Keeping Reliability and Maintenance Simple

We'll move on now to our first keynote presentation. Christer Idhammar is the founder and CEO of IDCON centered in the USA. Many of you would have seen met or heard of Christer over the years. He's a high-profile, world-renowned

expert and guru on Reliability and Maintenance. He started his career in the Swedish Merchant Navy where he began developing the fundamentals of his results-oriented reliability and maintenance management concept. This has

evolved over the last 40 years during his time working on and with the shop floor and also at the highest levels of management in organizations. He started

the Idhammar Group in Sweden in 1972, and his own company, IDCON, in the US in 1985. He's received many renowned awards globally, and he's been engaged by

in 1985. He's received many renowned awards globally, and he's been engaged by hundreds of companies who have been successful in their endeavors in Reliability and Maintenance. This morning, Christer is going to talk to us on achieving world-class Reliability and Maintenance - why some reached the goal and others don't. Could you please welcome Christer to the

stage. Thank you.

stage. Thank you.

Yeah that was "Hold on Tight to Your Dreams," if you heard the music. Fits very

well in here, because if you believe you are doing the right thing, stick to it for the long term - that's basically my message. So good morning! Doing better

and better on that one. And thank you very much Lisa and and your team for inviting me here. I've been here 11 times now, and I always like to be down here.

And I can tell you all - of you who are here - that this is definitely the best maintenance and reliability event in the world. Many others will say that. The way

it's organized, the people you get here, the content, the speakers and so forth.

Without any comparison - and I am invited to many many different events all around the world. So you're lucky to be here, and that we have - or Lisa - that you have brought this also to Perth. Why some reach the goal and others don't.

Well that's what I'm gonna address here, and of course all this is based on my own experience. I started working in this area many many years ago and you will

own experience. I started working in this area many many years ago and you will see that background. That was 1960. I stepped on board a ship as the apprentice in an engine room. That's almost scary...that's

51 years ago and I still love what I'm doing. I love what I'm doing very very much.

And the fact is that most of you start your journeys to improvements but you don't reach the full potential; you don't reach the the results you, you in most cases are capable of achieving, and that's what I want to address. And I can

just roll from my own experiences over the years I have observed that...

that creates that phenomenon. Okay, so what I'm gonna do is a very short introduction of the company, clearing the confusion between a holistic system - the process elements and tools. That's one of the most common reasons why many organizations

don't get the message across to their people. It's just confusion many times, and I will come back to that of course. What you need to do to stay on track long term, and understand that what works as performed as is, and what it looks like, and how it you can measure it. I will touch upon that because that will

be the connection to the next presentation I will make here - and key points to take home. Okay I like to start with a short introduction of IDCCON.

We started in United States 1985, and before that I had my own company in Sweden that was established 1972. And then, I think it's very important to have a mission. If you have...if you're the head of a maintenance department - you're

a mission. If you have...if you're the head of a maintenance department - you're a maintenance manager - sit down sometimes to think, "What is our mission? Why are

we here? Are we here just to repair, are we here to maintain, are we here to deliver equipment reliability?" And so forth, because that has to drive your whole philosophy. And our mission at our company is that we want to help our

whole philosophy. And our mission at our company is that we want to help our clients improve overall reliability, and by that we will help you lower manufacturing, including maintenance cost. That's very important statement because what you want to do, of course, as a maintenance manager, is to see to that

equipment is running when it's suppose to run. That's what we call reliability, right?

And if you manage to do that, your costs will go down. Your problem is most probably that you're more judged by the cost - it's more important for you to stay within the budget than it is to deliver results, right? And that's a tough one. I have

asked maintenance managers everywhere I go, "What is most important for you? Is it

to stay within your budget - preferably below the budget and lower than last year, right? Or is it to create reliability?" And the answer is very often, "Well, as long as I just stay within the budget, I survive here. I can always explain all the other things." Right? But you know, you can't just go out there and

say "well cut the cost, and then you see what reliability you get." You have to focus on the results, and that is reliability. And that's a long-term solution, and we know that. While management, especially top management, in...

publicly held companies are forced many times to be very shortsighted, and therefore, we are managed by the next quarter. I may have to do things that we know it's not right for the long term. Because you can never ever really just eliminate a valid maintenance job, right? Because that's what you have to do, if

you're going to cut the cost, what are you going to do? The only thing you can do is to make sure all the jobs are valid, and then you can postpone them, perhaps, and take the risk. So there's an old saying...in in this game here, and that is, "never be the second" you see what I say with that - what I mean with that? "Never be the second." That means that...if you take the job as a

maintenance manager, after someone else who has been cutting the maintenance cost for two, three years, and smart enough to get out before that - when you come in, you know that your maintenance cost will go up, right? So "don't be the second." And leave, by the way, before you see the consequences of the fact that

second." And leave, by the way, before you see the consequences of the fact that you had been forced to cut the cost. And many times, by the way, it is your own fault, because I used to say that maintenance managers - you sit in a budget jail. And that's because you don't have a plan, really, on what you want to do, and how much it's gonna save, and how much it's

gonna cost. You know kind of...if you don't have that, sit in that jail, right, and

gonna cost. You know kind of...if you don't have that, sit in that jail, right, and complain, but you don't really have a valid point to maintain or to complain there. Okay, short about myself - 1960, so '68 - I was an apprentice; I started as

complain there. Okay, short about myself - 1960, so '68 - I was an apprentice; I started as an apprentice on board ships, and then you have to go through school, and so forth, and I became a Bachelor of Engineering in Marine Engineering, and I also worked as a chief engineer on board ships. That was a very very good school,

because out there you have no one to call for - you have to operate, you have to maintain. And in fact, when I came to industry I wondered many times, "why

maintain. And in fact, when I came to industry I wondered many times, "why did certain people operate and certain people maintain?" Right? But we know that is the way it was. And we had no contractors to call, either, and you had to be very reliable, and it's pretty big equipment you had to maintain, also.

