ISO 55000 is Good for Business

ISO 55000-55002 is called the asset management package.  It is a roadmap for how to set and maintain an equipment reliability program.  When equipment is reliable, production is more stable and costs can be managed more accurately.  Therefore, the 55000 standard is good for business.  A reliable operation provides the stability for innovation or for profit taking.  It provides business with the option to execute their strategy.  People are in charge.  In an unreliable operation, the equipment is in charge, because all the people are reacting to the availability (or lack thereof) of the equipment.

First, what is ISO.  It is the organization for international standards for products and services.  Many people think of the one or two standards they are familiar with, but as of today:

ISO has published 22,195 International Standards and related documents, covering almost every industry, from technology, to food safety, to agriculture and healthcare. ISO International Standards impact everyone, everywhere.

In other words, ISO is big and broad reaching.  And who doesn’t love a story that anecdotally begins with a horse butt?  The story, which is at least partially true, goes that the width of modern railroads are standardized on the old Roman roads.  Since the Romans’ main mode of long distance transport was horse, the road tracks are spaced at about the width of two horses.  Therefore, one of the first standards was based upon horse width, or as the driver sees, the horses’ behinds.Horse ButtThe Asset Management package, ISO 55000 series, was published in 2014.  It arrived without much fanfare, and even today, I can tell how hardcore into reliability someone is, by their familiarity with the standard.  That should not be the case, every maintenance and reliability manager should be familiar with the package, and own at least some version of it.

The most common phrases I hear about why an organization does not have a working reliability program are

  1. We don’t know where to start.
    • The organization is in such a reactive mode that they don’t know how to prioritize forward thinking reliability work – the equipment is in charge.
    • Those charged with reliability leadership don’t have the skills to create a reliability roadmap.  They have no formal training, and their OJT training has been focused on fixing and maintaining, rather than reliability strategy.
  2. We can’t get management support for a program.
    • Those charged with reliability leadership do not understand how to ‘sell’ reliability.  They don’t have the background to put together an ROI for the reliability roadmap.
    • Management thinks maintenance, not reliability, and does not view it as a competitive advantage.
    • Organizational mind set needs to be :
      • Reliability is not a cost to be cut.
      • Reliability is a continuous improvement program to invest in.

The ISO 55000 series addresses the roadmap and can be used as leverage to help convince management of the necessity for reliability.  The standard does not address ROI or funding questions.  Engage experts to nail down the financial rewards of a reliability program.

The standards are

  • ISO 55000:2014 Asset management — Overview, principles and terminology
  • ISO 55001:2014 Asset management — Management systems — Requirements
  • ISO 55002:2014 Asset management — Management systems — Guidelines for the application of ISO 55001

They layout a roadmap for reliability.  They are well organized and written in pretty easy to understand language.   They even include handy diagrams and relationship charts.  The standard starts with asset management.  What are your assets, then how do you put together a program to manage their health and life cycle.  It includes self assessing and a process for sustainability in the reliability program.

Start small to get “wins”, but use the package to build both your overall strategy, as well as your tactical execution program.  Now you know where and how to start.  Problem 1 – Solved.

The package can be used in conjunction with the financial estimates to gain management support.  By showing that you are following a standard, and that your ideas are well rooted in solid business practices all over the world, you can convince the conservative leader.  Show them that you are not trying something new, but catching up to your competitors.  For the leaders that like to push the envelop, show them how the standard is a jumping off point.  You are one of the first in your industry to adopt and conquer this standard.  After all, have they heard ISO 55000 talk around the c-suite water cooler?  Convince them they are an innovator by backing this program.  Problem 2 – Solved.

Some who were involved in the ISO9000 quality series implementation of the 1990s may see following ISO standards as a huge money drain with little results.  If that is true, they embraced the idea of being certified, but not the ideals of the actual standard.  It is true that the certification companies were/are expensive, and that you could have a quality program, but not a quality product.  But you had to work pretty hard at cheating the system to not wind up with a good quality system.  The problem often came that overly complicated internal systems were developed rather than tweaking current processes to met the standard.   The standard set up a good system of checks and balances, as well as the roadmap for success.  The 55000 standards set up that same type of system, and expressly encourages internal validation.

