Hospital Improves Reliability of Critical, Life-Saving Equipment

Solution and Results

Preventive Maintenance Cost Savings

The goal of an RCMReliability Centered Maintenance program is to seek an optimal mix of condition-based actions, other time- or cycle-based actions, or run-to-failureA failure management policy permitting a specific failure mode to occur without any attempt to anticipate or prevent it. to reduce overall costs (maintenance and operations) to maximize organizational readiness (facility, mission). One step of the development of the equipment maintenance strategies was to analyze the preventive maintenance (PM) program. We identified and eliminated tasks that were attempting to detect failure modes, which could be managed more efficiently via condition monitoring technologies. The charts below demonstrate the initial savings in dollars and man-hours as the program matured, and tasks were eliminated in year three and four.

Calendar Year	Cost of PMPreventive Maintenance	Percentage Change	Total Hours
Year 1 – Project 1 Executed	$897,064.22	N/A	19514.32
Year 2 – Implementation & Discovery	$911,040.68	1.02%	19473.33
Year 3 – Project 2 Executed	$707,866.10	-22%	15190.07
Year 4 – Project 2 Executed	$635,858.35	-10%	13177.53
Year 5 – Project 2 Executed	$417,709.89	-34%	8982.54
Total Cost/Time Reduction Year 1 – Year 5	$479,354.33	-53%	10531.78

The following conclusions can be drawn from the data above:

• A common result from the implementation of the new process, year two led to discovery of defects that were previously unknown creating additional corrective work and a slight increase in PM cost.
• The cost of scheduled PM work dropped every year since the implementation of the RCM project (Project 2).
• The year five cost of PM was $479,354 less than the year one cost, which was used as the baseline to compare against.
• The average cost of PM for year one and year two was $904,052.00, which was used as the baseline PM cost.
• Between year three and year five, the PM cost savings were $950,723.00 in total, compared to the costs that would have been incurred if the baseline costs of $904,052.00 were to have been spent per year.
• The year six costs are not included but were on track to be comparable to year five costs.

Additional value-added items helped move the facility towards a best-in-class ranking for maintenance delivery. Examples of this are 35 assets that received structural upgrades due to bases that had excessive movement, caused by flexing of the supporting structure. All 35 machines have shown a significant reduction in vibration and vibration-induced noise.

• 13 of these assets were modified in conjunction with other repairs (e.g. baring replacement, motor replacement, etc.).
• 22 bases were upgraded in a proactive manner during equipment upgrades (e.g., six cooling tower motors and gearboxes were replaced during hospital expansion, and 16 fan motor bases were stiffened).

Going Above and Beyond

We took several steps outside of the original contract scope of work to assist with the hospital’s commitment to continual improvement. Examples are as follows:

• Multiple trips to troubleshoot assets in the outbuildings
• Precision maintenance training provided to hospital technicians (addressing proper alignment, lubrication, motor/frame movement, repetitive bearing/seal failures, etc.)
• Visual inspections of newly installed, non-commissioned equipment for proper installation (including high voltage transformers, chilled water pumps, condenser water pumps)
• Reduction of energy usage (e.g. 5% less power to operate two vacuum pumps due to precision alignment)