7 2prevent Main

Preventive Maintenance
Principles
SPL 7.2
Scott Couzens, LFM ’06
Scott Hiroshige, LFM ‘06
Erik Smith, LFM ’03 – Intel Corporation
Presentation for:
ESD.60 – Lean/Six Sigma Systems
MIT Leaders for Manufacturing Program (LFM)
Summer 2004
These materials were developed as part of MIT's ESD.60 course on "Lean/Six Sigma Systems." In some cases,
the materials were produced by the lead instructor, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, and in some cases by student teams
working with LFM alumni/ae. Where the materials were developed by student teams, additional inputs from the
faculty and from the technical instructor, Chris Musso, are reflected in some of the text or in an appendix
Special Thanks to:
¾ Intel Employees: ¾ DNS Employees:

¾ Jonathan Matthews ¾ Roger Nuffer
¾ David Latham ¾ David Villareal
¾ Eli Sorenson ¾ Marcus Hunsaker
¾ Danny Miller
© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 2
Part I: Introduction Part II: Concepts Part III: Application Part IV: Disconnects Part V: Conclusion
Overview
¾ Learning Objectives ¾ Session Design (20-30 min.)
¾ Part I: Introduction and Learning
¾ Familiarity with the different
Objectives (1-2 min.)
types of maintenance
¾ Part II: Key Concept or Principle
activities
Defined and Explained (3-5 min.)
¾ Appreciation of the benefits of ¾ Part III: Exercise or Activity
preventive maintenance Based on Field Data that
¾ Understanding of lean Illustrates the Concept or
principles for designing a Principle (7-10 min.)
preventive maintenance ¾ Part IV: Common “Disconnects,”
schedule Relevant Measures of Success,
and Potential Action
¾ Awareness of specific
Assignment(s) to Apply Lessons
challenges to implementing Learned (7-10 min.)
preventive maintenance
¾ Part V: Evaluation and
Concluding Comments (2-3 min.)
Types of Maintenance
¾ Breakdown Maintenance:
¾ Waiting until equipment fails before repairing or servicing it
¾ Preventive Maintenance (PM):

¾ (Time-based or run-based) Periodically inspecting, servicing,
cleaning, or replacing parts to prevent sudden failure
¾ (Predictive) On-line monitoring of equipment in order to use
important/expensive parts to the limit of their serviceable life
¾ Corrective or Predictive Maintenance:

¾ Improving equipment and its components so that preventive
maintenance can be carried out reliably
Benefits of Preventive Maintenance
¾ “…the cost of breakdown maintenance is usually much
greater than preventive maintenance.” 1
¾ Preventive maintenance…
¾ Keeps equipment in good condition to prevent large problems
¾ Extends the useful life of equipment
¾ Finds small problems before they become big ones
¾ Is an excellent training tool for technicians
¾ Helps eliminate rework/scrap and reduces process variability
¾ Keeps equipment safer
¾ Parts stocking levels can be optimized
¾ Greatly reduces unplanned downtime
1
http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/bp/app/russellcd/PROTECT/CHAPTERS/CHAP15/HEAD01.HTM
The Manufacturing Game
¾ Similar to the Beer Game

¾ Simulates a typical plant with three roles:
¾ Operations Manager
¾ Maintenance Manager
¾ Spare Parts Stores Manager
¾ Each round, participants make decisions such as:
¾ Which equipment to take down for PMs
¾ How to allocate maintenance resources
¾ How many spare parts to order
¾ Revenue, cost, output, uptime, inventory are recorded
Source: Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World,
Sterman, John D., 2000.
The Manufacturing Game Results
¾ Teams who follow a cost-minimization strategy (reactive

maintenance policies) are able to keep costs low for a
while. However, as defects build up they find their
uptime falling and costs rising.
¾ Teams who follow a preventive maintenance strategy
initially find higher costs and reduced uptime as
equipment is taken offline for planned maintenance.
Soon, however, these teams begin to greatly outperform
teams following a cost-minimization strategy.
Source: Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World,
Sterman, John D., 2000.
When Does PM Make Sense?
¾ PM makes sense when the cost of doing PM is less than the
cost of NOT doing PM.
PM makes sense if CDoingPM < CNotDoingPM
¾ CDoingPM = f(hours of not running equipment, loss in employee