Setting up a quality system, a reliability system, or any other business process to comply to ISO standards, should not mean creating new processes from scratch.  Rather they should build on your current processes and strengths to meet the standard.  You know how to run your business, use the standard to ensure that processes are actually process based, not people based.  They ensure standardization.

A properly executed and maintained ISO5000 series compliant reliability program does yield a reliability operation at the optimum cost.  Depending on the current maturity of the organization’s reliability program and the available resources, it may take a year or it may take 10 years to see these rewards.  However, since the asset management program is good for business, and its bottom line, I highly recommend spending the resources to become compliant in the 1-2 year range, rather than stretch it out over several years.  The more involved the organization’s commitment to reliability, the faster and deeper the rewards.

It is not easy to transform a business, and there are investment costs to doing so.  The ISO standards will not help you with the dedication and perseverance you need to implement reliability.  But they do provide a high level roadmap, and the assurance that you are working with a standard.  Following that standard properly will result in a reliable operation.

ISO 55000 series asset management standards are good for business.


Is Certification Necessary?

Certification is an indication more of commitment than skill.  However, it is this commitment that makes the certification valuable.  To pass any certification exam, a mix of practical and book knowledge is required.  Because exams are written, the book knowledge is more heavily gauged.  In earning and keeping the certification, one works constantly on the practical knowledge and its application.  That work makes the long ago earned, but still valid, certification more valuable the newly minted one.  A certificate on the other hand, is earned one time.  The skill may be built upon, but there is no tracking of continuing education or use.

CPMM 022

I believe that certifications are important because of the commitment that one makes when obtaining and keeping that certification.  Even when I search for a provider to care for my pet, I am more inclined to interview someone who has joined a professional organization, and gained certification.  It’s not that I think scooping litter requires a skilled and tested individual.  But if I am going to trust the health and well being of one of my family members to a relative stranger, I want to know that they are as committed to my little guy’s health and well being as I am.

2017-07-06 16.50.03

Certifications are have value for all types of employees.

Current employees

When current employees earn and maintain certification.  It indicates their commitment to the craft and their willingness to engage in continuous education.  Companies should encourage certification and get involved with the certifying organization to ensure that the content matches industry needs.  Certifications need to evolve with the craft and continuing education units (CEUs) or professional development units (PDUs) are part of this evolution.

Hiring new employees / Creating a resume

Certifications and certificates on a resume can help it rise to the top.  The interview process will probe the depth of candidates’ knowledge and skill.

When building a resume always include your certifications.  Choose which certificates to include based on the ones that you are proficient in, and that you want to continue to practice.  I have earned numerous safety certificates over the years, but I do not include those on a biography or resume because that is not where I want to focus my career.  I have earned certificates in Theory of Constraints and Lean and I do include those, because they are relevant to my work.  I have kept current on the application of those in industry, but they are not certifications, because I do not renew them through the use of CEU or PDU tracking.

Hiring a consultant

Certifications for consultants are imperative.  To hold out as a expert or leader in a field, one must be conversant in both book and application knowledge.  The certification is an indicator of this.  Interviews and discussions with the consultant will help match the right skill set with your needs.

Multiple certifications and certificates

Multiple certifications demonstrate intense commitment.  Multiple certs in the same field demonstrate a deep knowledge and an interest in being on the leading edge of the subject.

Multiple certs in diverse subjects show an aptitude for big picture thinking, as well as practical application of those subjects.  They also show an evolutions of career interests and skill sets.

To determine the right certification, invest time in researching the options.

  • The certification should be accepted by others in the industry as valuable
  • Certifications offered by professional organizations (.org) are often preferred
  • Make sure there is a renewal period and understand the CEU/PDU requirements
  • The certification should be directly applicable to the work that you currently perform (do not get a certification for your “next” career, your lack of practical application will hinder your credibility)
  • Earning the certification (the study materials) should interest and excite you
  • The certification should provide more contact with others in your field

So, a certification is not necessary, but highly desirable.  If you love your career, embrace it by joining (professional organizations), contributing (to the body of knowledge), and certifying in it.



