Conclusiones del capítulo tres

In   order   to   identify   to   what   extent   risk   assessment   and   reliability   engineering   approaches  are  employed  at  the  companies,  the  respondents  what  asked  to  what  extent   using   various   risk   and   reliability   analysis   tools,   methods   and   software   as   well   as   whether   they   have   reliability   engineers   in   the   maintenance   department   working   with   them.  In  addition,  the  extent  to  which  JSA  is  performed  for  both  corrective  maintenance   and  PM  is  investigated  to  further  highlight  if  companies  are  actively  working  to  improve   the  safety  of  maintenance  operations.  

Figure  22  -­‐  Risk  assessment  and  reliability  analysis  tools  

Figure  22  displays  to  what  extent  the  companies  are  using  various  risk  assessment  and   reliability  analysis  tools  in  the  maintenance  department.  The  data  indicates  that  RCA  is   by   far   the   most   common   tool,   which   is   used   in   55   out   of   76   companies,   followed   by   Fishbone  diagrams,  which  are   employed  in  40  companies.  Besides  these  two,  risk   and   reliability   tools   are   in   general   utilized   to   a   fairly   low   extent.   FMEA   is   the   third   most   popular  and  utilized  by  25  companies,  but  all  the  other  tools  are  used  by  less  than  19  out   of  the  76  companies.  ETA,  LTA  and  VMEA  are  especially  rare,  where  ETA  is  only  used  by  

5  companies,  and  LTA  and  VMEA  only  in  2.  It  is  noteworthy  to  point  out  that  the  most   frequently  used  tool,  RCA,  is  primarily  used  reactively  (i.e.  after  a  failure  or  incident  has   occured).   In   contrast,   the   proactive   tools   (i.e.   used   to   identify   risks   or   failures   before   they  occur)  such  as  HAZOP,  What-­‐if,  LTA  and  ETA  are  clearly  utilized  to  a  much  lower   extent.    

As   seen   in   Appendix   B,   discrete   manufacturing   and   continuous   production   companies   use  most  of  these  tools  to  approximately  the  same  extent.  What-­‐if  analysis,  HAZOP  and   RCA  is  however  utilized  to  a  greater  extent  in  continuous  production  companies,  and  it   is  noteworthy  that  23  out  of  24  continuous  production  companies  use  RCA.  In  general,   most   tools   are   also   identified   to   become   more   common   as   the   size   of   the   company   increases,   as   seen   in   Appendix   C.   In   particular,   RCA   is   utilized   in   all   companies   with   >500  employees,  in  contrast  to  only  9  out  of  16  companies  with  <100  employees.    

The   respondents   were   also   asked   whether   they   used   various   risk   and   reliability   software  in  the  maintenance  department.  The  data  indicates  that  this  type  of  software  is   utilized  to  a  low  extent,  as  only  one  respondent  state  that  they  use  DES  in  maintenance,   one   respondent   used   RBWS,   and   none   claimed   to   use   any   of   the   three   suggested   software   in   the   questionnaire;   Relex,   Reliasoft   or   @Risk.   37   respondents   answered   however  that  they  instead  used  another  software,  out  of  which  6  clarified  that  they  did   not   use   any   of   the   suggest   software   or   that   they   do   not   have   software   at   all   in   the   maintenance   department.   The   other   31   respondents   instead   listed   the   software   that   they  used,  which  can  bee  seen  in  Appendix  A.  A  vast  majority  did  however  refer  to  their   normal  maintenance  planning  software,  where  the  following  was  mentioned  more  than   once:  “API”,  “IFS”,  “SAP”,  and  “Tekla”.    

Figure  23  -­‐  Satisfaction  with  the  use  of  tools  and  software  

In   addition   to   stating   which   tools   and   software   that   is   used   at   their   company,   the   respondents  was  also  asked  if  whether  they  found  them  to  work  in  a  satisfactory  way.   Figure  23  displays  this  data,  which  indicates  that  most  respondents  that  in  fact  use  the   tools  and  software  are  also  relatively  satisfied  with  them.  In  detail,  32  out  of  72  stated   that   they   were   to   a   certain   extent   satisfied   with   the   tools,   and   3   were   absolutely  

satisfied,  whilst  only  8  claimed  to  be  scarcely  or  not  at  all  satisfied.  Regarding  software,   27  out  of  72  were  to  a  certain  extent  satisfied,  3  absolutely  satisfied,  and  4  scarcely  or   not   all   satisfied.   Take   also   in   consideration   that   29   and  38   respondents   indicated   that   they   did   not   know   if   they   where   satisfied   with   the   tools   and   software   respectively,   or   that  it  was  not  applicable  at  their  company  (i.e.  not  using  the  tools  or  software).    

To   also   investigate   to   what   extent   these   types   of   tools   and   software   are   put   to   use   in   practice,  the  respondents  was  asked  to  what  extent  they  have  reliability  engineers  in  the   maintenance   department   carrying   out   various   types   of   reliability   analysis   and   engineering  improvement  work.    

