Upload
waqas-muhammad
View
104
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
How Plant Reliability Affects a Lean
Implementation
4
Risk and Reliability of Transformers
8
The $25 Billion Profit Pot
14
The magazine by practitioners for practitioners.
June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3 www.smrp.org
Meeting Customer Needs Through Equipment Reliability
Meeting Customer Needs Through Equipment Reliability
Reliability and maintenance training for the manufacturing and process industry.
www.idcon.com 1-800-849-2041
We don’t sell engineering services, parts, tools, equipment or software...our independence translates into objective and credible advice and training.
Training
IDCON’s Best Practice Open Seminar Schedule for 2012Course Dates/Raleigh, NCMaintenance Planning and Scheduling / Reliability Based May 9-11, 2012 Spare Parts and Materials Management and November 12-14, 2012Preventive Maintenance / Essential Care and Condition Monitoring May 7-8, 2012 and September 10-11, 2012Root Cause Problem Elimination Training™ September 12-13, 2012 and November 15-16, 2012
For on-site training please call1-800-849-2041
ing pleas041
call
Features
4 How Plant Reliability Affects a Lean Implementation Discover the outcome of Lean implementation through a plant manager’s perspective at two different manufacturing plants. Owned by the same Fortune 500 corporation, the two facilities have surprising results. PAUL BORDERS, CMRP
8 Risk and Reliability of Transformers Learn how Alan Ross gains a unique perspective on transformer risk and reliability by joining a transformer maintenance company that has evolved its practices over a 45-year period. Explore the four categories of risk in this feature. ALAN ROSS
14 The $25 Billion Profit Pot Rod Ellsworth, vice president for global asset sustainability at Infor, looks at some of the biggest culprits of energy waste in manufacturing plants, and highlights the colossal opportunity to turn waste into profit. Energy is the single largest operating and maintenance expense, forming 60% of a typical manufacturer’s O&M budget. Research shows that up to 80% of this energy is wasted. This article will delve into the biggest culprits of energy. ROD ELLSWORTH
Departments2 OffIceRs And dIRecTORs
2 fROm THe cHAIR Did You Know? STAN MOORE, CMRP
19 BOK cORneR Adding Value to Membership through SMRP’s Library of Knowlege. BRUCE HAWKINS, BEST PRACTICES COMMITTEE CHAIR
20 memBeR sPOTLIgHT Meet Steve Carter, CMRP
21 fROm THe eXAm TeAm Improve Your Personal OEE. TERRy HARRIS, CMRP
22 memBeR cORneR
24 new! cHAPTeR ROund-uP
26 weLcOme new memBeRs SMRP welcomes new executive and individual members.
30 new cmRPs SMRPCO welcomes new certificants.
32 ceRTIfIcATIOn uPdATe CMRP & CMRT Paper Exams: Turnaround Time from SMRP
32 smRPcO susTAInIng sPOnsORs
SMRP Solutions ( ISN#1552-5082) is published bi-monthly by the Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, exclusively for SMRP members. The annual subscription rate is $15 for members, which is included in dues. The Society was incorporated as an Illinois not-for profit corporation in 1992 for those in the maintenance profession to share practitioner experiences and network. The Society is dedicated to excellence in maintenance and reliability in all types of manufacturing and services organizations, and promotes maintenance excellence worldwide. SMRP’s Mission is to develop and promote leaders in Reliability and Physical Asset Management.
The products featured in SMRP Solutions are not endorsed by SMRP, and SMRP assumes no responsibility in connection with the purchase or use of such products. The opinions expressed in the articles contained in SMRP Solutions are not necessarily those of the editor or SMRP.
Back Issues: The current issue and back issues of SMRP Solutions can be downloaded from the library area of the SMRP Web site. Original versions of the current issue and some back issues of Solutions are available by contacting SMRP Headquarters ($5 per copy for members, $10 per copy for non-members).
SEND ADDRESS CHANGES AND INQUIRIES TO: SMRP Headquarters, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30342, 800-950-7354, Fax: 404-252-0774 E-mail: [email protected].
June 2012 Volume 7, Issue 3
4
14
8
2 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
FRoM the ChaiR
Did You Know?By stan moore, CmrP ChaIr of smrP 2011-2012
I thought it would be good to take this
opportunity to update you on some of the
inner workings of SMRP. A primer of sorts,
in a Q&A format. I trust that you, as a
member, will find this beneficial.
D id you know that you can make tax
deductible contributions to the SMRP
Foundation? It is a great way to support our
Foundation as we strive to drive education
in the reliability and maintenance profession. The SMRP consists of both a 501(c)
(3) Foundation and a 501(c)(6) Society. These are IRS designations pertaining to
organizations. In general terms, donations to a 501(c)(3) organization such as the
SMRP Foundation can be considered tax deductible. 501(c)(3) organizations can be
characterized as charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for
public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and
preventing cruelty to children or animals. Specific to our Foundation, the focus and
emphasis is on education in the reliability and maintenance profession. Our Body of
Knowledge is organized under the Foundation. Additionally, our scholarship program
is funded and supported by the Foundation. Our other major focus areas, including
the annual conference, certifications, and membership are organized under the Society.
Did you know that we award scholarships each year? In an effort to encourage
academic institutions and their students to consider careers in maintenance and
reliability, and to further encourage professionalism in the field, the SMRP will annu-
ally award various scholarship monies to selected individuals who have applied for
such funds and for which the SMRP Board of Directors acting through the Academic
Liaison Committee have deemed deserving. In addition to these awards, the SMRP
also offers another scholarship that will be granted to an individual student, enrolled
in an accredited college or university, regardless of his/her concentration. Historically,
applications for our scholarships have been relatively low, so I encourage you to visit the
SMRP Web site for additional information. The deadline for applicants is August 15,
2012. You can also find this information under the Education link on www.smrp.org.
Did you know that we are a volunteer organization? Our officers, directorates
and committee members are all volunteers with a passion to advance the reliability
and maintenance profession. We all have full-time jobs and employers that graciously
allow us to support SMRP and the advancement of our profession. It is rewarding to
see that many companies continue to see the benefits of the SMRP and the return
on investment. We are also supported by a great team from Kellen, our management
company, and Howe & Hutton, our legal counsel. Our Board is comprised of a
balanced mix of both service providers and end-users, all with their CMRP. Want to
get involved? Get plugged into a committee or volunteer to work as a track leader at
our annual conference. It is professionally and personally rewarding and I encourage
you to get involved.
Did you know that our fiscal year is July to June? Three years ago when we
reorganized into the Foundation and Society, we moved our fiscal year to start in
July rather than in January. We chose to do this to better balance our revenue and
expenses within the fiscal year.
2012 SMRP officers & Directors
ChairStan Moore, CMRP
Ascend Materials
256-552-2173
immediate Past Chair,
advisory CommitteeRick Baldridge, CMRP
Cargill, Inc.
952-984-6356
Vice ChairShon Isenhour, CMRP
GP Allied, Inc.
843-810-4446
treasurerNick Roberts, CMRP
DuPont
251-753-2922
SecretaryCraig Seibold, CMRP
Johns Manville
303-978-2641
Certification & Standards DirectorGreg Yeager, CMRP
Cargill, Inc.
952-984-2850
Body of Knowledge DirectorRon Leonard, CMRP, PE
Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
843-744-7110
education DirectorButch DiMezzo, CMRP
Management Resources Group, Inc.
704-995-2262
Member Services DirectorEdward Foster, CMRP
The Mundy Companies
281-530-8711
outreach DirectorHoward Penrose, CMRP
Dreisilker Electrical Motors
630-469-7510
3 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Did you know that this is our 20th anniversary? SMRP had
its start in 1992 as a group of industry professionals looking
for a way to advance the reliability and maintenance profession
across corporate boundaries for the benefit of all. The Society
for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals (SMRP) came to
be as a result of discussions between senior officers of HSB
Reliability Technologies and Applied Technology Publications,
the publisher of MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY, which took
place near the end of 1991 and into early 1992. The two found-
ing companies invited a number of their clients and associates
to attend a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Chicago to
discuss the need for an association that would be directed to
maintenance and reliability personnel. We are looking forward
to our annual conference this year, celebrating 20 years of
professional growth and development in the maintenance and
reliability profession.
Did you know that we are seeing renewed interest in our
Special Interest Groups or SIGs? SIGs are groups with a very
defined focus of interest. Where a Chapter will have members
from many industry sectors and interests, a SIG is more nar-
rowly focused within an industry sector or interest. Our first
SIG, Petrochemicals, Oil and Gas, is seeing renewed interest. We
recently launched the Pharma and Biotech SIG and, even more
recently, the Reliability Analytics of SIG. These are just a few of
the ways that SMRP is working with membership to bring value
and a forum for information exchange.
Final thoughts and considerations. The Board is wrap-
ping up the budgeting process for the 2013 fiscal year. This
is always an exciting time as we look to the future and how
we can grow the organization. Nick Roberts, our treasurer,
has done a great job this year pulling together an aggressive
budget. Ed Foster, our member services director, has been a
great addition to your Board and is working on several fronts
to improve member value. Howard Penrose, our outreach direc-
tor, is working with Kellen to improve our marketing strategy,
including our Web presence. Craig Seibold, our secretary, has
been leading a review of our policies and bylaws, ensuring they
are current and germane.
We recently participated in the USA Science and Engineering
Festival held in April in Washington D.C. (See Member Corner,
“SMRP Booth Educates Children,” page 22.) Shon Isenhour,
our vice chair, recognized the need for SMRP to have a
presence at this event. Our annual conference, under the
leadership of Butch DiMezzo, continues to grow and is shaping
up to be our best conference yet. All of these efforts require
dedication and focus from our volunteers. I am proud to serve
and represent such a team.
Oil Sight Glasses Solve Oil Inspection and Contamination Problems!
Esco Products, Inc. | 800.966.5514 | www.oilsightglass.com
Scan for more information.
Esco’s Oil Sight Glasses will prolong the life of your equipment.