Documentation is a focal point in an organization.  It is sets down the standards and records history; the history of both innovation and failures.  Good documentation helps train new comers and holds all colleagues accountable.  Without documentation, organizations are likely to repeat the same mistakes over, or have no idea how a mistake was made.

Documentation should be factual, contain enough information to be useful, yet remain concise.   There should be documentation standards and a keeper of the records to maintain those standards.  Below is a review some standard types of documentation and key factors to making those documents useful.

Document Master:  There should be a standard format for each type of document.  That format should contain author, approver(s), date and revision.  The storage location should be obvious about which documents are approved for use.  Documents under revision or obsoleted should have access limited.  This can be done through a process, or an electronic document control system (DCS).  If an electronic DCS is not used, naming convention needs to be standardized to speed finding the correct information.  Suggested naming convention  document type + area + specific topic + date in YYMMDD convention.  For example this document would be named BlogEngineerXXDocumentationYYMMDD

Using the date format of YYMMDD will sort documents easily.  The convention of MMDDYY will not sort in chronological order in a file format.

Process Flows:   Process flows are used for everything from mail delivery, to document control, through your most complex deliverable.  Ideally all of these processes would be documented.  However that is not often practical, so a priority needs to be set.

List all the process that need to be documented and order them by priority.  Develop process flows for all the critical process, and set a schedule to work through the rest of the list.  One tip for getting through the whole list is to assign new employees to create process flows as part of their on-boarding.  This helps with their indoctrination, plus gets process flow documented.

Process flows should ideally fit on one page.  Sub processes can be included on subsequent pages as a drill down process.  Process flows should have swim lanes or other information to indicate who is accountable and responsible for the activities on the process flow.

Recommended priority for process flow development

  • High impact processes (either safety or dollars)
    • Process that done correctly can save money or generate revenue
      • Example:  Assembly process of finished product
    • Process that done incorrectly has severe safety consequences
      • Example:  The lockout tagout process
    • Process that done incorrectly can cost significant money
      • Example:  A batch process that finishes at 5 minutes, but must be stopped before 10 minutes.  Removing the batch between 5 and 10 minutes is critical to success.  Early or late finishes are scrap.
  • Process that cross departmental boundaries.
    • When processes fall under different managers, it is important that processes are documented so there clear hand-offs and acceptance points.
  • Process that are performed often and by multiple individuals
    • To ensure consistent output, processes that are carried out by multiple individuals need to be standardized.  These are often then turned into standard operating procedures (SOP)

Standard Operation Procedures (SOP):  Repetitive work should be documented as standard operating procedures.  SOPs should cover management as well as frontline work.  SOPs should contain pictures and instructions on how to perform the work.  These are used to train new individuals and refresh training for all employees.  SOPs are detailed instructions that can be turned into check lists for short reminder versions that are used for daily/weekly interactions.

Checklists: Checklists are short reminders of work to be performed.  They should concentrate on activities that have direct impact on performance.  Checklists should be designed to be completed in one time period.  For instance, a checklist longer than an hour or two should be broken into multiple checklist or routes.  Few people work longer than two hours straight without taking a quick break (coffee, phone call, et’c)

Checklists should not be used as a management tool.  Checklists are to ensure that processes are followed or to check product and equipment condition, not as a substitute for management activities.  If the checklist activity does not have a direct effect on the organization’s output, it is likely not necessary.

Responsibility Accountability Consulted Informed (RACI) :  This is a matrix that assigns accountability and responsibility for activities.  It also helps colleagues understand their role in operational activities.  A RACI can help the consulted and informed understand why they are not able to significantly influence certain areas of the business.

Portion of Example RACI

Continuous Improvement (CI) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA):  CI and RCA activities need to be documented to ensure that mistakes are not repeated.  How often have you been in one of these activities and someone says “hey -didn’t we try that when …”

Properly documented and filed CI and RCA activities should be reviewed at the beginning of every new CI or RCA.  These files can save lots of frustration and wasted effort and money.

