Motorblog

Electrical Motor Diagnostics: Online vs Offline Testing

Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
President, SUCCESS by DESIGN Reliability Services
http://www.motordoc.com
Comments:

An area that can be confusing, when discussing the topic of electrical motor diagnostics, is the difference between online and offline testing.  Because Motor Circuit Analysis (MCA), Motor Current Signature Analysis (MCSA), and Electrical Signature Analysis (ESA) are often discussed as part of Electrical Motor Diagnostics (EMD), the layman gets the impression that the technologies are able to produce similar results.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  Online (MCSA/ESA) tests are similar, but offline (MCA) testing is very different from online in both performance and results, including significant differences between each of the technologies and what they are designed to detect.

Online testing is designed to evaluate the dynamics of the motor system as a whole.  While the evaluation involves the ability to trend specific electrical measurements, its power lays in the powerful spectral analysis available to all of the commercially available systems.  Similar to vibration analysis, it can detect many of the same mechanical anomalies associated with equipment faults, its primary strength lays in its ability to detect the dynamic electrical components of the motor, including rotor related issues.  Unlike vibration analysis, whose transducer is separate from the equipment, MCSA/ESA technologies utilize the electric motor’s airgap magnetic field to detect faults.  This allows the analyst to look at any issue that causes variations in the magnetic field, which has a direct impact on the motor’s current waveform.  Mechanical variations are detected when the rotor moves side to side within the airgap of the motor, allowing online spectra to detect severe bearing wear and driven equipment faults.  This is because of a phenomenon known as the inverse square law.  In any field, electrical, magnetic, gravitational, the force of that field varies by the square of the distance between it and an object it is acting upon (the mathematical model varies significantly depending upon the geometry of the field(s) and objects).  This means that a slight movement of the rotor will produce a significant effect on the magnetic fields which are generated by current.

However, there are many who are under the mistaken belief that online testing is a solution to replace vibration analysis.  MCSA/ESA is a powerful tool when it comes to the detection of components that have a direct impact on the magnetic fields of the motor such as rotor bars, eccentricity, winding movement, power quality, etc., but is relatively weak when it comes to the detection of driven problems and issues such as bearing wear.  People with little practical knowledge or experience in the technologies will often misrepresent online testing as a suitable alternative for vibration analysis.  Unfortunately, there are those who teach or communicate this as an option, which leads to drastic consequences for the condition based or predictive maintenance program.  We will discuss the decisions related to this particular issue in our next edition.

The purpose of offline testing is to evaluate the static components of the insulation system of a machine with the ability, in some instances, to detect the condition of the rotor bars or rotating fields/windings of the machine.  Of the three primary players in this technology, one utilizes high voltages and two utilize low voltage.  Leaving off standard surge comparison testing, the PD (Partial Discharge) surge detection system of the AWA by SKF (formerly Baker Instruments) is designed to detect insulation WEAKNESS between turns with an electronic package designed to reduce the chance of damaging a winding further when a fault is detected.  The instrument also carries the ability to perform low and high voltage insulation to ground tests which detect ground wall insulation weakness and a resistance reading capability to detect loose connections and broken conductors.  Of the two low voltage systems, PdMA relies upon insulation to ground testing with an inductive impedance and resistance reading for the detection of winding problems.  ALL-TEST Pro focus’s less on the insulation to ground fault detection and instead looks to turn to turn DEGRADATION, which means it looks for variations to the dielectric properties between conductors.

What I have generally found, even when I was working for a technology vendor, is that most programs start out thinking that they need to focus on MCSA/ESA and don’t look to MCA as an option.  When it comes down to the program from both a safety and practical standpoint, most programs already have a robust vibration program and no ability to detect static winding problems.  In a well operating multi-technology program, we often see it migrate from the concept of online testing to relying upon vibration, utilizing online testing to quickly identify and confirm electrical issues detected by vibration, but the implementation of MCA which usually has quick and dramatic results.  The first time through with online testing you will often detect a few anomalies missed by vibration.  However, with the first time through using MCA, you can expect to see issues in one out of four to one out of six machines tested.

We will also discuss how to handle the volume of issues detected with MCA in the near future.