•Installstodrainportinminutes•Nomaintenance•Constantvisualmonitoringofoil•Easydischargeofaccumulatedwater•Useonpumps,gearboxesoranyfluid
lubricatedmachinery
4 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
5 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
How Plant Reliability Affects a Lean
ImplementationBy: Paul Borders, CmrP
this article examines the experience of a plant manager who had the opportunity to lead two dif-
ferent manufacturing plants. The plants were similar in numerous ways. They were both build-
ing products manufacturing facilities, both were continuous processes, both had roughly 300 hourly
workers, and they were both owned by the same Fortune 500 corporation. The important difference
between the two facilities was that one plant had a relatively mature manufacturing reliability pro-
gram in place prior to the Lean implementation and the second plant was a typical North American
plant that was highly reactive in its maintenance processes.
The outcome of the Lean implementation at the two locations could not have been more dramati-
cally different. The Lean implementation at the reliable plant was powerful and transforming, while
the Lean implementation at the non-reliable plant did not deliver long-term results.
This article describes the plant manager’s experience in leading two separate plants and why he
reached the conclusion that it’s critical to have a reliable facility for a successful Lean manufacturing
implementation.
Blitz events were conducted very similarly in the two plants. Whether they were 5S events or
Kaizen events focusing on a process or problem area, they were typically three to five days in length,
facilitated by either a consultant or a corporate continuous improvement leader, and had roughly
eight to 16 hourly employees engaged in the event.
Blitz Events in a Non-Reliable PlantThe blitz events in the non-reliable plant were tougher to pull together. The first real challenge was
getting participants to take part in the event. Because the work days were tough and challenging in
the reactive environment, most employees were reluctant to come in and work days in excess of what
they were scheduled. Managers and supervisors sponsoring the event would often have to assign
employees to work on the blitz event instead of having them volunteer for the project.
6 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
how Plant reliabil ity af fects a lean Implementation
An additional problem with blitz events
in the non-reliable plant was establishing a
baseline of performance for processes. The
leadership team wanted to measure the
improvements made over the course of the
event, but there were many times this was
not possible because of equipment down-
time or process upset occurring in either
the baseline measurement or during the
measurement of the “after improvements”
section. This always resulted in deflation
for the participants of the event because
“the equipment messed up.”
A particularly aggravating problem
that occurred in blitz events in the non-
reliable plant was participants getting
pulled from the event because of equipment
problems. Electricians, mechanical crafts-
men, and area supervisors were especially
hard hit with this phenomenon because
their skills were either needed to get the
equipment back up or their expertise was
required to juggle the production schedule
or shipping schedule to react to the down-
time. Needless to say, it was disappointing
to the team when someone who had been
in on all the discussions during the event
would “get yanked out of the event” to go
take care of the day’s problems.
Probably the most insidious and
damaging aspect of blitz events performed
in the non-reliable plant was difficulty
in sustaining the gains made during the
event. Because the workplace was so often
either reacting to, or recovering from, a sig-
nificant equipment problem, managers and
supervisors struggled with executing the
critical leadership behaviors that were nec-
essary to sustain the gains that were made
in blitz events. The eventual deterioration
of the area or process that had improved
was visible to both hourly employees
and the managers. This would, in turn,
reinforce the reluctance for employees to
participate in future events because they
felt their efforts were in vain. The manage-
ment team’s credibility suffered as well.
Blitz Events in a Reliable PlantBlitz events in the reliable plant were dra-
matically different.
The leadership team enjoyed much
more management credibility with hourly
employees. This was largely because of the
progress that had been made in the prior
two years with implementing reliability.
Hourly employees’ daily work lives had been
deeply impacted by the improvements in
machine condition and the operational sta-
bility that resulted. They were very happy
with results of implementing the principles
of reliability, even after the first year.
This credibility resulted in hourly
employees who were much more eager to
participate in blitz events. People were
excited about the opportunity to impact
their work lives in a positive way. The
scheduling challenges of backfilling par-
ticipants’ normal jobs persisted in some
cases but there were many participants
whose jobs were not backfilled for the event
because the stability of the plant did not
require them to be on their jobs all the time.
It made an enormous difference to have
all the participants remain in the event
for the entire duration. The team dynam-
ics were much more positive; it was rare
for someone to have to leave the event to
“take care of problems.” This allowed all
the participants to own the results, and
more importantly, own the changes made
in the event so they could maintain the
improvements and provide insight to other
employees about changes that were made
and why they took that direction.
As the facility performed more and
more successful blitz events, employees’
willingness to participate and actually lead
events increased because they saw the
positive changes that were implemented
and they saw the results being sustained.
KanbanThe opportunity to create a Kanban system
in finished goods existed in both plants.
Both had fairly typical inventory strategies.
The sites produced inventory to match a
sales forecast or to react to working capital
directives. There was a dramatic difference,
however, in the ability of the plants to capi-
talize on the opportunity to utilize Kanban
for producing to actual customer demand.
Kanban in a Non-Reliable PlantAs previously discussed, machine con-
ditions in the non-reliable plant were
unstable and the resulting downtime
made frequent schedule changes neces-
sary. Often a machine breakdown would
limit the plant’s ability to produce some
products. As a result, the plant would
sometimes run products that were not
needed for orders simply because it needed
to produce products to hit gross production
targets stated in pounds.
There was no way the plant could have
implemented a Kanban system to produce
to the Kanban signal. While the plant still
provided excellent customer service as
measured by order fill rates and shipping
dates, this was largely made possible by
having very large inventories that served
as buffers to absorb the impact of a chaotic
production schedule.
Kanban in a Reliable PlantAfter three years of persevering in the im-
plementation of its reliability program, the
ability to produce the production schedule
grew very strong. At the encouragement of
the site’s Continuous Improvement Leader,
the plant implemented a Kanban system for
one of its very popular product lines. There
were certainly some formidable “mental
challenges” that needed to be overcome.
Warehouse personnel and scheduling
personnel had grown accustomed to a
cushion in inventory, and the very thought
of taking inventory levels down produced
much fear that needed to be managed.
Hourly employees’ daily work lives had been deeply impacted by the improvements in machine condition and the operational stability that resulted.
7 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Once the team was engaged and trained
in the Kanban concept and the workings
of the signal for inventory replenishment
were created, they simply started running
the system. While there were a few tweaks
of the system over the first few months,
the facility quickly gained confidence in its
ability to produce and work with the much
lower resulting inventory levels.
On the front end of implementing the
Kanban system, leadership felt that improved
financials were going to be the primary
benefit because of the reduction in working
capital. In reality, while leadership quickly
realized the financial impact, the improve-
ment in working conditions for plant
warehouse staff became “the big win.”
With much lower inventory, unanticipated
benefits included:
� Wider aisles for the forklift drivers to
maneuver forklifts;
� less stress for the forklift drivers due
to more room to work;
� less finished product damage;
� less property damage because of
better visibility; and
� less investment in finished product
storage costs.
Even with much lower inventory levels,
the plant continued to provide high levels
of customer service.
The absolute key to this process was
the ability to produce the right products for
customers at the right time. With reliable
production machinery, this plant was able
to produce what the schedule called for.
ConclusionThe experience of leading these two similar,
but very different facilities really under-
scored the importance of having a plant be
reliable before implementing Lean manu-
facturing. The cadence of execution that is
learned by the organization through having
equipment maintenance work planned,
scheduled, completed, and closed out,
becomes a cornerstone of organizational
discipline that is fundamental when the
elements of Lean manufacturing are
utilized.
Paul Borders is principle consultant
for life Cycle engineering. Paul helps
companies sustain performance
improvements by driving culture
change to ensure new systems
become a fundamental way of life.
Certified by Prosci as a Change
management leader, Paul is also a
facilitator with the life Cycle Institute,
where he uses high impact learning
techniques to teach courses including
reliability excellence for managers
(rxm).
how Plant reliabil ity af fects a lean Implementation
8 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Risk and Reliability of
TRANSFORMERSBy: alan ross
9 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
R eliability engineers and maintenance professionals have
developed unique solutions for most of their productive assets.
Whether mining, refining, metals processing, chemical processing
or simply manufacturing assembly, the time and attention paid to
critical productive assets has been rewarded with less unplanned
downtime and better asset planning.
An asset group that was missed in the best of these mainte-
nance and reliability systems plans is transformers—the heart of the
electrical system. Transformers were overlooked primarily because
of their long-lasting durability and effectiveness. For utilities, they
are a critical component of the product they make and distribute. For
industry, they are considered important assets, but until lately, have
also been one of the most “taken-for-granted” in the production cycle.
Today, it is precisely because of the historical reliability of trans-
formers that the risks are greater than anticipated and significantly
more important to manage.
Risk and Reliability of
TRANSFORMERSthe author refleCts on how he gaIned a unIque PersPeCtIVe on transformer rIsk and relIaBIlIty By JoInIng a transformer maIntenanCe ComPany that has eVolVed Its PraCtICes oVer a 45-year PerIod Beyond strICtly ChemICal oIl testIng to a multI-faCeted aPProaCh InCorPoratIng eleCtrICal and meChanICal faCtors.
10 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
risk and reliabil ity of transformers
Recently, I participated in three day-long seminars:
“Transformer Risks and Reliability,” conducted by Munich Re.
Why would one of the largest, if not THE largest, insurer and re-
insurer of transformers conduct these seminars in New York, San
Francisco, and Houston? Quite simply, they have seen the future,
and if recent trends are any indication, the future looks “risky.”
The Risk Factors Chart presents four categories of risk. If we
can determine the biggest risks, develop standardized testing and
preventive maintenance plans, we can reduce risk, or at a mini-
mum, better prepare for the eventual failure of a transformer.
We will address both “transformer life extension” and “end of
life reaction planning” later. For now, let’s consider the four catego-
ries of risk:
Risk #1: Application Application Risk stems from the impact on the business if a
specific transformer fails. It can be calculated and predicted and
should also identify which transformers in your fleet would cost
the most in unplanned down-time if failed. Application risk is the
cost of failure to your production. Amazingly, it is not uncom-
mon for smaller transformers operating key lines or production
processes to have a much higher application risk than most would
believe. Ask the question: “If this transformer would fail, what
would be the impact on productive output?”
Recently, we reviewed a customer’s transformer risk factor. We
found the greatest application risk came from a smaller special-
ized unit powering one of its furnaces that is subject to some of
the harshest operating cycles from peak demand requirements.
A relatively new transformer in good condition ran the line for
the furnace. If it ever went down, millions of dollars to rework the
furnace and its line would have to be spent.
Risk # 2: Failure When transformers fail with increased frequency, the law of
unintended consequences is often in play. Fire damage, safety,
and environmental issues can lead to losses and downtime much
greater than just the impact of the transformer failure itself.
