Win Production and Manufacturing Over to Doing Better

Maintenance with this New Equipment Criticality Rating

Method That Uses the Real Costs of Production Loss.

Abstract

Win Production and Manufacturing Over to Doing Better Maintenance with this New Equipment
Criticality Rating Method That Uses the Real Costs of Production Loss. This new activity based
costing method calculates the actual cost of a failure incident and uses the total dollar value of
rectification as the means to rate equipment criticality. The criticality of an item of plant is
determined by the cost consequences and losses of equipment failure to the business. Using this
method puts a real dollar value on a production equipment loss incident. This financially robust
and reliable method provides an accurate way to prioritise production equipment and to justify
the necessary risk management and maintenance measures to protect against failure. It
recognises that a production failure event has cost repercussions throughout an organisation
affecting many people and departments, with all of them incurring costs. These costs are lost
profit that could have been earned and banked, but for the incident. The financial model reflects
the actual production and maintenance practices in the operation and their cost implications to
the whole organisation if they are inadequate. It delivers clear indication of the responsibilities
managers, supervisors, operators and maintainers have of properly running, maintaining and
caring for plant and equipment in order to prevent production-losses to the business.

Keywords: equipment criticality, activity based costing, equipment failure, operations

management, production-loss management, operating cost control, business risk, maintenance
strategy

What is Equipment Criticality?

Equipment criticality is used to identify operating equipment in a priority order of importance to

the continued operation of a facility. Commonly used equipment criticality rating methods use
Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) methodology. Those equipment items that will stop
production if they fail are identified as critical. Higher levels of maintenance and operator care
are given to those items to maximise their level of reliability.

An entire facility’s plant and equipment are rated on this priority scale, after which maintenance
strategies are matched to the equipment criticality. The same method is then applied to the
assemblies and components within individual items of plant and equipment to identify which
parts are critical to its continued operation. Again the necessary maintenance is then matched to
the importance of the item to the operation of the equipment.

A sample ‘Equipment Criticality Rating’ for a small family car might be as shown in Table 1.
The table is not a complete analysis of a car, as the subcomponents can be further split into sub-
sub-components and their priorities also determined. The simplicity does not prevent us from
seeing how the equipment rating process is applied and noting what benefits arise from it

Typically the equipment’s criticality is arrived at by a competent group of people formed to

analyse and categorise each item of plant. The review group consists of the operators of the
equipment, the maintainers and its engineering designers. Where such people are not available
then competent equivalent people are used who know the equipment well and are available
Drawings of the facility’s processes showing every item of plant and equipment are used in the
review. Equipment by equipment the group applies the RCM method and asks the consequences
of failure to the operation. The envisaged severity of the failure is used to categories criticality.

Once the criticality of the equipment is set, a matching minimum level of maintenance is
specified for it. The critical items to the operation get sufficient and appropriate maintenance
and monitoring to keep them as reliable as is required. Those items that can cause inconvenience
are also given the amount and type of maintenance suitable to their situation.

Typically, a group consisting of car mechanics, car drivers and car designers would have taken
drawings of our family car and, assembly by assemble, identified what equipment failures were
possible and the effect each failure would have on the use of the car. Each person would have
contributed what they were competently able to advise and recommend at each stage of the
review. The effects of a failure can be either total loss of car usage, partial loss of a system but
the car could still be used, or no effect from the failure on the use of the car.

The failure effects are recorded in a table along with the recommended means to prevent each
failure from happening. The selection of the table column rating headings is flexible and based
on a suitable criticality scale for the situation.

The example of Table 1 was arrived at by using standard RCM based equipment criticality rating
methods. It was based on using past equipment failure history and envisioned possible future
failures to identify failure modes. After which expert opinion is given by the group on what
maintenance to do to prevent the failures.

Criticality Rating for a Small Family Motor Car Using Standard Methods
Component Sub-Components Criticality Rating Required Maintenance &
Care
Total Causes No
Loss Difficulty Concern
Engine
Fuel system Y Regular service
Crank and pistons Y Regular service
Engine block Y Regular service
Cooling system Y Regular service
Oil system Y Regular service
Ignition system Y Regular service
Gearbox
Input shaft Y Regular service
Internal gears Y Regular service
Output shaft Y Regular service
Casing Y Regular Inspection
Drive Train
Drive shaft Y Regular Inspection
Differential Y Regular service
Axels Y Regular Inspection
Wheels Y Regular Inspection
Body
Dash display Y Regular Inspection
Electrical system Y Regular Inspection
Lights Y Regular Inspection
Windows Y Regular Inspection
Doors Y Regular Inspection
Panels Y
Chassis Y Regular Inspection
Suspension
 Shock absorbers Y Replace at end of life
Springs Y Replace at end of life
Frame Y Regular Inspection

Table 1 A Partial Equipment Criticality Analysis Table for a Motor Car

The Problem with Standard Criticality Decision Methods

There are a couple of short comings with using RCM based equipment criticality rating.

The standard methods are not based on real consequences of a failure and so do not identify the
true and full costs to the organisation. The priority rating decisions from standard criticality
rating methods are not actual cost based but are opinion and experience based.

