the Window of Opportunity vis a vis the effectveness of the PM Task (how early the Work is being executed w.r.t. Scheduled Order Date)...

The PM Work executed in the above scenario would, in my view, would still be a
a) "Planned" Work (The Planning of the Work including Resources would, in normal practice, have been done in the PM Task List)
b) Proactive Work (as per Definition of Proactive Work)  
c) The Specific Reason to execute the PM Work breaking the Current Weekly Schedule would depend on the factors like nature of Opportunity, Time Window of the Opportunity, Resources availability...In normal course, the PM Work could have been in the Weekly Schedule of say, next Week.
Assuming that the Window of the Opportunity ((Asset Shutdown (Offline)) casued the PM Work to be executed in the Current Week, in my view, the PM Work wouldn't be Reactive...
Hope this helps...Thanks

------------------------------
Sundar Naranammalpuram P.
Maharashtra
India
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hi Sundar!

You greatly explained the scenario we had in mind. Therefore my following question:

I agree that the nature of the maintenance performed is still proactive, but in terms of metrics for work execution, wouldn't it be reactive maintenance?

Greetings

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2019 11:08 AM
From: Sundar Naranammalpuram
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​Hello Oscar,

The term "Preventive Maintenance Work getting executed Reactively" needs to be looked at in the following way...

In my experience it's not uncommon for a Preventive Maintenance Work to be executed in advance of the Schedule Date (System Triggered) taking advantage of the window of Opportunity...The Opportunity could be a stoppage of the Asset for any reason like Asset stopped for any other Major Job (e.g. Modifications), Plant Shutdown (Unplanned), Plant/Asset not being run due to Business Reasons etc....

In such cases, the PM Work Order (from the PM Plan that's is auto-scheduled) would be "Manually Called" by the Planner to take up the Work on the Asset on the given Opportunity. However we need to validate the Window of Opportunity vis a vis the effectveness of the PM Task (how early the Work is being executed w.r.t. Scheduled Order Date)...

The PM Work executed in the above scenario would, in my view, would still be a
a) "Planned" Work (The Planning of the Work including Resources would, in normal practice, have been done in the PM Task List)
b) Proactive Work (as per Definition of Proactive Work)
c) The Specific Reason to execute the PM Work breaking the Current Weekly Schedule would depend on the factors like nature of Opportunity, Time Window of the Opportunity, Resources availability...In normal course, the PM Work could have been in the Weekly Schedule of say, next Week.
Assuming that the Window of the Opportunity ((Asset Shutdown (Offline)) casued the PM Work to be executed in the Current Week, in my view, the PM Work wouldn't be Reactive...
Hope this helps...Thanks

------------------------------
Sundar Naranammalpuram P.
Maharashtra
India

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​Hi Oscar,

I tend to agree that in terms of work execution, if the PM work required a break in the current weekly schedule it would be Reactive in nature.

Extending this thought further I've a query:

Many Continuos Process Units would have an Opportunity Maintenance List (List of PM Work + Corrective Work) that could be taken up and executed in the event of a Planned Plant/Unit Shutdown Opportunity (ex. Product Grade Changeover requiring downtime of the Plant/Unit). Under this window of opportunity, some Preventive Maintenance Work and Planned Corrective Maintenance Work used to get executed. How are such PM Work measured at your facility or in general?

Thanks

------------------------------
Sundar Naranammalpuram P.
Navi Mumbai
Maharashtra
India
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2019 12:32 PM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hi Sundar!

You greatly explained the scenario we had in mind. Therefore my following question:

I agree that the nature of the maintenance performed is still proactive, but in terms of metrics for work execution, wouldn't it be reactive maintenance?

Greetings

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2019 11:08 AM
From: Sundar Naranammalpuram
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​Hello Oscar,

The term "Preventive Maintenance Work getting executed Reactively" needs to be looked at in the following way...

In my experience it's not uncommon for a Preventive Maintenance Work to be executed in advance of the Schedule Date (System Triggered) taking advantage of the window of Opportunity...The Opportunity could be a stoppage of the Asset for any reason like Asset stopped for any other Major Job (e.g. Modifications), Plant Shutdown (Unplanned), Plant/Asset not being run due to Business Reasons etc....

In such cases, the PM Work Order (from the PM Plan that's is auto-scheduled) would be "Manually Called" by the Planner to take up the Work on the Asset on the given Opportunity. However we need to validate the Window of Opportunity vis a vis the effectveness of the PM Task (how early the Work is being executed w.r.t. Scheduled Order Date)...

The PM Work executed in the above scenario would, in my view, would still be a
a) "Planned" Work (The Planning of the Work including Resources would, in normal practice, have been done in the PM Task List)
b) Proactive Work (as per Definition of Proactive Work)
c) The Specific Reason to execute the PM Work breaking the Current Weekly Schedule would depend on the factors like nature of Opportunity, Time Window of the Opportunity, Resources availability...In normal course, the PM Work could have been in the Weekly Schedule of say, next Week.
Assuming that the Window of the Opportunity ((Asset Shutdown (Offline)) casued the PM Work to be executed in the Current Week, in my view, the PM Work wouldn't be Reactive...
Hope this helps...Thanks

------------------------------
Sundar Naranammalpuram P.
Maharashtra
India

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hi all! 

I am reading all the answers so I can give you all a better one myself.

Greetings

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

It really depend what your expectations are; the new work order created a schedule issue, therefore it should not be called proactive, but yet the execution is going too happen prior to the failure. If your program has well defined the concept on proactive, then this is not a proactive work, you needed to react to get it done causing and schedule issue. We need to be clear that planning and scheduling is the key for any proactive work.

------------------------------
Naudy Suarez
Director Of Operation
Richardson Oilseed
Lethbridge AB
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2019 01:25 PM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hi all!

I am reading all the answers so I can give you all a better one myself.

Greetings

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hi Naudy!

Here I agree entirely. To me those hours would fall into reactive maintenance because they where not previously "planned" (maintenance plan is ready but this WO has not been released) and scheduled. 

The nature of the work is still proactive and should affect other metrics as proactive indeed (like pm or ppm hours) but when we talk exclusively on how the organization would consider those hours into their % Reactive, % Proactive & % Other Maintenance from their Total Maintenance Hours, in my opinion...they should go to reactive.