For more information on these topics, please see http://www.motordiagnostics.com/presentations.htm for an article archive or ‘Electrical Motor Diagnostics: 2nd Edition,’ which has a robust discussion of the differences between these technologies http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/10287.htm.

More on MotorMaster Plus

Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
President, SUCCESS by DESIGN
http://www.motordoc.com
Comments:

Prior to 1995, the US Department of energy had provided a GUI interface program called MotorMaster which could be used to compare two motors to each other to determine simple payback based upon energy efficiency.  Starting in 1993, the US Department of Energy, through the Washington State Energy Office (now the Washington State University Energy Extension Center), worked with industry leaders, including Dr. Penrose, to develop a Windows-Based version which was released in 1995 at the Motor Challenge ’95 conference held in Chicago, Illinois.  The industry leaders identified such things as the ability to develop a batch analysis of machines, the ability to relate to the individual operation of each machine, the ability to run difference scenarios, a maintenance tracking ability, a financial calculator, and a database of existing motors.  By 2000, the database had grown to over 27,000 catalog motors.

In 1998-1999, while Dr Penrose was the Senior Research Engineer at the University of Illinois Energy Resources Center, he began a project collaborating with Flowcare Engineering of Ontario, Canada, and Pacific Gas and Electric on the concept he presented in 1994 on retro-fitting existing motors based upon condition.  The concept used a series of electrical and mechanical tests, following a review of the capabilities of technologies, for the field evaluation, including electrical datalogging.  The tools selected were the Summit Power Analyzer (Model 3000), the ALL-TEST IV PRO, and Pruftechnic hand-held vibration analyzer.  As soon as it became knowledge that the project budget would be cut, Dr. Penrose joined ALL-TEST Pro in order to perform MCA/MCSA/ESA research and development and to continue the work.

In 2000, he coordinated between Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc., ALL-TEST Pro, Pruftechnic, the Washington State University Energy Extension Center, and the US Department of Energy to perform modifications to MotorMaster Plus Version 3.0 to allow for motor circuit analysis and vibration data to be entered.  This allowed the user to sort motors by condition and make repair versus replace decisions which have a far better payback than retrofits of good motors.

Instructions on the use of MotorMaster Plus and the new features can be found at http://www.motordiagnostics.com/presentations.htm.

MotorMaster Plus FREE software can be downloaded from the US Department of Energy from: http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/software.html.

There is also an International Version of MotorMaster Plus available, but without the advanced features.

An article with details of the PG&E project co-authored by Dr. Penrose, the Department of Energy, WSU, Pruftechnic and others can be downloaded from http://www.motordiagnostics.com/presentations.htm.

On Contractors, Customer Service, and Airlines

Editorial
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
President, SUCCESS by DESIGN
http://www.motordoc.com
Comments:

As an update on the electrician subcontractor issue on the home project, the electrical contractor lost their Sears contract and there were internal repercussions that will not be discussed in this venue.  However, Sears, the contractor, made right and everything has come together as hoped, with a few things that need to be tidied up.  Other than this one thing, an overall good experience.

The customer service aspect and project management aspect of Sears was exceptional.  When the project started the sales staff was knowledgeable and straight forward.  They did not promise things they could not deliver, and when they delivered, they added (ie: upgrading windows, etc. after the contract was signed, for no additional cost) and improved.  They sent out the subcontractors to review the job and take all measurements, were clear about what they would or would not do and what our responsibilities were.  The project manager and sales staff treated us as if we were their most important customer and kept us up to date almost daily, listened to any concerns, and addressed them immediately.  In the beginning, the sales staff asked a few indirect and casual questions related to pets, plants, etc. and when the job was complete a surprise delivery of plants arrived.  The contract was very exact, including pricing, and outlined expectations on both sides.  The key was that there was no additional ‘negotiations’ or compromises when it came to customer satisfaction.  The project was even completed a week early, in spite of the one issue.  And in at least one case we had signed off on work being completed and found a few things after that were immediately addressed, even after payment was received.

Overall, from the initial encounter with their website and phone contact (USA based, I might add), to their sales staff, to the project manager, to a majority of the sub-contractors, and being kept as part of the whole program, the entire process was exactly the way you would hope customer service and quality would be performed.