morale from doing PM instead of “real work”, materials
and man-hours consumed in PM, potential for making
things worse, etc.)
¾ CNotDoingPM = f(cost of losing/reworking a failed batch (unless PM
makes no difference in preventing the failure), materials
and man-hours spent repairing equipment, loss of
equipment lifetime, loss in employee morale from NOT
doing PM, reduced employee familiarity with equipment,
etc.)
Optimizing a PM Schedule
¾ Question:
¾ If a certain piece of production equipment requires ~10 hours of
preventive maintenance per week, how should those 10 hours
be scheduled?
¾ Answer:
¾ In a 24x7 manufacturing operation, it is typically better to
perform the ~10 hours of activities in several smaller periods of
time, for instance 5 PM activities that take ~2 hours each
¾ Duration and variability in preventive maintenance are key
factors in whether equipment will be able to maintain a steady
flow of output
PM Durations: Simulation 1
¾ Simulation of equipment with a 10 hour average PM duration, std dev 20
hours (85% availability)
Drop Page Fields Here
Trend of Queues for the Toolset
Avg Queuelength
450
400
350
Average QueueLength (# of Lots)
300
250
Scenario
200 1 - 10h mean, 2 CV
150
100
50
0
83 88 99 109114119125133139147152157162167172177182187192198203211216221226231236241246267
Days into Sim ulation
Day
Data from a simulation run at Intel Fab 11X.
Trend of Queues for a Toolset
Avg Queuelength
450
400
350
300
250 Scenario
200 2 - 5h mean, 2 CV
150
100
50
0
83 88 93 98 103 108 113 118 125 137 155 164 194 201 213 228 233 244 259 264 277 285
Day
Avg Queuelength
450
400
350
300
250
Scenario
200 3 - 2h mean, 2 CV
150
100
50
0
84 91 102 116 125 138 148 160 173 196 209 225 230 238 261 273 279 287
Day
Avg Queuelength
450
400
350
300
250
Scenario
4 - 2h mean, 3 CV
200
150
100
50
0
84 98 112 117 122 127 133 138 143 148 153 158 163 168 173 178 183 188 193 204 222 242 258 264 275 286 291
Days into Simulation
Day
PM Durations: Why they matter
¾ For the exact same availability on a piece of equipment:
Simulation Avg QueueLength StdDev QueueLength
1) µ=10h, σ=20h 56 63
2) µ=5h, σ=10h 38 52
3) µ=2h, σ=4h 8 8
4) µ=2h, σ=6h 56 57
¾ Shorter PM durations mean a difference in days of lot
cycle time!
¾ Each day of factory cycle time = millions of $$
¾ Regardless of the mean, performing PMs inconsistently
is functionally equivalent to consistently having much
longer downtime durations
Data from simulations run at Intel Fab 11X.
The “Waddington Effect”
¾ First observed by C.H. Waddington during WWII for
British aircraft maintenance
¾ Background theory: unscheduled downtime should
be a random phenomenon
¾ If all unscheduled downtime events are plotted with
respect to the last PM, there should not be any
pattern evident
¾ A pattern of increased unscheduled downtime
immediately following PM’s is a “Waddington
Effect”
Information from a presentation given at Intel Fab 11X.
The “Waddington Effect”
"Waddington Effect" Report - Trend of Unscheduled Downtime
Frequency Following PMs for the last 12 work weeks
# of Unsched Downs
70
60
# of Unscheduled Down Events
50
40 Event_Type
REPAIR
QUAL
30 OUT OF CNTRL
20
10
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Days since End of Last PM

Days Since PM
¾ Impact of Waddington Effect = 1.4% Availability
Data from a set of production tools at Intel Fab 11X.
Challenges to Implementing
Preventive Maintenance
¾ Social Factors ¾ Technical Factors
¾ Organizations are ¾ Breakdown maintenance
frequently structured in
ways that promote local is typically cheaper than
optimums (cost, shiftly preventive maintenance
output goals, etc.) in the short-term
¾ The benefits of preventive ¾ Under-trained technicians

maintenance are not can cause more damage
always well understood than they prevent
¾ The focus on minimizing

maintenance costs has to
shift to maximizing overall
organizational
performance
Concluding Comments
¾ Performing preventive maintenance is almost always the best
long-term strategy to maintain equipment
¾ PM scheduling and strategy are keys to maximizing output

while reducing work-in-process inventory
¾ Due to short-term cost increases and local optimums, there are

barriers to implementing a preventive maintenance strategy at
some plants
Appendix: Instructor’s Comments and Class
Discussion for 7.2
¾ PM is an important tool for establishing stability

necessary for other lean elements:
¾ Andon, 5s, etc.
¾ How do you escape the crisis management

whirlpool?
¾ Social disconnects:
¾Change the mindset of management, maintenance
group from reaction to prevention
¾May need to be done in steps

Appendix: Instructor’s Guide
Slide Time Topic Additional Talking Points
1-3 2-3 min Introduction, overview and • Acknowledge contributors to the presentation
learning objectives • Provide an overview of the learning objectives
4-5 3-5 min Key Concepts • Describe the 3 types of maintenance

• Explain the benefits of preventive maintenance
6-15 7-15 min Exercises/Activities • Go through the key learnings of the Manufacturing
Game
• Go through a PM optimization example
• Discuss “Waddington Effect”
16 2-3 min Disconnects • Discuss the difficulties of implementing preventive
maintenance in a reactive maintenance culture
17 1-2 min Concluding comments • Summarize key points of preventive maintenance

7 2prevent Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 2prevent Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preventive Maintenance

Erik Smith, LFM ’03 – Intel Corporation

¾ Intel Employees: ¾ DNS Employees:

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 2

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 3

¾ Preventive Maintenance (PM):

¾ Corrective or Predictive Maintenance:

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 4

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 5

¾ Similar to the Beer Game

¾ Teams who follow a cost-minimization strategy (reactive

PM makes sense if CDoingPM < CNotDoingPM

¾ CDoingPM = f(hours of not running equipment, loss in employee

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 8

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 9

200 1 - 10h mean, 2 CV

Data from a simulation run at Intel Fab 11X.

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 10

Data from a simulation run at Intel Fab 11X.

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 11

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 12

Trend of Queues for a Toolset

Data from a simulation run at Intel Fab 11X.

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 13

Data from simulations run at Intel Fab 11X.

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 14

Information from a presentation given at Intel Fab 11X.

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 15

Days since End of Last PM

¾ Impact of Waddington Effect = 1.4% Availability

Data from a set of production tools at Intel Fab 11X.

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 16

¾ The benefits of preventive ¾ Under-trained technicians

¾ The focus on minimizing

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 17

¾ PM scheduling and strategy are keys to maximizing output

¾ Due to short-term cost increases and local optimums, there are

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 18

¾ PM is an important tool for establishing stability

¾ How do you escape the crisis management

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 19

4-5 3-5 min Key Concepts • Describe the 3 types of maintenance

© [LFM Students] – ESD.60 Lean/Six Sigma Systems, LFM, MIT 6/9/04 -- 20

You might also like