7 Reasons Your Reliability Improvement Program Is Failing

No amount of failure mode analysis, high-tech laser

alignment and vibration monitoring systems, or RCA analysis
will result in sustainable reliability improvement without the
one key ingredient: buy-in. If the people on the plant floor
and in the boardroom – and everyone in between – do not
genuinely believe in the need to improve reliability and thus
understand how they benefit from working in a reliable plant,
then change will be resisted and old habits will return the
moment the reliability focus is lost. Jason Tranter, Managing Director of Mobius Institute,
outlines the reasons your reliability improvement program might be failing, and some
practical tips to get buy-in from your people.
When you consider the savings that can be made to operations and maintenance costs and
the improvements in the plant availability, plus the reduction in safety and environmental
incidents, plus the increase in job security (due to a plant’s improved viability), a reliability
improvement initiative should be strongly supported by everyone within the organization.
However, if those benefits are not properly explained then, to most people, a reliability
improvement program either means requests to spend more money in a time when budgets
are tight, or changes to the practices that have been in place for many years. And for some
people, those changes may appear to threaten their livelihood.
It is no wonder then that these changes are resisted.
In our surveys [1], human issues (lack of leadership support, loss of the reliability champion
and resistance to change) dominated all other reasons for reliability improvement programs
to either fail to get started or fail to be sustained. Whereas it is relatively easy to make changes
to specific problems, such as lubricant contamination, changing the minds of people who
have been working in industry for many years is a far greater challenge. Sadly, that challenge
is often overlooked and no specific plans are made to meet and defeat that challenge.
Here seven reasons you might be encountering resistance to your reliability improvement
program and some practical tips to get buy-in so that resistance turns into contribution.

1. You Don’t Have the Support of Senior Leadership

Repeated surveys [1] indicate that the most common reason for programs to fail is lack of
leadership. In a recent poll of 80 maintenance and reliability professionals, 57% said that lack
of senior leadership was the primary reason why their program failed.
If senior management does not believe in the value of reliability improvement, the program
will not be supported and the culture of the organization will never change. And if a program
does get off the ground and make any progress it is likely to be a change in leadership that
causes the program to be cut in the name of “cost savings”.
Senior managers often do not support the reliability initiative because:
• It is never actually presented to them in its entirety. Applications are made for
expenditures on items such as condition monitoring systems, lubricant filtration systems
and training, without presenting the bigger picture.
• When the bigger picture of the reliability improvement initiative is proposed it is done so
in a language that does not get the attention of senior management. Rather than making
a proposal on “touchy-feely” (some may say “commonsense”) benefits that may be
appreciated by engineers and practical maintenance people, senior management need to
see that it benefits the issues that affect them, such as safety, shareholder value, business
reputation, regulatory compliance, and investment value that takes the time-value of
money into account.
• If a reliability improvement initiative has been running for more than two years, but the
benefits are not measured and frequently communicated, then it is quite likely that the
program will be cut, especially if there is a change in management. If reliability has
improved then it may appear that the problem has been solved. The answer is to keep
senior management abreast of the continued value and importance of the reliability
improvement initiative.
If the initiative was treated the same way as the safety-improvement initiative then we would
see far greater progress. Senior leadership would see how the business will benefit and will
thus publicly and frequently state the importance of reliability to the business.

2. You’re Rewarding the Wrong Behavior

If you thank a person for one activity, and make no comment about another activity, which
activity is the person likely going to repeat? So, if a person fixed a broken machine, especially
at 2:00 am, you are likely to reward that person financially and emotionally. But the person
who laser aligns a machine to the highest tolerances will usually receive zero feedback unless
they are chastised by the supervisor who wants the machine up and running faster.

It is therefore important to recognize the high quality of a person’s work (and make sure the
supervisor also values that work). The champion who comes in late at night can be rewarded,
but it should always be said alongside comments that the failure should never have occurred.

3. Your People Fear Change

People will resist change if they fear the outcome especially if the change will result in a loss
of income, a loss of status, or even the loss of their job. Reliability improvement initiatives will
cause change, but it should not result in a loss of a person’s job, and will only result in a loss
of income when overtime is taken into account.

4. You’re Asking the Wrong People for Input

Who do you think knows most about the status of equipment and the reasons why they fail?
An engineer may understand the science behind the equipment, and may have some hands-
on experience, but the operator works with it every day. The operator develops an innate feel
for the equipment. The operator knows what wastes their time, what impacts quality, what
causes slow-downs and minor-stoppages, and what ultimately causes equipment to fail. Sure,
they may not know everything, but who better to ask for advice when performing the failure
modes analysis or root cause analysis.
But do we ask them? Usually not. And if they do make suggestions, do we listen? Usually not.
So how do you think they feel when people from middle or upper management propose yet
another change process; be it RCM, TPM, six sigma, etc.? Might it be dismissed as another
“flavor of the month” initiative? Are people likely to get behind it?
Now, how do you think they would feel if their opinions were sought? And what if we acted
on those suggestions? And if the suggestions could not be followed, for technical or financial
reasons, imagine how they would feel if those reasons were explained to them. You would
develop a strong relationship built on trust and respect. Who doesn’t want that?

5. You’re Ignoring the Efforts of Your People

Motivation is one of the keys to success. Anyone who takes any steps towards improving
reliability should be encouraged and motivated to make additional steps. But what happens
when changes are made? Research has shown [2] how ignoring the efforts of people can
destroy motivation. And to dismiss those efforts has an even worse effect.

6. Peer Pressure is Overwhelming

Whether we like to admit, we are heavily influenced by our peers. If the norm is to perform
activities that are counter to reliability, research has shown [3] that even if we know that the
tasks should be performed differently, we will act the same as our peers. The goal, therefore,
should be to target the “peer-leaders” the genuine leaders who tend to influence others
within the organization (who may not actually hold leadership positions).

7. You’re Forgetting About Training

Training is one of the best tools for changing culture. Whether it involves outside
trainers/consultants or in-house seminars and “toolbox talks”, training clarifies why the
changes are needed, demystifies how the changes will actually improve reliability and
demonstrates that you are willing to include them in the process and invest in their education.
Changing the reliability culture is not easy, but it is necessary. Senior leadership must provide
a clear, consistent, and repeated message that reliability improvement is necessary for the
future growth (and viability) of the business. Middle managers and supervisors must lead by
example – provide education, ask for suggestions and provide feedback, recognize
improvements and be consistent. If we recognize the strength of peer pressure, and the
demotivational actions we can inadvertently make, we will have a better chance of being
successful in developing the right culture.

Jason Tranter is the Managing Director of Mobius Institute, a worldwide

provider of reliability improvement, condition monitoring and precision
maintenance education to industrial plant managers, reliability engineers and
condition monitoring technicians.

References:

1. Mobius Institute surveys conducted publically and during workshops

2. Ariely, Dan, Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008), Man’s Search for Meaning: The Case of Legos,
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67, 671-677.
3. Martyn Shuttleworth (Feb 23, 2008). Asch Experiment. Retrieved Mar 06, 2015 from Explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/asch-experiment