Case Studies in Maintenance and Reliability: A Wealth of Best Practices. V. Narayan

in US$/bbl.

      •Maintenance man-hours per unit of complexity.

      This information was published annually and provided in a number of forms, but the two most common provided comparisons with their peers and were:

      •A straight-forward bar chart showing a ranking from best to worst (see an example in Figure 8.1).

      •A radar diagram which sites found useful because it could show at a glance a number of aspects (see idealized version in Figure 8.2). Comparisons could then be made against the performance of the best (see Figure 8.3).

      On each spoke of the diagram, the length of the spoke represents the actual value for each facility. The shaded polygon shows the data points for the best performers; these are the values of the item in the ranked order, one-third of the way from the best to the worst performer.

      Comparisons were made against two yardsticks:

      •The average performance of the group of plants or refineries

      •The performance of the plant or refinery one-third of the way down the ranking order.

      Because the facilities were of different sizes and complexities, we had to normalize the data. We used a number of normalizing factors to achieve this. For example, when measuring maintenance costs, we used factors such as asset replacement value and intake barrels of feedstock as the divisors.

      These divisors gave different answers and thus somewhat different rankings. Not surprisingly, those deemed to be top performers, liked the divisor we used. Those deemed poor were highly vexed. Although there were exceptions, whatever the divisor used, those in the top-performing bunch stayed at the top, those in the bottom bunch stayed at the bottom. Only minor changes in position or performance were identified. Those in the middle of the performance band could show significant movement, however. Normalizing methods are discussed in Appendix 8-B.

Figure 8.1 Example ranking on a bar chart

Figure 8.2 Idealized radar chart

Figure 8.3 Realistic radar chart showing plant performance

      8.3 Benchmarking Consultant’s Methodology

      As noted above, we had minimized the input effort for the in-house methodology. The benchmarking consultant, however, scrutinized in detail a much wider area of refinery performance. Each site had to make a significant input effort. This effort was made even greater because the consultant used terminologies and definitions that were different from those used in the regular company reports.

      This benchmarking exercise was carried out every two years. Although we invited all refineries to participate, not all did. As explained, this was because of the cost and effort involved. However, enough did participate to enable us to rank company performance with those of peer competitors.

      8.4 Recipe for Top Performance

      By using data available from in-house returns and from benchmarking studies, it is possible to make comparisons/rankings of individual facility performances in a number of specific areas.

      However, this number crunching can only take you so far. It does not tell how good performance is achieved. What do the top performers do that makes them different and more successful than their poorly-performing peers? Figure 8.4 shows where top performers differ from poor performers.

Figure 8.4

      8.5 Driving Improvements in Individual Locations

      Benchmarking is about improving business performance, so there are more aspects to consider than simply measuring some readily available numbers. Essentially the steps needed are as follows:

      •Identify the key business processes that you need to do well to bring success.

      •Understand your business processes thoroughly.

      •Measure your performance.

      •Measure the performance of good-performing peers (making sure terminology and definitions are reasonably consistent).

      •Understand the business processes that bring this good performance.

      •Consider whether these practices will work in your own company.

      •If so, manage a change process to make it happen.

      A simplified overview of the benchmarking process is given in Figure 8.5.

Figure 8.5 Benchmarking Overview

      8.6 Partnering Process

      Conceptually we thought we knew how to bring top performance to a business. We wanted to start delivering this know-how to the refineries and start them off on an improvement track. What we didn’t have was the essential detailed information carried by staff in each location. Obviously walking into a location with a “We know it all” attitude would not work. Some partnering arrangement was vital to complete the picture and provide synergy. Conceptually this is shown in Figure 8.6.

Figure 8.6 Partnering Overview

      8.7 Delivering to the Sites

       Workshops and Publications

      We broadcast the message in workshops, papers, and company publications. People became used to the terminology and the general idea. We offered consultancy visits to assist them in the improvement process. Not surprisingly, most of those who replied were top performers. However, we managed to get a mix of locations so that our visit did not label a location as “failing” in any way.

      Preparing for a Site Visit

      Arrange a scouting visit to the site to smooth the path for a full visit. This is best done by one person or two as a maximum. They must be prepared for in-depth discussions with the site management. There should be no hidden agendas so it is important for both parties to be open and honest about the aims of the visit.

      Each party must table information from all relevant sources to highlight perceived problems. The head office had only a limited amount of information about the site so it was important to get detailed site information to analyze before the formal visit. This may not be immediately available so a standard list of required information is useful.

      There may be a complete understanding between the team from the head office and the site management but that doesn’t always exist for site supervision and the workforce. Briefings or a simple mail-shot to advise the site what is going on, are essential. Also it is necessary to agree what information can be released to site personnel.

      Agree on the team composition. This should reflect the focus of efforts, but areas scrutinized would always include Operations, Maintenance, Inspection, and Instrument/Electrical staff.

      Physical facilities. Arrange for a room big enough for the visiting team and possibly a clerk. Additional