It's a very good school, in fact. And then I was based in Sweden, and I worked in many many different countries - all over the world in fact, in all kinds of different industries, so when I talk to you, my world is very much heavy equipment, heavy process industries, such as mining, concentrators, pellets, pulp and

paper, power plants, and so forth, where reliability really is important, right? I

kind of lose much of my argument if I don't see a revenue side from the work you do. I have worked in organizations where I say - I remember in the airport, by

you do. I have worked in organizations where I say - I remember in the airport, by the way, I talked with some people and they said...I asked them, "How much does it cost if one of the escalators is not running?" And they had a long discussion, and after a while one of them said, "Well really, it doesn't cost anything. We

save energy." Then I kind of lost...well both energy and the argument for it, right? So why maintain it? Well, we basically run to failure, and then they set up a sign that says, "we do Preventive Maintenance" when the escalator is down at Fort Worth, Dallas. And they just call it Preventive Maintenance,

because it looks better. I try to argue that and go down there and talk with them and say, "I think you're fixing a breakdown, otherwise you would do your Preventive Maintenance in the night time when we have no people here, right?" Okay,

in many, many, many different countries, of course. And I'll tell you something, they all believed they were unique. They all believe they were different. And

there are things that are different, like cultures are different in different countries. But between different industries, when it comes to the

countries. But between different industries, when it comes to the maintenance process, it's really not much of a difference. It really isn't, you know, because equipment doesn't fail. Equipment never fails, not really. It's the components of the equipment that fails; it's the components

not really. It's the components of the equipment that fails; it's the components we maintain, right? And it doesn't matter - well, the environment might be different, but an electric motor might fail, and sometimes it's covered by chocolate in a chocolate plant, another time it's covered by pulp if it's in a pulp mill, for example, and a lot of dust if it's in a mining operation, so

an environment might be different - but it's still an electric motor, inside there you have a couple of bearings and some stuff, right? So you really maintain the components, and they are the same. And the maintenance process, the maintenance system, is the same wherever you go. There are slight differences where you put the focus, but it's really much the same. This is kind of my work in the world when I was

very young. That's a diesel engine, and there is

very young. That's a diesel engine, and there is that's a person standing there...there it is - the fuel injection pumps. You understand how big those machines are. They are

about 10 meters tall, and the stroke is 1.8 meters and the diameter of the cylinder is about 1 meter. I still like those machines though. But

there because they are giants. Top speed 115 rpms. That took a lot of maintenance.

That's why in US ships it was often turbines, because in the United States, at that time, they didn't care much about fuel cost. Of course it's much more fuel efficient, and that's why we used diesels. And paper machines - I worked a lot in paper machines. Mining - a lot of mobile equipment, concentrated pallets, and so

machines. Mining - a lot of mobile equipment, concentrated pallets, and so forth. Sawmills; the Panama Canal having been there working many times. And it's

forth. Sawmills; the Panama Canal having been there working many times. And it's

the same process - that's what I want to say. It's really the same process wherever you go, right? I hope you agree with me. But if you don't...if you worked in many different plants, and different settings, you know what I'm talking about. Ok, but there are differences, and those things you have to understand,

about. Ok, but there are differences, and those things you have to understand, because 90% of the effort you have to make to improve maintenance is about people. 90% is about people, 10% perhaps is technology, and the

people. 90% is about people, 10% perhaps is technology, and the technology part is easy, because you can just buy it, and maintenance people love gadgets, so don't worry about that part. But to get undisciplined people to work in a disciplined system - that is the challenge. Okay, so there are, of

course, cultural differences we have to understand, right? Like cultures are different; political systems are very different. In the early 80s I worked quite a number of times and for quite some time in China, for example, and I came to different plants, and they all looked the same.

You could go into the store, and there they had all things wrapped in a special paper, numbered the same way in the same shelves. The equipment numbers were the same, everything was the same in many many different plants, right? And I said, I asked them, "how come that everything looks the same, everywhere" and the answer

was, "government told us." That's one culture...I can tell you that wouldn't work in United States. That interference of government would not be appreciated at all, and if they told us to do something we would most probably try to find some other way of doing it, right? It's a culture of perhaps being used to take orders and not to question orders sometimes while

others have different ones. Living standards are very different. I think

that in many cases we've become very lazy because have everything. We have

good salaries; we have good benefits. Many countries have five or six weeks vacation, and then we struggle to get a little more vacation or even more pay and so forth, right? We have everything. And then I work in other countries where people are very proud to have $3 an hour, and they have good benefits, and they are

really proud of it, right? They are hungry; they want to improve something. They have

an ambition somewhere. We become [...] complacent; we have everything, right? That's why cultures come and go; that has happened in

everything, right? That's why cultures come and go; that has happened in thousands of years in history, right? That's what's changing, but it's also dangerous, right? It's very dangerous.

What more can you offer people after a while? Environmental laws are very different. Some are very very strict, and some are very very open about it, but it

different. Some are very very strict, and some are very very open about it, but it has an impact on the work, and especially you guys in maintenance to maintain those pieces. Labor laws are very different. I was very surprised when

those pieces. Labor laws are very different. I was very surprised when I came to the United States that I had to advertise that I offered health care, for example, I took that for granted. I came from a culture where of course you have health care, right? No that was a very very good benefit. I even had to advertise and tell people you will have paid vacation. Well if you come from

Europe, you know everybody has five or six weeks of vacation and 18 months of maternity leave, well you know it all, right?

Hardly anyone is working really, still very productive, it's still a mystery.

importance of safety is very different. and there I must say that in United States, it's very very very good. It's very good, it's really reinforced, and perhaps it is, because only 5% of the population of the world population lives in United States, but 70% of all the lawyers in the world also lives in

United States. So of course it's business, right? But so if something happens, it's

United States. So of course it's business, right? But so if something happens, it's gonna cost money; it's gonna be very expensive. Well in other countries, well it's a fixed compensation - if you lose your thumb on your right hand, for example, it's a certain amount and you can't get more than that. Somewhere in between there might be right, but I don't go into all the lawyers [...] in the United

States, you know what I'm talking about. Unionization is very different, right? And

I must say one thing, that I have seen that the most unionized country in the world is Sweden, still today. You're almost born into a union, and I've been a union member myself, because you never question it, and I have nothing against unions, you know. But it came to a point where you had to ask in many cases, "who is running this company, or this plant, or this mine; who is running it? You

as managers, or the union?" And I come across that still today, you know, and that upsets me because it's poor management - that's what it is. You get the unions you deserve as managers. Perhaps not you as the individuals, as such, but you inherited something and that has to change in a changing world. And if you

talk openly with the unions, they often are very, okay, but many times we we just don't talk, and we don't open the books - we are not communicating straightforward and so forth, but it's very very different how this is handled in different countries. And taxation rules are different, and that means that okay,

different countries. And taxation rules are different, and that means that okay, are we gonna buy equipment, are we gonna invest in long-term investments, or do we have short terms of payback? In some other countries they use much more stainless steel in their designs than they do in others, and much of this is driven by taxation rules and other things, right? Something that

we can't change just overnight. Working hours are very different. Many many

countries have 35 hours a week and long vacations, and many countries also have a cap on overtime - it's about 150 hours a year I think that is allowed in in many European countries. And of course this is driven by the unions, because less

European countries. And of course this is driven by the unions, because less overtime, more employees, more members - that's it. And when it comes to many other countries, well it's very common with 10, 20, 30, 40% overtime, right?

