Key Concepts
- The first step to improving a lubrication program is benchmarking it against an objective standard.
- Lubrication program benchmarking groups the complete array of plant lubrication tasks into nine key areas.
- A gap analysis and a strategic plan for improvement should immediately follow the benchmark.
Why Measure Lubrication Program Health?
Lubrication program benchmarking gives plant managers an objective way to measure the health of their whole lubrication program. In recent TLT articles, we discussed the tools and methods that reliability engineers and managers use to make objective, quantifiable lubrication decisions. Those methods all focus on correcting incomplete or poor work practices.
Honest deliberation and objective, quantifiable practices lead to precise, efficient, quality results. In turn, those results drive improvements from the bottom to the top of the plant. Precise, clearly defined lubrication practices improve quality (machine repeatability) and productivity (machine reliability). As a result, they produce wealth for the enterprise.
Oddly enough, plant managers shy away from applying the same objective measurement to the entire program management process. Without an objective measure of the whole, they can delude themselves. They may think the parts of their programs are in much better shape than they really are.
So, for the benefit of the lubrication program’s long-term health, this article prescribes an activity that can produce enlightening results.
What Is Benchmarking?
People have stated this simple but true axiom in a variety of ways. Strategic management of a process is less likely if you do not quantify the process and compare it to an expected outcome. Benchmarking is a well-used but still progressive measurement technique. Yet some plant managers view benchmarking with the kind of enthusiasm usually saved for a trip to the mortuary.
There are several ways to define benchmarking. For example, Xerox, the company that made benchmark a household word, defines benchmarking as “the continuous process of measuring (our) products, services and practices against those of our toughest competitors or companies renowned as leaders.”1 Clearly, Xerox views ongoing measurement as a means to a competitive advantage. Additionally, Xerox sees comparing itself against its strongest competitors as a key part of that value.
This second part may be difficult for many reliability and lubrication program leaders. Still, when there is a will, there usually is a way.
An alternative definition for benchmarking is “an ongoing process for measuring and improving business practices against the companies that can be identified as the best worldwide.”2 This definition is similar, with a view toward value proposition. It also shares the same challenge: gaining access to the best competitors.
A third definition is “benchmarking sources best practices to feed continuous improvement.”3 The term “best practice” still leaves an open question. Even so, this view captures the spirit of the intent. Measuring an activity that clearly influences overall equipment effectiveness, for the purpose of continuous improvement, is the right thing to do. That holds true even if it isn’t a convenient or pleasant activity.
Why Lubrication Program Benchmarking Matters
Strategic management of a process is less likely if you do not quantify the process and compare it to an expected outcome. Benchmarking is a well-used but still progressive measurement technique.
After completing the benchmark, an organization should see its strengths and weaknesses against its stated priorities and values. Once it identifies them, management can quickly decide whether to pursue or defer spending time and funding on improvement.
An objective, thorough assessment of current conditions is essential before you start an improvement trip. An organization cannot know the best path to take if it doesn’t know the starting point.
Designing a Lubrication Program Benchmarking Survey
A lubrication program includes many discrete activities that the survey should evaluate. Here is a partial list:
- Vendor selection
- Lubricant selection
- Lubricant purchasing
- Lubricant shipping/reception
- Lubricant storage: Depot level
- Lubricant storage: Open stores
- Lubricant handling
- Quality analysis sampling
- Quality analysis testing
- New lubricant cleanliness
- New lubricant dryness
- New lubricant chemical veracity
- In-use lubricant testing: Sampling
- In-use lubricant testing: Frequency
- In-use lubricant testing: Test slate development
- In-use lubricant testing: Alarm limits development
- In-use lubricant testing: Coding parameters
- In-use lubricant testing: Laboratory quality verification.
The list does go on. The point is that there are many individual considerations to make.