I guess my only problem is that this is now the exception when it should be the norm.  Which leads us into the next topic, the airline industry and the cost impact of delays on both the airlines and passengers.

I have mentioned, in the past, the potential economic impact of flight delays.  It just so happens that the Congressional Joint Economic Committee has just released a report, dated May 22, 2008, on the economic impact of flight delays in 2007.  According to the report “Your Flight Has Been Delayed Again: Flight Delays Cost Passengers, Airlines, and the US Economy Billions in 2007:” (the following is quoted from the May 22, 2008, press release ‘Schumer Releases Report Detailing Over $40 Billion in Costs of Flight Delays to Passengers, Airlines, and US Economy as Memorial Day Travel Season Approaches”)

- The total cost of domestic air traffic delays to the US economy was as much as $41 Billion for 2007 including higher airline operating costs, lost passenger productivity and time, and losses to other industries.
- Delayed flights consumed about 740 million additional gallons of jet fuel totaling $1.6 Billion extra in fuel bills.
- Passengers were delayed by a total of 320 million hours, when accounting for padding in airline schedules.  Almost 20 percent of total domestic flight time in 2007 was wasted in delay.
- Flight delays were longest during summer vacation months.  Flight delays during the months of June, July and August averaged approximately 414,000 hours of delay per month.  Flights during December – the height of holiday traveling – totaled almost 438,000 hours of delay.
- Seventy-eight percent of flight delays in 2007 occurred before take-off, with 58 percent at the gate, and 20 percent during the taxi to the runway.
- 94 percent of all flight delays were caused by other flights arriving late, national system delays, or carrier delays [included in these three are maintenance delays – more as I complete review of the study and the data] (less than six percent of delays were due to security or extreme weather).

I will repeat the last part of that last point: less than six percent of delays were due to security or extreme weather, combined.  Yet, as I have stated in the past, weather is the PERCEIVED reason for almost all delays. 

An interesting lesson: perception and reality are not always the same thing.

I am going to return to this in the near future.  This is perhaps one of the most important points in how we see our industry.  Our perceptions are built based upon what we see, hear, and experience.  When we are bombarded by continuous information, we begin to believe that some fallacies such as: rotor bar failures are a major issue; variable frequency drives will always cause winding failures and bearing fluting; and, mechanical faults are a majority of motor failures, are accurate.

Here is the statement that I leave you with: much of what we believe concerning our industry, communication, maintenance/management communication, maintenance concepts, existing maintenance processes, and much of what is touted by a variety of industry materials and experts are based upon incorrect premises. 

Sometimes you just have to take a small step back and look.

Press Release: Penrose Elected to IEEE DEIS Board of Directors

For Immediate Release: June 1, 2008
SUCCESS by DESIGN

In a unanimous vote, Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP, President of SUCCESS by DESIGN and Executive Director of the Institute of Electrical Motor Diagnostics, Inc. was elected to the Board of Directors for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.’s (IEEE) Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society (DEIS) AdCom on May 31, 2008, effective June 1, 2008 with the term through December 31, 2009.

The IEEE DEIS oversees the development of IEEE Standards related to insulation testing, rotating machines, generators, transformers, certain electronics, and bleeding edge electrical insulation and dielectric R&D.  It is an international body with representation world-wide.  The objectives of the Society are technical, scientific, literary, and educational. DEIS strives for the advancement of the theory and practice of electrical and electronics engineering and the related arts and sciences, in consonance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the IEEE. The field of interest of the IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society is the study and application of dielectric phenomena and behavior and the development, characterization and application of all gaseous, liquid and solid electrical insulating materials and systems utilized in electrical and electronic equipment. The Society is also involved in the creation of voluntary engineering standards and the recommended practices related thereto.

Dr. Penrose’s work and independent research on rotating machines, alternate insulation testing methods, work on machine standards, work with IEEE DEIS and associated conferences since 1993, general elected and appointed positions within IEEE, position on rotating machine and insulation system education and research, and work within industry were all cited by members of the board during the election.

Information on his work related to IEEE DEIS and industry research was published in IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine in the following article in their March/April 2008 edition: http://www.motordoc.com/news/ieeearticle.pdf

For more information:{encode="info@motordoc.com" title=” "}

Limitations of Electrical Signature Analysis...?