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Accenture
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-20-2019 11:24 AM
From: Naudy Suarez
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

It really depend what your expectations are; the new work order created a schedule issue, therefore it should not be called proactive, but yet the execution is going too happen prior to the failure. If your program has well defined the concept on proactive, then this is not a proactive work, you needed to react to get it done causing and schedule issue. We need to be clear that planning and scheduling is the key for any proactive work.

------------------------------
Naudy Suarez
Director Of Operation
Richardson Oilseed
Lethbridge AB

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2019 01:25 PM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hi all!

I am reading all the answers so I can give you all a better one myself.

Greetings

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​Hi all.    My thoughts...  While I do not disagree with the concept "opportunity window" we need to be very cautious not to unnecessarily extend the duration of an unplanned event by adding work that is not critical and can be properly planned and scheduled with minimal or no impact in production.

In your example,  looks like maintenance decides to brake the schedule for a "good reason", but it is a schedule brake, impacting your program and creating all sort of inefficiencies (changing the program, communicating changes, reassigning mechanics, looking for parts...) which is what we try to avoid by having a pre-planned schedule.

In my view when we try to measure how reactive we are, this do not depends on the type of work (corrective or preventive) but in the execution mode (reactive or scheduled)

...  so I would say,  yes proactive work coming from a maintenance plan can be tagged as reactive if not part of the weekly schedule.

Regards
Rafael





------------------------------
Rafael Mier Lara Planta Maintenance business process owner
IT SAP PM BPO
Dupont
Oviedo, Spain
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hi Rafael

I agree that scope creeping is one of the main bad practices you can see all around the world and therefore the necessary guidelines and rules need to be in place in all organizations (on this topic, specially on how we identify work).

To finish my reply, I agree entirely with you. Proactive Work turned into reactive (from the execution point of view, the nature does not change in my opinion) hours if we are making the metrics around our Total Maintenance Hours.

Greetings

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Accenture
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-21-2019 04:39 AM
From: Rafael Mier Lara
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​Hi all.    My thoughts...  While I do not disagree with the concept "opportunity window" we need to be very cautious not to unnecessarily extend the duration of an unplanned event by adding work that is not critical and can be properly planned and scheduled with minimal or no impact in production.

In your example,  looks like maintenance decides to brake the schedule for a "good reason", but it is a schedule brake, impacting your program and creating all sort of inefficiencies (changing the program, communicating changes, reassigning mechanics, looking for parts...) which is what we try to avoid by having a pre-planned schedule.

In my view when we try to measure how reactive we are, this do not depends on the type of work (corrective or preventive) but in the execution mode (reactive or scheduled)

...  so I would say,  yes proactive work coming from a maintenance plan can be tagged as reactive if not part of the weekly schedule.

Regards
Rafael





------------------------------
Rafael Mier Lara Planta Maintenance business process owner
IT SAP PM BPO
Dupont
Oviedo, Spain

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer for this. A coulpe of questions might add clarity. 
1) Has the production crew already been sent to another line or shift canceled?
2) You mentioned the PM had not auto-generated yet. Are you able to generate the PM in your CMMS early to correct the schedule?

To me the hours spent on the reactive work would count primarily and the PM work would only be the work not required to be completed that is in addition to the reactive work.  I would not count it as double hours because, that throws off the actual man hours for tracking. It does make a lot of sense in some cases to do PMs at the same time if a lot of disassembly is required.

------------------------------
VERNON WELCH
Athens AL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

If the offline equipment would be required to operate per production's request, would it start?  If yes, then the work will be considered proactive pm confirmed hours but not planned.  If the offline equipment would not be able to start, then the work is considered reactive because the asset has failed to perform its function and the work is corrective to restore back into operation.  Every pm program should be planned & scheduled according to your facilitie's cmms system and very little manual generation of pm work orders.  I think that the problem in your case is no one knows why the equipment is offline and you are scheduling an impromptu pm to find out whats wrong.  I recommend you review SMRP body of knowledge for review of metrics. Hope this helps.​

------------------------------
Srecko Suvajac
Reliability Engineer
Downers Grove IL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​I think maintenance work can be look at in three domains:

Proactive-Reactive
Planned-Unplanned
Scheduled-Unscheduled

This PM is Proactive, since it occurred before failure
This PM is Planned, since you have written job instructions and parts to do the work
This PM is Unscheduled, since you did not have it on the weekly schedule

Even reactive work can be planned and scheduled, especially if you have standby equipment running.
I find that many people use the words Planned, Proactive, and Scheduled Maintenance in an interchangeable manner, which they are not.

Best,
Ron

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington, IN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

I think we are not talking about the same "reactive" KPI. 
If we are talking about​ SMRP work management metric 5.4.1,  then "reactive work is maintenance work that breaks into the weekly schedule"

My point is that "reactive / proactive" is not defining a type of work category, unlike preventive, predictive, corrective, but the execution mode for any type of work. 

In our organization we are defining this particular example provided by Oscar as proactive work by type,  but reactive (hours) by execution mode (metric 5.4.1)

Regards
Rafa.

------------------------------
Rafael Mier Lara Planta Maintenance business process owner
IT SAP PM BPO
Dupont
Oviedo
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-29-2019 04:04 PM
From: Ron Reimer
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​I think maintenance work can be look at in three domains:

Proactive-Reactive
Planned-Unplanned
Scheduled-Unscheduled

This PM is Proactive, since it occurred before failure
This PM is Planned, since you have written job instructions and parts to do the work
This PM is Unscheduled, since you did not have it on the weekly schedule

Even reactive work can be planned and scheduled, especially if you have standby equipment running.
I find that many people use the words Planned, Proactive, and Scheduled Maintenance in an interchangeable manner, which they are not.

Best,
Ron

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington, IN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

+1

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2019 02:55 AM
From: Rafael Mier Lara
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

I think we are not talking about the same "reactive" KPI.
If we are talking about​ SMRP work management metric 5.4.1,  then "reactive work is maintenance work that breaks into the weekly schedule"

My point is that "reactive / proactive" is not defining a type of work category, unlike preventive, predictive, corrective, but the execution mode for any type of work.

In our organization we are defining this particular example provided by Oscar as proactive work by type,  but reactive (hours) by execution mode (metric 5.4.1)

Regards
Rafa.

