Data Quality Taxonomy & Failure Coding

Data Quality Taxonomy & Failure Coding Structure at Owens Corning Brian Gilson CMRP Lead Reliability Project Manager

Ralph Hanneman CMRP Senior Consultant

Produced by:

Supported by:

Owens Corning - Who we are Founded in 1938, an industry leader in glass fiber insulation, roofing, asphalt, and glass fiber reinforcements NYSE: OC 2011 sales: $5.3 billion 15,000 employees in 28 countries FORTUNE 500 company for 58 consecutive years Component of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index Three powerful businesses, three valuable franchises

 Composites  Roofing  Insulation

Meridium - Who we are

• Global leader in APM software and services for asset-intensive

• • •

•

industries Lowers the risk of harm to people, our planet and profits by predicting and preventing physical asset failures Headquartered in Roanoke, VA Offices in Houston, Dubai, Bangalore, Madrid, Singapore, Perth, and Porto Alegre, Brazil www.meridium.com

Introduction • Owens Corning o o o

On a journey towards mature manufacturing reliability practices Implementing ECC 6.0 EP4 in North America Realized Failure Coding in SAP is vital for data driven decisions

• No one right way to develop failure coding Find what works best for your company!

Our intent is to share our story to help others towards increased reliability of their assets & processes

Where we were… • Multiple versions of SAP • No standard work management process

• No asset classification data being used • One size fits all failure coding not working well

• Taxonomy classification virtually non-existent Standardization needed to occur Processes needed to change

Makeover Opportunity • Migration from R/3 3.1i and 4.7 to ECC 6.0

• SAP Plant Maintenance Enterprise Solutions o

Owned by Owens Corning MRG (Manufacturing Reliability Group)

• Objectives: o o o o o

Enterprise wide solutions Continuous Improvement (CI) Data quality and user friendliness Change management practices and training Cost effective

The journey • Thoughts to Action o o o o o

Discovery process to develop strategy and roadmap Selected Meridium - failure coding Developed catalog profile numbering convention Master Library Concept Meridium SAP enhancement code

• Initial Coding Kickoff Workshop – Oct 2011 o o o o

Meridium and OC’s MRG team Utilized Meridium and industry best practices Modeled after ISO 14224-2006 Standard Brainstormed taxonomy design for RWP & SAP

The journey (cont) • “General” Assets and Codes Identified o o o o

Core team – site representatives from all businesses Kickoff workshop set process Asset list identified and assigned catalog profile codes Developed failure coding

• “Specific” Assets and Codes Being Developed o o o o

Team formed from single business Kickoff workshop - same process as core team Assets specific to business identified - assigned catalog profiles Sanctions additional “General” assets & codes

Failure Coding Mismatches • A common problem • No methodology to simplify and segregate codes for specific asset class and types

• Matching Damage codes to the Object Part codes error potential

Failure Coding Mismatch Solution • Catalog Profile o Unique numbering convention of assets

• The Master Library Concept o Object parts (maintainable items) specific to the asset o Damage code set specific to object part (maintainable items)

• SAP Enhancement o Automatic matching of Object Part code and Damage code group

Catalog Profile Code • Numerical Design

• Enables: Master Library concept o Asset classification and Meridium’s best practice o Use of single field o Easily searchable o

Master Library & SAP Customization

Brainstormed during initial workshop. Developed by Meridium on top of the Master Library Concept

Benefits • Assures data quality • Increases craft efficiency • Optimizes code selection • Reduces craft input errors • Standardizes analysis, reporting and metrics

Challenges • Change management processes and training

• Staying evergreen • SAP implementation schedule • Adapting to inconsistency of master data

Enablers • MRG ownership • Investment in the resources • Meridium’s training and facilitation • Meridium’s proprietary failure coding tool & database

• Brian Gilson and Ralph Hanneman

Seeing results • • • •

Code Set

Quantity of Codes developed through Jan 2013

Detection Method

6

Functional Failure

19

Catalog Profiles (Asset Types)

87

Unique Object Parts

139

Total Object Parts Assigned to Assets

4127

Unique Damages

35

Total Damages Assigned to Object Parts

1394

Functional Loss

4

Maintenance Activity

18

Cause Codes

19

Code Groups

236

Positive feedback User adoption Committed people Code mismatch errors eliminated

Moving Forward • MRG Team responsible for MOC process • “Specific” asset code development • Ongoing monthly transports

Key Lessons & Takeaways • Invest in teams to obtain user adoption and maximize brainstorming of ideas and codes

• Standardized asset classification for category, class & type (catalog profile)

• Utilization of master library concept reduces code selection errors and optimizes craft activity reporting time

• Use the methodology and processes to develop profile and failure coding as your company requires Leverage existing standards – Don’t reinvent the wheel o Do what’s best for your company o

Q&A

Appendix 1- Mapping Table • Mapping table showing ISO terms to SAP terms with technical information ISO 14224 Term

SAP Term

Data Entry Method / Options

Technical

Malfunction

Breakdown Indicator

Checkbox

Field name: MSAUS

Detection Method

Not in Standard SAP

Subject / Coding Field

Option: Use Catalog: D - Coding

Failure Mode (Functional Failure)

Not in Standard SAP

Subject / Coding Field

Option: Use Catalog: D - Coding

Effect

Effects on Operating Function

Selection List

Field name: AUSWK T-code OIMW

Functional Loss

(Notification) System Condition

Selection List

Field name: ANLZN T-code OIMZ

Maintainable Item

Object Part

Catalog Code

Catalog B: Object Parts

Condition

Damage

Catalog Code

Catalog C: Overview of Damages

Failure Cause

Cause Code

Catalog Code

Catalog 5: Causes

Activity

Activity

Catalog Code

Catalog A: Activities

Task

Task

Catalog Code

Catalog 2: Tasks

Appendix 2- Master Library Concept • The Master Library Concept • Guidelines o

Each code used, has a prefix that matched the catalog it is used in 

o

Each code is used to uniquely describe the part, condition, cause, etc. 

o

All Maintainable Items begin with Bxxx, because the Maintainable Items in SAP are found in Catalog B. There is only one code for Bearing, not a scattering of codes that mean bearing.

The code group for damages is the same as the maintainable item code that the damages are documenting.  

Bearing is B001 – the code group for Damages for a Bearing is “B001”. The actual Damage codes in code group have the prefix C.

▫



E.g. C008 – Corroded, C023 – Seized, etc.

This way a technician can more easily select the damage codes based on the maintainable item that experienced the failure

Appendix 3- Whitepapers • Useful whitepapers on the topic of failure coding in SAP o o

Meridium Basics Failure Event Coding https://www.meridium.com/knowledgecenter/members/apmadvisor/basic_failure_ event_coding.asp

Eight Steps to Boost User Adoption of Failure Event Codes o http://www.apmadvisor.com/archivearticle.asp?id=129&is=23&ord=2 o

o

How to Easily Use SAP Notifications to Document Crucial Failure Related Information http://www.apmadvisor.com/archivearticle.asp?id=223&is=43&ord=2

Brian Gilson, CMRP Lead Reliability Project Manager Owens Corning Sales, LLC [email protected]

Ralph Hanneman, CMRP Sr. Consultant Meridium, Inc. [email protected]

Produced by:

Supported by: