Over the past ten years I've been paying attention to a problem in industry that is wide spread and rather consistent. I've come to refer to it as the documentation crisis. Its effects are very serious. Equipment capital life may be shortened. Production quality and quantity are impacted. The effectiveness of maintenance activities can come into question. Safety and environmental issues can easily enter into the equation as well.
First of all, what is documentation? In the industrial machinery environment, documentation can be thought of as the total collection of information resources pertaining to how a complex system functions, how to install, commission and operate it, and how to maintain and troubleshoot it. For a system that has been in place for a number of years, documentation should also include a historical record of changes, repairs, maintenance activities and developed best practices.
Is it reasonable to expect a team of equipment operators and maintainers to do their best possible work without a comprehensive collection of well designed, accurate information resources? If we look to the world of commercial aircraft we find that the standard and expectation for up to date and accurate documentation is very high. This is understandable given the reliable nature of gravity and the burden of responsibility that falls on those in charge of public transportation.
The reality for many industrial environments on the ground seems to include a story or two about a system or a number of systems within the machinery fleet, or at the mill, plant or mine site where some or many of these resources have gone missing, were never created or are badly out of date. A system schematic is one example of a document that is often not accurate and therefor not useful for system learning and problem solving. There are a good number of reasons that can explain how a schematic turns out to be inaccurate. What is more interesting is how a good number of years can go by with no resolution for these inaccuracies.
Another example of the documentation crisis involves the experience of individuals who work with the complex systems in question for a period of time. It seems like an obvious loss of intellectual property or capital knowledge to find these individuals moving on from the plant or the machinery team without having recorded or passed on what they've learned over the years. Yet this is precisely what happens at so many sites.
One last example among many comes from the program running within a programmable logic controller (PLC). While I don't compile precise statistical data, a fairly high percentage of PLC programs are very poorly documented. If the original programmer doesn't stick around or make it a goal to train another person at the site, the electrical and instrumentation team is left to struggle through their use of the PLC as a plant system diagnostic tool.
The question I often pose to team members in the industrial environment is; how will operational performance and equipment reliability goals be reached without addressing the documentation crisis that seems so prevalent? If the documentation crisis is not an impediment to reaching those goals, then perhaps the goals are not set high enough. Perhaps in that case the goals are not sufficiently based on the expectation of deep learning within the team.
How are you addressing the documentation issues at your site?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In a recent attempt to simply purchase a replacement part for a Pall return filter assembly for a major wood producer, I was faced with several issues, some of which you discussed and some which you have not. If the reality you speak of has now reached into the simple process of part replacement (and apparently it has) we should all take a more serious look at this “documentation crisis” we are being face with.
ReplyDeleteHaving no documentation on a parts breakdown for the filter assembly my first step was to identify it, hence the need for a schematic or B.O.M. Since this machine is less than 5 years old the reality of finding something was reasonably good. When asked where I might find it, the reply was it was it should be in the lead hands office, and it was. My next question was any of the information regarding the filter assembly in the computer inventory system? The elements used in the assembly had been entered this year but no reference to the assembly number. Next question was is the part number listed on the schematic and accurate reflection of the actual filter we are going to try and order a part for? It should be was the response.
You don’t have to be in this maintenance game very long before you should realize that “it should be” and “yes it is” are two different things. So down to the machine to verify the actual part number (if the tag is still on) matches that indicated on the schematic (it wasn’t) but it was close enough to order the part we were looking for. (porting and micron ratings didn’t match the schematic).
Now back to the process of ordering the part. Contacting the local supplier of this filter manufacturer wasn’t to hard to find, so off with an email requesting price and availability. (A much better way of tracking the “he said, she said” should the part in question turn out to be wrong after 6-8 week delivery). Now comes part one of my journeys into this “documentation crisis”. The request from the supplier to the factory for the correct part number prompted a reply saying that Pall had now required a form be filled out before they could get the part number! This is a form entitled “Request for USRT Housing Major Pressure Boundary Spare Parts (Head, bowl, cover)” form 2302A. As if this wasn’t ridiculous enough from a customer stand point, where did someone get the title for this. Getting back to the point of this discussion, in this form I was being requested by the supplier to fill in this form so they could proceed with the order (Which is a whole other discussion).
Now, granted I could have just made this information up, except for the part number of the assembly and quantity required. I could have changed suppliers, but to get a Pall part I was afraid I just would have to start the process all over again and end up exactly where I am today (still no part # to order, no price no knowledge of availability.) But my intent was to show a real life example of this “documentation crisis”, only the crisis is becoming much deeper than we may think and facing it may come sooner than you want.
Manyletters
P.S. – Since the factory technical representatives name was on the forwarded reply email from the supplier, I sent a request to them asking why they would request my time be spent filling in a form for their data base. Maybe I should request a FREE housing cap for my time. (Oh, yeah I guess that wouldn’t work, no one can identify the part I’M STILL LOOKING FOR!
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThis is the information requested from Pall on the Form 2302A
The information requested was as follows:
-Customer:
-Distributor or Salesperson:
-Complete Housing Part Number:
-Serial Number:
-Date purchased:
-Years in service:
-Description of Component Required:
-Current Service Conditions:
Operating Pressure:
Operating Temperature:
Fluid:
Average # Cycles per year /day / etc.
-Quantity Required:
-Questions to Ask:
-What is the reason for replacing the component? (Length change, damage, Etc.)
-What is the maximum expected system pressure in the working duty cycle?
If damaged, describe damage & how occurred.
-Have process excursions such as over pressurization above rating occurred? Yes / No
-Have the other components been carefully inspected and no obvious damage or distortion exists? Yes/No