The Nine Benchmark Categories
To simplify the exercise, it helps to define categories of relevance first. Then, you compile a set of questions for each program category. The list has risen and fallen over the years. As it stands today, we promote a survey with nine categories, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Key functions/categories for lubrication program development. (Courtesy of Advanced Machine Reliability Resources)
| # | Lubrication Program Benchmark Categories |
|---|---|
| 1 | Vendor Selection Process |
| 2 | Lubricant Delivery, Storage & Handling Process |
| 3 | Lubricant Technical Selection Practices |
| 4 | Lubricant Application Practices |
| 5 | Oil Analysis Program Practices |
| 6 | Lubricant Contamination & Condition Control Practices |
| 7 | Program Management & Personnel Development |
| 8 | Lubrication Practices Standardization (SOP’s) |
| 9 | Safety, Health and Environmental Practices |
Breaking Categories into Subcategories
Each category contains subcategories, and each subcategory contains multiple questions. For instance, Section 4 of the survey covers Lubricant Technical Selection Practices. It breaks down into six subcategories, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Lubricant Technical Selection category and subcategories. (Courtesy of Advanced Machine Reliability Resources)
| Lubricant Technical Selection Practices |
|---|
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Oil |
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Grease |
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Use of High Performance Products |
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Application Volumes |
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Application Frequencies |
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Application Methods |
These subcategories review the methods and practices a plant uses to match the available lubricants to each machine. Since plants use both oil and grease products, separate subcategories and questions cover the practices for each.
Additionally, the selection and use of high-performance lubricants involves many considerations. So, one subcategory asks about the plant criteria for selecting HP products. Other subcategories cover application volumes, frequencies and methods in the same way. All of these topics, and the reasoning behind the plant decisions on them, are central to optimizing lubrication plans.
We build the eight other categories in the same fashion. First, we identify all categories, the subcategories for each category, and the questions for each subcategory. Next, we develop the survey framework. Then, we write questions that identify and discretely grade each single criterion that makes up the subcategory (and, in turn, the category).
Scoring a Lubrication Program Benchmarking Survey
The scoring method for the survey should be consistent, simple and easy to explain. The surveyor answers every question with an objective Yes or No response. For each Yes response, the surveyor must also describe the quality of the claimed condition.
As a review and example, Figure 2 shows the Lubricant Technical Selection and Application Practices category. Figure 3 expands on this portion of the survey.
Figure 3: Lubricant Technical Selection category and subcategory designations. (Courtesy of Advanced Machine Reliability Resources)
Selection Criteria for Oil, Grease and High-Performance Products
| Lubricant Technical Selection Practices | |
|---|---|
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Oil | Lubricant viscosity and additive type specifications are in place for each machine oil sump |
| Each application for viscosity and additive selection is based on standardized industry practices or direct OEM advice | |
| There is a plant record for each lubricant viscosity and additive type specification for each machine sump | |
| The plant record explains what the lubricant specification is for each sump, and how it was derived | |
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Grease | Lubricant NLGI grade, oil viscosity and additive type specifications are in place for each machine grease sump |
| Each grease application (viscosity and additive selection) is based on standardized industry practices or direct OEM advice | |
| There is a plant record for each grease (NLGI, oil viscosity and additive type) specification for each machine sump | |
| The plant record explains what the grease specification is for each sump, and how it was derived | |
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Use of High Performance Products | Exceptional operating conditions are identified that warrant the use of high performance products |
| Each defined operating condition (temperature, HP, RPM, chemical contaminant concentration, etc.) is assigned a numerical range that invokes the use of the high performance product | |
| For each exception, and use of a high performance product, a viscosity and additive type specification is in place | |
| The high performance application (viscosity and additive selection) is based on standardized industry practices or direct OEM advice | |
| There is a plant record for each machine sump designated as a high performance product application | |
| The plant record explains what the high performance specification is for each sump, and how it was derived |
Selection Criteria for Application Volumes, Frequencies and Methods
| Lubricant Technical Selection Practices | |
|---|---|
| Standardized Selection Criteria for Application Volumes | Each lubricant application has been evaluated for a specific sump or replenishment volume requirement |
| Each volume designation is based on either specific OEM advice, or a systematic method for calculating the required volume | |
| There is an identifier at each lubricant sump that indicates to the operator/technician the specific volume designated for the sump | |
| Standardized Selection Criteria for Application Frequencies | Each lubricant application has been evaluated for a specific replenishment frequency requirement |
| Each replenishment frequency is based on either specific OEM advice, or a systematic method for calculating the optimal frequency | |
| There is a system in place that indicates to the operator/technician the designated replenishment interval or frequency | |
| Standardized Selection Criteria for Application Methods | Exceptional operating conditions are identified that warrant the use of automatic or semi-automatic replenishment |
| Each defined operating condition (temperature, HP, RPM, chemical contaminant concentration, etc.) is assigned a numerical range that invokes the use of the auto/semi-automatic application method | |
| For each application that requires the use of a auto/semi-automatic application method, a viscosity and additive type specification is in place that accommodates the machine requirements for the given type of replenishment method | |
| For each instance of auto/semi-automatic application methods, the lubricant (viscosity and additive selection) designation is based on standardized industry practices or direct OEM advice | |
| There is a plant record for each machine sump designated for automatic/semi-automatic product application | |
| The plant record explains what the auto/semi-automatic specification is for each sump, and how it was derived |
Objective and Quality Scores
The first statement in the subcategory Lubricant Selection for Oil reads: “Lubricant viscosity and additive type specifications are in place for each machine oil sump.” The surveyor reviews the question and decides whether the statement is True or False for the site. Then, the surveyor answers with a 1 for True or a 0 for False.