Response to a number of articles and tech tips.

President, SUCCESS by DESIGN Reliability Services
Author: Physical Asset Management for the Executive: Caution Do Not Read This If You Are On An Airplane; and,
Electrical Motor Diagnostics: 2nd Edition

http://www.motordoc.com

I have read some recent articles and comments discussing the limitations of Electrical Signature Analysis (ESA) in terms of horsepower and load.  In a number of circles, the limitations have been given as 50 horsepower and more than 75% of load, and these circles include trainers from different organizations.

Kind of makes me wonder as I have been using ESA on equipment from FRACTIONAL horsepower all the way up to tens of thousands of horsepower and on machines that have been overloaded to machines that have been running uncoupled AT NO LOAD.  There are also a number of additional issues that I can only think are related to a lack of experience with the technology and pattern recognition (covered in ‘Electrical Motor Diagnostics: 2nd Edition’):

1. The good news is that operating at a constant or repeatable load is not as much of an issue as it is with such technologies as vibration analysis.  The pattern recognition of faults relates to peaks that are relative to the peak voltage or current in dB.  The dB level will only vary slightly across a variety of loads.  What you do need to be aware of is anything related to the actual running speed (multipliers) and the pole pass frequency positions on the spectra.  This means that you can trend tests, when using pattern recognition, with the motor at different loads.

2. The use of voltage and current spectra is referred to as Electrical Signature Analysis, the use of current spectra only is referred to as Motor Current Signature Analysis.  Using Motor Circuit Analysis to describe online testing is a sign of ignorance related to the technology.  Motor Circuit Analysis references static (de-energized) testing of electric motors.

3. Demodulated Spectra does not tell you very much with AC induction motors.  Wow… then why do all of the vendors and trainers spend so much time on demod?  Simply because other technologies reference it as a means to detect problems.  In reality, in order to determine the severity of a problem using ESA would require a reference to the peak current or voltage.

4. Such information as trending circuit impedance is not as valuable as pattern recognition, including in predictive maintenance.  Unfortunately, such readings can be misleading depending on the operation of the equipment and the condition of the distribution system.

There are, of course, a myriad of others, and the volume continues to grow.

Through the use of simple pattern recognition techniques, which are not as difficult as many would think, a whole world of trending and troubleshooting becomes available.  This also includes the ability to perform Time to Failure Estimation™ techniques and separate problems from within and without the actual system that you are evaluating.

Reliability and Maintenance Project

We are working on two projects aimed at drawing attention to our industry.  Both are presentations and videos that we are going to make generally available.

We are working on two projects aimed at drawing attention to our industry.  Both are presentations and videos that we are going to make generally available.  Part of this includes working with a well-known rock band out of Denmark who is providing a license to their music.

First project: Reliability, Energy, and Environment

Second project: Drawing attention to skilled trades as a career.

While we have a good library to draw from, I would like to ask for pictures and short video/animations that would be included, with appropriate reference to your contribution.  Please forward directly to .

The projects are well on their way and should be completed during May, 2008.  Note, this is not a commercial project.

Howard

Motor Management Defined

Motor Management is often improperly defined.  In this blog we define the term.

The term motor management is often confused with motor inventory management, testing, or energy efficiency.  Many of the ‘motor management’ programs offered by motor repair shops and specialty companies are actually spare inventory systems or trade-in programs.  While these reduce the carrying costs of inventory, the generally benefit the provider and not the equipment owner as much as is possible with true motor management programs that could be defined as ‘motor system maintenance and management.’

Definition: Motor System Maintenance and Management is the philosophy of continuous improvement of all aspects of the motor system from incoming power to the driven load.  It involves all components of energy, maintenance, inventory, and reliability from system cradle to grave.

In far too many cases, people take one or two components of a program, such as inventory or testing, and set their goals from that.  The problem is that the full range of benefits, which are often the lion share of the maintenance budget and potential business improvements, are not realized when the goals are so limited.

Are you experiencing the full potential of your motor system potential?