Even without an explosion failure, a transformer leaking oil
outside a dammed area would likely be considered a hazardous
waste violation. Now you must deal with penalties enacted by
local, state, and even federal environmental agencies.
It is virtually impossible to monetize the cost of a transformer
failure because so much depends on the type of failure. Examples
include an automatic shut-down with transformer housing intact,
oil leakage from a bushing, or a catastrophic explosion.
Certain transformers, due to their size, location, load, and con-
dition, have a greater failure risk than others. For these types of
transformers, we should create a higher degree of monitoring and
testing to prevent a catastrophic failure. There are enough proven
methods for reaction planning to get the maximum life of that unit
ApplicationThe cost or impactto production
FailureBoth direct and indirect
Condition-BasedThe cost of assessing
the current conditionto avoid failure
End-of-LifeThe cost to getting
back up and running
Risk FactorsThe four risk factors when analyzed together can give
Risk Managers a better picture in viewing the overall risk of transformer and electrical failure and how best to minimize it.
The four risk factors—when analyzed together—can give risk managers a better picture in viewing the overall risk of
transformer and electrical failure, and how best to minimize it.
11 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
while implementing the end of life plan for that specific unit.
Recently, a company experienced the failure of one of its
single transformer units caused by a fire. This led to the complete
destruction of its entire line of transformers. The overall cost
exceeded $19 million, which was well beyond the replacement cost
of the single transformer alone. With several insurance carriers
involved, and the complexities of determining fault, it took two
years of litigation to determine liability. The legal costs to protect
the company’s best interest also became an added cost of the
failure.
One of the most often overlooked failure risks is the safety of
personnel—both company employees and contractors. Recently
in Florida, a Load Tap Changer failure caused the death of one
employee and one contractor.
We also asked one of the largest transformer rewind and repair
companies in the world whether or not it had ever rebuilt and
rewound a transformer that had not failed. The answer was an
emphatic “No!”
Then we asked: “What would the potential cost savings be
should an at-risk large distribution transformer unit be taken out
of service prior to failure?” The answer was that the cost sav-
ings would run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. This clearly
demonstrates that much of the severity from failure risks can and
should be prevented.
Risk #3: End-of-LifeTransformer manufacturing and installation peaked in America in
the 1960s and 1970s with the rapid expansion of industry. Many
of these units are no longer in production, have very tight physical
footprints due to the building of productive infrastructure around
them, and may not even be able to travel the current roads and
rails necessary. Given the recently revised weight limits on bridges,
the elimination of thousands of miles of rail spurs and load limits
on overweight and oversized trucks, the transportation rules that
applied when the transformers were installed in the 1960s and
1970s are much different today.
When we evaluated the end-of-life risks for transformers at a
metal processing facility, the transformers with the high applica-
tion risk were not the one with the highest end-of-life risk. They
were several rectifier transformers built in the 1990s considered
specialty transformers with unique design characteristics that
were no longer standard line transformers from manufacturers. If
they failed, it would take 26 weeks of production time to replace
them; therefore, the end-of-life risk for these units was tremen-
dously high.
One important consideration was transportation costs. The
old rail spur ended seven miles from the plant, so moving the unit
out and back via rail completely was not an option. Transport via
specialty truck requiring extensive specialty permits would prove
more costly than the entire re-production itself.
When the end-of-life risk and application risk were combined,
we monetized the cost of developing the reaction plan with the
department head. We expect that cost decision to be made at a
much higher level since capital budgets with major operational
costs typically get approved within the annual planning process
and not departmentally.
is it better to plan ahead by developing a reaction plan consisting of budgetary costs for unit rebuild or replacement and under-standing and budget for transportation and contractor access? or, is it better to wait until something happens?
12 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Is it better to plan ahead by developing a reaction plan con-
sisting of budgetary costs for unit rebuild or replacement and
understanding and budget for transportation and contractor
access? Or, is it better to wait until something happens?
Obviously, in this instance, a good reaction plan would save
tremendous amounts of time and money while allowing corporate
management to develop capital budget plans over years rather
than within days of a failure.
Risk #4: Condition-Based Can transformer failures be avoided? Can life extension mitigate
this risk? Since joining SD Myers, I am tremendously biased when
it comes to maximizing the life of a transformer. I have seen first-
hand how effective it is to develop standards, rigorously test and
track the condition of the fleet of transformers, and maintain that
fleet to those standards. Quite simply, the easiest risk to mitigate
is the condition-based risk.
At SD Myers, we maintain our productive assets with
increasing rigor, yet too often even our best customers con-
fuse chemical or electrical testing of a transformer with its
maintenance.
There is so much more to a complete condition assessment
than trended oil tests. While that is a great and important
first step, the next steps are as equally critical. Is recom-
mended maintenance on oil processing standard throughout
the company, or is it left up to each individual responsible for
maintaining one plant?
Not all oil processing is alike. While some contractors clean
the oil, others may process on the unit until they address issues
in the paper and the oil. Since the life of the transformer is depen-
dent on the life of the paper, processing on oil alone is often a false
sense of security. Acids, gases, and moisture leach back into the
oil from the paper, thus even routine oil processing maintenance
is highly dependent on a rigorous set of processing standards that
should be based on your standard test results.
What criteria should be used for electrical testing to create
a “best practices” testing and maintenance protocol? What data
is available from the manufacturer at assembly and installa-
tion to determine changes over time? A simple Sweep Frequency
Response Analysis (SFRA) test can serve as the baseline for future
condition assessment, yet too often we do not have that data. It is
a matter of developing a reliable system that can address the con-
dition of the unit without a lot of added costs or down-time during
the life of that unit: Not at the end of life. It is all about assess-
ment, planning, and systems.
For one of our customers who operated multiple transformers
at multiple sites, we were asked to develop a standard of testing
and maintenance for their units that had a great deal of com-
monality. For more than seven years, we had performed chemical
testing on the units to track their condition. When we began to
address the complete condition of each unit, we asked for their
electrical test data. The customer told us they had never con-
ducted electrical tests.
While oil testing could be considered critical with 75% of the
data required to make good maintenance and planning deci-
sions, electrical testing provides another important 25%. This
disintegrated approach to transformer maintenance is one of the
most significant changes we are bringing to reliability and systems
management.
Can You Achieve Risk Equilibrium?In the Risk Factors Chart (p. 10), it appears that all risks are
equal, which is seldom or hardly ever the case. Some risks are
projections of the future and others are based on assessment
of the past. When you combine a higher condition-based risk
with any of the other risks, you create a multiplier effect. But
starting out with condition-based risks for all units may be
time and cost prohibitive. Which transformers are at greatest
application risk? What will the impact be on production if that
unit goes down? This requires an impact assessment to deter-
mine the specific impact on the business that the most critical
units support.
Certainly, a catastrophic loss to a unit is not desirable. But,
losing a smaller padmount unit that supports a back parking lot is
not as critical to the business as losing a unit powering the main
production line.
An impact assessment must go even deeper into the risk by
looking at potential transportation, availability of spares or repair
facilities, and myriad of other issues arising if this critical unit
were to fail. Thus, determining criticality must be one of the first
steps in the assessment process.
In reality, there is no such thing as risk equilibrium. There is
only risk balancing or mitigation.
Life Extension: A Universal ConcernObviously, the first and most important take-away from trans-
former risk analysis is that you are doing everything possible and
economically-feasible to extend the life of these critical assets.
Even a company with one unit is at risk if it happens to run its
data center off of it.
How long can most of us go if our data and/or Emergency
Response Plan (ERP) systems shut down for a couple of weeks?
Consider the call from the CEO on that one.
Earlier, the term “life extension” was mentioned. The
subject of “transformer maintenance and life extension” has
been a term defined in many different ways in many different
markets. Today, the perspective on transformer maintenance
and life extension is becoming a universal concern. The
motivating factors behind the unification of strategy on
transformer maintenance and life extension has been driven
by some common factors including the aging population of
transformers and a higher-than-expected failure rate from
newer replacement units.
The general aging inventory of electrical power equipment,
given that the infrastructure building peaked more than 40
years ago as pointed out earlier, means a great potential for
failure over the next decade. Prior to developing impact assess-
ments, condition assessments, and reaction plans, we should
first consider a life extension system to develop and maintain
the necessary testing and preventive maintenance practices as a
priority.
risk and reliabil ity of transformers
SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
13 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Older units need this system since
the tighter parameters and design criteria
on newer transformers include closer
tolerances, a reduction in case sizes and
internal clearances, and newer units
requiring an even more robust system.
alan ross is the vice president of
sd myers, Inc. responsible for
developing and executing long-term
strategies, alan progresses next
generation leadership for all operating
units, domestically and internationally
for sd myers, Inc. alan is an executive
member of smrP with a mechanical
engineering (me) degree from georgia
Institute of technology (ga tech)
and an mBa in international business
and marketing from georgia state
university.
Developing A Reliable System
So where does that leave us? What should a company dependent upon the safe,
reliable, and uninterrupted use of electrical power do?
Four Suggestions:
1. Understand the short- and long-term, direct and indirect impact and costs
associated with unplanned power outages from the loss of a transformer.
2. Develop and implement a set of standards for determining the operating
condition of transformer(s) through the use of intrusive and non-intrusive
testing.
3. Develop a preventative maintenance plan.
4. Implement the plan company-wide, giving reliability professionals the tools
they need to monitor and maintain this critical and often overlooked asset
class.
5. Develop a reaction plan for every critical transformer in your area of
responsibility and control.
risk and reliabil ity of transformers
Noria Training Calendar
International Council for Machinery Lubrication
ICML certification testing is available after most of the courses listed.
Please visit www.lubecouncil.org for more information on certification and
test dates.
-- Jimmy Coltrain, Reliability Coordinator, Weyerhaeuser
Fundamentals of Machinery Lubrication
June 12-14, 2012Orlando, FL
July 10-12, 2012Milwaukee, WI
July 24-26, 2012Toronto, ON Canada
August 7-9, 2012Nashville, TN
Sept. 18-20, 2012Myrtle Beach, SC
October 23-25, 2012Las Vegas, NV
Advanced Machinery Lubrication
August 7-9, 2012Nashville, TN
Practical Oil Analysis
July 10-12, 2012Milwaukee, WI
October 23-25, 2012Las Vegas, NV
For the most up-to-date Training Schedule, visit noria.com or call 800-597-5460
‘‘This training is an extremely important part of any reliability lubrication program. The course was full of valuable information while the instructor was very friendly and took the time to answer all the questions at every level of expertise.