Training and Qualification Matrix:  This matrix is useful when changing roles or when help is needed in a pinch.  Understanding the skills required for a job, as well as who in the organization has those skills helps define training needs and budgets.

Lube Training Matrix example

This is just a list of some of the types of documentation required in an organization.  There are lots of forms and other types of documents required to run an organization.  The ones listed here are key to managing the organization, but are often not formally documented.  Large organizations may assume everyone “knows”.  Small organizations  may not realize the importance of this type of documentation as they outgrow the one person in a role structure.

Review and see if there are any gaps in your organization.  It takes time and discipline to create a good document system.  However, the benefits of having one are worth the effort required to build and maintain one.

Qwerty must die

What if I told you that I could take something that you do dozens, maybe hundreds of times a day and make it much more difficult?  There is no benefit in making it more difficult, it is likely to cause you to make more mistakes, possibly contribute to injuries, and increase the time it takes you to do one of your most common tasks.

Some would say ‘no thanks’ to this offer.  Others would question my intelligence, sanity, lineage, and generally say things best said with @#!.   No one would say yes to that proposition.  Yet, the qwerty keyboard persists.  This was a design from 1874, that was designed to optimize typing without jamming the mechanical bars.

Mechanical bars have not been a problem since the electric typewriter was created.  Currently a significant number of keyboards are not even physical, they are touch screen.   Typing often occurs on tiny smart phone screens where ten figure typing is not practical.  Yet, there has been no mainstream advancement in English language keyboard layout for over 140 years.

A search of ergonomic keyboards, yields some split keyboards to improve the ergonomic position for the hands, but no new layout of the actual keys.  A search of keyboard apps yields emoji designs and other visuals, but no improvements on the qwerty layout.

Why not have touchpads and keyboards designed for optimal modern typing?  The most used keys could be positioned better for both thumb and ten finger typing.  The keys could be sized to make it easier to hit more common keys.  Anyone who has watched Wheel of Fortune® or played Scrabble® know that the vowels and a few consonants make up the majority of letters used in English.  It seems like it would be a simple ergonomic engineering exercise to create the best keyboard layout for today’s typing needs.

Even better than one layout, how about a customizable layout.  Letters could be arranged and sized based on the individual user’s needs.  If my best friend’s name is Izzy, I may need to make the z key more prominent than other users.  Or if I decide that I want a keyboard without the letter “C” I could make that my default layout.  Let’s face it, we all know what jerk C can be.  K and S can make up the majority of necessary sounds (H will need a new pal for some chilling words).  But really, who needs C anyway.

What ever an individual’s keyboard needs, it is time to get rid of the qwerty keyboard.   I can not find a good reason to keep it, and have listed several reasons above to get rid of it.  I advocate that #qwertymustdie.   To do this, we need app designers and keyboard makers to create an alternative.  Hopefully one that allows for a customizable solution for each user.  Layout, key size, color, relative proximity – these should be personal choice (tsoise ?) for a modern typing solution.


Choosing the right tool for your analysis. RCM or FMEA

Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) reviews and Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEA)s have a lot in common, but there are still some key differences.  Rather than go into the mechanics of each, let’s look at the philosophy to help you choose the appropriate tool for your organization.

RCM as events are often overshadowed as folks have started using the term RCM to mean a proactive operating philosophy; what I call manufacturing excellence.  This is not a review of that philosophy.  Here I am talking about the John Moubray pioneered RCM analysis and its legitimate offshoots. (SAE JA1011_199908)

RCM is a member of the zero culture.  No failures are acceptable.  The RCM will identify all the potential failure points and these will be engineered away.  This may take the place of re-engineering equipment or processes, or engineering a proactive inspection to reduce the risk of an unplanned interruption (failure) to zero.  RCM will rank failures in a high-medium-low fashion, but the ultimate goal is to remove all potential failures, no matter the ranking.  RCM is to the maintenance organization what zero defects is to the quality organization.