The rating of an item at a certain level of criticality using standard criticality rating methods is
the result of knowledgeable people making an informed decision based on their understanding of
the consequences of a failure. Since the review group consists of several people with different
experiences and perspectives it is the practice that the final arbiters of the criticality choice are
the persons operating the equipment. As it will be they that must live with the consequences and
costs of failure, it is they that make the final decision on how it will be addressed and how much
cost they are willing to accept.

This type of priority selection process is open to unintended error and limited choosing. Because
it involves subjective decisions based on past experience, it is possible that a person’s experience
is not deep and broad enough to make the better choice. They may be overly conservative and
make an item totally critical when it is not necessary. An overly conservative choice will cause
the maintenance costs to rise.

Worst would be a choice that was a low priority when it should have been a highly critical one.
The result of too low a priority would be insufficient maintenance and operator care and an
increased risk of a disastrous failure.

My experience is that when the criticality rating is then used to determine what maintenance
strategies to apply the natural inclination to minimise the cost of doing maintenance means about
20% of important equipment get insufficient and inadequate maintenance and care.

The second drawback of standard RCM based equipment criticality rating methods is that they
assume that doing appropriate maintenance is sufficient to control risk to the operation. Very
little is done to identify what operating practices need to be applied and what level of skills,
knowledge and intelligence is required for person operating and maintaining the plant and
equipment. The assumption that maintenance alone is sufficient to manage production-loss risk
is very, very far from the truth! Risk management is a multi and cross-departmental requirement.

The problems of subjective choices and justifying proper and thorough maintenance and
operating practices are solved by using true failure costing. True failure-based costing applies
Activity Based Costing to identify every cost to the organisation of each failure mode. The total
cost of the most significant failure becomes the equipment priority rating.

True Cost of Failure Based Criticality Rating

Activity Based Costing (ABC) is an accounting technique that identifies the total and complete
costs of the activities used to perform a function or produce a product. ABC applied to
equipment criticality allows an organisation to determine the actual cost throughout its
organisational structure associated with overcoming a failure.

A failure absorbs resources that had otherwise been assigned to produce the organisation’s
products and deliver services. Once there is a failure the organisation’s money, effort and
resources are then used for no useful profit, only to minimise loss; a loss that should not have
happened in the first place! True failure-based costing is a powerful tool for measuring business
failure costs since it itemises each expense in every department affected and identifies its make-
up. It provides a means of pinpointing business process inputs into the incident and the
subsequent costs and losses incurred by the operation because it.

All business decisions need to have a firm financial basis in fact. Subjective business decisions
often cannot be substantiated and if wrong they may cause unnecessary cost impacts on the
organisation. Wrong equipment criticality decisions can have catastrophic financial results.
The practice of decision making based on the best opinion of people who may have insufficient
knowledge and experience can be overcome with the true failure cost method.

Since true failure costing identifies every cost that can result from a loss incident it is practical
to now base equipment criticality on the actual financial effects of equipment failure to the
business. The more expensive the loss of equipment is to the business then the higher its
criticality. The real dollar cost of the incident becomes the equipment criticality rating for the
item of plant.

By taking one item of equipment at a time and identifying the true cost of failure for it, a
believable cost-based rating scale can be developed. The financial cost of the failure is the scale
rating. The greater the cost of the equipment failure to the organisation then the higher is the
equipment criticality rating.

A Sample True Cost Based Equipment Criticality Scale

Using the previous family car example and applying the true failure cost approach, a more
robust, financially-sound criticality rating results. This rating is based on the actual costs if a
failure incident was to occur.

To start the analysis process an assumption is made that the equipment has totally failed in
isolation. The very worst outcomes and their consequences are envisioned and costed. This
includes death of employees, destruction of the environment and major plant and equipment loss
in those situations were such consequences are plausible. Once the worst outcome cost is
known, the other possible and less serious failure scenarios for the equipment are then modelled.

The true failure cost method is applied progressively when determining equipment criticality. It
starts with assuming the complete item of equipment has failed. The consequences of all the
possible failure modes that could cause such a failure are costed. Failure mode by failure mode,
the effects and consequences of each equipment failure on the whole organisation, its
departments and customers is priced. The final costs are the equipment criticality ratings.

If desired the analysis can then move down to each assembly in the equipment. Again each
possible failure mode of each assembly with their financial and production delay consequences
for the organisation can be costed in full detail. The cost becomes the criticality rating for the
assembly. The process can continue to even component part failures if required.

The ABC equipment criticality rating method captures every cost caused by a failure incident.
The amount of computation required to calculate equipment criticalities by this method is best
done on a computer drawing from a well developed data base of organisation-wide costs. The
data needed would include costs for materials, services, outside resources and internal labour.
The internal labour costs include production, maintenance, administrative and management
personnel costs. Once the data base is established it becomes an extremely quick and powerful
method to model the real cost of failure for any item of equipment.

A full range of possible scenarios is costed in order to provide complete understanding of all the
risks and their consequent costs across the whole operation. Understanding the full risk profile
business-wide allows better design, operating and maintenance decisions to be made to manage
those risks.