June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
14 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
The$25 Billion Profit Pot
By: rod ellsworth
Cut to the Bone
D riven by economic pressures that pre-
ceded and continued throughout the
recession, there is a view the manufacturing
industry has cut costs back to the bone, a
fact which has been partly responsible for its
recovery. But while it might appear that the
sector has exhausted all avenues of inef-
ficiencies, this perception is only valid in the
context of the parameters through which pro-
ductivity is traditionally measured. In fact,
evidence suggests the majority are incurring
excessive, unnecessary costs to the tune of a
staggering $25 billion.
As economic conditions seem set to
remain tough for some time yet, manufactur-
ers cannot afford to ignore the possibility
of untapped profit if they are to maintain a
competitive edge and avoid stalling the sec-
tor’s recovery.
New Opportunities The reason this untapped pool of savings
exists is because traditional metrics look pri-
marily at productivity as the key variable in
driving operational costs down, but typically
do not include energy usage. Energy is seen
as a fixed cost that sits outside of operational
overheads, rather than a potential area for
inefficiencies to be stripped.
15 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
The$25 Billion Profit Pot
By broadening the parameters within which manufacturers look
for savings, research highlights plenty of potential to cut waste.
Energy is the single largest operating and maintenance
expense, forming 60% of a typical manufacturer’s O&M budget.
Research shows that up to 80% of this energy is wasted. To put
that into solid figures, for the worst performing manufacturers, of
every $100 in the O&M budget, $48 is spent on wasted energy.
With electricity prices up 30% since 2003, failure to address
energy waste means that its relative cost to the business will only
increase.
The Usual Suspects? Singling Out the CulpritsWhile energy wastage occurs universally, there are a few notable
areas that can claim responsibility for a large proportion. Energy-
hungry three-phase motors that are used in equipment, ranging
from industrial fans, blowers, and pumps, account for a hefty 60%
of electricity consumption in the world.1
Manufacturers typically use thousands of these of motors
in their plant equipment, and the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) estimates they lose over 12% of their energy due to phase
imbalance caused by loose connections. Overall, this equates to
$25 billion worth of wasted energy each year – a huge potential
savings. So bear in mind this is just one, albeit a major source of
waste, and the potential gains start to come into sharp focus.
But the real culprit lays in how energy use is measured.
Energy reduction strategies are often comprised of a utility bill-led
approach, which while valid, is limited in what it can actually tell
you about where inefficiencies and wastage are occurring. This
‘energy bill down’ approach does not include the detailed energy
consumption patterns of individual plant assets that can identify
when and where most wastage occurs. Without this detail, there
is no way of knowing how much of the energy consumed is being
wasted, and therefore what can be eliminated without impacting
the running of day-to-day operations.
Unlocking the Savings Because most manufacturers don’t track energy consumption at
the asset level, let alone what proportion of that energy is wasted,
many find themselves in virgin territory when tasked with exploit-
ing this opportunity.
To realize the full extent of energy waste, it is important to
fully understand the problem, identify which assets require atten-
tion and remain alert to the need to fix.
For example, an operations manager in charge of a large
portfolio of facilities across multiple manufacturing operations
would inevitably find it impossible to devote attention to all the
facilities or operations at the same time. Time and resources must
be focused on those that warrant the most attention, or those
that appear to be using most energy. To identify those facilities
or operations most in need of attention, one of the first things to
ascertain is which facilities or operations are using excessive
energy. A simple comparison of the total annual utility costs
might identify these, but would not answer the question “why?”
This is important because the facilities or operations that
spend the most on energy may not be the right ones to focus
resources on. They may spend the most on energy for a number of
reasons. For example, they may be the largest facility, they may
have a specific use, or they may be subject to different operating
constraints. It would be much wiser to identify those facilities that
spend the most per square foot per year, or the most per product
produced—a calculation known as energy intensity.
The process of comparing energy intensity across an enter-
prise or with external operations is referred to as benchmarking,
which identifies the facilities or operations that are the most
inefficient across an operation, enabling resources to be focused
on the areas that will deliver the highest return. This is where the
inefficiencies of three-phase would be highlighted, if monitored.
This sounds relatively straightforward in theory but the prac-
tice can be a different matter. The granularity demanded by such
an approach is impossible to translate into meaningful informa-
tion through using traditional tools. The level of data necessary
requires sophisticated collation and analysis, which is only avail-
able through the latest breed of enterprise asset management and
asset sustainability software.
Fed by sensors that can measure anything from electricity to
steam, these applications quickly benchmark assets and entire
facilities. The business can then remove or change inefficient
processes, parts, and machines that are disproportionately
energy hungry. This also extends the lifecycle of assets through
an evaluation of running costs against efficiency levels.
Winding Up The number of new legal and regulatory targets and standards
pertaining to energy usage means that failure to address energy
conservation isn’t really an option.
For example ISO 50001 now establishes a framework for
industrial plants, commercial facilities, or entire organizations to
manage energy. It is estimated that the new standard could influ-
ence up to 60% of the world’s energy use.
But rather than viewing compliance with these initiatives as a
cost or additional pressure, smart manufacturers will exploit the
opportunity to stem wasted energy from their equipment and in
doing so, take a portion of the $25 billion profit pot that is there
for the taking.
rod ellsworth is Vice President of global asset sustainability
at Infor, the third largest provider of business software and
services. he brings over 30 years of related energy and
enterprise asset management experience and spearheaded
the development and application of Infor’s global asset sus-
tainability solution, Infor eam enterprise sustainability (www.
infor.com). 1. Department of Energy
16 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3Registration will be open in June 2012. Save the Date and Plan To Join Us!
17 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
2012 SMRP SPonSoRShiP FoRM
i. 2012 SPonSoRShiP oPPoRtunitieS Instructions: Please check the sponsorship(s) you are interested in and list the value ($) at the end:
Each sponsor will receive:• recognition on the sponsorship page of the SMRP conference Web site (www.smrp.org)• recognition from the podium at the General & Closing Session• signage with your company logo at sponsored event(s)• opportunity to display product literature on an exclusive sponsor display board• sponsor ribbons for company representatives
PLATINUM SPONSORSHIP PACKAGES: q $15,000 – The Most Maintained Sponsorship .............................................................................. $ ________Includes overall conference sponsorship signage, logo/hyperlink on conference Web site, logo in onsite brochure, 10x20 exhibit booth,(4) complimentary conference registrations, overall golf sponsorship, (2) golf hole sponsorships, (1) Silver Sponsorship
q $10,000 – The Most Reliable Sponsorship .................................................................................. $ ________Includes overall conference sponsorship signage, logo/hyperlink on conference Web site, logo in onsite brochure, 10X10 exhibit booth,(2) complimentary conference registrations, (1) Silver Sponsorship, (1) golf hole sponsorship
q $5,000 – The Most Professional Sponsorship .............................................................................. $ ________Includes overall conference sponsor signage, logo/hyperlink on conference Web site, sponsorship mention & logo on event marketing materials, (2) complimentary conference registrations (1) Silver Sponsorship, (1) golf hole sponsorship
GOLD SPONSORSHIPS:q Memory Stick (electronic proceedings) – $9,000 ............................................................................................................... $________q Hotel Keycard (room key w/company logo/graphic) – $8,000 ............................................................................................ $________q Opening Keynote – $5,000 ............................................................................................................................................... $________q Padfolio (with company logo) – $3,000 (2 available) .......................................................................................................... $________q Hotel Door Hangers (with company logo and text) – $3,000 ............................................................................................... $________
SILVER SPONSORSHIPS:q Signage (company logo on all conference signage) – $2,500 ................................................................................................................. $________q Monday Welcome Reception – $2,500 (2 available) ............................................................................................................................... $________ q 20th Anniversary Toast at the closing session – $2,500 (2 available) ...................................................................................................... $________q Floor Decals – 5 2’x3’ floor decals in conference area – $2,500 (4 avail.) ............................................................................................... $________q Wall Clings – 5 2’x3’ wall decals in conference area – $2,500 (4 avail.) .................................................................................................. $________q Pen for Padfolio with company logo – $2,000 ......................................................................................................................................... $________q Tuesday Reception – $2,000 (2 available) .............................................................................................................................................. $________q Conference Lanyards w/company logo – $2,000 .................................................................................................................................... $________
With more than 1,000 decision makers in the maintenance and reliability industry attending SMRP’s 20th Annual Conference, your company will not want to miss out on amazing sponsorship opportunities. Ensure maximum exposure for your company through high visibility sponsorship opportunities with your target audience! Through these partnerships, SMRP is able to develop strong workshops and advocate M&R initiatives to benefit the community as a whole.
Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals
18 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
BRONZE SPONSORSHIPS:q Exhibitor Lounge – $1,500 ..................................................................................................................................................... $________q Track Sponsorships – $1,500 (6 available, 1 per track) ........................................................................................................................... $________q Workshop Sponsorships – $1,500 (19 available, 1 per workshop) .......................................................................................................... $________q Closing Session/Raffle – $1,000 (3 available) ......................................................................................................................................... $________q Job Fair – $1,000 (2 available) ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q Lunch: Tues_____ Wed_____ – $1,000 (1 avail. each day) ............................................................................................................ $________q Breakfast: Tues____ Wed____ Thurs____ – $750 (1 avail. each day) ................................................................................................. $________q Breaks: Tues AM____ Tues PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Breaks: Wed AM____ Wed PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Padfolio insert – $250 (10 available) ..................................................................................................................................................... $________
GOLF SPONSORSHIPS:q $2,500 – Overall Golf Event Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................... $________q $2,000 – Golf Cart Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Closest to the Hole Sponsorship ................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Longest Drive Contest ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q $350 – Beverage Cart Sponsorship ....................................................................................................................................................... $________q $150 – Hole Sponsorship (18 available) ................................................................................................................................................ $________
TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS ............................................................................................. $________Don’t see a sponsorship opportunity that fits your needs? We’ll be happy to customize one for you!Please contact Sandy Stevens: [email protected] • 678-303-3039
ii. ContaCt inFoRMation Name: ______________________________________________________ Company: _____________________________________
Title: _______________________________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________ State: __________ Zip Code: _____________________
Phone: __________________________ Fax:_______________________ Web site: _____________________________________
iii. PayMent inFoRMation
Payment. Sponsorships are to be paid in full before we can confirm your sponsorship. Payment may be made via credit card or check. Please make checks payable to SMRP and mail with completed application to: SMRP Attn: Sandy Stevens 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342
Payment by credit card: q American Express q Visa q MasterCard q Discover TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS: $ _______________
Card Number: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: _____________________________________
Name as it appears on card: _____________________________________ Authorization Signature: __________________________
Credit card payments may be called in to 678-303-3039 or faxed to 404-252-0774. SMRP will send written confirmation of your sponsorship once payment has been processed.
iV. how to Send the FoRM:
Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals
Mail: Attn: Sandy Stevens1100 Johnson Ferry RoadSuite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342
Fax: 404-252-0774
email:[email protected]
19 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
BoDY oF KnowleDge (BoK) CoRneR
SMRP’s Body of Knowledge Directorate
oversees three active committees
that work concurrently to help develop
knowledge-based products that add value
to members and the overall maintenance
and reliability community. Members can
easily access these products through the
Knowledge Based Library on SMRP’s Web
site at http://library.smrp.org.