Just as true believers of the zero quality defects philosophy removed quality inspectors, a true RCM organization would place less emphasis on mechanics rushing to breakdowns.  There would be no unplanned maintenance.  An RCM organization would take the opportunity of a breakdown to review their engineering efforts and determine how to never have this happen again.  Driving unplanned maintenance to zero would be the vision of the whole organization and resources would be applied appropriately.  This requires much upfront engineering and precise execution of planned maintenance.

FMEA culture does accept some failures.  Run to failure is an option in an FMEA philosophy, but that decision is made in advance, and with eyes wide open.  A key feature of the FMEA is the risk priority number (RPN).  The lowest acceptable RPN is determined and this is called the RPN threshold.  The RPN threshold is the point at which the organization has said, the cost of reducing that failure is more than the cost of the failure itself, therefore it will not be engineered out.  Determining the failures and their mitigating activities is similar in both the RCM and the FMEA.  However the FMEA assigns a number to the failure modes’ severity, occurrence, and detection to determine the risk priority number.  The organization then chooses an RPN threshold and only assigns resources to engineering out failures whose RPNs are above that threshold.  Therefore the organization accepts that failures with RPNs below the threshold will still occur.  They have accepted a breakdown culture, to a certain degree.  This organization will rely on a combination of engineering and maintenance to perform.  The FMEA organization will have fewer engineering resources and more maintenance and troubleshooting resources than the RCM organization.

Both the RCM organization with its zero tolerance and the FMEA organization with its limited acceptance of breakdowns are legitimate operating philosophies.  Both have many successful examples.  Airlines and power producers are examples of industries that follow the zero philosophies.  Failures in these industries cost the providers huge economic penalties, so the cost of the RCM implementation is easily saved in cost avoidance.  There is also a risk of loss of life with either of these failures and, actuary tables aside, these cannot be measured in pure economic terms.

Many factories and producers adopt the FMEA philosophy of accepting risk.  However, problems arise when management provides resources to act in an FMEA environment and expects RCM zero results.  Management will keep the responsibility for the budget and approving projects to themselves, but assign the accountability for zero breakdowns to the maintenance or maintenance and engineering departments.  This mis-match in accountability and responsibility is what causes some organizations to spiral out of control and become a reactive culture.   Reactive culture is not a sustainable operating philosophy.  Just to be clear, reactive maintenance culture is not a sustainable operating philosophy.  It is not sustainable to operate your organization with a reactive maintenance philosophy.

So when choosing between FMEA and RCM, understand what the organization’s accountability and responsibility structure are for allocating and implementing engineering and maintenance resources.  It is often advisable to lean toward the RCM zero philosophy.  That way the projects to engineer out the failures are in proposal form, just waiting for the funding to be approved.  Let’s look at how a failure might be handled in each organizational philosophy:

FMEA – a failure occurs with a low RPN.  The organization demands an after action review of the failure.

The maintenance manager reviews the original FMEA, confirms the RPN number is still valid and reports to the rest of the site leadership team that this failure was one that “we” determined the organization could weather.  Added to that report are the cost of the failure, and an estimate of what it might cost to mitigate that failure.  This confirms that run to failure was the most economical plan.

All is good until someone on the leadership team states “they” were not a part of the “we” and will not accept any failure at any time; mis-match in philosophies.  Now the organization has to re-determine which philosophy they hold or should the RPN threshold be lower.  This could trigger a review of all the FMEAs against a lower RPN, or a removal of all RPNs to embrace a zero culture.


The maintenance manager reviews the original FMEA, determines the RPN has changed and it is, in fact, above the threshold now.   This triggers a project for this specific instance.  It also triggers a review of all FMEAs to recalculate the RPN for the current operating conditions.  This also sets up the need to have a trigger to review RPNs as operating conditions change.

RCM – a failure occurs. The organization demands an after action review of the failure.

The maintenance manager reviews the files, finds the failure and the project associated with its mitigation.  The project is presented to the leadership team with an updated ROI given the recent failure.  The leadership team decides project resources and timing.  This may include that the ROI on the project is not still not viable and the project goes back to waiting status.