------------------------------
Rafael Mier Lara Planta Maintenance business process owner
IT SAP PM BPO
Dupont
Oviedo

Original Message:
Sent: 05-29-2019 04:04 PM
From: Ron Reimer
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​I think maintenance work can be look at in three domains:

Proactive-Reactive
Planned-Unplanned
Scheduled-Unscheduled

This PM is Proactive, since it occurred before failure
This PM is Planned, since you have written job instructions and parts to do the work
This PM is Unscheduled, since you did not have it on the weekly schedule

Even reactive work can be planned and scheduled, especially if you have standby equipment running.
I find that many people use the words Planned, Proactive, and Scheduled Maintenance in an interchangeable manner, which they are not.

Best,
Ron

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington, IN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hello Ruiz,

Your discussion is very interesting.

My understanding of the scenario you described is that the equipment is already offline ( failure has occurred) and the maintenance organization is exploiting an opportunity in time to fix it.

My thought here is that whatever maintenance action taken after a functional failure has occurred is REACTIVE. so the PM Work Order confirmed hours should be considered as Reactive.

Also, this presents an opportunity for the organization to review the PM program (schedule) for the equipment, so it can be executed before the functional failure of the equipment.

I hope this helps.

Cheers.

------------------------------
Miebaka Noryaa
Port Harcourt
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2019 12:53 PM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

+1

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2019 02:55 AM
From: Rafael Mier Lara
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

I think we are not talking about the same "reactive" KPI.
If we are talking about​ SMRP work management metric 5.4.1,  then "reactive work is maintenance work that breaks into the weekly schedule"

My point is that "reactive / proactive" is not defining a type of work category, unlike preventive, predictive, corrective, but the execution mode for any type of work.

In our organization we are defining this particular example provided by Oscar as proactive work by type,  but reactive (hours) by execution mode (metric 5.4.1)

Regards
Rafa.

------------------------------
Rafael Mier Lara Planta Maintenance business process owner
IT SAP PM BPO
Dupont
Oviedo

Original Message:
Sent: 05-29-2019 04:04 PM
From: Ron Reimer
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​I think maintenance work can be look at in three domains:

Proactive-Reactive
Planned-Unplanned
Scheduled-Unscheduled

This PM is Proactive, since it occurred before failure
This PM is Planned, since you have written job instructions and parts to do the work
This PM is Unscheduled, since you did not have it on the weekly schedule

Even reactive work can be planned and scheduled, especially if you have standby equipment running.
I find that many people use the words Planned, Proactive, and Scheduled Maintenance in an interchangeable manner, which they are not.

Best,
Ron

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington, IN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​If the PM work was scheduled as part of weekly or outage plan then I would consider it proactive.  You have manually decided to do a "PM" for various reasons but you are still doing work before a failure which is preventative in nature and thus proactive.  We have done this as well and due to production schedules it will sometimes be necessary.  Every PM does not always fit into a nice box with a bow inside the 24/7 plant.

The reactive nature of the decision to do a manual PM outside of the the PM frequency is where I think the confusion sets in.  It sounds like that either people in the organization do not believe in or trust the PM frequency or they don't feel like they can have discipline to keep to the frequency so doing a PM at a different frequency is better than not doing one at all.

Normally I would consider any work done outside a set schedule as breakin work and thus reactive.  Any other planned and scheduled work may be either proactive or reactive.  My favorite (being sarcastic) reactive planned and scheduled work is the reactive PM.  This is a PM where a failure happened and we automatically schedule a PM for a failure mode and frequency that is not understood.  A proactive PM is one where the targeted failure mode is understood in scope and frequency to where a specific PM WO can inspect, set, change something to eliminate the potential for that specific type failure.  That is the heart of RCM.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hi Randy

Here the scenario we had in mind was that this PM work was not contemplated to be done when the event happen (wasn't released) and it was not in the schedule.

Using the window of opportunity indeed would be something that normally the organizations would go for but an agreed decision with alignment from all sides (production and maintenance normally) is necessary to be following a good WMP.

I would agree that in general terms, these hours will go to reactive, but the nature of the work done is still proactive. But being strict and i liked the way you said, the heart of RCM, this time those hours will go to % Reactive of the total Maintenance Hours and will leave RE's and the organization with follow up work in their Reliability Analysis.

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2019 08:31 AM
From: Randy Riddell
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​If the PM work was scheduled as part of weekly or outage plan then I would consider it proactive.  You have manually decided to do a "PM" for various reasons but you are still doing work before a failure which is preventative in nature and thus proactive.  We have done this as well and due to production schedules it will sometimes be necessary.  Every PM does not always fit into a nice box with a bow inside the 24/7 plant.

The reactive nature of the decision to do a manual PM outside of the the PM frequency is where I think the confusion sets in.  It sounds like that either people in the organization do not believe in or trust the PM frequency or they don't feel like they can have discipline to keep to the frequency so doing a PM at a different frequency is better than not doing one at all.

Normally I would consider any work done outside a set schedule as breakin work and thus reactive.  Any other planned and scheduled work may be either proactive or reactive.  My favorite (being sarcastic) reactive planned and scheduled work is the reactive PM.  This is a PM where a failure happened and we automatically schedule a PM for a failure mode and frequency that is not understood.  A proactive PM is one where the targeted failure mode is understood in scope and frequency to where a specific PM WO can inspect, set, change something to eliminate the potential for that specific type failure.  That is the heart of RCM.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

All work performed on an unplanned basis should be considered reactive, especially since the equipment's failure resulted in the decision to perform the PM. Speaking from direct experience, taking the opportunity to perform the PM during a failure will most likely result in an incomplete PM considering the tasks. This way of operating will lead to a cascade of events that will be impossible to recover from unless an executive decision is made to perform PM tasks on their regular scheduled increments.

------------------------------
Stacey Mullinax
Maintenance Manager
Texas Injection Molding
Pasadena TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

A PM not being completed but, counted as completed is a big subject in itself but, I think while this is a great conversation to get the thought processes going there is no one size fits all answer on a subject like this do to the variables. Is the PM in anyway tied to the failure? What does the PM entail? Is the equipment down waiting for a part so, there is ample time to complete the PM? Will the repair be done before the PM can be completed (and if so, does the equipment need to run immediately)? And of course what is the failure and could it be prevented in the future through a reliability improvement, condition monitoring or a PM?


------------------------------
VERNON WELCH
Athens AL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2019 09:33 AM
From: Stacey Mullinax
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

All work performed on an unplanned basis should be considered reactive, especially since the equipment's failure resulted in the decision to perform the PM. Speaking from direct experience, taking the opportunity to perform the PM during a failure will most likely result in an incomplete PM considering the tasks. This way of operating will lead to a cascade of events that will be impossible to recover from unless an executive decision is made to perform PM tasks on their regular scheduled increments.