SMRP’s vision is for the Library to
become the ultimate resource for the M&R
community.
“If you have an M&R issue, you can
visit the library and find real time, up-to-
date answers at your fingertips. If your
plant is just starting the reliability journey,
you can search for metrics you need to put
in place,” said Ron Leonard, chair of the
SMRP Body of Knowledge Directorate. “If
you have been working on a reliability pro-
gram and need to know how you’re doing,
you can click over to benchmarking and
participate in the Benchmarking Study. If
you come up against a problem that you’ve
never encountered before, you can search
various publications for answers.”
Available Now in the Library
• The Benchmarking Study for
Maintenance & Reliability
The new online evergreen format for
SMRP’s M&R Study opens new opportunities
for both the practitioner and consultant.
From an individual small plant operation to
multinational corporations, or from individual
consultant to large consulting firm, the new
Benchmarking Study provides value to all.
Participation in the Benchmarking
Study is free and includes 300 data elements
and 54 maintenance & reliability questions.
Key features of the study include:
� Separate surveys for maintenance of
production equipment and mainte-
nance of facilities;
� ability to track single owner-multiple
sites;
� standardized definitions to ensure
valid comparisons;
adding Value to Membership through SMRP’s library of KnowledgeBy: laura keane, ProduCt & BusIness deVeloPment manager, smrP
� world-class technology through partner-
ship with eNetrix, a division of Gallup;
� intuitive online data entry interface;
� dynamic customized reporting for on-
the-fly ad-hoc reporting;
� subscription-based access to data,
allows for unlimited reports and data
searches;
� save entry that allows data entry in
multiple sessions if necessary; and
non-participants can subscribe to the
database.
To facilitate data entry and ease the
data collection process, a PDF of the
assessment tool is available to participants
before participating. This facilitates the
gathering data prior to entry. The ability
to enter data in multiple sessions gives
the participant the opportunity to delegate
responsibilities for data collection and
entry if desired.
Once enough data has been gathered,
dynamic reports can be accessed through-
out the year. The end user can generate
customized reports by simply clicking the
desired criteria. Results can be seen and
downloaded immediately.
The Benchmarking Study can be
accessed in the Library under the
Benchmarking Tab or at
https://smrpbenchmarking.enetrix.com.
• SMRP Consensus-Based Metrics
The SMRP Best Practices Committee
recently finished the initial publication
of 67 consensus Best Practices, 29 of
which were harmonized with European
Federation of National Maintenance
Societies (EFNMS). These standardized
metrics/KPIs lay the foundation for mean-
ingful comparisons between organizations.
The committee is currently working on
world-class target values for the metrics/
KPIs that lend themselves to such. Once
completed, the existing metrics will be
updated to include these target values.
SMRP Metrics (including Harmonized
Metrics) are available via subscription,
which includes online access and
download capabilities for one year. This
new option allows subscribers immediate
access to the latest, most updated version
of all metrics 365 days a year. Access a
single metric or a collection of metrics at
http://library.smrp.org.
Published compilations of SMRP
Metrics are still available under the
Publications tab in the Library. However,
unlike the online version, these documents
will only be updated annually. For direct
access to the PDF, go to http://library.
smrp.org/publications.
Corporate access to metrics is also
available. For more information contact
• Guide to the Maintenance &
Reliability Body of Knowledge (BoK)
Developed by the Maintenance &
Reliability Knowledge (M&RK) Committee
and based on the five pillars of knowledge,
this Guide outlines levels 1 and 2 of the
BoK. It also outlines the subject areas to be
mastered by a Certified Maintenance and
Reliability Professional (CMRP). Currently
the committee is working on level 3 of the
BoK. Once complete, the entire BoK will be
the definitive source for information for
maintenance and reliability professionals.
Access to the Guide is under the Publications
tab in the Library or go directly to http://
library.smrp.org/publications.
As a member of SMRP, you have the
unique opportunity to participate in the
committees that develop these products.
Benefits to Committee Participation include
the opportunity to:
� Expand M&R knowledge base;
� network with some of the most respected
reliability professionals in the world;
� network with peers in other industries;
and
� network with other individuals com-
mitted to continuous learning and
improvement.
If you are interested in participating on
a Body of Knowledge Committee, contact
BRONZE SPONSORSHIPS:q Exhibitor Lounge – $1,500 ..................................................................................................................................................... $________q Track Sponsorships – $1,500 (6 available, 1 per track) ........................................................................................................................... $________q Workshop Sponsorships – $1,500 (19 available, 1 per workshop) .......................................................................................................... $________q Closing Session/Raffle – $1,000 (3 available) ......................................................................................................................................... $________q Job Fair – $1,000 (2 available) ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q Lunch: Tues_____ Wed_____ – $1,000 (1 avail. each day) ............................................................................................................ $________q Breakfast: Tues____ Wed____ Thurs____ – $750 (1 avail. each day) ................................................................................................. $________q Breaks: Tues AM____ Tues PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Breaks: Wed AM____ Wed PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Padfolio insert – $250 (10 available) ..................................................................................................................................................... $________
GOLF SPONSORSHIPS:q $2,500 – Overall Golf Event Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................... $________q $2,000 – Golf Cart Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Closest to the Hole Sponsorship ................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Longest Drive Contest ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q $350 – Beverage Cart Sponsorship ....................................................................................................................................................... $________q $150 – Hole Sponsorship (18 available) ................................................................................................................................................ $________
TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS ............................................................................................. $________Don’t see a sponsorship opportunity that fits your needs? We’ll be happy to customize one for you!Please contact Sandy Stevens: [email protected] • 678-303-3039
ii. ContaCt inFoRMation Name: ______________________________________________________ Company: _____________________________________
Title: _______________________________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________ State: __________ Zip Code: _____________________
Phone: __________________________ Fax:_______________________ Web site: _____________________________________
iii. PayMent inFoRMation
Payment. Sponsorships are to be paid in full before we can confirm your sponsorship. Payment may be made via credit card or check. Please make checks payable to SMRP and mail with completed application to: SMRP Attn: Sandy Stevens 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342
Payment by credit card: q American Express q Visa q MasterCard q Discover TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS: $ _______________
Card Number: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: _____________________________________
Name as it appears on card: _____________________________________ Authorization Signature: __________________________
Credit card payments may be called in to 678-303-3039 or faxed to 404-252-0774. SMRP will send written confirmation of your sponsorship once payment has been processed.
iV. how to Send the FoRM:
Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals
Mail: Attn: Sandy Stevens1100 Johnson Ferry RoadSuite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342
Fax: 404-252-0774
email:[email protected]
20 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
MeMBeR SPotlight
Meet Steve Carter, CMRPSMRP’s new Chapter Relations Chair Plant Maintenance Manager for Showa Denko Carbon, Inc.and Chair of Carolinas Chapter
“i have reached a point in my career
where I think it is important to give
something back to the profession by seek-
ing opportunities to share what I have
learned with SMRP and other maintenance
professionals,” said Steve Carter, a member
of SMRP since 1996. Steve recognizes the
next generation needs to be afforded the
same level of training and challenging work
experiences in order to maintain our posi-
tion as a world leader in manufacturing.
After 21 years of operating and main-
taining U.S. Navy nuclear submarines,
Steve decided to join the civilian industry
working as a plant maintenance manager
for Showa Denko Carbon. He is responsible
for overseeing all aspects of maintaining
an 80-acre heavy industrial facility, which
produces 45,000 metric tons of finished
electrodes per year. His particular interests
lie in root cause analysis, manufacturing
reliability improvement, and change man-
agement processes.
As the Carolinas Chapter Chair and
recently elected Chapter Relations Chair,
Steve eagerly seeks opportunities to share
his experience with other SMRP main-
tenance professionals. “SMRP is a great
vehicle for networking with individuals who
share my interest in continuous improvement
and elevating the status of the profession,”
Steve noted. He is hooked on the value
of being involved with SMRP and enjoys
volunteering his time to help fulfill the
organization’s goals.
“Becoming a Certified Maintenance &
Reliability Professional incurs an obliga-
tion to continue your education and to
maintain it,” Steve said about the CMRP
designation. He actively encourages others
to pursue the CMRP designation, and
believes M&R professionals gain respect
among those who are familiar with the
certification process. Steve said, “If you
don’t pass on the first try, at least you will
gain some insight on where to focus your
efforts to become more knowledgeable
about the maintenance business.” He said
that having the CMRP designation may
be the deciding factor between you and
another job candidate.
Steve is married with two grown daughters
and lives in Goose Creek, S.C. Steve
enjoys restoring antique motorcycles in
his spare time. He recently completed the
restoration of a 1957 Ariel Square Four,
and is currently looking for his next project.
He also enjoys helping his wife with her
landscaping projects.
“smrP is a great
vehicle for
networking with
individuals who
share my interest
in continuous
improvement and
elevating the status
of the profession.”
FRoM the exaM teaM
21 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
i recently proctored a CMRT exam venue
for a pharmaceutical company. The
main reason for giving the exams was to
measure the knowledge levels in the
different areas of the CMRT Body of
Knowledge. The exams were given to find
out what areas and skills the maintenance
team may be strong or weak. With the
information obtained from the exams,
training programs can be developed to
improve specific skill areas.
