FEATURE MANAGING OBSOLESCENCE The great obsolescence debate

organisation and planning are crucial. Take the water industry for example. A plant that turns river water into drinking water is a critical application. If anything goes wrong with the process, it could put lives at risk. It is common for computerised maintenance management systems (CMMS) to be used in these types of plants. These systems help companies manage infrastructure. For example, they enable alerts for new software updates, manage records of where spare parts are located or calculate the cost of breakdown repair versus preventive maintenance. When relying on spares to keep

When a part breaks in a car, you can find a like- for-like replacement or buy a new car. Fortunately, in a factory there’s freedom to be more creative. However, there’s a topic that we’re finding crops up time and again. Here, Nick Boughton, sales manager at Boulting Technology, discusses best practice for obsolescence management from a systems integrator point of view


he debate between upgrade vs. repair is by no means a new one, but it has

become prevalent as most industries look to squeeze margins. Certain sectors have long had to carefully manage obsolescence due to their delicate nature. For example, pharmaceuticals manufacturing is well known for being heavily regulated and so sourcing spare parts instead of committing to a systems upgrade generally means saving time, money and a whole lot of paperwork. However, other sectors with critical systems and infrastructure often demand a combination of legacy systems and the latest technologies. In almost all cases it’s a matter of planning and forward thinking, while implementing a healthy mix of upgrade and obsolescence management. The question you really need to be asking yourself is “what’s the best thing for the system overall?”

EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT As a systems integrator, we’re called in when there needs to be a serious change. We’re there to analyse and advise on the options as best we can, but the decision is the customer’ s alone and there are many factors that come into play when it’s time to commit. For a start, not everyone has the luxury of being able to afford a complete


upgrade. On the flip side of the coin, not everyone has the choice of relying on spares. No matter what the client chooses, the role of a systems integrator is to complete the job to the highest standard using the tools available. Every job is different and usually comes

with its own unique challenges that determine whether an upgrade is even possible. For example, Boulting Technology was recently called out to a factory manufacturing glass bottles to update the control system for its production process. The interesting thing about this job was

that in the process, a kiln was automatically fed broken glass every five hours to keep it alive and to keep the production line moving. If the conveyor feeding glass into the kiln stopped and the oven cooled, the kiln would no longer be in a working condition. We implemented a new control system

in phases and ensured that a motor was running the conveyor at all times. In this case a complete upgrade was not plausible due to the nature of continuous production, which just goes to show that sometimes the choice is taken out of the hands of the client altogether. Regardless of whether a client is

implementing an upgrade or using spare parts to maintain production,

production up and running, there are several questions that arise from a systems integrator’s perspective. First of all, does it contain obsolete components? If so, at what point will they need upgrading? The big risk when it comes to managing obsolescence is reliability. If a system is brought to a halt because an obsolete component has broken down and needs replacing, how long have you got before the same thing happens again? You may think that in most scenarios

facilities managers are faced with an easy decision – to replace the entire system. However, sometimes an upgrade is advisable, if replacement parts are cheap and plentiful, the company might be happy to carry on as it is. The analysis that most businesses use

is called overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). This is a series of metrics developed to establish how effectively a manufacturing process is operating. Companies use OEE as a benchmark for how well they’re doing in terms of efficiency and we’re often called in as the result of the metrics pointing to improvements that can be implemented.

WHAT’S THE RISK? Downtime is the dreaded risk when companies decide either to upgrade or make do and source spares. In an automotive manufacturing plant, one minute of downtime costs on average $30,000. If production goes down for a couple of hours, the company loses just over $3.5 million. The correct answer for whether

upgrading is better than like-for-like replacing really varies from job to job and in most cases the two solutions need to be used in parallel. Ultimately, the end goal is to find a harmony between the two for factories to run like a dream.

Boulting Technology T: 01785 245466


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72