------------------------------
Stacey Mullinax
Maintenance Manager
Texas Injection Molding
Pasadena TX

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Wow!  Some thought-provoking content in this thread, and some great answers.

One more thought to add:

Why do we do preventive (before failure) work?  Because it is cheaper than corrective (after failure) work.  So what happens when our remedy for failure is the same scope and cost (and downtime impact) as for avoiding failure?  

Answer:  This could be a candidate for "run to fail" or RTF.  Technically, RTF is condition-based maintenance - the condition is "failed". 
The requirement for a "proper" RTF strategy is that

• the remedy is pre-planned 
• the threshold for failure is defined
• mobilisation for repair is optimised (think Formula 1 pitstop)

Note: what a lot of people call RTF is actually "fit and forget" - where there is no pre-planned repeatable job, defined failure threshold, or attempt to minimise MTTR.  

Any PM where the cumulative cost for doing the PM exceeds that likely from failure, is a candidate for RTF, and the effort should go into minimising MTTR, and finding true life-extension tasks - especially non-invasive "on the run" activities.

Cheers,
Mike

------------------------------
Michael Spence
Senior Reliability Engineer
Refining NZ
Marsden
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

My first answer to your the situation you described is that the unscheduled PM work is reactive but it may be better described as "break-in" work. You broke in to the schedule. And sometimes organizations get too caught up in the numbers (e.g. Schedule Compliance) and avoid making a good business decision. 

In your situation it may have been the right business decision and I simply would not be concerned with how you categorize the event.
However, I ran in to this with a client just this week. They added PM work to a shutdown during the shutdown. That is much different than a situational opportunity and it is questionable if that was a good business decision. 

Final thought, if this is an annual PM, you did the PM early (9 months vs. 12 months) and you have to make sure you either reset the initial date for generating the next PM or make sure the scheduling feature in the CMMS is keying off of last completed date. Otherwise the next PM has the asset running for 15 months before the next PM. If there is any confidence that it will run for the 15 months, you should consider modifying the frequency of that PM.

------------------------------
Terry Taylor
Senior Consultant
IDCON INC
Raleigh NC
t.taylor@idcon.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

If the asset has "failed" it is reactive work.  You wouldn't be doing this PM task, at this time, if the asset hasn't failed.

You can have proactive Corrective Maintenance work if you you perform the work before the asset fails.  e.g. your vibration monitoring detects a potential failure, and you take the asset off line and repair before it fails.

------------------------------
Jeffrey Sanford
Senior Maintenance and Reliability Consultant
JACOBS
Spartanburg SC
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2019 07:44 AM
From: Terry Taylor
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

My first answer to your the situation you described is that the unscheduled PM work is reactive but it may be better described as "break-in" work. You broke in to the schedule. And sometimes organizations get too caught up in the numbers (e.g. Schedule Compliance) and avoid making a good business decision.

In your situation it may have been the right business decision and I simply would not be concerned with how you categorize the event.
However, I ran in to this with a client just this week. They added PM work to a shutdown during the shutdown. That is much different than a situational opportunity and it is questionable if that was a good business decision.

Final thought, if this is an annual PM, you did the PM early (9 months vs. 12 months) and you have to make sure you either reset the initial date for generating the next PM or make sure the scheduling feature in the CMMS is keying off of last completed date. Otherwise the next PM has the asset running for 15 months before the next PM. If there is any confidence that it will run for the 15 months, you should consider modifying the frequency of that PM.

------------------------------
Terry Taylor
Senior Consultant
IDCON INC
Raleigh NC
t.taylor@idcon.com

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

What if you have scheduled downtime (OEE / TEEP Concept) and you perform the PM Work?

Independently from the nature of the work and the situation you are in (when talking about how or why is the asset stopped) if you execute work that has not been planned / scheduled, it's hours will be counted into the % of reactive hours of your total maintenance hours.

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2019 11:24 AM
From: Jeffrey Sanford
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

If the asset has "failed" it is reactive work.  You wouldn't be doing this PM task, at this time, if the asset hasn't failed.

You can have proactive Corrective Maintenance work if you you perform the work before the asset fails.  e.g. your vibration monitoring detects a potential failure, and you take the asset off line and repair before it fails.

------------------------------
Jeffrey Sanford
Senior Maintenance and Reliability Consultant
JACOBS
Spartanburg SC

Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2019 07:44 AM
From: Terry Taylor
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

My first answer to your the situation you described is that the unscheduled PM work is reactive but it may be better described as "break-in" work. You broke in to the schedule. And sometimes organizations get too caught up in the numbers (e.g. Schedule Compliance) and avoid making a good business decision.

In your situation it may have been the right business decision and I simply would not be concerned with how you categorize the event.
However, I ran in to this with a client just this week. They added PM work to a shutdown during the shutdown. That is much different than a situational opportunity and it is questionable if that was a good business decision.

Final thought, if this is an annual PM, you did the PM early (9 months vs. 12 months) and you have to make sure you either reset the initial date for generating the next PM or make sure the scheduling feature in the CMMS is keying off of last completed date. Otherwise the next PM has the asset running for 15 months before the next PM. If there is any confidence that it will run for the 15 months, you should consider modifying the frequency of that PM.

------------------------------
Terry Taylor
Senior Consultant
IDCON INC
Raleigh NC
t.taylor@idcon.com

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

It is absolutely "reactive" work.

------------------------------
Terry Taylor
Senior Consultant
IDCON INC
Raleigh NC
t.taylor@idcon.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2019 12:15 PM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

What if you have scheduled downtime (OEE / TEEP Concept) and you perform the PM Work?

Independently from the nature of the work and the situation you are in (when talking about how or why is the asset stopped) if you execute work that has not been planned / scheduled, it's hours will be counted into the % of reactive hours of your total maintenance hours.

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Accenture
Houston TX

Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2019 11:24 AM
From: Jeffrey Sanford
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

If the asset has "failed" it is reactive work.  You wouldn't be doing this PM task, at this time, if the asset hasn't failed.

You can have proactive Corrective Maintenance work if you you perform the work before the asset fails.  e.g. your vibration monitoring detects a potential failure, and you take the asset off line and repair before it fails.

------------------------------
Jeffrey Sanford
Senior Maintenance and Reliability Consultant
JACOBS
Spartanburg SC

Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2019 07:44 AM
From: Terry Taylor
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

My first answer to your the situation you described is that the unscheduled PM work is reactive but it may be better described as "break-in" work. You broke in to the schedule. And sometimes organizations get too caught up in the numbers (e.g. Schedule Compliance) and avoid making a good business decision.

