Eliminating Defects through

Equipment Reliability
Since the rise to prominence of quality-focused business initiatives such as Total Quality
Management (TQM) and eventually Six Sigma, companies have been focusing on reducing
their final product defects to the absolute bare minimum. The widely accepted definition of a
Six Sigma process is one that produces 3.4 defective parts per million opportunities (DPMO).
The single most critical item to this overall quality goal is variation. Many quality professionals
readily acknowledge that variations in processes and in equipment performance lead to a
vast number of defects experienced by the end customer. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as
anything that could lead to customer dissatisfaction. For the purposes of this article, the
author’s focus will be on the correlation between equipment reliability and such product
defects. This article will also explore some of the common root causes of poor equipment
reliability and what can be done to prevent or mitigate them hence leading to the elimination
of defects.

Equipment Reliability and Product Defects

Author, Ron Moore, suggests that process conformance can be improved through equipment
reliability, proper, calibrated instrumentation, disciplined operation and quality raw
material . Equipment reliability assures that subsystems and components function as
1

intended without failure for desired periods during their design life. Theoretically, defects can
be introduced into equipment at each of the six main phases of its life cycle: Design,
Purchase, Store, Installation/Commissioning, Operation and Maintenance. It therefore stands
to reason that if one manages the defects leading to equipment failure, then one will be able
to directly affect product quality.

Common Root Causes of Poor Equipment

Reliability
Root causes are the underlying factors that are found to be responsible for a particular event
or class of events occurring, such as poor equipment performance. The goal of eliminating
these root causes is to prevent future recurrence of said event(s). Often these are mistaken
with the human interventions that lead to failure, symptoms of failure or the physical
mechanisms by which failure manifests itself. Rather, in order to truly prevent future
unreliability, one must go to the true source of failures known as latent causes. These are
systemic by nature and while they yield the highest reward by being prevented or managed,
they are most at risk for non-implementation. This is due to the fact that they are by and large
deep-seated in the organization and pointing towards the management system that has been
ingrained in the company culture. Some of the more common latent roots that one can cite for
premature equipment failure are:

 Misapplication - this can be due to equipment operations outside of the

2

design envelope, poor initial design practices or poor procurement

practices.
 Operating Practices - due to inadequate operating procedures, lack of
2

adherence to procedures or inadequate system for follow up.

 Maintenance Practices - due to inadequate maintenance procedures, no
2

adherence to procedures or inadequate frequency of maintenance tasks.

 Age - due to accelerated wear mechanisms by environmental factors or
2

the end of the useful life by normal wear and tear.

 Management Systems - due to lack of skills or operator training, poor
employee involvement, poor recognition of hazard, previously identified
hazards were not followed up on and eliminated.
Any organization trying to reap the full benefits of reduced defects by improving equipment
reliability should have at least the following four systems in place.

1 – RCA program
Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process which systematically uses any one or combination of
a class of problem-solving methods aimed at identifying the root causes of problems or
events. The stewardship of this process is usually a function of Reliability Engineering. As
intimated earlier, having a disciplined RCA program in place is essential, first of all, to identify
the reasons behind poor equipment reliability and secondly to implement actions which will
prevent them from happening again.

Company A, a large chemical manufacturer, had over 1150 centrifugal pumps in service. The
Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) for the pumps in 1995 was measured to be
approximately 0.8 years (9.6 months). Systematic RCA as a business process did not start at
the facility until 1998. Prior to that, they performed failure analysis and did a gap analysis
between their installation and maintenance practices and “best in class.” That was the
jumpstart that they needed. A formal RCA process came later. The decision was made by the
reliability department to have their crafts/trades trained in a technique by which failure codes
would be assigned for each failure. This data was subsequently recorded in their
Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and a separate Failure Reporting
Analysis and Corrective Actions System (FRACAS) database. RCA was conducted on what
were determined to be the more predominant modes of failure (as indicated by the failure
codes). Actions were then taken based on the findings and the results shown in figure 1 were
achieved.
 Figure 1: Pump MTBF for years 1995 - 2002

Over the course of eight years, the MTBF for these pumps increased by a phenomenal
500%. Just the reduction in pump failures accounted for approximately $5.5M per year
reduction in direct maintenance cost by the end of the data set. There were many other
reliability initiatives besides pumps going on during that last five years of the data period, but
pumps were first and the largest. The combined impact of all the reliability initiatives (of which
pumps were estimated to be accountable for 35% to 40%) was an uprating of the plant by
15% for essentially minor capital expenditures and an increase in OEE of approximately 4%
(from 94% to 98.2%). The plant was able to debottleneck and operate at the higher
demonstrated rate because of the increased process stability. More than three pump failures
per day, even where there were spares, is a lot of instability. Throw in a few instrument
failures per day and at least one vessel failure per week, and one never knew what the real
limits of a plant were because one could never ‘line out” and run. The impact of the reduced
cost and increased sales from all of the improvements made plant profitability go from $12M
USD per year in a sold out market to $43M per year at only 60% of capacity to $72M per year
when it was sold out the next year.