Figure  24  –  Reliability  engineering  in  maintenance  department  

The  data  in  Figure  24  displays  to  what  extent  the  companies  have  reliability  engineers  in   the   maintenance   department   performing   these   types   of   analyses.   It   indicates   that   development  and  improvement  to  PM  activities,  and  risk  and  RCA  analysis  are  utilized   to   a   fairly   large   extent.   Development   and   improvements   of   PM   is   performed   to   the   largest  extent,  which  is  indicated  by  that  39  out  of  75  respondents  state  that  they  have   engineers  at  their  company  who  does  it  to  a  certain  extent,  and  an  additional  19  claims   that   they   absolutely   have   such   engineers.   Likewise,   19   absolutely   have   engineers   performing   RCA   analysis,   and   an   additional   28   indicates   that   they   have   it   to   a   certain   extent.   Regarding   improvement   of   maintainability   and   reliability   during   the   design   phase,   41   respondents   indicates   that   they   to   some   extent   have   engineers   doing   it,   but   only  5  absolutely  have  it.  Analyses  of  failures  in  production  are  however  performed  to   low   extent,   where   only   4   out   of   71   respondents   indicate   that   they   absolutely   have   engineers  who  work  with  failure  frequency  analysis,  and  6  out  of  73  state  the  same  for   failure  mode  analysis.  Likewise,  LCC  analysis  is  also  fairly  uncommon,  where  24  out  of  

75  companies  to  some  extent  have  engineers  who  are  working  with  it,  out  of  which  only   5  states  to  absolutely  have  it.    

Moreover,  having  maintenance  and  reliability  engineers  performing  this  type  of  analysis   work   seem   to   be   more   common   in   continuous   production   companies,   as   seen   in   Appendix  B.  Especially  RCA,  risk  analysis  and  development  and  improvement  of  PM  are   performed  to  a  high  extent  in  these  companies,  where  in  fact  22  out  of  24  to  a  certain   extent   or   absolutely   has   engineers   who   develops   and   improved   PM,   and   21   out   of   24   regarding  RCA.  In  discrete  manufacturing  companies,  failure  frequency  and  LCC  analysis   are   rare,   shown   by   that   only   2   out   of   48   and   3   out   of   51   companies   absolutely   have   engineers  conducting  the  two  types  of  analyses  respectively.  

If  the  data  is  interpreted  based  on  company  size,  as  seen  in  Appendix  C,  it  is  clear  that   having  reliability  engineers  carrying  out  these  types  of  analyses  is  far  more  common  in   larger  companies.  Particularly,  22  out  of  the  23  companies  with  >500  employees  have   engineers  performing  RCA  analysis,  19  out  of  22  are  working  with  risk  handling  and  risk   analysis,  21  out  of  23  improves  maintainability  and  reliability  during  the  design  phase,   and  22  out  of  22  develops  and  improves  PM  activities.    

Several   of   the   risk   assessment   tools   can   be   used   to   identify   safety   hazards   in   maintenance  operations.  However,  to  further  investigate  how  companies  are  working  to   improve  the  safety  of  the  working  conditions,  the  respondents  was  asked  to  what  extent   they  are  conducting  JSA  for  both  corrective  maintenance  and  PM.  

Figure  25  –  Job  Safety  Analysis  (JSA)  

The   data   in   Figure   25   displays   to   what   extent   the   companies   are   performing   safety   analysis  in  form  of  JSA,  and  it  indicates  that  it  is  employed  to  a  fairly  low  extent.  In  fact,   only  4  out  of  75  respondents  state  that  JSA  for  corrective  maintenance  is  to  a  very  high   extent   performed   at   their   company,   and   6   out   of   76   states   it   regarding   JSA   for   PM.   In   contrast,  34  out  of  75  indicate  that  they  to  a  fairly  low  extent  or  not  at  all  does  JSA  for   corrective  maintenance,  and  35  out  of  76  state  it  regarding  JSA  for  PM.  

On   average,   there   is   no   difference   between   discrete   and   continuous   production   companies,   as   seen   in   Appendix   B.   It   is   however   noteworthy   that   none   of   the   24   respondents   representing   continuous   production   companies   indicated   that   they   to   a   very  high  degree  does  JSA  for  corrective  maintenance,  and  only  one  claim  that  JSA  for   PM  is  performed  to  a  very  high  degree.  

The   data   in   Appendix   C   shows   however   that   JSA   is   performed   to   a   higher   degree   in   larger   companies,   where   the   group   of   >500   employees   clearly   differentiates   from   the   two   groups   of   <500   employees.   In   the   largest   companies,   16   out   of   23   does   JSA   for   corrective  maintenance  to  a  relatively  high  or  very  high  degree,  and  14  does  JSA  for  PM   to  a  relatively  high  or  very  high  degree.