In your situation it may have been the right business decision and I simply would not be concerned with how you categorize the event.
However, I ran in to this with a client just this week. They added PM work to a shutdown during the shutdown. That is much different than a situational opportunity and it is questionable if that was a good business decision.

Final thought, if this is an annual PM, you did the PM early (9 months vs. 12 months) and you have to make sure you either reset the initial date for generating the next PM or make sure the scheduling feature in the CMMS is keying off of last completed date. Otherwise the next PM has the asset running for 15 months before the next PM. If there is any confidence that it will run for the 15 months, you should consider modifying the frequency of that PM.

------------------------------
Terry Taylor
Senior Consultant
IDCON INC
Raleigh NC
t.taylor@idcon.com

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

At my current place of employment, I have argued that we should create a category for "Opportunistic Maintenance" precisely for the situation you described. 
No downtime as a result, but the task was not scheduled nor was it truly reactive work. The positive side it that it eliminates additional downtime, whether planned or unplanned, which if we exclude certain metrics would be beneficial to overall OEE.

------------------------------
Greg Mecomber
Smile Direct Club
Maintenance & Reliability Engineer
Nashville, TN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

I have seen a similar list as you describe used and we called it a "when down do list".  It was not an outage list but a high risk job that if we had opportunity to do before the scheduled outage, it had good return to do early.  It was  a list of planned, unscheduled jobs that needed the machine down to execute and we either scheduled for an outage or if machine went down for another reason and we could take advantage of the opportunity then we pulled the trigger.  This work is basically planned but unscheduled work.  You could call it reactive since it is unplanned and may negatively affect some metrics but at the end of the day in a 24/7 operation sometimes doing this work is certainly the right thing to do.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 12:03 PM
From: Gregory Mecomber
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

At my current place of employment, I have argued that we should create a category for "Opportunistic Maintenance" precisely for the situation you described.
No downtime as a result, but the task was not scheduled nor was it truly reactive work. The positive side it that it eliminates additional downtime, whether planned or unplanned, which if we exclude certain metrics would be beneficial to overall OEE.

------------------------------
Greg Mecomber
Smile Direct Club
Maintenance & Reliability Engineer
Nashville, TN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

​People seem to be using the words "reactive" and "unscheduled" interchangeably.  I disagree.  To me, reactive means the work is being taken after the equipment has functionally failed (we are reacting to the failure).  Proactive means we are doing something to the asset prior to failure.  So if failure has not yet occurred, then the work is proactive.  We know that proactive maintenance is cheaper than reactive repairs.

Scheduled vs unscheduled means that the work was put on a schedule (typically a week in advance).  This allows coordination and resource leveling, allowing for less downtime and lessening MTTR.

Planned vs Unplanned refers to the upfront work of identify maintenance steps, parameters, special tools, torque vales, parts, etc.  This puts the needed information, tools, and parts at the technician's fingertips, ensuring a shorter MTTR, and also reducing variability between techs.

So opportunity-based maintenance is proactive (the equipment hasn't failed), planned (hopefully!), and unscheduled.

I recommend reserving the words reactive/proactive to the condition of the asset, and leave scheduled/unscheduled for the condition of the schedule.  This would help minimize confusion between different attributes.

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington IN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 02:55 PM
From: Randy Riddell
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

I have seen a similar list as you describe used and we called it a "when down do list".  It was not an outage list but a high risk job that if we had opportunity to do before the scheduled outage, it had good return to do early.  It was  a list of planned, unscheduled jobs that needed the machine down to execute and we either scheduled for an outage or if machine went down for another reason and we could take advantage of the opportunity then we pulled the trigger.  This work is basically planned but unscheduled work.  You could call it reactive since it is unplanned and may negatively affect some metrics but at the end of the day in a 24/7 operation sometimes doing this work is certainly the right thing to do.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 12:03 PM
From: Gregory Mecomber
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

At my current place of employment, I have argued that we should create a category for "Opportunistic Maintenance" precisely for the situation you described.
No downtime as a result, but the task was not scheduled nor was it truly reactive work. The positive side it that it eliminates additional downtime, whether planned or unplanned, which if we exclude certain metrics would be beneficial to overall OEE.

------------------------------
Greg Mecomber
Smile Direct Club
Maintenance & Reliability Engineer
Nashville, TN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

First agree on the basic definitions of scheduled/unscheduled and planned/unplanned. 

However, I respectfully have a slightly different view on use of reactive or proactive for that matter.  Reactive or proactive are just descriptors that could be used to describe any type of action or activity.  ​We could still be reactive to how we execute planned work.  The "when down do list" I mentioned earlier is somewhat reactive because I am not in control of when we do it or if we do it.  We have a known issue but we decide to take a risk.  Purely proactive would be we decide to shut down and go fix an asset that we know is in failure mode.  When the risk is high enough that is exactly what we decide to do.   

I have seen many reactive PMs although PMs are meant to be proactive maintenance measures to prevent failures.  Reactive and proactive were not derived in maintenance but only recently added to further describe maintenance activities and strategies.

I don't think reactive and proactive describe the condition of the asset.  The condition of the asset may be a number of things such as good/bad or reliable or unreliable condition based on any number of measured states (vibration, temperature, function, etc.) of the asset that we may have set for the assetIt may describe the type of action we take on the asset.

We could debate what is proactive or reactive actions.  Vibration analysis is both proactive and reactive.  It is proactive when you identify misalignment or looseness or imbalance.  These can be corrected before equipment failure occurs.  It is also reactive in a sense that when a BPFO or BPFI defect has been picked up, well the bearing is already in failure mode.  the asset may still be running but failure is certain.  Prevention of bearings failure is no longer an option.  Proactive actions for BPFO may be proper installation or lubrication which occur earlier in asset life.

These are gray areas and up for much debate.  Run to failure maintenance strategy is a legitimate strategy for some assets.  Is that reactive or proactive?  Another one is if we change a bearing that has a defect before it functionally fails, is that a failure or not?  Is it proactive or reactive?

So is opportunity based maintenance proactive?  It is in some ways (before functional failure), but the asset/component still fails and if it didn't reach full life then one could make the case we are still reactive as the asset forced us to intervene in a non normal way where it controlled our actions, not our proactive actions controlling the life or reliability of the asset.