And try to take that away, by the way. Recognition for work and performance is different. It's just the way we deal with people, and again I saw a big difference

different. It's just the way we deal with people, and again I saw a big difference in United States. People often say "we thank you for doing a good job today," that that can be enough of a recognition many times. Well in other countries, "well you have a job, you should be satisfied just by having that," right? Ok, there are many differences, but best reliability and maintenance practices are the same

wherever I go. They are not different, not really. It just differs in the way you apply them, in fact. So what has changed then? I would say that technology and equipment has changed, but the basic reliability and maintenance processes are the same since the 1960s, and most probably before that. I don't know before that, but most

probably. Most probably way before that it was the same, right? The only thing

probably. Most probably way before that it was the same, right? The only thing that has really changed is the technology. Both when it comes to equipment, to material, to predictive maintenance tools and so forth, but all of these technologies existed 50 years ago. Vibration analysis existed, infrared existed, acoustic emission existed, all of them

existed. It's only that they are much much cheaper today, much affordable and

existed. It's only that they are much much cheaper today, much affordable and smaller and more reliable, right? That's the only difference that's the only difference really. What has happened though, and this is very much part of the confusion [about]

difference really. What has happened though, and this is very much part of the confusion [about] why we don't get the results we can get here, really, when we implement better processes [...] for maintenance. New names and packaging of the basic

processes [...] for maintenance. New names and packaging of the basic concept in combination with mobility of top management have confused and delayed [...] execution. Initiatives have not lasted long

[...] execution. Initiatives have not lasted long enough to generate the results you can get. Does anyone recognize this?

Perhaps if I [...] explain this a little more. But this is really where I see the core. Nothing is really new. But for some reason, we try to come up that this is something new. And then we put a new name on it, right? And then we start preaching the new name and there sits an organization that has seen this coming and go

many many times. So you think, "well how long is this one gonna last?" You might not [...] you don't believe it's gonna last long enough to generate

not [...] you don't believe it's gonna last long enough to generate results. Many years ago, well not that many years ago but perhaps five years

results. Many years ago, well not that many years ago but perhaps five years ago, I was called to come and have a conference for a very big international company. They had 158 plants in the world, right? And all mill managers or plant

company. They had 158 plants in the world, right? And all mill managers or plant managers were invited there, and their closest report. And their closest report was reliability manager. And in that case, that talk about reliability has more than maintenance, right? It's just that operational reliability is also [...]

equipment reliability and also engineering and reliability design.

Because [...] they meant, and they still do that by the way, that that was the last biggest improvement potential they have. Everyone in the world can can buy exactly the same equipment, they buy even new equipment. The only

difference is how reliable is the equipment that we operate, right? And if

it's not reliable we can't be competitive in many cases. So I was told that before you come here, remember one thing: all the attendees here have read the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collin. Have you...has anyone read that book?

"Good to Great" ok. "Christer you have to read it, and your whole presentation has to be based around that." And I thought, "well gosh, do I have to change now." I never change for many years, right? Because I thought many times that "hey, I'm in the plant somewhere, and I talked to some planners and supervisors and others, right?" (Because that's where all

the results have to happen, right? Otherwise if it doesn't happen there it hasn't happened yet.) And I get exactly the same questions now as I did 50 years ago. Exactly the same questions. What is the role of a planner?

ago. Exactly the same questions. What is the role of a planner?

What should the supervisor do? And there was a period of time when you thought that you didn't need supervisors well heaven forbid you're gonna screw up if you don't have good supervisors. We had to realize that. You might call them coordinates, you might call them team leaders, whatever, but these are very important people, right? So I thought, "well, you know you have to change, Christer, your

message, is it old now? My wife often says - she is Italian and French - the first word she taught me was "testadura." You know what "testadura" means, well, hard-headed, stubborn. So I said, "thank you." I was very honored. Of course, yeah I'm

hard-headed, stubborn. So I said, "thank you." I was very honored. Of course, yeah I'm goal-oriented! As long as I believe this is the right thing to do, I

goal-oriented! As long as I believe this is the right thing to do, I stick to it, right? Well in that book, he compared I think 1,600 different companies. It was a lot of companies and looked at great companies that could compared

companies. It was a lot of companies and looked at great companies that could compared with good companies. Good companies compared to great companies.

And there were not that many great companies, but what did they have in common? They were "hedgehogs" - not "foxes." And he meant that the foxes, they had a

common? They were "hedgehogs" - not "foxes." And he meant that the foxes, they had a management style where they jumped from this concept to that concept to that concept, very visible and so forth, while the successful companies that were hedgehogs, they had decided that "this is what we are good at, this is what we believe we can do, and then we [...] stick to that and we do it better

and better and better and better," right? So thank you, Jim Collins, I'm a hedgehog.

I still believe in those principles before someone else can convince me there is another one, another thing that is out there that I don't know about - that you have to always be open for. So...what has happened here? If you're not a hedgehog. Well perhaps 20 years ago - whatever time - if you think back in

a hedgehog. Well perhaps 20 years ago - whatever time - if you think back in your plants, somebody came in and talked about planned maintenance, perhaps, or that's where you're gonna do the effort, and you saw an improvement then, and then it faded away. Okay, well someone else came in and said, "no, we need to look at preventive maintenance" and what is that?