Please send comments to:

President, SUCCESS by DESIGN
Author: Electrical Motor Diagnostics 2nd Edition

Reliability and Maintenance Lessons from the Deadly Skies

Four questions and answers related to the impact of the recent airline issues on R&M and four predictions.

In this editorial we have four basic questions that we are going to answer related to the present airline industry maintenance issue.  Following the drafting of this editorial over the past weekend, we noticed that the attention given to the issue has followed the predictions that we made.  Therefore, we are keeping the editorial exactly the same as when it was initially drafted.

The questions are as follow:

1. How long will attention be on the airline industry related to reliability, maintenance, and safety?
2. Why is the focus on the FAA?
3. Why did American Airlines have the hardest hit on inspections?
4. What are the possible results of this escapade?

The issue we are dealing with is quite complex.  Believe me, the news organizations would rather be reporting on anything except this particular issue especially seeing as where it is pointing.  In fact, if you were to review all of the data related to aircraft crashes you would find that very few relate to ‘pilot error,’ which is the common media hype.  This also brings up our next R&M urban myth: human error.  We will return to that subject another time, now, we have to answer the questions at hand.

Question 1: How long will attention be on the airline industry related to reliability, maintenance and safety?

Answer 1: Unfortunately, the attention given to this subject will not last near long enough to implement positive change, but has been long enough to have a negative impact.  There are several reasons for this that we will explore, the primary one being that the media we count on for information is now as cost-centric as most businesses.  In effect, sales and marketing guide much of what is covered more so than real news.

Airlines are big advertisers resulting in an interesting conflict.  If it were not for the significant delays to travelers, the whole episode would hardly be reported.  As it is, tremendous effort is put into distracting everyone from the issue.  For instance, just as with OSHA and MSHA, most of the flight safety maintenance checks are ‘written in blood’ as determined based upon serious findings, crashes, or deaths.  Selection of the inspections and procedures are developed to prevent problems and are not arbitrarily developed.

For example, the stress fracture and crack inspections that Southwest Airlines chose to neglect were not arbitrary.  They dealt directly with the Aloha Airlines failure in April, 1988, that killed a stewardess and injured 61 passengers and crew.  Yet, even though 22.6% of the aircraft requiring inspection had significant enough fractures and ACTUAL CRACKS (each at least 4 inches), the emphasis was given to the CEO who claimed that no one was in real danger.  The news media failed to connect the dots between the statement from the Southwest’s senior executive and the actual reported findings!

In the case of the cable bundles and cable ties, the news media has chosen to focus on how the FAA is too stringent about the maximum distance between the cable ties.  The result, according to the general media, is that the FAA is to blame for the flight delays, stranded passengers, and the $10’s of millions lost by American Airlines.  They are very careful to select the right talking heads and not air anything related to the fact that the FAA is an oversight group and that the airlines were both informed and required to meet the inspections and tasks!

Am I being alarmist?

“The problem is that tying a journalist’s income to his organization’s financial performance in effect changes the journalist’s allegiance.  The company is explicitly saying that a good portion of the journalist’s loyalty must be to the corporate parent and to shareholders – ahead of readers, listeners, or viewers.  What if an advertiser makes it clear that more income will come if the coverage of an issue begins to ease off, or if a certain reporter is fired or moved off a beat?  When has an advertiser ever urged more coverage of business corruption or price-fixing?  How do you tell the news without fear or favor when you are explaining to the editor that one of his key goals is making money this quarter?  [Management by Objective] tied to the bottom line divides that loyalty.” (‘The Elements of Journalism,’ by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel).

Or farfetched?

During an issue in Old Saybrook, CT, the town First Selectman was making a political move that involved taking land from local associations.  The surface of the project seemed noble enough.  However, when pressed I was able to determine the actual purpose of the program, which was counter to the original premise.  The Hartford Courant was a backer of this particular politician, who held several important positions with the state.  I had a meeting with the association and it was determined that I would lead the cause and be the spokesperson (local politics hold little influence on my business).  No one in the neighborhood was to talk to, or respond to, the press who had already very carefully hid the agenda of the land program in their reporting.