Great discussion.  I have seen companies define some of the fine points different ways so as long as each location is consistent then as reliability managers, we should be able to manage our maintenance activities.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2019 08:29 AM
From: Ron Reimer
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​People seem to be using the words "reactive" and "unscheduled" interchangeably.  I disagree.  To me, reactive means the work is being taken after the equipment has functionally failed (we are reacting to the failure).  Proactive means we are doing something to the asset prior to failure.  So if failure has not yet occurred, then the work is proactive.  We know that proactive maintenance is cheaper than reactive repairs.

Scheduled vs unscheduled means that the work was put on a schedule (typically a week in advance).  This allows coordination and resource leveling, allowing for less downtime and lessening MTTR.

Planned vs Unplanned refers to the upfront work of identify maintenance steps, parameters, special tools, torque vales, parts, etc.  This puts the needed information, tools, and parts at the technician's fingertips, ensuring a shorter MTTR, and also reducing variability between techs.

So opportunity-based maintenance is proactive (the equipment hasn't failed), planned (hopefully!), and unscheduled.

I recommend reserving the words reactive/proactive to the condition of the asset, and leave scheduled/unscheduled for the condition of the schedule.  This would help minimize confusion between different attributes.

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington IN

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 02:55 PM
From: Randy Riddell
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

I have seen a similar list as you describe used and we called it a "when down do list".  It was not an outage list but a high risk job that if we had opportunity to do before the scheduled outage, it had good return to do early.  It was  a list of planned, unscheduled jobs that needed the machine down to execute and we either scheduled for an outage or if machine went down for another reason and we could take advantage of the opportunity then we pulled the trigger.  This work is basically planned but unscheduled work.  You could call it reactive since it is unplanned and may negatively affect some metrics but at the end of the day in a 24/7 operation sometimes doing this work is certainly the right thing to do.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 12:03 PM
From: Gregory Mecomber
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

At my current place of employment, I have argued that we should create a category for "Opportunistic Maintenance" precisely for the situation you described.
No downtime as a result, but the task was not scheduled nor was it truly reactive work. The positive side it that it eliminates additional downtime, whether planned or unplanned, which if we exclude certain metrics would be beneficial to overall OEE.

------------------------------
Greg Mecomber
Smile Direct Club
Maintenance & Reliability Engineer
Nashville, TN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I do think when we use the term "Proactive maintenance" and "Reactive maintenance", we are referring to work on the asset before functional failure or after functional failure.  A vibration reading is proactive although it did detect the bearing fault after the fault occurred (but while the equipment is still functional).

Here are some examples:
Proactive, scheduled, planned: most PMs​
Reactive, scheduled, planned: work on a failed asset that was planned and scheduled (typically when you have redundant assets)
Proactive, unscheduled, planned: opportunity based PM (do the PM when the equipment is down for a non-failure reason)
Reactive, unplanned, unscheduled: failure based maintenance, emergency maintenance, no planning
Reactive, unscheduled, planned: failure based maintenance that had a job plan

I see people use "planned maintenance" instead of "scheduled maintenance" as I plan to do the work next week, so it is a "planned" job.  As mentioned earlier, I see "reactive" (as well as "unplanned") being used for "unscheduled", since I reactively broke into the scheduled events to do the emergency maintenance. 

Generally, most emergency maintenance is reactive and unplanned and unscheduled so it is easy to see why these terms are used interchangeably.   Similar with PMs as proactive and planned and scheduled.  But there are exceptions as I noted above.

Most companies, due to very poor job plans "check pump" and no weekly schedule "Hey Bob, can I work on the pump now?" do some combination of reactive (repair) and proactive (PM) work that is both unplanned and unscheduled.  Just because you have a "PM program" doesn't mean you have good detailed PMs and an execution schedule one week in advance.

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington IN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-03-2019 08:56 AM
From: Randy Riddell
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

First agree on the basic definitions of scheduled/unscheduled and planned/unplanned.

However, I respectfully have a slightly different view on use of reactive or proactive for that matter.  Reactive or proactive are just descriptors that could be used to describe any type of action or activity.  ​We could still be reactive to how we execute planned work.  The "when down do list" I mentioned earlier is somewhat reactive because I am not in control of when we do it or if we do it.  We have a known issue but we decide to take a risk.  Purely proactive would be we decide to shut down and go fix an asset that we know is in failure mode.  When the risk is high enough that is exactly what we decide to do.

I have seen many reactive PMs although PMs are meant to be proactive maintenance measures to prevent failures.  Reactive and proactive were not derived in maintenance but only recently added to further describe maintenance activities and strategies.

I don't think reactive and proactive describe the condition of the asset.  The condition of the asset may be a number of things such as good/bad or reliable or unreliable condition based on any number of measured states (vibration, temperature, function, etc.) of the asset that we may have set for the assetIt may describe the type of action we take on the asset.

We could debate what is proactive or reactive actions.  Vibration analysis is both proactive and reactive.  It is proactive when you identify misalignment or looseness or imbalance.  These can be corrected before equipment failure occurs.  It is also reactive in a sense that when a BPFO or BPFI defect has been picked up, well the bearing is already in failure mode.  the asset may still be running but failure is certain.  Prevention of bearings failure is no longer an option.  Proactive actions for BPFO may be proper installation or lubrication which occur earlier in asset life.

These are gray areas and up for much debate.  Run to failure maintenance strategy is a legitimate strategy for some assets.  Is that reactive or proactive?  Another one is if we change a bearing that has a defect before it functionally fails, is that a failure or not?  Is it proactive or reactive?

So is opportunity based maintenance proactive?  It is in some ways (before functional failure), but the asset/component still fails and if it didn't reach full life then one could make the case we are still reactive as the asset forced us to intervene in a non normal way where it controlled our actions, not our proactive actions controlling the life or reliability of the asset.

Great discussion.  I have seen companies define some of the fine points different ways so as long as each location is consistent then as reliability managers, we should be able to manage our maintenance activities.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL

Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2019 08:29 AM
From: Ron Reimer
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​People seem to be using the words "reactive" and "unscheduled" interchangeably.  I disagree.  To me, reactive means the work is being taken after the equipment has functionally failed (we are reacting to the failure).  Proactive means we are doing something to the asset prior to failure.  So if failure has not yet occurred, then the work is proactive.  We know that proactive maintenance is cheaper than reactive repairs.

Scheduled vs unscheduled means that the work was put on a schedule (typically a week in advance).  This allows coordination and resource leveling, allowing for less downtime and lessening MTTR.

