August 26, 2005
The Cost of Maintenance 3
Wrong Technologies or Ineffective Technology
This is the continuation of the ‘Why Technology is Ineffective’ part of the Cost of Maintenance.
Vice President, Electrical Reliability Group
T-Solutions, Inc.
http://www.tsoln-inc.com
Wrong Technologies or Ineffective Technology
This is the continuation of the ‘Why Technology is Ineffective’ part of the Cost of Maintenance.
There are four basic reasons why technologies end up being put on a shelf and not used:
1. The wrong technology was selected for the types of faults that are occurring;
2. The technology is too complex;
3. Technicians have not received, or have received too little, training;
4. Collaborative technologies are not used to confirm findings.
Why did I not mention such items as ‘reactive maintenance?’ The primary reason is that, if the proper technologies were selected for the program, they would still have use in the troubleshooting phase of reactive maintenance. The fact that any maintenance technology would be put on a shelf will lead back to one of the four reasons above.
Much of the time, it is assumed that a specific technology is needed. Either because we perceive that a specific problem exists, or because we are led to believe that the specific technology is capable of providing the information that we require. For instance, if you are having a high rate of electric motor failures due to winding shorts, in an inverter environment, why would you purchase an instrument that emphasises insulation to ground testing? Or, why would you purchase MCSA or ESA technologies? But the time you would detect an insulation to ground fault or a fault while the motor is operating (using online testing technologies) in an inverter environment, it would have already failed. This type of fault requires an MCA (de-energized) technology that can detect winding shorts. In effect, the need must be identified, and the capabilities of the technology verified, before purchasing technology.
A common problem is that quite a few of the new technologies are far too complex. Either the software, instrument or data interpretation require a significant level of understanding. Even with a good user manual (and who reads those, anyway?), many of the new CBM technologies are built for the designer or software programmer and not the field technician, who wants an immediate answer.
“We’ve bought the technology, now make it work!” More often than not, the training requirement for technology is left out, or the minimum necessary. Especially with today’s complex systems, training is an absolute necessity. However, some of the classes provided by some vendors are way over the head of the averge technologist. Sometimes, I think that some trainers do that deliberately in order to intimidate attendees not to ask questions that they cannot answer.
Finally, one of the most powerful techniques available to us is the ability to use multiple technologies in order to confirm findings. For instance, if vibration detects a potentially broken rotor bar in an electric motor, MCSA or ESA can be used to confirm the finding of the vibration technician before removing the motor from service.
In the next installment, we will discuss the impact of ‘missed calls.’