I was contacted and interviewed by a reporter who was quite frank: ‘We are supporting Mr. Pace’s program.’ I pointedly asked about neutrality in reporting.  She laughed and said, ‘This is the real world.’ Once the 90 minute interview concluded she thanked me.  The next day I was contacted by concerned neighbors each asking if I had read the piece where, apparently, I was the devil incarnate.  When I read the article I realized that absolutely none of the information nor even the material put into quotations was accurate, nor had I even uttered the words!  I was contacted by the senior editor asking if I would like to respond because he could not find anyone in the neighborhood to defend me or even respond to the article.  I asked if a ‘good fight would sell papers and keep the issue alive.’ He said, ‘yes.’ So, I simply stated that everything reported was absolutely correct and I had no rebuttal.  The issue was dropped in the paper (conflict garners attention) and through a great deal of effort we were able to defeat the program.

So, when I watch the news coverage related to the present issue I question everything and note the premises and which direction (slant or spin) the reporting takes.  That is why I predict that this issue will be dropped pretty quickly.  I also predict increased advertising on networks and cable news programs by the airlines.

Question 2: Why is the focus on the FAA?

Answer 2: Many of the acts performed by FAA management during the alleged collaboration between the airlines and FAA border on, or are, criminal if proven.  For instance, alleged (yep, gotta use that word again in this one!) accusations of direct threats to FAA inspectors if they reported specific condition and issues with the airlines.  This is not the first time this has happened based upon under-reported investigations by the US Department of Transportation Inspector General.

The primary reason these issues arose is the mistaken direction of the FAA to consider the airlines their ‘customers.’ The word ‘customer’ conveys a significant meaning – in this case the specific treatment of the airline industry.  Unfortunately for the general public, the persons who made this horrible mistake forgot that their job was to oversee the airlines and that the PUBLIC is their customer!  Their job is oversight of the conditions within the airline industry to protect US!

In the meantime, government oversight committees are able to investigate the FAA.

This issue often occurs within manufacturing and industry where we lose sight of who our actual customers are.

Question 3: Why did American Airlines have the hardest hit?

Answer 3: According to many of the ‘talking heads’ on the news, there was no immediate danger due to the wire harness issue.  Apparently, they have forgotten flight TWA 800 in 1996 that crashed as a result of a short in a wire harness.  The distance selected for the tie straps was determined in such a way to reduce abrasion between individual wires from vibration in the wheel wells of the MD-80 aircraft (note: TWA 800 was a 747, but the wire bundle issue is similar).

We now run into a different problem.  Instead of hitting a ‘bad actor,’ American Airlines was specifically hit because they were in compliance for maintenance reporting.  This generates a particularly dangerous situation: American now has been given incentive to break their union and increase outsourcing maintenance to organizations that have no reporting requirements (Reference: Chapter 4.7 of ‘Physical Asset Management for the Executive’).

The FAA leadership made the conscious cost-centric decision to rely upon reporting/computer data to determine public risk.  Unfortunately, many of the outsourced organizations have no reporting requirements under FAA rules and a majority of maintenance, including critical maintenance, is being outsourced.  This means that the risk data is both inaccurate and highly suspect.  Present knee-jerk reactions by the FAA has resulted in a public flogging of the airline most in compliance with data reporting!

Question 4: What are the possible results of this escapade?

Answer 4: Based upon simple cause-effect thinking, I am going to make the following predictions:

a. Public interest will wane as soon as flight delays and cancellations stop, if not sooner [note: already happening!].  We will then return to the status quo and the subject will only come up again during a fatal accident.  I will then get to say, ‘I told you so,’ before it promptly disappears and is forgotten again.
b. This R&M issue will bring a slight increase in the public awareness of our industry as the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, MN on August 31, 2007, did.  However, the attention will last just as long.  Already public pressure on repairing other bridges in the USA is running along the same budget concepts as ‘they have not failed yet, why are we spending the money?’ This attitude allowed the I-35 incident to happen in the first place as repairs were deferred since 1990!
c. A required expansion of accountability by the FAA over airline executives will not occur.  Safety will again take a back seat to cost-centric management, leaving the public vulnerable.
d. American Airlines will launch an immediate and significant campaign effort to crush their maintenance union.

I hope I am wrong.  However, we are doomed to repeat history as long as we cannot seem to learn from it.