In the case of pass or fail on the exam,
it will make no difference in the training
plan. Even if the exam is passed and the
certification is obtained, there will still be
weak areas that need to be developed. The
CMRT exam has Body of Knowledge areas
in the following topics:
• Maintenance Practices;
• Preventive and Predictive Maintenance;
• Troubleshooting and Analysis; and
• Corrective Maintenance.
Each of these BOK areas are broken
down into sub areas in which questions
are developed and tested for use on the
exam. Through the guidance of the CMRT
Exam Team, the questions have been
reviewed and determined that they are
good questions that fit all manufacturing
business maintenance personnel.
The Exam Team is always
looking for good questions
improve your Personal oeeBy terry harrIs, CmrP exam dIreCtor, smrPCo
to add to the CMRT exam. If you have
skills you think are important for the
person doing these skills at your facility
please send them to me.
As I do training with maintenance
personnel, I realize the tasks they perform
is what keeps our plants operating.
But the skill level and knowledge of these
people also determine how efficient and
effective our plants operate. I recently
was called back to a plant I performed a
three-day reliability training course over
four years ago. When I arrived at the plant,
I listened to their success stories and the
way they have gone from 73% OEE to 89%
OEE. A great success story! But what did
they want to do now? The question is what
can we do to get better? What are the next
steps and how can we get to 93% OEE?
They were at the point where we need
to move to the next level of training and
processes. They now must again access
skill levels and develop new training pro-
grams to bring them to these higher levels.
There are other process areas to improve,
but the people part is key in getting to
these higher levels.
Many companies use the CMRP exam
in the same way. Both these certifications
are excellent assessment tools for any
plant. We as CMRPs should have looked
at our results even if we passed the exam
and improved our
areas of weakness.
Just like the plant
that improved its
OEE, we should all
be improving our OEE
to help our companies
and our own personal
goals.
the exam team is
always looking for
good questions to
add to the Cmrt
exam.
22 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
MeMBeR CoRneR
SMRP Booth educates Children about engineering & Manufacturingthe USA Science & Engineering Festival, the nation’s largest
celebration of science and engineering, was hosted at the Walter
E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., April 27-29,
2012 with SMRP represented.
A Platinum Sponsor, Society of Maintenance and Reliability
Professionals (SMRP) presented “Are You Hot or Are You Cool?” to
showcase infrared camera technology and ultrasonic detection
technology. Another interactive activity built into the booth was an
airplane-making workshop demonstrating the manufacturing pro-
cess and how engineers can improve processes over time. The exhibit
attracted the attention of thousands of festival attendees’ of all ages.
In the exhibit booth, SMRP maintenance and reliability
professionals engaged and educated middle school students, high
school students, and families about science and engineering from
a maintenance and reliability perspective. Attendees stood in front
of cutting-edge technology to explore heat transmission through
various objects, while others listened to high frequency sound waves
captured by the ultrasonic gun that humans typically cannot hear.
“When this opportunity presented itself, SMRP wanted to
take advantage of educating students about the maintenance and
reliability engineering world and informing these potential future
leaders about the abundance of career opportunities available in
manufacturing.” said Shon Isenhour, CMRP, vice chair of SMRP
and director of education for GPAllied, Inc. We were able to share
with the students and their parents what SMRP does for industry,
as well as how we can help them with scholarships and educa-
tion opportunities,” Over the three-day festival, more than 700
paper airplanes were built and discussion between M&R profes-
sionals with 150,000 plus festival
goers revolved around SMRP career
& scholarship opportunities, the
importance of SMRP in the com-
munity, and the art behind the
technology used in the M&R field.
wanted: SMRP Memorabilia for 20th anniversary
w e need your help! In highlighting our members and SMRP’s
impact over the past 20 years, please send old photos,
keepsakes, and memorabilia to personally celebrate SMRP’s 20th
Anniversary. Include your name, company, and description of the
photograph or keepsake, and send to Christine Wang
Established in 1992, SMRP
is honored to celebrate its 20th anniversary
this year. This milestone is a path to celebrating
the excellence SMRP has accomplished by providing value for
individual practitioners and sustaining maintenance and reliability
best practices for companies.
A conference attendee listens to high frequency sound waves as instructed by Shon Isenhour, SMRP vice chair.
Photos by Christine Wang.
SMRP’s booth at the USA Science and Engineering Festival.
i t’s time to announce the Call for Nominations
for the 2012-2013 SMRP Board of Directors.
Don’t miss your chance to be a part of the exciting
changes and growth of your organization. This
October, three (3) Director Positions (BoK Director,
Education Director, Certification Director) and one
(1) Secretary Position will open on the SMRP Board
of Directors.
We invite member input on identifying qualified
and motivated nominees and encourage each SMRP
member to consider serving as a Board member or
officer to help SMRP remain vital and prosperous.
Nominations for these seats must be made by
July 13, 2012. Please send your nominations to
Shon Isenhour, [email protected] or Jon
Krueger, [email protected].
Call for Board and officer nominations
23 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
MeMBeR CoRneR
Smithsonian Support Center’s Secrets Revealed to SMRP MembersFor the second Executive Meeting of the year, SMRP members
congregated in Washington, D.C. and had the chance to expe-
rience an exclusive tour of the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum
Support Center (MSC). Dedicated in 1983 in Suitland, Md. on four
and a half acres of land, the MSC hosted a tour typically not open
to the public. Featuring a combination of more than 30 million of
the nation’s treasures stored in the giant collection storage pods,
the tour allowed members to gain an understanding of not only
the treasure but also the complexity in operating and maintaining
the facilities that house collections and artifacts.
The morning started off with introductory remarks by the
Smithsonian Facilities Manager, followed by a presentation by
Dr. Marion Mecklenburg on the effect and impact of building
environment on collections, materials, and structures. He sum-
marized his research in this area, especially in regard to artwork.
Following Mecklenburg’s presentation, Liz Dietrich discussed the
purpose, mission, and organization of the MSC. After this initial
round of presentations, the members were broken up into two
groups to visit specific locations arranged by Leslie Schuhmann.
Specific areas visited were the Anthropology storage areas and
collections in Pods 1 and 4, and Mineral Science and LAB/
Biorepository in Pod 3.
Comments from SMRP members were highly favorable. Being
able to see “behind the scenes” at the Smithsonian, SMRP mem-
bers left with an appreciation of the depth of the Smithsonian that
goes well beyond its walls.
Pharma & Biotech Sig adds new Value to SMRP
the Pharma/Biotech SIG has made quick progress in estab-
lishing an active group of industry practitioners. With a full
agenda of topics, the group met at Eli Lilly in Indianapolis this
past March, followed up with bi-weekly conference calls. The group’s
active agenda includes fostering several sub teams focusing on:
Commissioning and Qualification (C&Q) links to maintenance
and reliability, Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis
(FMECA) in Pharmaceuticals, Good Manufacturing Practices
(GMP) work management, and pharma/biotech benchmarking.
With early success, the group is now looking to grow its member-
ship. If you are interested in joining, please send your name,
company, and your interests to [email protected].
During the SMRP Executive Meeting, members were given a behind-the-scenes tour of the Smithsonian’s treasures.
Photo by Rick Fary
a Benefit to Students: the SMRP Scholarship Program to encourage academic institutions and their students to con-
sider careers in maintenance and reliability, and also provide
a way to offer a great benefit to SMRP member families, the SMRP
annually awards three scholarships for the upcoming school year:
� The SMRP Scholarship and SMRPCO Scholarship offer M&R
students a chance to pursue a career in the M&R industry.
� The Higher Standards Scholarship is granted to a student
from an SMRP member regardless of college/university major.
To apply for SMRP scholarships, visit www.smrp.org under
the Education tab, then Scholarships tab for application forms.
Deadline for scholarship applications is August 2012. For more
information, contact Devane Casteel [email protected]).
SMRP executive Meeting to Feature Jack Daniels Distillery tourthe next Executive Meeting will be held July 24-26 in
Huntsville, Ala. The three-day event will include a joint ses-
sion of SMRP and Calhoun Community College in Decatur,
Ala. with a tour of the college, a Board and Foundation Meeting,
Executive Member reception, and an executive tour and group
lunch at the Jack Daniels Distillery in Lynchburg, Tenn. If you are
an Executive Member of SMRP and would like to register, contact
Marella Bivins at [email protected].
By P
ractitio
ners for Practitioners
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
Pharma and Biotech
24 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
houSton ChaPteR
The Houston Chapter hosted its 2012 second
quarterly luncheon May 10 at Battleground
Golf Course Club at the San Jacinto
Battleground, where Texas won its indepen-
dence from Mexico on April 21, 1836. Featuring
guest speaker Kim Hoyt, manager of manufacturing excellence
for Huntsman Performance Products, the luncheon served as
an educational opportunity for the 67 attendees on improving
safety and productivity of the processes at Port Neches facili-
ties. Attendees also learned about improving equipment uptime,
eliminating incidents, and Project Zero - a four square mile
chemical facility located in southeast Texas.
uPCoMing eVentS:What: Houston Chapter - MaRS 2012 Conference,
SMRP 6th Annual Maintenance & Reliability Symposium
When: August 22- 24, 2012
Where: Moody Gardens Hotel and Convention Center
7 Hope Blvd., Galveston, Tex.
The Maintenance and Reliability Symposium (MaRS) is an
annual meeting produced by the SMRP Houston Chapter.
MaRS 2012 Conference, SMRP 6th Annual Maintenance and
Reliability Symposium, will be held August 22–24 at Moody
Gardens Hotel and Convention Center in Galveston. MaRS
is the Houston chapter’s fulfillment of its mission to provide
educational opportunities for current industry practitioners
and future maintenance and reliability professionals. The
MaRS event is supported by the Texas Chemical Council (TCC)
and the Associated Chemical Industry of Texas (ACIT) for its
training value and networking opportunities for the industry’s
newest generation of maintenance and reliability engineers.
Additionally, proceeds from MaRS are used to provide schol-
arships for engineering students and technicians enrolled in
degree plans/programs in related fields of study.
Attendance at MaRS is open to all interested parties. You do
NOT have to be a member of SMRP.
Registration for MaRS is $200 per person before August 1
and $250 after August 1. Please visit www.smrphouston.org to
register, sponsor, and for more information.