Well it's everything from Fixed Time Maintenance to Condition Monitoring and so forth and so forth. We need to do inspections and combine that, and we need to schedule work - that was the big buzzword - and you saw some improvements, and it faded away, right? Well then somebody said, "no, we need to combine all these things," and again another effort, and okay, we saw a rise, and then it faded

away, and then it started to accelerate, really. Then we start talking about TPM, and then RCM, and then 5s, perhaps, Sigma, or Asset Management? I

don't understand why we call it "Asset Management" by the way, because if you advertise for asset managers in the Wall Street Journal, not many maintenance managers would apply for that. Even I saw some advertising just the other day - I think was Alliance. RCM. Well if you look RCM, it means "Reinberg Capital Management" or something like that, and it deals with capital

management, right? Which is much more than Asset Management, of course. But fine, we

management, right? Which is much more than Asset Management, of course. But fine, we have a new name, and we use it, so that's fine, go with it. I would call it at least "Equipment Asset Management" and then we have lean, right? Everything has to be lean today. You [...] can add on a number of other things, too, can't you?

lean today. You [...] can add on a number of other things, too, can't you?

Do you have any other acronym?, I'm sure you have. And of course I've been asked many times to come in and give a presentation on lean maintenance, and what do you think I do? I think, "so, how can I become lean in maintenance while we need to do Preventive Maintenance, Planning and Scheduling, it's no difference than you call it good practices, right? But everything has to be lean, so you

play the politics. So this becomes kind of a new program fatigue. You give up after a while if you've been there for a long time. And it's mostly probably hitting the frontline maintenance organization more than anything else.

Here we have supervisors, planners and others who have been there for many years because the higher up in the organization you are, the more likely you are to move on, right, and go somewhere else. But here sits an organization and they're totally confused after a while. This is one of the absolute main reasons why I see we don't reach the full potential, really. And the thing is that

we need to see why this happens, and I think Deming said many years ago that one of the seven diseases, or six diseases in American industry is the mobility of top management. Short-term thinking. Stay 2 to 3 years, cut and slash and burn and get out, and then someone else takes over, et cetera.

Destroying companies - it's another mindset when it comes to privately held companies, I think totally different. So in fact, many of these changes has happened as you got a new manager, right? And they come with a new concept, and after a while you realize it's really the same thing. But it's confusing, right? And especially

if these new managers always talk about the plant they came from. Remember one

thing: every time they talk about the plant that came from it gets better and better and better every time. It must be perfect, right? So a good advice, if you do come from another plant, yeah use your experience, but don't always talk about it, because people stop listening after a while. It can't be as good as you said if you always say "where I worked before, at where I worked before," you know, you wear

out the organization. They don't believe you after a while. You know, ensure that that management changes do not impede continue the implementation of best reliability maintenance practice, and what you need to do is to at least have a document that describes what are your best practices and drive it down to the

elements. And if you start with the white sheet of paper, and you all use your

elements. And if you start with the white sheet of paper, and you all use your experience, you will end up in about 285 points that has to be done really well to become world-class. That's in my next presentation, I won't go into the details there, but it comes down to things like: the right things to do is to plan work before you schedule work, right? Common sense. That you need to have

an alignment standard and do that well, that you need to do lubrication well and do that right, that you filtrate your hydraulics and keep it cool. I mean this is just common sense stuff - all of it - and then you can call it whatever you want.

But remember that 67% of plants have had more than three plant managers in the last 10 years. This is from our data that where different people have just answered, right? So I think it was, I think was over...I think it's 2[00] to 300 plants that I've

answered, right? So I think it was, I think was over...I think it's 2[00] to 300 plants that I've asked, right? 66% of plants we have had more

asked, right? 66% of plants we have had more than three production managers, and 62% of plants we had more than three maintenance managers, and all these people don't stop at the finish or leave at the same time, I mean, they can, it's it's a lot of rotation on this position, and if all of them come in with a new idea on how to run that plant or that

maintenance organization or operations, whatever, it can be pretty confusing. So,

the best organizations I've seen, they have a document. They might call it "our reliability best practices" or something and that is what you have to follow if you are hired here as the maintenance manager, this is...these are

the right things to do - you need to stick to them - don't change them, we are not gonna change them. You can use your experience to do them better and better, that's another story, right? But this goes on in many organizations and you need to see to that you get the systems and practices to the frontline because they are less likely to change as frequently as managers on the higher level. You know

I believe very much in doing the right things. Remember, it has to be the right thing, and do that better and better - that will give you results. I have yet to come to an organization, or to any conference anywhere in the world where someone or at least two or three speakers have repeated this. And that's a definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Some of

you will use that and spin on that in some way, I'm sure also in this organization. I agree to that, if you talk about inventions, and new inventions

organization. I agree to that, if you talk about inventions, and new inventions and so forth, but on the other hand, then it can also be confusing. It doesn't need to be in you, right? But I believe that if you do the right thing better and better, it will generate substantial and sustainable results.

That confusion is if you keep on changing your message. It's like building a political party or a religion. If you don't stick to the same message, you don't get any followers that's obvious, it's confusing, right? You have to have a good message and stick to that, and stick to it for a very long term. So um, really that's what I believe, that instead of doing this, you establish - and I have some

companies that have really generated some fantastic results - they establish the best practices, which is a set of right things to do, and then stick to them for a long time. You will get results the whole time when you implement those, perhaps not immediately after 2-3 months, but fairly quickly will get results slowly and the breakthrough is somewhere between anything from two

to seven years - something like that depending on how good the organization is from the beginning, right? And then stick to it, stick to it long term and your organization can change, and so forth, but you still stick to those beliefs for long term. So...some advice here. Can you make sure that you keep it absolutely simple and distinguish between system processes,

elements, and tools. See to it that you have a very simple communication tool. And I

have yet to do any a presentation anywhere without having this circle I'm gonna explain to you here. I don't know how many years I used that, but definitely it was on the overhead time, or just a piece of paper or something like that, right? And it's just common sense, of course. You're driven by the market and the market will drive the production plan. What to manufacture when

and so forth, right? And then you have to tie maintenance Planning and Scheduling into that. Not the portion that you can do on the run, but anything that requires

into that. Not the portion that you can do on the run, but anything that requires an interference with your production line. Well, in that case you need to, of course, coordinate those. And we need to understand what Planning and Scheduling is, and I still have to explain that everywhere, just like 50 years ago.