Sincerely,

President, SUCCESS by DESIGN Reliability Services
Executive Director, Institute of Electrical Motor Diagnostics, Inc.
Member, National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) and
International Federation of Journalists

The Winds of Change

Long Live the Maintenance Revolution!
Vive la révolution de l’entretien!

Who really stands for change in our industry?

The most significant changes to business, industry, and society have come from the trades, engineers, floor experienced managers, inventors, and scientists.  All advances put forth beyond those concepts are usually just extensions of the original idea.  Nowadays, many of the original ideas are taken and changed, made more complex and even corrupted based upon the level of understanding of the person, or group, translating the information.  In these times, it is the consultants and academics who have tried to convince us that they are the ones who generate change, have an impact, and are required to do the work because the ‘common man’ is incapable of doing so.

For the originators of ideas and concepts that have transformed our culture, each has had to fight adversity in their various forms of ‘management.’ In some cases the conflict ended badly, in others an understanding and supportive management and general support have launched the idea(s).  In recent times, I am sorry to say, I have seen few, very few, significant changes come as the result of consultants nor academia – one of the reasons I spent only a few years on the academic side [and a good thing I consider myself a coach and not a consultant].

Who are the names we remember throughout history that have changed, really changed, the world?  Let’s pick just a few: Socrates, Plato, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, Da Vinci, Galileo, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, James Watt, Michael Faraday, Eli Whitney, John Hall, Frederick Taylor, Eliyahu Goldratt, and many others.  These are the quarterbacks of change to our way of life, how we run business, how we live, and even our culture.  But, can you recite who they worked for?  In some cases, yes – because those were enlightened leadership: George Westinghouse, Henry Ford, Jack Welch, John Kennedy, and others.  However, these managers tended not to be the initiator of ideas and concepts, but were able to bring them together for success and change.  For instance, it took John Hall’s idea of inter-changeable parts and Frederick Taylor’s concepts of scientific management to develop the assembly line.

So, where does that leave us?  I am concerned when I hear others tell tradesmen, engineers, and R&M professionals that they cannot affect change.  I even sat in a courtroom case where the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was unable to have developed a product because he did not have a degree and was a ‘mere craftsman.’ We, each of us, have the ability to implement change, to revolutionize our industry because who else will?

The first step to implementing change is to have passion for what we do.  Do the best possible job no matter how menial it seems.  Be proud of what you do and don’t be afraid to talk about it!  Don’t complain (well, when it is appropriate, of course) that no one listens because if you do that, you convince yourself and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Change involves emotions of fear, and it requires stronger emotions to overcome that emotion.  If you truly believe in changing how you live at least 1/3rd of your life, then you must encompass this emotion through passion!

It took emotion to start the industrial revolution, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and more.

So, how do we drive change within our organizations?

The pendulum has swung away from engineering-based management towards cost-based management, or away from throughput-centric to cost-centric maintenance programs, right?  This was the same concept concerning craftsmen, trades, and workers at the turn of the 20th Century as conceived by the theory of scientific management.  The idea was that workers would work to the best of their ability for a fair day’s wage.  While the concepts behind scientific management were wildly successful, this part was not.  During World War I and the Western Electric workforce studies between 1914 and 1933, it was discovered that the workforce is far more complex.

The same issue resides with management.  We have made the same assumption that what drives management is cost and money.  This is a patently false assumption.  The same motivation that drives us, drives our managers and leadership.  To understand that is to understand what is necessary to make the necessary changes at the highest levels of our organizations.  Knowing this allows us to make logical choices and to allow us to focus our energy appropriately, requiring the logical thought processes of the engineer!  (Ref: Physical Asset Management for the Executive).

Not that I always listen to my own advice.

As I have stated in the past, I consider myself more of a coach, or anti-consultant.  With that, I get excited when those I am helping succeed and get recognition.  In fact, many times my job is to follow after consultants to clean up the mess that they left behind – subtly.  Have you ever tried to help someone conduct the RCM process when RCM is a bad word because of a multi- million dollar consulting disaster?  Not easy!

Most often it requires a simple step back to basics or just plain common sense.  Unfortunately, because of a lack of clear corporate (boardroom level) R&M strategy we operate in a state of chaos.  Even some of our best programs can be described as ‘seat of the pants,’ as it would only require the loss of one, or a few, individuals to lose focus.