2 – Onsite Reliability Practitioners

Life Cycle Engineering is the pioneer of Reliability Excellence (Rx), which is defined as “a
business philosophy, driven through cultural change that focuses on equipment reliability and
process control as the foundation of modern manufacturing operations.” In the company’s
experience, it has been determined that excellence is accomplished by the completion of five
discrete levels referred to as the excellence model shown in figure 2. The sustainability step
atop the model includes Reliability Engineering as one of its key components. Whether you
have a Reliability Engineer onsite or not, there are some key activities within that role that
need to take place in order assure that the desired results are sustained – the desired results
in this case being increased equipment reliability leading to lower defects.

Figure 2: Reliability Excellence Model

Your onsite reliability practitioners are tasked to monitor equipment and processes in order to
identify opportunities for continuous improvement. As risk managers for your business, they
should proactively determine the best way to handle risk through the use of the appropriate
preventive/predictive maintenance techniques and risk plans. Reliability Centered
Maintenance or some variation thereof is recommended for at least the most critical
equipment that you have onsite. For the balance of the plant, various other optimization
strategies allowing the best bang for the buck can be utilized. It is advised, however, that one
be cognizant of the limitations of such strategies in order to knowingly accept any risks
associated with their use.

3 – Business Processes Supporting Reliability

and Product Quality
The foundation of any reliability and quality initiative has to be stable processes. It must be
fundamentally clear that no Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Lean Manufacturing or Six
Sigma initiative will reach its full potential without the processes to sustain improvement. Take
for example, the case of a fifty year old Aluminum smelter, which undertook the mammoth
task of reengineering their work and equipment processes. In 2002, just prior to their focused
Reliability Excellence effort, the plant had total maintenance costs in excess of $35 million. It
also had a ratio of more than $137 in maintenance costs for every metric ton of aluminum
produced (50% higher than the global average at the time). The company embarked on
standardizing work processes, developing equipment history and utilizing lean manufacturing
tools for problem solving. Maintenance in partnership with operations, decided to use the
TPM metric, Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) to measure their progress. Peak
performances for specific plant functions were determined, including scrap rate. In 2004, after
implementing new reliability-based processes, $2.4 million in improvements were attributed
directly to such OEE gains.

4 – Results Monitoring
The old adage attributed to quality professional, Joseph Juran which states, “If you don’t
measure it, you don’t manage it”, still rings true today. To ensure that you are on the right
track and achieving the desired results of no defects, one must have the appropriate metrics
in place. The first obvious metric to consider is OEE. This measure indicates how effectively
the organization’s assets are being utilized to achieve business goals. It integrates three other
measures: equipment availability, performance rate and product quality. The fascinating thing
about the use of OEE as a metric is that from this discussion, it has been established that by
improving equipment reliability, the availability measure and the quality measure may also
improve. There will then be a dual effect on OEE due to improved reliability. Another metric
that would be useful to track is the MTBF and scrap rate on specific pieces of equipment that
have been targeted for improvement. In so doing, the direct correlation between the two
measures can be examined and further analyzed.

Conclusion
Frequently, reliability professionals articulate the connection between equipment reliability
and the bottom line results that matter to most organizations. One will very quickly tout the
connection with production output and safety but quality or process waste is sometimes left
behind. As suggested in this article, there is a clear link between equipment reliability and the
defects or waste created in the manufacturing process. In order to manage the variation in
your manufacturing process, you need to manage the variation in the performance of your
equipment by taking four key steps towards consistency in your product. First, you need a
robust, disciplined RCA and reliability program in place in order to identify the sources of poor
equipment reliability. Second, you also need to have reliability personnel dedicated to the
tasks of sustaining your reliability improvements. Third, you need to understand your
business processes and ensure that they support your direction. Lastly, you need to measure
your progress with the appropriate metrics.

© Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.