Planning is to decide what to do, and how to do it, and how long time it takes, and scheduling is to say when are we gonna do it, and who's gonna do it, right? And it's when you do the scheduling you drive the efficiency of

right? And it's when you do the scheduling you drive the efficiency of people, but a lot of people will avoid that because hey that's touchy, are gonna tell people what to do, and you can do that job in three hours and so forth, it used to take eight hours, yeah, but that's what you drive, where you really drive the efficiency of a maintenance organization. And if you actually can

plan and schedule work for people, you set the system right for these people so they can do the job more effectively, right? So they can execute the work more effectively, and then if this circle is not broken, you should record what you have done, and then you should use that information for continuous improvement like failure rates, and even building...planning templates so

we can use the same job over and over again, etc. etc. etc. Very often, this circle, and yeah if you do all these things, you are in the "circle of continuous improvement." You're gonna be better and better and better if you do these

improvement." You're gonna be better and better and better if you do these things, right? But often it's broken by what I call the "circle of despair." That

things, right? But often it's broken by what I call the "circle of despair." That

is when we for some reason have to react, right? And when we react, we have to go out and repair, and we can't do the repair with the quality we would like to do it. We have trained all our people in the precision alignment down to two

do it. We have trained all our people in the precision alignment down to two thousands of an inch etc. etc. and...but I don't have time to do it, because we have to fix it now because it happened at a time that is not planned and scheduled, etc. and therefore we have to repeat and you're suddenly...you're in that circle of despair, right? You start reacting more, now you know everything else you need to

despair, right? You start reacting more, now you know everything else you need to know but I need to react. And by the way I can tell you also from a survey we have on our website that are 50% of all the reasons why you have to react is because operations can't count to more than one when it comes to priorities or

maintenance jobs. It's true! Some simple math session there saying "hey, is it

maintenance jobs. It's true! Some simple math session there saying "hey, is it really this urgent." Well if it is...if I don't tell you it's that urgent someone else will get the job done and my job will never be done, so I better push it through. I don't trust that you will prioritize. It's fairly simple things,

through. I don't trust that you will prioritize. It's fairly simple things, right? And 50% of it is basically breakdowns on equipment, and

right? And 50% of it is basically breakdowns on equipment, and then there is another phenomenon: most planners in the world don't plan. And the

reason for that is often also these break-in jobs, and then I can't find spare parts because we bought a very good computer system, but we didn't load it with the Bill of Material because that was too expensive or something like that, right? These are international phenomenons. Everywhere you find that. It's ridiculous.

phenomenons. Everywhere you find that. It's ridiculous.

Planners are not being trained either because they just wake up a day, and "today I'm a planner, yesterday I was something else." Okay, so let's figure out what to do here. So how do we fix this? Well, it's still, if you don't have the right priorities on the jobs so we can take the most important jobs first and give a planner (or someone planning) a chance to plan the job and

then schedule the job, well, we're gonna react. If we don't do our prevention right - lubrication and other things - well we're gonna have failures, and if we don't do our inspections, we're gonna be taken by surprise. And if you do all these things right, I just need to add the Bill of Material to find the spare parts. This is

a one-page description of what good maintenance practices are; it isn't more complicated than this, okay? It isn't. If you want, you can add a lot of other descriptions under each of these boxes, of course, when you explain the processes. This is the system. Then all these are the things we talked about

the processes. This is the system. Then all these are the things we talked about RCM, SMED, RCA, RCPE, et cetera, et cetera. They're tools, right? And they can be very very good tools. But you won't improve the whole maintenance organization if you say, "the only thing we're gonna focus on now is Six Sigma." You get some good

results, and so forth but it has to be as part of the whole system. And don't

confuse these things. So when you introduce something like Kaizen Six Sigma or 5s, okay say "it is part of doing this system better, and it's a tool we add to that. Make sure you tell that to the organization, otherwise, you know, it really...it could be just a confusion, right? So can we agree on one thing here?

really...it could be just a confusion, right? So can we agree on one thing here?

And that is: no more acronyms for reliability and maintenance, okay? And distinguish

between tools and those things. But don't invent a new one. Just before I left from US, I saw an article somebody had said, "Intelligence-Based Maintenance," that's IBM, ok. I know, well if you start reading that well, you need to base your maintenance on finding failures early, well, Predictive Maintenance. I can just

assure you that if you do these things right, like you prevent, you inspect, you prioritize right. And then you plan the work, because you're giving someone a

prioritize right. And then you plan the work, because you're giving someone a chance to plan the work and then you need your Bill of Material. And then you see to that you do schedule work. Perhaps for shutdowns you do this extremely well, but also on a weekly basis you have a forecast, and on a daily basis at 11 o'clock you freeze the schedule for tomorrow. And if people could stick

to that schedule to 90% of the time tomorrow without interruptions, I promise you people will execute work better and better and better, and with a better quality, and a better satisfaction, etc. If you do these things better and better, you will get results. I guarantee you that. I've done projects based on the fact: we guarantee you that you will get results if you do these things; if you

don't, you're not gonna get the results. And the results will be increased reliability, and the lower cost. So... keep it simple please. Ask yourself if you are truly improving or if you're just making plans. This is a lot of politics here, right? We all know what we need to do and the only difference I see is that

here, right? We all know what we need to do and the only difference I see is that the best performers actually do it. It's all about execution in the front line, right? I don't think you will sit here and learn something you didn't know

right? I don't think you will sit here and learn something you didn't know before. We all know it, we all talked about it, we're all preachy about it, right?

before. We all know it, we all talked about it, we're all preachy about it, right?

You need to get someone into your organization with a foreign accent, a briefcase, and they have to come from overseas for some reason, and they have to have a briefcase, okay? And tell you what you already knew and someone will listen. Now I know that, that's a role of a consultant, many times we were catalysts,

listen. Now I know that, that's a role of a consultant, many times we were catalysts, okay? We're not a part of the political system, so nobody needs to be offended

okay? We're not a part of the political system, so nobody needs to be offended because the wrong person came up with the idea, you know it all, it's all these organizations, but sometimes I wonder myself. All improvement

initiatives must be executed by the front line organization until they do, you have no results. So we can come up with all these plans, all these nice PowerPoint presentations, and a lot of managers do that, and as long as you don't have the front line doing something different, you haven't got any

results, right? Front line organization includes planners, front line leaders,

results, right? Front line organization includes planners, front line leaders, operations coordinators, craftspeople and operators, and there might be some others.

That's where the improvement has to take effect. As a manager, you can only achieve results through these people. If it doesn't happen there, it hasn't happened yet, okay? You know I call it often the illusion of improvement. I hear things

yet, okay? You know I call it often the illusion of improvement. I hear things like, "we have done an audit and documented a detailed improvement plan."