Both RCM and FMEA philosophy are acceptable ways to run an organization.  However, if the leadership team is constantly changing faces (individuals), or the operating conditions are constantly changing, it can be advantageous to run with the zero failure philosophy of RCM.   Operating under the FMEA philosophy may make more sense in the reality of limited funds, but it takes much more finesse and an understanding of risk analysis to promote and sustain.

Choose your methodology wisely and be able to explain the philosophy to both your peers and your team.  Confidence and support for the methodology is much more important than the specific acronym you apply.  Please do choose a proactive approach, because reactive maintenance is not sustainable.  It costs way too much in lost production, equipment wear, and morale of the humans who have to operate in that environment.

Please share your stories of successful RCM or FMEA implementation.

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)

OEE definition and formula.

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a measure of how well equipment is able to be utilized.

Why use OEE

  • OEE is used because it is a standardized method of measuring productivity from an equipment standpoint
  • It is an unbiased method
  • By understanding the losses experienced by the equipment we can fix them

How to calculate OEE

OEE = Availability * Performance Rate * Quality Rate

  • Availability = Time available to produce, this is reduced by planned maintenance, change overs, breakdowns, sanitation, and cleaning
  • Performance Rate = The designated speed or rate of production
  • Quality Rate = Good parts produced, or value delivered, this is reduced by defects, holds, scrap, unaccepted work

Data – where to find it; how to use it

  • Availability
    • Usually a manual calculation
    • Most often calculated for full calendar time (24×7; 5×7 – usually operational staffed time) then the unused time (usually market down time) is subtracted from total expected time.
  • Performance Rate
    • Usually calculated from run time information captured on equipment
    • It can be manually calculated but is not practical to manage using manual calcs on large scale operations
    • Theoretical performance rate must be determined and used to calculate the rate
  • Quality Rate
    • Can be calculated on the line if reject system is operational
    • Final calculations may come shifts, days, or even weeks later.  This depends on the quality system and when product is dispositioned from ‘hold’

Common problems to avoid when leveraging OEE for improvement

  1. Not counting all time on the equipment as Available time.
    • Availability can be thought of as an indication of capacity.  If planned downtime (such as that for maintenance, changeover, or sanitation) are removed from the availability calculation, then the load requirements of the equipment cannot be determined.  Therefore changes in production schedule cannot be accurately planned.
    • If 4 hours of planned maintenance is required on equipment each week, that accounts for approximately 3% of Availability.
    • Activities to reduce planned downtime are cannot be value-added if these times are not included in OEE.
      • This is an example of silo thinking.  Engineers working on reducing downtime, either by SMED activities, or instituting more condition monitoring cannot accurately account for the ROI of such activities.
      • In truth, the company will see benefits, but the battle over how the savings are accounted, and who gets to claim the reductions will overshadow the real tangible benefits.  Some will claim the engineers calculations are funny-money; operations will see a real jump in OEE, but not be able to account for the jump.
    • The purpose of OEE is to find losses, and determine if they are worth eliminating.
  2. Using OEE as a measure of people, not equipment.
    • Since equipment is in the very name of the measure, this seems obvious.  But most organizations use the OEE measure to operations, shifts, and sometimes even individuals
    • Management needs to manage.  OEE is best used as a metric to determine where to troubleshoot, but it is never a measure of people’s performance.
    • The purpose of OEE is to find losses, and determine if they are worth eliminating.
  3. Setting a specific number as an OEE goal
    • We love goals, and we love numbers.  Even “Dancing with the Stars” publishes metrics.  However, even the goal there is not to get a perfect score, but to get a better score than last week. – Oh yeah, and a better score than the competitors.
    • I’m often asked what is should a line’s OEE be.  I have spouted “80-85”, but that’s just an arbitrary number.  Who cares what the number is? 80-85% of statistics are made up on the spot (see what I did there?).
    • The purpose of OEE is to find losses, and determine if they are worth eliminating.  That’s it.  Find losses and make a determination if they are worth eliminating.  This means finding a fix for the loss and running an ROI to see if the fix is worth eliminating
  4. Taking action too early or too late to correct
    • The purpose of OEE is to find losses, and determine if they are worth eliminating.
    • Ensure that thorough troubleshooting and root cause analysis are taken on the loss investigation.  Otherwise, you will be solving symptoms, not problems.  This can happen if you react to the data too quickly.  Usually a full week to a month of data are needed to see a good pareto of the losses.
    • Waiting too long to act on the data gives the impression that it is not important.  It takes a lot of conscientious effort by operators to correctly capture and code losses.  If they do not perceive value in their efforts, the downtime coding will become generic.
  5. Not communicating with operators, maintenance, and others how the organization is using OEE and how they are a part of it.
    • Lack of communication will lead to finger pointing and suspicion.  The age old silos of maintenance and operations will use the OEE numbers to blame each other for the recorded losses.
    • Understanding losses is a positive thing.  Do not focus on the OEE number,  instead focus on the losses and how to eliminate them.  You can inspire enthusiasm and spur creative thinking in all team members when root blame is not the focus.

