Cyber-factorys ( further CF) are different, distinctive features being:
- Concentrated density of manufacturing and automation technology.
- Cross-over Maths and Physics open dominance.
- Sophisticated ICT’s and A.I. flooding every corner.
- And so, the need for very few, extremely qualified people.
One could say that the CF is no other thing that a “Science-lab made operation” and mutating conviniously.
These smart-elegant factors are extremely infrequent in the tradicional manufacturing, even taking one by one, not to say considering all of them as a synergistic system (what really gives its unique sense).
The enormous dependence on technology and few people makes the maintenance in CF’s to be deadly critical.
Convencional TPM focus in the plant machines as a single system with inputs, outputs, and efficiency in their middle. That’s not the case.
The system is now a cyber-complex one, connecting in real-time multiple devices, many of them with deductive intelligence, A.I. software, and people. So you have to maintain much more than isolated machines; linkings!, with the software as the core of them. And cyber-factorys have few people. So, differences with traditional manufacturing are much more than apparent:
- Need for efective-real time response, otherwise leading to a global breackdown chance.
- Need for an integrated multi-technology predictive maintenance plan.
- Need for Science and devoted people to assure edge reliability.
- Need for self-maintenance and Maintenance engineering fusion.
The antique cornerstone of the TPM, the self-maintenance, simply dissapears as today’s thinking: it becomes engineering,and routinary tasks will be mostly performed by Ad-Hoc robots. No doubt, cyber-factorys become necessarily elitist. In the case of Maintenance, his own automation distillates appropiated people.
Furthermore, the six well-know TPM efficiency losses evolve to a much more complex-integrated ones set. The 6 oldies are:
But they must be deeply transformated and globalized with the concept of a deep-connected factory.
The most importan difference is the setting of a “global-predictive OEE” (gpOEE), considering the factory as a cyber-dependent system with the final-valuable customer products as the sole output, and computing inside it not only the remote and recent history, but most important, the predictive indication as well.
This means the following:
, then the factory is pushed to work the same way it is; only one system highly inter-connected in the way an individual machine was considered in the past. This deeply transforms the kind of Maintenance Management, leading to work as a whole with very skilled multi-polivalent people with group common aims. Note also that “optimum reachable time” is not current standard, but the “proxy-future-engineered target”.- In the time consumed, in addition to the 6 losses mentioned above (g,s,v,T,w,b), as new, must be considered:
-
- Time ORT in service delays.
- Time losses by ICT’s errors or delays.
- Time used in repairing quality bugs.
- Time used in corrective Maintenance, although it doesn’t got out flow stoppings.
- ORT of the Wip away than its pure technical butters.
Important to note that all than have two distinctive features:
- They are predictive, and
- They push for a global factory.
All these now concepts (Tim® Metodology, Sisteplant) require a sounded review of the existing TPM practices, and building more advanced technological and managerial practices specially in Maintenance.