ChaPteR RounD-uP
Kim Hoyt of Huntsman Performance Products, discussed safety and process productivity.
The Indiana Chapter hosted its 5th Annual
Maintenance and Reliability Conference March
20 at the Eli Lilly MQ Learning Center in
Indianapolis. IndyCon received the highest
attendance of the five conferences to date with 109
attendees (84 conference attendees and 25 vendors). IndyCon
featured keynote speaker Ed Stanek, president of LAI
Reliability Systems, Inc. He presented, “Obtaining Balance:
Process Efficiency While on the Road to Reliability.” Other
practical presentations relating to current maintenance and
reliability issues and opportunities to take CMRP or CMRT
exams were also offered to attendees.
uPCoMing eVentS:
What: Indiana Chapter June Meeting
When: June 12, 2012
Where: Polaris Laboratories, Zionsville, Ind.
The Board of Directors of the SMRP Indiana Chapter has set
up a tour of the Polaris Laboratories for the first meeting of
inDiana ChaPteR
• Chapter ContaCts
Steven Eubanks [email protected]
Jimmy Jernigan [email protected]
Doug Henry [email protected]
Greg Dunn [email protected]
Ed Foster [email protected]
Clay Naiser [email protected]
Chair:
Vice-Chair:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
Program Chair:
Past Chair:
25 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
ChaPteR RounD-uP
The Northeast Florida Chapter held a
maintenance conference and plant
tour, May 24 at the JEA Northside
Generating Station in Jacksonville,
Fla. For the event, there was an exten-
sive maintenance conference agenda planned out for SMRP
members and non-members to attend. Topics of planning
and scheduling, asset management, fluid cleanliness man-
agement, and a full tour of JEA Power Station were covered.
The lunch and learn also included a demonstration of Pall’s
HLP6 Fluid Conditioning Purifier, which is critical to operation
and reliability of systems involved in power generation. The next
chapter event will be held in September.
The North Texas 2012 Kick-Off Meeting was a
great success at the Coca-Cola Syrup Plant in
Dallas, April 12. Featuring a well-received speaker
from the chapter membership, Al Poling, of Solomon
Associates, presented “Reliability and Maintenance -
The Path to World Class Performance” based on his studies as
the project manager for Solomon’s International Study of Plant
Reliability and Maintenance Effectiveness (RAM Study). Al was
formerly the technical director for SMRP from 2008 to 2010,
where he worked with reliability and maintenance professionals
through the Best Practices, Benchmarking, and Maintenance
and Reliability Knowledge committees. Attendees also had the
opportunity to tour
one of Coca-Cola’s
well thought of facili-
ties, which has been
in operation in Dallas
for many years.
The North Texas Kick-off Meeting was held at a Coca-Cola syrup plant in Dallas.
ne FloRiDa ChaPteR
• Chapter ContaCts
Rick Kocken [email protected]
Kevin Clark [email protected]
Dennis Clark [email protected]
Earl Hill [email protected]
Jeff Haverly [email protected]
Dave Humphrey [email protected]
Jim Shackelford [email protected]
Jim Taylor [email protected]
Chair:
Vice-Chair:
Treasurer:
Secretary:
Past Chair:
Board Member:
Board Member:
Board Member:
the year. On June 12, the Indiana Chapter
will give members an opportunity to revisit
the principles and tools involved in tribology
or the science of lubrication.
Please contact Earl Hill, 317-726-1236,
[email protected], if you would like
to attend.
• Chapter ContaCts
Doc Palmer [email protected]
Robert Schindler [email protected]
Walter Simpson [email protected]
Debbi Gray [email protected]
Roger Collard [email protected]
Chair:
Vice-Chair:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
Historian:
• Chapter ContaCts
Kirk Blankenship [email protected]
Heath Williams [email protected]
Kevin Alewine [email protected]
Todd Bowman [email protected]
Scott Schaffer [email protected]
Scott Meador [email protected]
Larry Goodpasture [email protected]
Rob Wallin [email protected]
Chair:
Co-Chair:
Director of
Membership:
Board Member:
Board Member:
Board Member:
Board Member:
Board Member:
noRth texaS ChaPteR
to be an SMRP chapter member,
you must join SMRP. if your chapter
has an event to talk about or for more
information on chapter membership,
contact Christine wang at
26 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Enobong Agbasonu
Shell Petroleum Development Company, Nigeria
Manuel Rosas Aguilar
Offshore Technical Assistance
Haroon Akhtar
Honeywell
Mohammed Al-Hajri
Saudi Aramco
Ahmad Alkhaldi
Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC)
Oscar Antunez
Dow Chemical
Elsa Anzalone
Invensys Operations Management
David Armstrong
Hendrickson Canada ULC
Matt Arndt
Materion
Mike Aroney
GPAllied
Mike Barok
eMaint Enterprises, LLC
Michael Berkey
Merck & Co., Inc.
Douglas Berlin
Reliability Resource Consultants of GA LLC
Dave Bertolini
People and Processes, Inc.
Jeff Blaske
Accenture
John Bowen
Merck & Co., Inc.
William Brown
Elliott Company
James Brown, II
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Jimmie Bowling
GPAllied
Alison Buckle
Anheuser-Busch Inc.
Manuel Lopez Buenrostro
Serco S.A. de C.V
Brian Bulman
Flowserve
Mike Burchfield
Gerdau
Kyle Burnett
Michael Bybee
Schreiber
Chris Callaway
Corning
Christine Cartwright
Enterprise Products
Brian Cashimere
Carestream Health Inc.
Christopher Channell
Thomas Cline
Roche
Joseph Coffman
Francis Concemino
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Kevin Cowger
Merck & Co., Inc.
Patrick Craig
Willy Davidson
Oiltanking Partners, L.P.
Roger DeBlois
Flowserve
David Dezarn
Caraustar Industries, Inc.
Darrell Dial
Johan Dreyer
ARMS Reliability
Chad Driskill
Sekisui Specialty Chemicals
Andre Droste
Dmitri Dubin
General Mills
Garland Edgerton
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Lawrence Eidson
Jay Electric
James Elliott
Henkel
Mike Emert
Gerdau
Donald Enslen
Merck & Co., Inc.
Joseph Ervin
Roche
Marc Esplin
Merck & Co., Inc.
Udayashankar Ganapathy
Suncor Energy
Jeremy Gartman
ATK
Jose Garcia Garza
Serco, SA de CV
Mike Gehloff
GPAllied
Lance Dean Ginest
Orange County Sanitation District
MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new MeMBeRS
27 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Larry Goodpasture
GPAllied
Daniel Goodrich
CTC- Vibration Analysis Hardware
Daniel Gonzalez
Quanterion Solutions
Javier Gonzalez
Chevron
Carole Gorman
Honeywell
Samuel Greene
Lane Limited
Earnest Grenier
Genzyme
Maureen Gribble
UE Systems
Rick Guzman
Schreiber Foods, Inc.
Jimmie Hanks
MRG Solutions
Daniel Harbaugh
The City of Havelock
Don Hataway
Ensco International
John Heideman
Control Southern
Gregorio Herrera Hernandez
Serco S.A. de C.V.
Bradley Hill
Schlumberger
Steve Hivner
Carestream
John Holmes
Mainnovation Inc.
Derek Iltis
Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
Alexander Ionov
TNK-BP
Chris Jackson
Luminant
Erin Johnson
Merck & Co., Inc.
James Johnson
Merck & Co., Inc.
Robert Johnson
Eddy Packing Company
Michael Johnston
T.A. Cook
Preston Jolly
Technology Transfer Services, Inc
William Jones
StarTech Instrument
Park Joy
Merck & Co., Inc.
William Keeter
GPAllied
Bill Kilbey
GPAllied
Robert Kimbrough
Michelin Tire Corp
Clark Kimmel
People and Processes, Inc.
David Kite
Merck & Co., Inc.
Shannon Klabnik
MIPRO Consulting
Edmund Knetig
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new MeMBeRS
305-591-8935 • www.ludeca.com
WatchVIDEOS
Online
ShaftAlignment
Rotalign® ULTRA
VIBXPERT® II
& GeometricMeasurement
VibrationAnalysis
& Balancing
Easy-to-usesolutions for your
maintenance needs!Sales • Rentals • Services
continued on page 28
28 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new MeMBeRS
Chuck Kooistra
GPAllied
Daniel Kurtz
Gerdau
Rodolfo Landa
Offshore Technical Assistance S.C.
Robert Latham
RSL Consulting, LLC
Mike Lazarakis
Joseph Leeth
Merck & Co., Inc.
Steven Lindborg, CMRP, CPMM
GPAllied
Jeffrey Madere
Delta Airlines
Darin Maheu
Hanover Insurance Group
Paul Marino
eMaint Enterprises, LLC
Luis Mas
Roche
Brian McBroom
Williams Midstream
Yolanda Enriquez Mendez
Serco S.A. de C.V.
Frank Mignano
SKF Reliability Systems
Bart De Moor
GPAllied
Todd Moran
Roche
Oratile More
Debswana Diamond Company
Thomas Moss
Alcan Cable
Dennis Mullins
PdM Condition Monitoring, LLC
Raed Mustaffa
Collins Mwamba
Cargill
Tarairwa Ndewere
Minerals and Metals Group
Bailey Oladunni
Lyondell Basell Chemical Company
Richard Overman
Core Principles, LLC
Andy Page
GPAllied
Timothy Page
UGL Services
Gene Pargas
eMaint Enterprises, LLC
Robert Park
Capital Power Corporation
Trino Pedraza
Tammi Pickett
People and Processes, Inc.
Doug Plucknette
GPAllied
David Porter
McCain Foods Ltd (USA)
Jason Price
Priceless Enterprises LLC
Carey Repasz
GPAllied
John Rhea
Gerdau
Gerardo Salerno
MedImmune
Michelle Salmon
Roche
Randy Sampson
Meridium, Inc.
Jahir Sanchez
Confipetrol S.A.
Jeffrey Sanford
Chzm Hill
Sarah Schaill
Allied Reliability, Inc.
Erich Scheller
GPAllied
Steve Schimsky
Joe Scoff
United States Gypsum
Ryan Shepherd
Gerdau
Christopher Sheridan
HDR Engineering
Jeff Shiver
People and Processes, Inc.
