I posted this in the Industrial Lubrication forum, I had one good response (Thanks A. Wallace). I am hoping I may get another in this forum. I am planning on implementation of certification (MLA & MLT) for all Lubrication personnel. This particular work site is a union environment within forest/paper products. This also means a change in job description/requirements is achieved by mutual consensus. I am currently generating a presentation for this justification.
If any of you would be so kind as to state what the practical benefits are in obtaining this certification and how it assists with equipment reliability, it would be advantageous in justifying this program. I have done much research on this issue. I would like to here from those that have this certification and how it has been beneficial, before I move forward. You may also email your response (regarding this issue) to keep the message board clear, just let me know.

Thank you in advance for your time,

Jim

I would encourage implementing the certification of Lubrication Personnel. Requiring certification elevates the status of the job of "LUBER" which traditionally I feel has had a negative image and was where one would put those they dont trust to handle wrenches. Ideally if you want a truly world class program your Lubrication Techs should come from the pool of your most experienced mechanics and millwrights. People with the experience in doing things right. Certification in Lubrication improves their knowledge and thus desire to go the extra mile. In a union setting requiring a rigirous certification process might discourage those who have the seniority to bid for a "plum job" with the idea they can coast along.

I believe that a lot of your justification will have to be designed in to the job description. You're goal is not to have people that are MLA & MLT certified - your goal is to have a lubrication program that will help to maximize the life of your equipment. The certification is just a way to verify that the person in this position has learned his or her craft. I used a lot of analogies and potential cost benefits to justify the position. First of all I described the oil in a machine to the blood in your body to emphasize the care that needs to be taken in the handling of the oil and maintaining the cleanliness. This also works in explaining why sampling has to be done and why it has to be done frequently. You could emphasize the expectations of industrial oil by comparing it to the oil in everyone's car. If someone changes their car oil every 3000 miles and the car has an average speed of 10 miles/hr while it is running you are changing the oil after only 300 hours of run time (i.e. two weeks). You expect the oil in industrial equipment to last for a year or more which is 25 times longer than your car. Then I start emphasizing the cost savings from lubricating correctly. 1)Most bearings fail from overgreasing (I've heard this, but I don't know if it's true - I don't let that doubt deter me from using this as one of my arguements). 2) Oil costs includes the cost of the new oil, the disposal costs and liability of the used oil, and the man-hours to change the oil. If I change the oil too soon I've wasted time and material. If I change the oil too late I've damaged the equipment. 3) Oil sampling can be used to see equipment degradation and allow you to plan the repair or replacement before the equipment makes the decision for you. These are just some of the justifications that I have used. I haven't needed the arguement in a while so I'm sure I can come up with more as I get time to think about it. I hope this helps you.