|
Here
Lies Troubleshooting
|
Troubleshooting is
no longer an effective strategy. In today's competitive world,
"analysts" find real
solutions.
|
|
By Charles J. Latino,
Reliability Center, Inc.
|
|
In many ways, this article is a requiem for a time-honored function in
plants and processing facilities throughout industry. In today's competitive
environment, where survival often depends on maximizing efficiency and
minimizing costs, it may be time to lay the traditional concept of troubleshooting
to its final rest. In its place, we need to create and nurture a new breed
of problem-solver - - the analyst. |
|
What is the difference between the old-fashioned troubleshooter and the
modern analyst? In simplest terms, it comes down to the first question
asked when a failure occurs. The troubleshooter asks, "How can we fix it?"
The analyst asks, "Why did the failure occur in the first place?" |
|
Perhaps I can best illustrate the point by sharing a story. It exemplifies
situations that occur daily in plants across the country. |
|
All the shift mechanics in a particular chemical plant carry some chain
and chain links in their tool boxes. They know that it is likely that the
chain driving the feeder under the Area 13 dryer is going to fail. It always
does, at least a couple of times a shift. Usually the chain breaks. Sometimes
it merely comes off the sprockets. The job entails removing the guard and
replacing or resetting the chain. If the mechanics carry extra chain and
chain links, the job takes only 15 to 30 minutes. |
|
This job was not recorded in the maintenance management software because
it was too small. It was assigned to a routine work order number established
to accumulate all the small jobs. Only the mechanics' time and occasionally
some chain and links were recorded. Although the nature of the job was
not recorded in the software, it was usually listed in the shift notes.
The shift notes were used by the next shift to find out what jobs needed
to be finished and to get a sense of the mechanical condition of the plant. |
|
Why did this job persist over the years? We can assume that if the cause
had been obvious the mechanics would have corrected the problem. But in
this case, the cause was not obvious. A little bit of logic applied to
the problem would have led to the solution, but it was not applied. Why
not? There are several possible reasons: |
-
The mechanics were busy and
could not spend the time
-
The mechanics were not trained
to use a logic method to deduce causes
-
The mechanics' paradigm was
to find solutions, not causes
-
Solving small problems that
no one knows about gets no recognition and may actually hurt job security.
|
|
But isn't there a troubleshooting motive in all of us? By definition, a
troubleshooter is a person who locates and corrects problems that interfere
with the flow of work. The mechanics in our story rightly can be called
troubleshooters. They located the problem and corrected it, time after
time. |
|
Troubleshooters "take a shot" at an answer to a difficult problem. They
try, attempt, or guess at the answer. We clearly do not want troubleshooters
to solve our problems. Indeed, it is time to lay the term troubleshooter
to rest. |
|
What we need in today's environment is something much more precise and
fulfilling. The proper term is analyst. The analyst breaks open the whole
and examines the parts. An analyst also considers the parts in terms of
the whole. |
|
The problem of the chain breaks was eventually solved when someone reviewed
6 months' shift notes for repeaters. That person found that the chain problem
occurred an average of twice a shift. Further examination found that if
the mechanic took the time to realign the sprockets, the frequency dropped
off to once a shift or less. Without alignment the problem occurred three
and four times a shift. Further inquiries into the purchase of chain and
chain links revealed how much money was being spent for parts. In total,
the problem of sprocket chains was costing $25,000 a year. |
|
The analyst next developed a simple logic tree to determine causes. He
drove the tree down to engineering deficiency. He then went back to the
original design to verify his hypothesis. He found that the design engineer
had misplaced a decimal, causing the feeder to turn 10 times faster than
intended. Once the mechanical cause was determined, the solution was simple:
Change the sprocket sizes, align them, and install new chain. The problem
disappeared. This procedure was not troubleshooting. Analysis solved the
problem. |
|
Several thoughts arise from this story. For example, it is unlikely that
analysts will emerge in a troubleshooting environment. The pressures that
create and nurture a troubleshooting environment will not develop or support
analysts. It is not hard to picture an environment where the thrust is
always to keep the processes running. When machines break down, the pressure
is clearly to get them up and running again. This scenario is the perceived
environment in most manufacturing facilities. |
|
Managers create this type of environment when they consistently ask for
runability and not for precision. Real solutions to problems are unlikely
to be found when the persistent question is, "When are we going to get
started again?" and not, "Have we taken the time to make sure our assemblies
and installations are precise?" |
|
On the positive side, every plant has a cadre of potential analysts in
hourly operators and mechanics. To access this potential the plant must
provide |
-
Effective training in competency-based
failure analysis that is designed specifically for busy field people
-
Management systems that address
the need for releasing time for continuous improvement and providing needed
support mechanisms
-
A means for mentoring to assure
that analysts grow in the proper experiences and that the necessary support
cultures emerge.