As well as the financial costs of a failure it is necessary to identify the length of time it will take
to recover from the incident. Often the time lost in returning equipment to operation is a far
more critical factor than the cost of the repair since the business cannot function for that entire
period. It has no means to generate revenue from its plant and machinery yet its fixed costs are
still accumulating.

The selection of the best means to prevent a failure can only be made when the implications of
the failure across the whole organisation are fully understood and appreciated. With a full
knowledge of the failure consequences and costs on the total business the extent of required
prevention measures becomes obvious. It is then possible to easily justify necessary and
sufficient systems, methods, training and procedures to prevent failures and maximise
production.

Table 2 shows a possible True Failure Cost Criticality Rating for the family car example
previously used.

Criticality Rating for a Small Family Motor Car Using True Failure Cost Method
Required
Sub- Required
Component True Cost Criticality Rating Operating
Components Maintenance
Practice
Total Partial Rebuild /
Loss Loss Replace
Cost Cost Time
$ $ Days
Engine 6000 28
Monitor
Fuel system 1500 14 Regular service
operation
Crank and Monitor
1000 14 Regular service
pistons operation
Monitor
Engine block 2500 28 Regular service
operation
Monitor
Cooling system 1000 5 Regular service
operation
Monitor
Oil system 1000 5 Regular service
operation
Monitor
Ignition system 1500 5 Regular service
operation
Gearbox 4000 28
Input shaft 1000 5 Regular service
Internal gears 2500 28 Regular service
Output shaft 1000 5 Regular service
 Monitor Regular
Casing 3000 28
operation Inspection
Drive Train 3000 28
Monitor Regular
Drive shaft 1000 14
operation Inspection
Differential 2500 28 Regular service
Regular
Axels 1000 14
Inspection
Monitor Regular
Wheels 1000 3
operation Inspection
Body 20000 28
Monitor Regular
Dash display 4000 28
operation Inspection
Monitor Regular
Electrical system 4000 14
operation Inspection
Monitor Regular
Lights 1000 5
operation Inspection
High driving Regular
Windows 1500 5
skills Inspection
High driving Regular
Door x 1 1000 14
skills Inspection
High driving
Panel x 1 3000 14
skills
High driving Regular
Chassis 15000 28
skills Inspection
Suspension 8000 28
Monitor Replace at end
Shock absorbers 1000 3
operation of life
Monitor Replace at end
Springs 1000 5
operation of life
High driving Regular
Assembly x 2 5000 28
skills Inspection

Table 2 A Partial Equipment Criticality Analysis for a Motor Car Using True Failure Cost Method

The dollar costs are the equipment criticality rating. In Table 2 we can see that at a replacement
cost of $20,000, damage to the car body carries substantial risk to its owner. Damage to the
chassis at $15,000 to repair comes next. Wrecked suspension cost of $8,000 is third. The engine
at $6000 is not the most expense of failures, but there is a substantial time delay in getting the
car back on the road. The standard equipment criticality rating systems normally used would not
have produced such a thorough understand of the failure consequences to the organisation (the
family).

Notice that the True Failure Costing method for equipment criticality reflected in Table 2 makes
it clear where responsibility lays for protecting the equipment from harm. It is clear who the
responsible people are for each mitigation action. Whether the risk’s management requires
proper operation, or it requires maintenance, or it requires monitoring, is made self-evident for
all. The financial consequences of not doing the right actions to mitigate the risk are also very
clear to everyone. True Failure Costed equipment criticality allows the responsibly for the well-
being of the plant and its operation to be easily and unambiguously specified.

What is often discovered with the True Failure Cost method is that the failures which were not
considered important by the standard RCM-based equipment criticality rating methods are
actually very expensive. These losses received little attention using standard criticality rating
methods because so few failures have occurred that people dismissed them as unimportant
because of their low “one-in-a-million” chance of occurring. What the True Failure Cost
approach tells us is that, though the equipment may not fail often, when it does fail, it will be
very expensive to fix and have massive consequences for production and profit loss.
It only needs a few large catastrophes close together in time to totally destroy an organisation’s
profitability.

The True Failure Cost method highlights that many risks to the business previously considered
minor are actually high and they require a management plan be put into place to address those
risks. The frequency of occurrence maybe low but the cost consequences are massive and so the
real risk for the organisation is actually high (risk = frequency x consequence).

In the case of a family car the risk management plan involves having a skilled operator (the
driver) who knows how to drive well and does not put the car into situations where it can be
damaged. The short-term risk management practices also involve the driver noticing when
things are not working as they should and reporting them in time to be rectified before a full
failure develops.

Both the short term and the long-term risk management, operating and maintenance practices are
clearly identifiable and justifiable once the full and real cost of a failure and its consequences are
seen in real money terms.

If this method of rating your plant and equipment criticality interests you and you need more
information, then please contact me using one of the methods listed under my signature.

Mike Sondalini
Lifetime Reliability Solutions
'Profit from Operational and Maintenance Excellence'
www.lifetime-reliability.com
email: info@lifetime-reliability.com
Fax: (+ 61 8) 9457 6297
Mob/Cell: 0402 731 563