Planned vs Unplanned refers to the upfront work of identify maintenance steps, parameters, special tools, torque vales, parts, etc.  This puts the needed information, tools, and parts at the technician's fingertips, ensuring a shorter MTTR, and also reducing variability between techs.

So opportunity-based maintenance is proactive (the equipment hasn't failed), planned (hopefully!), and unscheduled.

I recommend reserving the words reactive/proactive to the condition of the asset, and leave scheduled/unscheduled for the condition of the schedule.  This would help minimize confusion between different attributes.

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington IN

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 02:55 PM
From: Randy Riddell
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

I have seen a similar list as you describe used and we called it a "when down do list".  It was not an outage list but a high risk job that if we had opportunity to do before the scheduled outage, it had good return to do early.  It was  a list of planned, unscheduled jobs that needed the machine down to execute and we either scheduled for an outage or if machine went down for another reason and we could take advantage of the opportunity then we pulled the trigger.  This work is basically planned but unscheduled work.  You could call it reactive since it is unplanned and may negatively affect some metrics but at the end of the day in a 24/7 operation sometimes doing this work is certainly the right thing to do.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 12:03 PM
From: Gregory Mecomber
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

At my current place of employment, I have argued that we should create a category for "Opportunistic Maintenance" precisely for the situation you described.
No downtime as a result, but the task was not scheduled nor was it truly reactive work. The positive side it that it eliminates additional downtime, whether planned or unplanned, which if we exclude certain metrics would be beneficial to overall OEE.

------------------------------
Greg Mecomber
Smile Direct Club
Maintenance & Reliability Engineer
Nashville, TN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

I agree Ron on your reply.  I think there is more on the vibration piece being proactive and reactive with the true goal of reliability efforts.  The end goal of all reliability professionals is obviously to prevent unscheduled process downtime/failures (functional failures).  This impacts the first level of reliability and business financial impact. 

Once we have a handle on this, the 2nd level goal is to prevent ​short life of our assets - premature failures, infant mortality, early rebuilds, etc..  Just because we catch early failures by some technology does not mean we are 100% proactive in our maintenance & reliability execution.

Those assets that have defects (component failures but still operational) that do not run to full life and are hence costing us maintenance repair money.  Perfect reliability world is our assets run to full life and never interrupt process operation.  This is the lowest cost, most efficient operation.  In that sense, vibration analysis is not proactive or preventative just because it found the defect.  It prevented process downtime maybe but not the actual component failure (bearing).  Only truly proactive measures of bearing design, installation (precision maint) and precision lubrication execution will the bearing run to full life.  Vibration analysis is good for level one reliability management but it will not proactively address all the root causes of failure of bearing.

The only reason I make a point with this is most organizations are happy and content thinking they have arrived once they can ID the defects (early failures) and prevent level 1 impacts (unscheduled downtime).  While this is big and important, lots of opportunity remains in other areas to solve the hidden (many times chronic) component failures on our assets.  The true proactive focus here will unleash the hidden plant that exists in most facilities. 

The new thought around the DIPF curve is a big part of my comments.  Prevention of failures and being most proactive is time spent in the design/installation area of the DIPF curve to prevent failures in the first place.  Failure is already occurring after P where our condition monitoring picks it up.  See article on linkhttps://reliabilityweb.com/articles/entry/the-reliability-impact-within-the-p-f-curve.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-03-2019 10:50 AM
From: Ron Reimer
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I do think when we use the term "Proactive maintenance" and "Reactive maintenance", we are referring to work on the asset before functional failure or after functional failure.  A vibration reading is proactive although it did detect the bearing fault after the fault occurred (but while the equipment is still functional).

Here are some examples:
Proactive, scheduled, planned: most PMs​
Reactive, scheduled, planned: work on a failed asset that was planned and scheduled (typically when you have redundant assets)
Proactive, unscheduled, planned: opportunity based PM (do the PM when the equipment is down for a non-failure reason)
Reactive, unplanned, unscheduled: failure based maintenance, emergency maintenance, no planning
Reactive, unscheduled, planned: failure based maintenance that had a job plan

I see people use "planned maintenance" instead of "scheduled maintenance" as I plan to do the work next week, so it is a "planned" job.  As mentioned earlier, I see "reactive" (as well as "unplanned") being used for "unscheduled", since I reactively broke into the scheduled events to do the emergency maintenance.

Generally, most emergency maintenance is reactive and unplanned and unscheduled so it is easy to see why these terms are used interchangeably.   Similar with PMs as proactive and planned and scheduled.  But there are exceptions as I noted above.

Most companies, due to very poor job plans "check pump" and no weekly schedule "Hey Bob, can I work on the pump now?" do some combination of reactive (repair) and proactive (PM) work that is both unplanned and unscheduled.  Just because you have a "PM program" doesn't mean you have good detailed PMs and an execution schedule one week in advance.

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington IN

Original Message:
Sent: 07-03-2019 08:56 AM
From: Randy Riddell
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

First agree on the basic definitions of scheduled/unscheduled and planned/unplanned.

However, I respectfully have a slightly different view on use of reactive or proactive for that matter.  Reactive or proactive are just descriptors that could be used to describe any type of action or activity.  ​We could still be reactive to how we execute planned work.  The "when down do list" I mentioned earlier is somewhat reactive because I am not in control of when we do it or if we do it.  We have a known issue but we decide to take a risk.  Purely proactive would be we decide to shut down and go fix an asset that we know is in failure mode.  When the risk is high enough that is exactly what we decide to do.

I have seen many reactive PMs although PMs are meant to be proactive maintenance measures to prevent failures.  Reactive and proactive were not derived in maintenance but only recently added to further describe maintenance activities and strategies.

I don't think reactive and proactive describe the condition of the asset.  The condition of the asset may be a number of things such as good/bad or reliable or unreliable condition based on any number of measured states (vibration, temperature, function, etc.) of the asset that we may have set for the assetIt may describe the type of action we take on the asset.

We could debate what is proactive or reactive actions.  Vibration analysis is both proactive and reactive.  It is proactive when you identify misalignment or looseness or imbalance.  These can be corrected before equipment failure occurs.  It is also reactive in a sense that when a BPFO or BPFI defect has been picked up, well the bearing is already in failure mode.  the asset may still be running but failure is certain.  Prevention of bearings failure is no longer an option.  Proactive actions for BPFO may be proper installation or lubrication which occur earlier in asset life.