Fine! That's good! But if it stops there, you just wasted money. You just wasted money. I don't know how many of these I've done myself, and it really upset me.

money. I don't know how many of these I've done myself, and it really upset me.

And I don't see it, so I do it in a different way today. I don't like to write the report and know no one will take action.

We have benchmarked ourselves to other plans and we are good. Well first of all, how do you know that the plant you benchmarked with was really that good? And remember one thing, if you start thinking that you're very good, that's

good? And remember one thing, if you start thinking that you're very good, that's the enemy of becoming better, and we just have to become better and better and better. It's just just a way to survive. "We just started a new program," yeah that's

better. It's just just a way to survive. "We just started a new program," yeah that's fine if you actually are implementing in the front line, right? But it's often an excuse. "We reorganized maintenance organization," yeah that's another

excuse. "We reorganized maintenance organization," yeah that's another illusion of improvement. If we find a central organization, well the new manager has to decentralize it, and then you think what we did that five years ago, yeah, but now it's something different, and then after three or four years, you have to centralize again because you understand you can't decentralize a maintenance organization and be effective.

Trust me. You can come and talk with me about that later but you're gonna go back. But it takes about three to five years [...] before you can do, and go back to more of a centralized/ decentralized, a mixed organization, right? Because the one who was there as the manager who did this will not admit that they made the mistake, so you have to wait until they leave. We are looking for a new Computerized

Maintenance Management System. All of them good initiatives, right? I

know I say that, but you have to follow through with it! So you hear a lot of action but not much of execution. [...] So think of that, are you taking a lot of actions but not much execution? Are we just saying we are working on it, just to get corporate off of our back or whoever

is pushing you. You need to create a culture of reliability. And then I would like just to go through very quickly - you need to know what is reliability then, and many others will talk about the definition of reliability, I'll leave that. So the only thing I'm going to talk about here is how do you measure

that. So the only thing I'm going to talk about here is how do you measure reliability, and there are many ways of doing it. But the easiest thing is to say that, in a coal mine for example, well I know that we have a capacity to produce this much, but today we only made this much, so if you could produce 10,000 tonnes, let's

say, but we only made 9,000, you had a throughput or you had the production throughput of 90%, right? You didn't use the full capacity. Most common, if you're down to equipment, you talk about your critical piece of equipment, or a process line, for example, well then we measure number one quality. Quality is then...okay

of what we produced was quality number one, and how many hours were we up running, that was time efficiency - many of you will call it availability - that is done, okay, how many hours of the the scheduled hours, or the necessary hours, or on a whole year - 8,760 hours -were we up running and at what speed. We

didn't reduce, we know we have a certain speed. This is the most common in many organizations. Then there is another one I used to call it the NASCAR index. It's

organizations. Then there is another one I used to call it the NASCAR index. It's

really a reliability index, and I call it mean time between production loss. And

this is because I believe that if you're going to have a reliability culture, you need to get operations plus maintenance together in production reliability. So I

[...] never say the words "production and maintenance," - doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying food and meat - it's the same. Well, you know, I believe that operations plus maintenance - that is

same. Well, you know, I believe that operations plus maintenance - that is production reliability, or that is production, so together that's production, okay? And this is very important, especially in the industries

okay? And this is very important, especially in the industries that are becoming more and more automated. And if you say mean time between failure, guess what where the thought goes then, to most people? "Mean Time Between Failure" (MTBF). It goes equipment, mechanical, electrical, while it's maintenance, right? So if you have a mission that

says that we have a partnership between maintenance and operation, then you have to start changing everything in the organization accordingly, and that's why I used here: Mean Time Between Production Loss. And I don't care if it is mechanical, electrical, instrumentation operations - we lost production, and we can't sit in the sandbox and just find out who was at fault here and point

at someone and say "now we solved problem," right? That's what a lot of people do. And

then you say "what was the mean production loss?" And it's fairly simple, because you can say to your organization, "what we want to do to create reliability is to [...] run as long as possible without any problems, right? But when we have a problem, we have to be prepared to fix it fast. Whether that is operational or

mechanical or electrical, it doesn't matter -it's a problem, right? Look at your organizations...many organizations still look like this - over there is operations,

organizations...many organizations still look like this - over there is operations, over here is maintenance, right? How many of you are managers of operations here?

They didn't hear the question... one. Mainstream, what an opportunity you have, because I am sure that when you hear a presentation like this and many of the others, many of you think "oh I wish him or her were here right now." Someone,

whether that is in operations, or in engineering, or it is your mine manager, or it is in financial, or it is any other decision maker, I'm sure about it. Because kind of, we preach to the choir here,

it. Because kind of, we preach to the choir here, don't we? We all sit and agree here, don't we? Yeah, of course we know this stuff. And

don't we? We all sit and agree here, don't we? Yeah, of course we know this stuff. And

also those of you who have brought a team of operations and maintenance together here, you would get much much better results - I'm convinced of that. But often I see this is like two different silos. And then you ask, "what is the relationship here," and you say, "well really, we sell service to operation." Operations look at you like you're a service provider. And then you say, "okay, so and we are

production." And it isn't like that at all, you know, because if you really start

production." And it isn't like that at all, you know, because if you really start drilling down to this and say, "okay if you think that maintenance is a service function, who is responsible for maintenance cost then?" "Well, the operations manager, well I am, because it's a part of the manufacturing budget." Okay,

let's drill it down and say, "if you blow the maintenance budget with 10%, who is then in the hot seat?" Maintenance, yes. "But you did everything they asked you to do because you're my customer so I drop what you asked me to do and I do it for you, and then I'd blow my budget," so I'm gonna be an ass...

I'm gonna be...not a good guy, sorry for that, anyway. [...] Yeah I'm good for in the beginning of the year, the three first quarters, at last quarter I have to say "no" to everything and you have a conflict, right? Really, it doesn't make sense. The

only thing that makes sense to me is that, of course, we say "we are here together in reliable production, and you focus on your side on the reliable process," and what I mean with that - reliable operations - you need to know the raw material, the chemistry of making our process, you need to be the expert in that, and I will deliver equipment reliability, and of course they

overlap in many cases. I mean, many many highly automated plants the instrument people in your plant knows the process better than the operators. They have to, otherwise they can't troubleshoot a chemical process of what it can be, right?

