Predictive Maintenance programs have become an accepted strategy worldwide since companies must depend on the safe, efficient and continuous operation of their electro-mechanical equipment to be profitable and competitive. The concept of “predicting” imminent failures and being able to control the repair/replacement process on their own schedule has everything to gain and nothing to lose. So, why do maintenance strategies fail to prevent unscheduled downtime and costly repairs?
There are numerous underlying, stumbling blocks, some unseen and some overlooked, that control the destiny of all predictive maintenance programs. One major obstacle is the view that money not spent on maintenance issues is money saved. Maintenance costs are only considered as a detriment to the bottom line while the reality remains that PdM programs are a cost saving mechanism. Facts show that well organized and executed PdM programs actually save money by heading off costly downtime, only making repairs and replacements when necessary and preventing expensive emergency repairs. Well implemented predictive maintenance strategies along with necessary preventative activities will insure the safe, efficient and continuous operation of the facility and the bottom line is the money saved far outweighs the cost of the program.
Another obstacle, that occurs all too often, is that even routine maintenance activities take a back seat to production. Maintenance events are delayed and even planned outages are cut short or cancelled due to production demands or budgetary issues. Maintenance personnel are often called away to minor plant issues and scheduled predictive maintenance testing gets put off or forgotten. Changing light bulbs, cleaning up spills and addressing warning light issues consume the techs day. Little things like checking oil levels, insulation integrity checks and locating the root cause of those pesky warning lights never get performed. For a PdM program to be successful a strict regimen must be followed that includes as many technologies as possible. Haphazard testing may find an occasional problem but routine testing along with trending provides the real benefit of the program and is the backbone of the strategy.
In some facilities maintenance personnel are inexperienced and not trained on how to execute a successful strategy. Making reliable and reasonable repairs and adjustments requires not only mechanical and electrical knowledge but years of experience. In many major facilities and factories personnel are constantly being moved from one job to another. Sometimes the move is initiated by the employee wanting to move up; sometimes it is a side effect of production adjustments or the loss of older employees who are retiring. Whatever the reason, inexperience leads to improper repairs and adjustments which can hasten failures and lead to unplanned downtime and lost production.
The fact remains that it is virtually impossible for most plants and facilities to employ mechanical and electrical technicians solely for the purpose of a predictive maintenance program. Add to that, the cost of equipment, training and continual upgrades is most often cost prohibitive in itself. Assuming they have the time, even experienced technicians will not be able to make accurate judgements with older, outdated equipment.