How are evaluations and assessments carried out among the different workshops in a factory that operates intermittently?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by jmdc on 2018-4-15 at 11:29. For factories that operate intermittently, how does the equipment department evaluate and assess the equipment management practices across different workshops? Simply in terms of the equipment management status in each workshop – such as the equipment integrity rate, equipment leakage rate, equipment operation rate, etc. – due to intermittent operation, it is very difficult to obtain a set of objective, fair, and convincing data, making evaluation challenging; in fact, this task is almost impossible to carry out. However, this work still must be done. Which workshop manages its equipment well, and which manages it poorly? Is a certain workshop being managed better or worse these days compared to before? These issues are after all within the scope of responsibilities of the Equipment Department, but this work is really difficult; the problem is that it’s hard to come up with data and methods for evaluation. The manager insists on having this stuff, all those percentages related to integrity rates, leakage rates, operational rates – a bunch of complicated figures. Our approach is simply two words: \"fake it\"”
One can start with the maintenance costs. Personally, I don’t think the integrity rate and leakage rate are very useful; we mainly assess things based on maintenance costs and the usage volume of commonly used spare parts.
The cost of repairing large items is high, but it can cover the cost of repairing small items dozens of times. It’s not entirely certain either.
The integrity rate, leakage rate, and operational rate can be determined
The difficulty level varies between moving and stationary equipment, and the equipment in different workshops is not the same. Workshops with more stationary equipment likely have a higher rate of integrity. Different process flows and different process media are also factors to consider; workshops where the media are highly corrosive probably have a higher leakage rate. The importance of various sections varies as well, and public utility systems surely have the highest operational rate
Availability rate: Faulty devices/Total number of devices = Availability rate
This post was last edited by Liu Jiafei on 2018-4-18 at 17:07. Leakage rate = Number of leakage points/Total number of sealing points (it is generally required that the leakage rate be no more than 0.3%). Operational rate = Number of devices in operation/Total number of devices
The good rate shall not exceed 1% (if the number of moving equipment is less than 100, it shall be calculated as 100)
It’s troublesome to count the total number of sealing points! Was leak detection performed on the devices that were not in operation during the inspection?
I. There are two methods for counting the total sealing points: 1. Counting based on the PID flow diagram; 2. Dividing the site of the equipment into several areas, marking the boundaries of each area, and having the maintenance teams carry out the counting； II. As for the calculation of defects, it depends on which level of management you are at. If you are part of the company’s senior management, then it is necessary to require the lower-level units to accurately count all defects (including those in devices that are not in use) ； If they are frontline managers, any gaps that can be resolved on their own should not be taken into account.