Ken: Seems that we are quite resolute and sharp towards problem recognition, so espresso seems more appropriate, right?

Haris: Yes, we need to be resolute, and espresso will give just that sharp note 😊

Ken: Where do we need to look next?

Haris: Look at how Lubrication is done now, that is a good place to look. If it is done in anarchy mode, when somebody does something sometimes … maybe … than it is quite clear where the problem comes from. Anarchy normally leads to destruction, and it is not different in Lubrication area. Do not mix anarchy with revolution. Revolution in Lubrication is something we surely need.

Ken: Anarchy sounds like something I have seen so many times.

Haris: Agreed, and it is never a nice picture. But a good place to start a revolution!

Ken: So, anarchy is the pattern we are looking for?

Haris: Oh, no. That is one of the possibilities, an obvious one. Beware of “feeling based” Lubrication approach. That one is quite popular. So, there must be a guy who simply “feels” if bearings need grease and how much. He also “feels” if bearings are better or not. I consider myself an emotional person, and I tried to talk to bearings several times … did not work, felt nothing.
It is a myth, put in place by people protecting their positions and not willing to learn at the same time. Normally, those are little bit older guys … like me
😊. Unfortunately, you may be surprised with a fact how much it can be accepted and supported within the organization. People like heroes, and “feeling” guy is often perceived as a hero. He seems to have some ability that others do not have, and that makes him irreplaceable. Politically…very intelligent. All he needs to do is to keep technology and knowledge out of the picture…and his position is safe. Lubrication dictatorship!

Ken: I met some of the “feelings” guys 😊. I talked to him alone, explained him that with technology and knowledge he will be even more important, if he accepts it before others, and it worked!

Haris: You did fantastic! Instead of confrontation, you conspired with him 😊. You showed him a risk if someone else accepts improvement … and played on his ego … to keep position as a leader.

Ken: Yes, it worked excellent! What else do we have?

Haris: You sometimes see copycats. Someone has a friend that works in almost same facility and have a good lubrication schedule … so they copy. It is a nice sign of friendship if someone shares data … but it never works. Condition of different assets are unique, operational conditions are unique … are they balanced to same grade? equally well aligned? same load? same general condition … so many differences. Copy/paste simply does not work. If it worked, we would have only one Condition Monitoring team per industry in the whole world … and everyone else would copy/paste their assessments and recommendations.

Ken: It starts to sound like Condition Monitoring in Lubrication

Haris: And it is, by all means it is. Condition Monitoring, Condition based action, Condition Monitoring of the outcome. In short words … Condition Based Lubrication. Sounds like a natural flow, right?

Ken: Absolutely! Sounds like a common sense. But how does that stand opposed to Time based Lubrication?

Haris: Same as Time based maintenance stands opposed to Condition Based Maintenance. Why doing something if it is not necessary or it does not bring benefit? Why do something simply because it is scheduled to be done two months from now? Because statistics says so? I believe in statistics, for sure, but it often explains history, things that already happened. If we add present (and that is real condition RIGHT NOW) … we have much, much better picture. You know, you might be statistically well fed for 20 years, at 2 pm, plate of nice pasta … but isn’t it a good idea to ask you if you are hungry RIGHT NOW instead of just serving you that full plate?
Just for the record … a plate of nice pasta is never a problem

Ken: Agree on that! So … Time Based Lubrication … many people strongly believe in it

Haris: And that is fine. It is good to believe in something. I believe in data. Assumptions and estimations result in hope, not in informed decisions. Calculations are based on formulae that consider many correction factors or impacting parameters. Main problem is in those parameters, fact that we cannot assess them precisely or they continuously change. That leads to possible huge mistakes. You can calculate interval of 1000 hours and 6000 hours … and justify both intervals with same formula. Temperature, load, variable speed, big variations in humidity, unknown contamination, start-stop operating conditions, variation in temperature based on environment…
Often those who create recommendations have no idea about any of those parameters.
Still, it is a very nice excuse when things go wrong … it was not me; it was formula!

Ken: So, this is our diagnosis number three … can we call it wrong approach?

Haris: Of course, wrong approach it is…

Ken: How do we deal with it?

Haris: With right approach! 😊

Ken: 😊 … it seems we will need another espresso to deal with it

Haris: Absolutely!