And it all, of course, starts with poor reliability and maintainability design. You

need to pull in engineering, and that is sometimes someone who sits way away from where you are. They're not at all included in this. But anyway, the problem here is many times that we have different budgets and different goals and hidden agendas and all these things, but this is really what it is about. You need to pull together the organization

in, really, in a team of reliability. That's a very key. And that

takes some time, because you can't just sit down and say, "okay yes of course we agree." We have to work together, and then we hug each other, let's start with that.

agree." We have to work together, and then we hug each other, let's start with that.

And then we go out on some jumping-jack exercises somewhere at some whatever it is a couple of days, and now we're a team, right? Now that might work a little, well, it can be something that adds on there as a tool, perhaps, make it happen. But it won't happen unless you change the process you work in. Let this be a guiding principle and say "okay, we have to think of this now, we are going to be

a reliability group here together, right?" We need to think of everything we do down the line according to that mission. And it might start with this, it's a good example, I used it for many many years, because many years ago I talked to Greg in a plant, and he said, "Christer, I don't think you can help us...to improve

maintenance here though because look at it! I looked at it the other day, and in fact something like 75% of all maintenance we require is responded to the same day as we request it, right? And only something like 25% we have to wait three to ten days or even longer sometimes. How in the world can you improve that?" Talked to

someone else and he said in that same organization and he said, "okay you know my goal is that not more than 5/10% of all maintenance work we do here shall be responded to the same day as it is requested? Most of it has to have a lead time of three to ten days, because then we can become effective." Who

do you think is the operations people talking and who do you think is the maintenance guy talking. Who is the operations guy? Yeah, we all know that, right? And I'll tell you, if you move into operations - you might have been

right? And I'll tell you, if you move into operations - you might have been maintenance - you start thinking that way - "I want to have it done now, okay, now." I don't want to crank up the computer system and find out the equipment number and then I have to put the priority and fill out all these fields, and so forth. Hey, pick up the phone and I tell someone this is

what we need to get done. I pick it up in the morning meeting, I give someone a yellow tag and write it down, and so forth. So this is operations' view, and that is maintenance. I've never seen that the opposite way. And if you look at the red jobs, and look what the cost is, it's very very easy, of course, to figure out

if we do a red job that has to be responded to now. Whether it's a break-in job or a breakdown, it will cost more. And much of that cost is actually lost production. Why should equipment always fail between

production. Why should equipment always fail between 7:00 in the morning and 4:00 in the afternoon? Of

course, it's more likely, it's 76% more likely to happen at another time - a Saturday or Sunday or night shift. So what do we then do? We put a lot of people on shift so we can respond to the problems, right? And that's not the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to say, of course, we shall have as few people as

do. The right thing to do is to say, of course, we shall have as few people as possible on shift because we have avoided all the problems, and we even taught some operators to do something. And we can even pay people to stay home, and stay guaranteed sober, so they're useful, and you can call them in any time, right? Now many solutions to it. But the wrong thing is to just add

people to the problems. But that's often...what you would think of if you would be an Operations Manager. You would say "hey I want those people on shift," right? I want that. Sleep at there at night then.

right? I want that. Sleep at there at night then.

But pay for it then, that's another thing. So what are you gonna do to improve? Well what

we need to improve is, we need to see to that - at least we solve this part - are we a partnership here, a true partnership? I mean it's not just words in it. It is in a mission statement. It's rubber-stamped by the plant manager, etc. etc. And how are we gonna do that? And then it is about those basic things, prevent things from happening, inspect, plan, schedule, execute, analyze, and

improve. I don't if there are any other magic bullet out there. There are a lot

improve. I don't if there are any other magic bullet out there. There are a lot of different tools and techniques and instruments I suppose we can use within this, of course, to make it more effective, but this is really the process.

And it won't just happen because you said so. So just a few examples here on how you build this. In a traditional organization, it's not uncommon that if we lost some production in the morning meeting, the day after, we have to figure out where to put this production loss. And we actually ask "who screwed up here"

by department. Is this gonna be a mechanical failure, or was it electrical,

by department. Is this gonna be a mechanical failure, or was it electrical, or was it in the control systems, or was it operational, and some other things, right? And then we assign that somewhere. And remember one thing it's an

right? And then we assign that somewhere. And remember one thing it's an international phenomenon - if we don't know what is wrong it's gonna be electrical or instrumentation, because we don't know what happened so okay, just "the electric motor tripped, okay, that's electrical, isn't it?" Well if you are electrical, you know very well that that's a symptom - something else can be

wrong but...no you haven't solved anything by doing that! You just upset some people!

wrong but...no you haven't solved anything by doing that! You just upset some people!

Someone will walk out of that room saying well "I was blamed for..." whatever, it doesn't matter really. And then you say "Why did you do that? We need to know where we have to improve." Well the thing is you might be 60% right, you might be 70% right, you might be 80% right, but you can't start from there if you do a root cause, right? You have to say "describe problem, trigger set

to do Root Cause Problem Elimination, assign owner, solve problem, document solution, and train others. You ask "why?" not "who?" That's an effort. If you do it that way, it builds a team. If an airline crashes, you can't say "I saw some sparks - it's electrical," and that's done. You see what they do and how reliable

those aircrafts are today - it's unbelievable - I feel very safe when I fly. It's more dangerous to go to the airport in fact. Operators operate

I fly. It's more dangerous to go to the airport in fact. Operators operate

and maintenance maintain. Of course I had that idea...I didn't have it onboard ships because we didn't know the difference, we were totally innocent, we have no idea the difference. If there was a problem, we had to fix it.

the difference. If there was a problem, we had to fix it.

