Fighting fires

by R.T. “Chris” Christensen

Part 1: How did your maintenance shop get there?
When we talk to different maintenance shops about how they have structured their maintenance function, one philosophy seems rise above all others — firefighting.

Unfortunately, firefighting is one of the most costly ways of doing maintenance. This article, the first of a three part series, centers on how and why operations get their maintenance functions into a seemingly permanent firefighting mode.

The second article will address ways to move away from firefighting to RCM or Reliability Centered Maintenance. The third article will talk about the cost differences.

But first, just how did you get into that blasted firefighting mode in the first place?

An inferno in the making
Remember, the only time that a machine breaks down is when it is running. It can’t break if it isn’t running, right?  And the only reason  that machine is running in the first place is to produce parts that are needed in production.

And if you really look at MRP/ERP type scheduling systems, you quickly discover they are a procrastinator’s delight. These systems wait until the last minute to build everything. This is called the Postponement Theory and reduces inventory, speeds time to delivery, reduces space requirements for inventory and saves money in the form of investment in inventory.

There is no slack time once production of a component starts. While this works great for production, from a maintenance side of the equation, it is a disaster waiting to happen.  

A self-striking match
The only time a machine breaks is when it is producing parts, and its scheduling system only produces parts when they are critical to meeting customer demand. There is no time to repair the machine and every breakdown — and I mean every breakdown — is high priority even on a machine that is hardly used.

Why? Because all parts are critical, there’s no time left for interruptions. That machine might sit idle for the next three weeks, but right now its making something that is needed NOW and for that reason it is a critical machine. And now it has broken down. Disaster! 

Who needs a fire hose?
There are several reasons why companies tend to get themselves into this mode. Sometimes it is a deliberate move to “save money.”  Preventive Maintenance, which “fixes” machines that are not broken, is seen by some as a waste of money. Such companies will implement a run-to-failure mode of maintenance so that they can feel like they are getting every drop of usefulness out of the equipment before needing repair.

This is one of the most costly ways to run a business. In reality it isn’t the cost of the repair that is expensive in a run-to-failure mode; it’s the cost of the lost production.

Try this. Look at the revenue generated by your operation, one of your production lines or one of the major pieces of equipment in your operations. Now determine the revenue generated per hour on that equipment. Add this lost revenue to the cost of maintenance and you will have the true cost of a run-to-failure mode.

Lots of self-striking matches
The other problem with run-to-failure is that instead of replacing the failed part, there usually are several parts that get broken when the causal part fails. This increases the downtime: the machine takes longer to repair because in addition to the causal part, reactive parts that failed need replacement, too.

And you also need to have a larger than necessary maintenance inventory — because there is no time to get parts shipped in during the emergency, those parts need to be on-site in inventory so you can get them fast. Think about what it takes to run your maintenance shop this way.

Duct taping the door while the house burns
The other issue is the type of repairs that are made in a firefighting mode. Usually they are quick repairs or patch repairs to get the machining going again as quickly as possible. You have those critical parts to run, remember?  This can lead to an early failure mode because the machine wasn’t fixed right and generates more lost production.

And because the machine is not running at its best, machines maintained this way often run more slowly and at times cannot maintain production tolerances, which creates quality issues.

A good idea at the time
Initially, when companies move into a run to failure mode they save money because of maintenance not done. I call this consuming the equipment. When you are using up the equipment and not maintaining for the long run, you are in a consumption mode.

Just think how much money you can save by not changing the oil on your car. For a while things are fine and you are “saving money “on oil changes, but then the engine fails for lack of lubrication maintenance and you have saved nothing and now must spend more.

It was just a spark a while ago
Sometimes you creep into a firefighting mode. This happens when you have an emergency and you move your crews away from preventive maintenance tasks to focus on that emergency. But the problem arises when companies sacrifice PM time to do emergency work.  As a result, less PM work is performed, and even that gets done  less often. This then generates other emergencies because the PM work was not done and it becomes a degenerating situation. A vicious cycle develops of more emergencies, fewer PMs, still more emergencies and so on. This is the true face of the run-to-failure mode.

Break the cycle
You really don’t want your maintenance function to be in a firefighting mode. Like the wild fire that it is, it will spread emergencies across your entire company until your profits, operations and entire organization are in cinders.

You need to discuss this with the boss. To get your point across, try beginning the conversation this way: “Boss, the next time you take a flight out of town, why don’t you save some real money and fly the low cost airline that got that way by implementing a run-to-failure maintenance policy?” 

R.T. "Chris" Christensen is the director of the University of Wisconsin School of Business' operations management program. If you have an inventory management question, contact Coach Christensen by phone at 608-441-7326 or e-mail cchristensen@execed.bus.wisc.edu. 

This article appeared in the October/November 2005 issue of MRO Today magazine. Copyright 2005

Back to top

Back to MRO Coach archives