|
|
A great deal of money can be saved and profits can be made through a vehicle
as just described. Estimates project that every dollar spent in creating
and nurturing this new way of approaching problems will yield more than
eight dollars in return. |
|
MANAGING CHANGE
|
|
Many of us tend to resist change whether in our work habits or our personal
lives. The status quo, however inefficient or unfulfilling, is familiar
and comfortable. Implementing new ideas or new ways of doing things creates
uncertainty, suspicion, and a fear of the unknown in workers, supervisors,
and managers alike. The key to moving successfully beyond the status quo
is careful management of the change process. Here are a few key points
to keep in mind in that regard: |
-
Plan. Set clear and measurable
goals and objectives. Establish time lines and methods of evaluating progress
at steps along the way. Think for the long term and be prepared to make
the investment in time and dollars necessary to achieve success.
-
Rouse employees. Let
workers know that the new approach has the full commitment of the company
and its management. Build their enthusiasm, emphasize the importance of
their roles in the process, and reassure them about job security. (This
last issue is especially important in an era of downsizing and fear of
job loss.)
-
Support with management systems.
Make sure your management and administrative systems concur with the changes
being made.
-
Provide training. Equip
employees at all levels with the knowledge and skills necessary to perform
their new roles effectively. Approach training as a long-term, comprehensive
system rather than a one-time short course in new techniques.
-
Mentor. Train supervisors
to be teachers and coaches rather than taskmasters or overseers. Make them
drivers and proponents of the change process and support them in their
efforts.
-
Celebrate. Enjoy the
fruits of success and share those fruits with employees. Recognize and
reward new ideas and positive change in work habits and attitudes at every
level.
|
|
|
Troubleshooting is an arcane term that conjures up images
of on-the-spot evaluation of mechanical failures and quick decisions on
courses of action. If a failure repeated, the need to make speedy decisions
was even more urgent because the only thing that mattered was re-establishing
product flow. That type of environment was devoid of precision based on
careful analysis. We know it was wasteful because we have found that we
could not compete in a world of innovative thinkers who are learning and
applying newer, more insightful approaches. |
|
Although most thoughtful executive managers are driving change through
one medium or another, field people (including many of their managers)
continue to use the paradigms of the troubleshooting era. |
|
To change a culture takes courage -- the courage to be bold and perhaps
a little bit outrageous. The change agent must |
-
Have a plan for change
-
Get the attention of the employees,
hence the need to be somewhat bold and outrageous
-
Put in place new or modified
management systems to support new desired behaviors
-
Provide appropriate and effective
training in new skills needed
-
Install a means for mentoring
the desired change
-
Design a system of recognition,
rewards, and celebration designed to drive commitment and behavior to predetermined
results.
|
|
The new manufacturing culture that is emerging is focused on preventing
failure. It demands a precision environment. This new culture does not
accept failure, particularly chronic failure, as part of the norm or routine. |
|
Every mechanical and process failure and every chronic administrative delay
are analyzed for root causes, and solutions are applied only if they emanate
from this careful analysis. |
RCI Offers the full
range of Reliability Consulting Services and Training Programs for Industry.
We conduct facilitations, reliability assessments, FMEA & Root Cause
Failure Analysis Training - Public & On-Site.
For more information
contact:
Reliability Center, Inc.
P.O. Box 1421
Hopewell, Virginia 23860
Phone: (804) 458-0645
Fax: (804) 452-2119
Website: http://www.reliability.com
|
|
Return
to Failure Analysis Reference Library Index
|