Well operators do not less than 50% of at least basic inspections of equipment care. And of course this differs in different

equipment care. And of course this differs in different industries. If you have many operators per piece of equipment that

industries. If you have many operators per piece of equipment that can do a lot of this basic stuff, right, but if you're a highly automated oil refinery, it can be pretty difficult to get those people out of a control room to do inspections. That's quite obvious. But if you have many, they can definitely do this. That builds a partnership too in fact. You [...] kind of wipe out

do this. That builds a partnership too in fact. You [...] kind of wipe out the borderlines. Shutdown decided by operations. Fine we have a shutdown plan,

the borderlines. Shutdown decided by operations. Fine we have a shutdown plan, but that can change, and I still come to many organizations where, "well it was changed yesterday and I wasn't told - I came in here, I had contractors lined up" and "well we we took it earlier," or "we'll take it later," or whatever, and it wasn't

even communicated with maintenance. It's fine to change the shutdown, but it's always a joint decision. We have to understand we do it together, and then, yes, we understand the implications of it and this is the right thing to do. But

often it's just total lack of communication, surprisingly. Operators

measured by quality production volume; maintenance measured by cost. In fact, if you have a joint liability measurement, point manufacturing cost measurement, that's what you should have. In fact, one of the best organization, if not the best organization I worked with, yes, they have a budget, cost is important, but what I do is that I report the reliability improvement because it will drive down

the cost. And again it doesn't mean that you don't have a budget, right? You have

the cost. And again it doesn't mean that you don't have a budget, right? You have

that, but you have to focus on what drives cost, not just cost alone, and you come back to basic stuff like lubrication, alignment, operating practices, how do we start up a piece of equipment, how do we shut it down, teach your operators all these things right. And priority set by emotions. Now here's

priorities set by importance for the business, and I don't have time here now to go through that, but that is a very important criteria. Okay, so some key points to take home: please, keep it safe and simple.

I say safe and simple, because I've done this in so many countries in the world, and when I said, "keep it simple stupid," don't say that in every country, coming back to culture, because I had one guy in Nigeria, he does pointed at me and said "me stupid?" I had a heck of an argument. So it is safer

to say "safe and and simple." Clear and uncomplicated definitions, for example, planning is "what" and "how" and scheduling is "when" and "who," and it comes down to many of the other things you talk about daily. Make sure people understand. But

please for God let's say keep it simple, okay? Do not mix up systems and tools.

That's a very important message, because it can lead to so much confusion. So much

confusion. Learn how good you are and how good you can become, and remember, as a leader, you can only get results through others. Your

frontline organization will or will not deliver these results. And execute. So

make sure that you at least pick up one or two or three ideas here, and don't just say that was a good idea, you can all do something about it. That is the value of attending a conference like this. So, thank you very much for listening. (applause)

listening. (applause) Thank you very much, Christer, very interesting. Who's sitting there wondering whether their organization is a hedgehog or a fox? And we have time for

a couple of quick questions, if anybody has any questions. And if I can just get some light. And if you just wait for a microphone to come so everybody can hear

some light. And if you just wait for a microphone to come so everybody can hear your question, please. (audience member) From the Public Transit Authority. My position is Manager of

Facilities and Infrastructure. How do you manage an asset when you have a lot of influence from the external factors such as people using it where your unplanned works is much much higher than your plan works?

Vandalism is a classic case that we face, and how do you manage that? (Christer) I wish I had the silver bullet for that, but if you take that number, I listen to a lot of people in facilities maintenance, for example vandalism if it would say, graffiti, for example. One of the best things is to wipe it out as soon as you can. I mean

example. One of the best things is to wipe it out as soon as you can. I mean

take action take it away...because, or it's trash, or something is destroyed like a broken window, fix it as fast as you can, because if it's it's broken, others are gonna break it. It's like almost like, "it's okay to do it now," because nobody cared obviously, right? But if I had a silver bullet on that...you know

I don't have that answer, really, but that's a question perhaps someone here can help to answer. I wish I had. Lot of politics and other things involved there.

(Emcee) Thank you. One more question? (Audience member) From INOR. My

question...I sort of need a reliability in a sense, come from reactive sort of background, and aviation has sort of held up as a pinnacle of maintenance. What

sort of time do they actually spend in planned maintenance compared to an operating asset, or in the sky. (Christer) In the airline industry? (Audience member) Yes. (Christer) I don't have that answer, but I'll tell you aircrafts have a lot of failures, but we don't know about them, because then you don't have breakdowns. If you take the landing gear -

there might be some expert here - I think they have four double redundancy, thank you. Well in fact, three could fail without us knowing it, right, as long as

you. Well in fact, three could fail without us knowing it, right, as long as the fourth works. But when they come with that plane...to the airfield or to the maintenance facility, they fix it, and we never knew about it, right?

Because if you have good maintenance, I don't think you can ever have a [...] preventive maintenance program with zero failures. I

don't think that can be economically. But you could have zero breakdowns. But then

you have to put a lot of money in it and the consequence of a failure on the airline is so much bigger than anywhere else, right? It kills the company, if that happens, because of poor maintenance. There is some there is some consequence if you don't do it, right? That's a parallel with that is, that all maintenance organizations in the world are best at shutdown management,

planning and scheduling shutdowns. Why? Because management cares about it! If you're

delayed four hours on the shutdown, somebody's gonna ask a question, but if it you have daily and weekly schedules, well nobody really knows what your maintenance organization is doing. Most probably foremen supervise but they don't...but it's not visible. There's a consequence if something goes wrong. (Emcee) Okay thank you.

don't...but it's not visible. There's a consequence if something goes wrong. (Emcee) Okay thank you.

Last question? (Audience member) From HWE. You finish your presentation saying do not mix processes and tools? (Christer) Yes. (Audience member) Can you give us a just a very simple definition, key points, on what makes that different, and tips for not to

mix it? (Christer) Well, I would say I come across many organizations that say "we have

mix it? (Christer) Well, I would say I come across many organizations that say "we have discussed here which road we shall go; if we shall go TPM, or RCM, or just good maintenance management," right, whatever it's called. That's a good example. TPM is

kind of a whole program, it's an approach, right? And so we say, so it's the whole maintenance system. But RCM, for example, that's a tool. And it's just

maintenance system. But RCM, for example, that's a tool. And it's just confusing to tell the organization, "Now we're gonna go RCM. Okay do that. On

the 5% that the max of critical equipment you have that needs it because if you go RCM on all equipment, that that's an overkill, it's ridiculous." But

it's the engineer's dream. The engineer's dream - that's wonderful because gives me A, B, C, D, E what to do. And at the end I find out we need to check that v-belt driver, do you get that? And I said well of course we knew that -

that's the confusion. RCM has its place, right? Six Sigma has its place. But you

know it confuses the organization, because they believe you have started something new now, and we're gonna change everything else we do. That's what you have to stop. Say "no, we add this on because it fits in to help what we are doing better." (Emcee) Ok thank you. Thank you very much, it's great to have your mind

doing better." (Emcee) Ok thank you. Thank you very much, it's great to have your mind stimulated so highly on a Monday morning, isn't it? Please thank Christer once again for his presentation.