Bradley Shy
Merck & Co., Inc.
Mike Skuratovich
Eastern Oil Company
Tom Sloan
GPAllied
Ricky Smith
GPAllied
Ben Staats
West Fraser Cariboo Pulp
Doug Stangier
Weyerhaeuser
continued from page 27
Steve Thames
Freeport McMoran Cooper & Cooler
Douglas Tutwiler
Merck & Co., Inc.
Jason Verly
Davisco Foods
Cindi Vinette
Internet4Associations
Frank Vitucci
SKF Reliability
Joseph Walsh
ByteManagers, Inc.
James Wang
Coca-Cola Bottlers
Josh Watson
Schreiber Foods
Brandon Weil
GPAllied
Lynn White
Schreiber
George Williams
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Billy Wise
General Electric/Bently Nevada
Larry Wleczyk
Green Bay Packaging
Ricky Wright
Merck & Co., Inc.
Ricky Zarate
David Zimny
IRISS, INC.
29 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Time Management Plus! See the future and act. Identify bearing failure, energy waste
and flashover potential before it happens!!
Call 800.223.1325,
E-Mail [email protected], or visit www.uesystems.com/sm1
30 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new CMRPs
Adil Alkiyumi, CMRP
Petroleum Development Oman
Hussain Al-Hasni, CMRP
Petroleum Development Oman
Kenneth Bannister, CMRP
Engtech Industries Inc.
Ernest Baptiste, CMRP
Moris Behar, CMRP
Rio Tinto
Michael Berkey, CMRP
Merck
Daniel Blackford, CMRP
Allied
David Bonfante, CMRP
Georgia-Pacific
John Bowen, CMRP
Merck & Co., Inc.
James Brown, II, CMRP
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Mark Browning, CMRP
Ascend Performance Materials
Kevin Cowger, CMRP
Merck & Co., Inc.
John Crossan, CMRP
John Crossan Consulting
Robert Crull, CMRP
MRG
Vien Dang, CMRP
Rio Tinto
David Dezarn, CMRP
Caraustar
Donald Enslen, CMRP
Merck & Co., Inc.
Marc Esplin, CMRP
Merck & Co, Inc.
Leo Faykes, CMRP
GoldCorp/Musselwhite Mine
Brian Flett CMRP
Ivara
Frederic Fortin, CMRP
ArcelorMittal Mines Canada
Julie Fowden, CMRP
Rio Tinto - Kennecott Utah Copper
Rick Gamble, CMRP
AEDC/ATA
Daniel Hernandez, CMRP
Consultores Asociados A.C.
Jeremy Hine, CMRP
MillerCoors
Alexander Ionov, CMRP
TNK-BP
Chris Jackson, CMRP
Luminant Power
James Johnson, CMRP
Merck & Co., Inc.
Greg Julich, CMRP
Pfizer
Martin Kearney, CMRP
ArcelorMittal Mines Canada
Chad Kellner, CMRP
MedImmune, LLC
Edmund Knetig, CMRP
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Felix M. Laboy de la Plaza, CMRP
Vibranalysis
Jason Langhorne, CMRP
Allied Reliability
Luis Laracuente, CMRP
Bristol Myers Squibb
Kai MacMurray, CMRP
Kennecott Utah Copper
William Marrs, CMRP
Intrepid Potash
Robert McAmis, CMRP
AEDC/ATA
George McCarty, CMRP
Georgia-Pacific
Joseph McGroarty, CMRP
Plant Services Magazine
31 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new CMRPs
Michel Michaud, CMRP
ArcelorMittal
Scott Mohr, CMRP
GPAllied
Roberto Molina, CMRP
Celanese
Thomas Mundy, CMRP
Luminant Energy
Tarairwa Ndewerem, CMRP
MMG
Boudewijn Neijens, CMRP
Copperleaf Technologies
Jameson Newhouse, CMRP
Allied Reliability
Gregg Pacelli, CMRP
Allied Reliability
Miguel Padierna, CMRP
Offshore Technical Assistance S.C.
Luis Perafan, CMRP
Serco S.A. de C.V.
David Porter, CMRP
McCain Foods
Casey Raiford, CMRP
Georgia-Pacific
Ajit Sahoo, CMRP
Agrium
Randy Sampson, CMRP
Meridium
Thomas Sasman, CMRP
Cargill, Inc.
Patrick Schreiber, CMRP
Allied Reliability
Christopher Sheridan, CMRP
HDR Engineering
Bradley Shy, CMRP
Merck & Co, Inc.
Ismael Solis, CMRP
Pall Corporation
Thomas Steveley, CMRP
Gallatin Steel Co.
Thomas Sutton, CMRP
RF Micro Devices
John Szewc, CMRP
PepsiCo
James Thompson, CMRP
UGL Services
Joey Traughber, CMRP
Plymouth Engineered Shapes
Gerald Trodd, CMRP
Agrium Inc.
Douglas Tutwiler, CMRP
Merck & Co, Inc.
Ramanathan Viswanathan, CMRP
Meridium Inc.
Michael Weise, CMRP
ATS
Jeffrey Wheless, CMRP
Novozymes
Darrin Whisman, CMRP
Robert Williamson, CMRP
Strategic Work Systems, Inc
Hudson Woodfin, CMRP
Ascend Materials
NEW CMRTs
Jamie Barth, CMRT
Quaker Oats/PepsiCo
Russell Boehm, CMRT
Eli Lilly & Co.
Jason Brandon, CMRT
PepsiCo
Linden Ellis, CMRT
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
Scott Kacere, CMRT
PepsiCo
Guy Koett, CMRT
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
Charles Naber, CMRT
PepsiCo
SMRPCo Sustaining SponsorsThe SMRP Certifying Organization (SMRPCO) has developed a program of benefits for companies or organizations wishing to provide support to the mission of SMRPCO. For an annual contribution of $1,000, sponsors receive discounts on exams, recertification fees, and much more! To learn more, please visit: www.smrp.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3315
aBB relIaBIlIty serVICes
adVanCed teChnology serVICes, InC.
aedC/ata
aesseal, InC.
agrIum
alCoa InC.
allIed relIaBIlIty, InC.
aramark faCIlIty serVICes
asCend PerformanCe materIals
asoCIaCIon ColomBIana de IngenIeros (aCIem)
austIn IndustrIal, InC.
BarrICk gold CorP.
BhP BIllIton
BP - gulf of mexICo
Bunge
CaCI, InC
CargIll, InC.
CarVer Pa CorPoratIon
delta aIr lInes
des-Case
dreIsIlker eleCtrICal motors InC.
duPont
elI lIlly & ComPany
emerson ProCess management
fluor CorPoratIon
genon energy
gPsg - Johnson & Johnson
greenwood, InC.
gulf soCIety of maIntenanCe ProfessIonals (gsmP)
holCIm us, InC.
hormel foods
IrVIng PulP and PaPer
IVara CorPoratIon
JaCoBs
JaCoBs/maf
JesCo maIntenanCe CorPoratIon
kraft foods
lIfe CyCle engIneerIng
louIs dreyfus CommodItIes
los alamos natIonal laBoratory
lumInant Power
maInnoVatIon InC.
management resourCes grouP, InC.
marshall InstItute
mead Johnson nutrItIon
merIdIum, InC.
merCk & ComPany, InC.
moBIus InstItute north amerICa
mosaIC
nexen InC.
noVelIs, InC.
owens CornIng
PePsICo
PfIZer, InC.
PredICItIVe serVICes
relogICa
rIo tInto
saBIC InnoVatIVe PlastICs
strategIC asset management, InC. (samI)
the dow ChemICal ComPany
turner IndustIres
ue systems
ugl serVICes
wells enterPrIses InC.
wyle laBoratorIes
The SMRP Certifying Organization (SMRPCO) and
SMRP strive to score, process, and mail exam results to CMRP
and CMRT candidates within a reasonable amount of time—four
to five weeks—from when the exam was administered. There are a
number of variables that may impact the rate at which these results
are received. 1
For the eight paper exam sessions held in April 2012 (47 exams),
results were mailed from SMRP, on average, three weeks (21
days) following the exam date.
Here are some ways candidates can help ensure their results are
mailed and received in a timely fashion:
� Check the address on the application to make sure it is
complete and accurate. The address the candidate places on
the application is where the results will be sent.
� Include your email and phone number so that staff can reach
you if there are questions about your application.
� Pay the exam fee before you sit for the exam. Nonpayment will
delay the mailing of results.
� Remember, results are not released via phone or email.
Candidates will be notified of their results by mail only.
CMRP & CMRt Paper exams: turnaround time from SMRP
1. Turnaround time is defined by the day the exam was administered to when the results were mailed from SMRP.
CeRtiFiCation uPDate
32 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3
Discover thehidden treasurein your company
Watch the VDM Inside demowww.mainnovation.com
The maintenance manager is under a lot of pressure. The current credit crunch
forces you to improve. But where to start? How can you find the hidden treasure in
your maintenance department? VDM Inside is the Maintenance KPI Dashboard that
provides you with real maintenance intelligence of your cost drivers, performance killers
and underlying causes. With VDM Inside you will finally get a grip on your maintenance
performance. Want to know more? Go to www.vdminside.com
CONTROLLING MAINTENANCE, CREATING VALUE.
MAINNOVATION ad(Eng) 162x229mm.indd 1 07-12-2011 14:54:09
Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300Atlanta, GA 30342 USAwww.smrp.org
Executive DirectorJon Krueger
678-303-3045
Associate DirectorJayne Gillis
678-303-2979
Certification and EducationTim Kline
678-303-3017
Executive Vice PresidentRuss Lemieux
678-303-3041
Exam DirectorTerry Harris, CMRP
937-371-1644
Product & Business Development ManagerLaura Keane
281-384-5943
Solutions Editorial DepartmentDan Anderson
Chair, Communications Committee
Life Cycle Engineering
Jayne Gillis
Editor-in-Chief
678-303-2979
Christine Wang
Editorial Assistant
678-303-3060
SMRP StAff
Houston Chapter “Call for Panelists” for MaRS 2012Requests Due: June 30, 2012
Contact: [email protected]
eVent CalenDaR www.SMRP.oRg
July Executive MeetingJuly 24-26, 2012
Huntsville, Ala.
MaRS 2012 Conference (Houston Chapter)August 22-24, 2012
Moody Gardens
Galveston, Tex.