A fault identified on a 1250HP electric motor showed that while we have proven technologies at our fingertips, we still often use our emotion (gut feeling) to make a call regarding our asset’s health.
When Authority Overrides Condition Monitoring Evidence
During acceptance testing, vibration analysis identified an inner-race defect in the outboard bearing of a motor driving a large pump.
While the defect frequencies were very distinct and the Condition Monitoring Specialist expressed concern and recommended rejecting the motor, the plant maintenance team dismissed the data, citing the rebuild facility representative, who stated, “There could not possibly be anything wrong with the bearing.”
The rebuild facility presented no data during these discussions; they hadn’t run their own acceptance testing or provided any quality assurance documents.
Over the next 2 years, the bearing was continuously monitored on a vibration analysis route. The defect frequencies persisted, and further degradation continued. The plant maintenance team finally accepted the findings after the vibration was felt and an unusual noise was heard in the area.
The motor was replaced, and during the rebuild, the inner race was found to be cracked, with surface fatigue beginning. The rebuild facility still rejected the claim that the damage was present during the initial acceptance testing conducted after the rebuild.
When Data Is Clear, But Trust Is Missing
Some might say that this was a win for vibration analysis. We prevented a longer downtime period and higher repair costs by responding promptly to a catastrophic, unplanned failure. I struggle to call this a success. Not only did we lose a warranty claim by not using the acceptance-testing data, but we also dismissed a recommendation from one of our experts.
The technology was right from day one – the failure was our refusal to trust the expert behind it.
How do you think it made the individual feel that their recommendation, which was based on data, a proven technology, and years of experience, was not accepted? What impact would that have on their motivation and willingness to highlight issues in the future?
This type of behavior isn’t standalone. There have been many occasions when I’ve witnessed, or been directly involved in, recommendations from an individual or team that have not been supported. No matter how good the data and argument are, the expert is not trusted.
Deference to Experts Is a Reliability Requirement
One of the five traits identified in High Reliability Organizations (HROs) is their consistent deference to experts. Deferring to the expert means an HRO listens to the expert rather than an authoritarian figure or the most vocal.
They identify highly skilled individuals within their organization or know who to consult outside it. These people are subject-matter experts and are utilized. They are one of the greatest assets an organization has.
So why is it still common today that, despite the ever-increasing amount of technology we have invested in our plants, we still don’t trust it or the experts we rely on?