For a True response, the surveyor also considers how often it holds: all the time, most of the time or hardly ever. This gives a quality or consistency rating that follows the absolute rating.
Figure 4 shows the consistency/quality scoring approach. We followed a 10-point scale. A 2 means Very Low Consistency/Very Low Compliance/Very Low Quality. A 10 represents Perfect Consistency/Perfect Compliance/Perfect Quality.
Figure 4: Qualitative scores profile and explanation. (Courtesy of Advanced Machine Reliability Resources)
| Score | Qualitative Score (Quality Score – The quality with which the item(s) is/are completed) |
|---|---|
| 2 = | Done poorly, no quality or consistency |
| 4 = | Done without attention to detail, quality and/or consistency |
| 6 = | Done with some attention to detail, quality and/or consistency |
| 8 = | Done with appreciable attention to detail, and a high degree of quality / consistency |
| 10 = | Done with exacting attention to detail, with superior quality and / or consistency |
Example: Scoring a Refinery’s Oil Selection
Imagine a refinery under review. It has viscosity and additive specifications in place for every lubricated component, and they address each and every machine component requirement. However, the specifications come from product brand, type and grade designations in a 20-year-old lubrication survey. The quantitative score is True (1). The qualitative score is high (9-10, meaning near perfect-to-perfect compliance).
Next, the survey asks whether each viscosity and additive selection follows standardized industry practices or direct machine OEM advice. The old survey, still the standing selection reference, lists only branded product types and grades. It gives no reasonable direction about the rules and principles behind the decisions. Even so, the answer is True (1).
However, the reasoning behind the selections stays hidden from view, so the user does not know the principles behind the decisions. Therefore, the quality response to this question will be low, perhaps 1 or 2.
Why Lubricant Selection Should Be Reproducible
Ideally, every machine lubricant selection decision rests on a calculation that the site engineering department can reproduce. That calculation should include the operating conditions and follow standardized engineering principles and methods.
Ideally, every machine lubricant selection decision rests on a calculation that the site engineering department can reproduce. That calculation should include the operating conditions and follow standardized engineering principles and methods. This may seem to imply that the lubricant vendor’s advice is poor, but that isn’t necessarily the case.
Suppose the vendor bases its advice on standardized principles that the site reliability department knows, and the department can reproduce the specifications. In that case, there is quality. On the other hand, other concerns may drive the selection: brand, margin, price, consolidation, product availability within the brand, color of the ocean, etc. If so, or if the reasoning stays hidden and no one can independently reproduce the decision, quality is lacking.
Documenting Lubricant Specifications
The next subcategory statement reads: “There is a plant record for each lubricant viscosity and additive type specification for each machine sump.” This may seem redundant to the first two questions, but it is not.
Often, in this area of maintenance, tribal legend drives many decisions. The standing chief keeps that tribal knowledge between his ears. If the chief retires without documenting the reasoning, the site may lose much time re-evaluating conditions from the beginning.
Inevitably, the lack of documentation forces the organization to spend time and effort recreating past decisions before it can move forward. This non-documentation practice is a defect in the lubrication program, and the site should correct it. In our example, the lube survey provides an intact record. So the objective response is True, and the subjective response is high (9-10).