Example Time!pexels-photo-125514.jpeg

OEE Using a Car as an Example

Availability = Time the car is available to drive where you want

  • Reduced by Planned Downtime
    • Time to fuel up
    • Preventive maintenance** (oil changes, tire rotation, tune up, washing, …)
  • Unplanned Downtime
    • Time in shop for maintenance / repairs
    • Accidents
    • Breakdowns
  • Not reduced by
    • Time spent parked

      **Remember spending time on preventive maintenance reduces breakdowns and unplanned downtime

Performance Rate= Time spent with car at speed limit (or expected speed)

Reduced by

  • Idling car
  • Traffic problems / jams
  • Weather related bad road conditions
  • Debris, junk on the road
  • Slowing down in an unfamiliar situation

    Speeding has negative potential consequences, so it is discouraged
  • Tickets
  • Crashes from mis-matched speeds on roads
  • Equipment malfunctions (blown tires)

    Performance rate problems translate into Availability issues

    • Accidents
    • Low fuel economy causing increased fuel stops
    • Breakdowns

Quality Rate: The car performs as expected

Reduced by

  • Low fuel economy
  • Poor emissions
  • Appearance (dirty, paint chipped, rusted,…)  These can become maintenance issues, or interfere with transportation reputation
  • Inability to transport/haul/tow everything you want

So, let’s calculate the OEE for a typical week on a car.

The car is used to go to and from work 5 days per week.  Work is 25 miles from home.  It takes 1 hour to get to work and 1:06 to get home (1.1 hours).

The kids school is 1.5 miles away and the car was driven there 3 times during the week; total of 9 miles.  It took 1 hour for each round trip.

One day during the week there was a stop for fuel and a car wash.  This took 45 minutes.

Standard Performance Rate is 30 miles per hour.   (I declared that.)

There were no quality defects, as all activities performed as expected.

Availability = 100- (Total time car was occupied; 15.25 hrs)/(Maintenance time ; fuel and car wash; .75 hours)*100

Availability = 95%

Performance Rate = 100-(Total Miles/Total Hours Performing) / Standard Performance Rate)*100

Performance Rate = 100- (269/14.5)/30)*100 = 38%

Quality Rate = 100%

OEE =  95%*38%*100% = 36 %

Is 36% OEE good or bad?  The answer is NO – it is neither good or bad.

Areas of losses – potential reductions

  • Maintenance; fuel and car wash – find a faster car wash
  • Waiting for children – determine that OEE is more important and make the kids wait for the car, not the car wait for the kid.  Disclaimer: This is cruel and not to be taken seriously. The point is, this loss is not worth reducing.
  • Perform detailed analysis to improve the Standard Performance rate; make it a variable based on the type of trip.  This is similar to have a performance rate specific to a product.

The car did everything needed, the maintenance was able to be fit into the schedule. The car is not at capacity, therefore it is not value-added to improve the OEE.   So, even though the OEE was 36%, it is acceptable, because the losses were evaluated and the equipment (car) was operating within expectations.  A 36% OEE on a city bus, would likely not be acceptable.  So acceptable is relative to use/application factors.  Use OEE to find losses and determine if they are worth eliminating or reducing.  OEE is a tool, not an end product.