It is also important to remember Occam’s Razor – often the simplest solution is best.  Be suspicious of complex-sounding programs as they are often developed for the benefit of the vendor or consultant and not the client!

Why is this important to us?  What is in it for us, personally?  Our own WIIFM?  First, I assume that you are reading this because you don’t see your job as just 9 to 5, but want to make a difference.

Stay Tuned!  Solutions are on the way!

Long Live the Maintenance Revolution!

Sincerely,

President, SUCCESS by DESIGN Reliability Services
Executive Director, Institute of Electrical Motor Diagnostics, Inc.
Member, National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) and
International Federation of Journalists

Airline Maintenance Issue - Fly the Deadly Skies?

American Airlines cancels thousands of flights stranding 100’s of thousands of passengers.  Just the beginning?  Or punishing those that comply?

With the announcement of thousands of flights and over 250 Thousand passengers ‘stranded’ due to the American Airlines MD-80 wiring harness issue I had to go back and review the accuracy of my premise in ‘Physical Asset Management for the Executive – Caution: Don’t Read This If You Are On An Airplane.’ In the book I predicted that American was the best actor because of their strong union preventing outsourcing of safety related inspections and their reporting and oversight by the FAA.  Was I wrong?

Over the past two days (I had advanced warning about American) I went back to review my premises.  Could it be that the outsourced maintenance was actually performing better?

Between the work on the book, my recent editorials and blogs, the reason why American Airlines came under so much scrutiny became very obvious.  And it is scarier than I ever predicted in the past.

Specifically because American Airlines performs almost all of its critical maintenance by FAA certified internal facilities and professionals they were put in the position of being under scrutiny.  Non-certified and outsourced facilities are not under the same reporting requirements as a certified internal facility, in most cases there are no reporting requirements AT ALL (Reference Chapter 4.7 of ‘Physical Asset Management for the Executive’).  With my recent editorials and postings related to the Southwest Airlines issue (which occurred several days after the publishing of the book) I had found a transcript of a 2003 interview where the head of FAA had stated that they relied upon this data to determine risk.

In effect, the ability of the FAA to determine that the risk of the only airline where they have the greatest amount of data was severe enough to ground thousands of flights and 100’s of thousands of passengers, generate significant overtime and cause distruption to AA’s schedule for weeks to come is a direct result of FAA’s lack of oversight and poor management of the maintenance program within FAA.  With a strong mechanics union and direct FAA oversight as compared to all of the other airlines where a majority of critical maintenance and inspections are being performed by non-certified and non-oversight repair facilities by mechanics making $10-15/hour over FAA certified $60+/hour mechanics outsourced both in and out of country: what can be assumed concerning the condition of those aircraft?

For instance, one of the worst actors concerning maintenance activities and reported cover-ups by both the airline and FAA management (Reference Department of Transportation reports and ‘Physical Asset Management’) is Northwest Airlines.  However, after breaking the NWA mechanics union they outsourced a significant amount of maintenance and when an FAA inspector attempted to identify significant maintenance safety inspection his supervisors, under pressure by the airline, transferred him until the US Department of Transportation Inspector General reviewed the case and put him back in his position.  After my direct experiences with NWA maintenance, in particular the unattached rear cone in February of 2007, I have been expecting Northwest to come under a huge amount of scrutiny.  Yet, only the airlines that have reporting information in with FAA have been under scrutiny.

With the FAA using only this reporting information, per their interviews, to determine risk, what is the condition of the aircraft that have been outsourced without any reporting requirement.  Worse, what is the lesson that the airlines that have just been punished for performing at least some level of work that is overseen?  Can we expect to see American Airlines and the others release more of their maintenance to low cost certified and uncertified facilities?

This is all the direct result of the wrong idea and definition of ‘customer’ and also relates to how our organizations have also been performing and viewing maintenance.  I will be covering this in more detail soon, unless there is a need to report additional information in the meantime.

Byline:

SUCCESS by DESIGN Reliability Services
National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) and International Federation of Journalists

Please feel free to contact me with comments and information (sources protected by law) at