Unlike the first two points, this statement is subjective in nature. Site management may argue that a machine can run without a document that details the lubricant specifications. They may also say that producing the documentation would be costly and resource-intensive. Management would, of course, be right. However, this practice aims to turn over opportunities for improvement, so the survey needs the subjective point.
Judging Documentation Quality
The final statement for this subsection asks whether the plant record explains each sump’s lubricant specification and how the plant arrived at it. This response follows from the previous statement. If no documentation exists, the assessment ignores this question.
If documentation does exist, this statement addresses its quality and effectiveness. Let’s use the lube survey again as the basis of the selection decision. Suppose the documentation names a brand and product type but does not explain how the plant made the selection for each sump, either directly or in referenced notes. In that case, the documentation quality is poor. This statement receives a 1 (True) for consistency and a 1-2 for poorly defined documentation.
Therefore, Figure 5 shows the scores for this subsection.
Figure 5: The oil selection subcategory scores for the Lubricant Technical Selection Practices category. (Courtesy of Advanced Machine Reliability Resources)
| Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Oil | OBJ | SUB |
|---|---|---|
| Lubricant viscosity and additive type specifications are in place for each machine oil sump. | 1 | 10 |
| Each application for viscosity and additive selection is based on standardized industry practices or direct OEM advice. | 1 | 2 |
| There is a plant record for each lubricant viscosity and additive type specification for each machine sump. | 1 | 10 |
| The plant record explains what the lubricant specification is for each sump, and how it was derived. | 1 | 2 |
Calculating Lubrication Program Benchmarking Scores
For each subcategory, you average the OBJ and SUB column scores from top to bottom. Then, you multiply the two averages together to get the subcategory’s final score. In this example, the objective grade multiplies the subjective grade: ((OBJ = (1+1+1+1)/4 = 1) * (SUB = (10+2+10+2)/4 = 6)). That produces a score of 6 for the subcategory Standardized Lubricant Selection Criteria for Oil.
You combine the rest of the subcategory scores the same way to make category scores. Then, you combine the category scores the same way to make overall program scores.
Displaying Lubrication Program Benchmarking Results
A graphic display of the category findings helps you avoid data overload when you interpret the results. Figure 6 shows the category scores on a multidimensional chart, which you can produce in a spreadsheet program. The background represents a reasonable high-quality target, and the foreground represents the site score. In this view, you can easily see the differential between best-of-class results and the actual results.
Figure 6: Standard multidimensional diagram, with the plotted site scores listed in the table below. (Courtesy of Advanced Machine Reliability Resources)
| Category (radar axis) | Site Score |
|---|---|
| Vendor Selection Process | 7 |
| Lubricant Delivery, Storage & Handling Process | 5.9 |
| Lubricant Technical Selection Practices | 6 |
| Lubricant Application Practices | 6.3 |
| Oil Analysis Program Practices | 4 |
| Condition Control Practices | 2.7 |
| Program Management & Personnel Development | 5 |
| Lubrication Practices Standardization (SOP’s) | 2 |
| Safety, Health and Environmental Practices | 8 |
Summary: Lubrication Program Benchmarking
Benchmarking is a well-used and highly beneficial measurement tool. You can use it to compare company practices between sites or against competitors. You can also use it to establish a realistic assessment of the current state of progress.
Lubrication program benchmarking covers nine routine functions, regardless of industry. There may also be plant- or industry-specific points of interest. The nine topics represent categories that every program contains. Each category has multiple questions, grouped into subcategories. A category may have multiple subcategories and a large number of questions.
The surveyor answers each question with an objective and a subjective response. The objective answer is a Yes or No: does a specific parameter exist? If the answer is Yes, the surveyor then assesses quality, from 10 (superior) to 1 (no quality). You average all inputs into subcategory scores, then average those into category scores.
Multiplying the objective and subjective scores together produces a category score and, eventually, an aggregate score. These values are easy to digest when you present them graphically and compare them to a tangible best-of-class score.
This article first appeared in Tribology & Lubrication Technology (TLT), February 2010, pp. 24–31.
References
- Camp, R.A., “A Bible for Benchmarking, by Xerox,” Financial Executive, July 1993.
- Wireman, T. (2004), Benchmarking Best Practices in Maintenance Management, Industrial Press Inc., Chapter 2, p. 27.