These are gray areas and up for much debate.  Run to failure maintenance strategy is a legitimate strategy for some assets.  Is that reactive or proactive?  Another one is if we change a bearing that has a defect before it functionally fails, is that a failure or not?  Is it proactive or reactive?

So is opportunity based maintenance proactive?  It is in some ways (before functional failure), but the asset/component still fails and if it didn't reach full life then one could make the case we are still reactive as the asset forced us to intervene in a non normal way where it controlled our actions, not our proactive actions controlling the life or reliability of the asset.

Great discussion.  I have seen companies define some of the fine points different ways so as long as each location is consistent then as reliability managers, we should be able to manage our maintenance activities.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL

Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2019 08:29 AM
From: Ron Reimer
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

​People seem to be using the words "reactive" and "unscheduled" interchangeably.  I disagree.  To me, reactive means the work is being taken after the equipment has functionally failed (we are reacting to the failure).  Proactive means we are doing something to the asset prior to failure.  So if failure has not yet occurred, then the work is proactive.  We know that proactive maintenance is cheaper than reactive repairs.

Scheduled vs unscheduled means that the work was put on a schedule (typically a week in advance).  This allows coordination and resource leveling, allowing for less downtime and lessening MTTR.

Planned vs Unplanned refers to the upfront work of identify maintenance steps, parameters, special tools, torque vales, parts, etc.  This puts the needed information, tools, and parts at the technician's fingertips, ensuring a shorter MTTR, and also reducing variability between techs.

So opportunity-based maintenance is proactive (the equipment hasn't failed), planned (hopefully!), and unscheduled.

I recommend reserving the words reactive/proactive to the condition of the asset, and leave scheduled/unscheduled for the condition of the schedule.  This would help minimize confusion between different attributes.

------------------------------
Ron Reimer
Reliability Manager
Bloomington IN

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 02:55 PM
From: Randy Riddell
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

I have seen a similar list as you describe used and we called it a "when down do list".  It was not an outage list but a high risk job that if we had opportunity to do before the scheduled outage, it had good return to do early.  It was  a list of planned, unscheduled jobs that needed the machine down to execute and we either scheduled for an outage or if machine went down for another reason and we could take advantage of the opportunity then we pulled the trigger.  This work is basically planned but unscheduled work.  You could call it reactive since it is unplanned and may negatively affect some metrics but at the end of the day in a 24/7 operation sometimes doing this work is certainly the right thing to do.

------------------------------
Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
Reliability Manager
Essity
Cherokee AL

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 12:03 PM
From: Gregory Mecomber
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

At my current place of employment, I have argued that we should create a category for "Opportunistic Maintenance" precisely for the situation you described.
No downtime as a result, but the task was not scheduled nor was it truly reactive work. The positive side it that it eliminates additional downtime, whether planned or unplanned, which if we exclude certain metrics would be beneficial to overall OEE.

------------------------------
Greg Mecomber
Smile Direct Club
Maintenance & Reliability Engineer
Nashville, TN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Hi Greg and Randy!

I understand the concept and has been the trigger of excellent discussions. I do agree that within the business and with KPI's (such as OEE as you mentioned) the benefit would be greater on the mid-long run. Nonetheless, such ours should be flagged as reactive and the decision to execute such jobs, should be part of a defined process within the general WMP and having the right people taking that decision.

Greetings

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-01-2019 12:03 PM
From: Gregory Mecomber
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

At my current place of employment, I have argued that we should create a category for "Opportunistic Maintenance" precisely for the situation you described.
No downtime as a result, but the task was not scheduled nor was it truly reactive work. The positive side it that it eliminates additional downtime, whether planned or unplanned, which if we exclude certain metrics would be beneficial to overall OEE.

------------------------------
Greg Mecomber
Smile Direct Club
Maintenance & Reliability Engineer
Nashville, TN

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

In my past life at a power generation plant, we maintained work orders/packages that were ready to work when the plant came off-line for whatever reason.  In a coal plant, the typical outage, outside of planned outages, were for repair to the boiler (tube leaks).  These outages were usually 48 to 72 hrs long.  So, we wanted to be sure to accomplish all the other work practical while the boiler was off-line for repairs - this is just good business sense - getting the biggest bang for the outage hours.  As such, in our CMMS, we had the ability to add 'tags' to the WOs identifying them as SNO (Short Notice Outage) work, regardless of the WO type.  We also were able to tag the WOs for any number of other reasons, such as, specific maintenance outage (e.g., FY19 Outage), or Condenser Cleaning Power reduction.  In the power generation business, the outage focus tends to be based on replacement power cost.  Depending on the plant/unit capacity, this can be in the $200k/day range.  So, if we are down, it makes sense to complete as much work as practical in the time available.

While I understand and support the use of the KPIs, we can't hold ourselves hostage to the KPIs.  We need to exercise good business judgement to accomplish the most work practical when the opportunity presents itself.  In my opinion, we need to focus on what the KPI is focused on and understand how the data is being used to populate the KPI.  If the KPI is being significantly impacted due to some level of work that is being done specifically for business reasons, I would ask the question, is the KPI measuring the right things and is the KPI capable of adequately measuring a process that will have "X" variability in the data.

------------------------------
David Christiansen
Principal Mechanical Engineer
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis MN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------

You are hitting on one of the major problems I see in the reliability community -- manipulation of KPIs to make the organization appear like it is improving.   I've seen it a hundred times:  OEE goes down; cost go up; and all KPIs are looking good.   I have inherited organizations where hours per day were wasted "adjusting" the KPIs.     Just stop it.   Yes do the PM; the business will benefit from nesting the work.    However, there is a price to be paid -  what was the craftsmen's actual planned work that is not being executed?   What will the wrench time be given job was not planned, kitted, and staged?  Just move on.

After 32 years as a leader and manager in heavy industry, I have grown to almost ignore KPIs due to what I call "gaming the metrics".    I use KPIs to supplement and direct observation kaizens.     These Kaizens are 4 hrs to 4 days of reality based on what the mechanic or machine experiences.    The gap between KPIs and reality is far bigger than you think.    Focus on waste elimination -- it pays the bills.   

To answer your question:  it's reactive.   Spend your time focusing on the root cause of the unplanned downtime; it has a business case.

Joe

------------------------------
Joseph Kuhn
Lean Driven Reliability - Owner
Alcoa
Newburgh IN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively

Hello to everyone,

My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:

One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.

Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:

1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).

Your thoughts?

------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------