We can publish your case study anonymously or we can identify the author and company in the case study. Please let us know your preference when you submit your case study.

The following steps are nothing more than guidelines to give you ideas on how to write your case study. They are not a template that you must follow.

Step 1 – Define the type of case study.

Problem/solution case study – A problem/solution case study describes the act of finding and then solving a problem.

Opportunity case study – Unlike problem/solution case studies, nothing needs to be “broken” for an opportunity case study. Rather, these case studies involve proactive elimination of defects, latent problems and/or control of conditions that increase the risk of a problem. Case studies that indict an individual and/or organization or present them in a bad light will not be published.

Step 2 – Get approval to submit the case study.

Step 3 – Write the case study according to the outlines below.

Problem/solution case study

1. Synopsis/introduction – The synopsis should broadly describe the problem you encountered and its associated solution in one easy-to-read paragraph – no detail here. The purpose of the synopsis is to inform the reader about the essence of the case study so he or she can decide whether or not to read further, and hopefully, to draw the reader in. Write the synopsis in advance of the case study to clarify your objectives in your mind, then come back and revise and/or correct any deficiencies once you have completed the case study.

2. Body of the article – Begin with your outline.

2.1. What went wrong?

2.2. How did you find the problem? Identify the technology or technologies, inspection criteria, operational parameters (loss/degradation of function), injury or other indicators that first revealed the problem. Include data, annotated spectra (keep it simple), wear particle photomicrographs (ferrograms), infrared images, oil analysis data, pictures and/or other illustrative support materials.

2.3. Describe your diagnostic process. Again, include appropriate illustrative support materials.

2.4. What did you conclude? Include discussion about alternate hypothesis and the reasoning behind your conclusion. Comment about your confidence in the conclusion at the time you reached it.

2.5. Describe the solution. What did you do to correct the problem? How did you arrive at your solution? Were you able to identify and eliminate the root cause (where applicable – some failures are simply random)?

2.6. Describe the implementation of your solution. Include planning, scheduling, parts ordering and kitting, coordination with operations, bringing in special skills, etc. Also, comment on how smoothly the correction went – were you able to accurately foresee the job? Include any special monitoring you planned as a follow-up to ensure that the problem was eliminated.

2.7. Results. Did the correction work? Did it help avoid undesirable consequences? Did it enable more effective planning and scheduling? Did it identify any procedural, material, skill or operational issues that can be proactively modified to avoid recurrence on this machine and/or other machines where the problem might recur? Note: if this is a large section, we may want to write it up in detail as an opportunity case study.

2.8. Who was involved in finding and solving the problem? Use positions or job titles (such as vibe tech, reliability engineer, operator, plant manager, etc.) rather than names of personnel. Include commentary about teamwork.

3. Concluding remarks – the conclusion should complete the thought started in the synopsis/introduction.

Opportunity case study

1. Synopsis/introduction – The synopsis should broadly describe the opportunity you uncovered in one easy-to-read paragraph – no detail here. The purpose of the synopsis is to inform the reader about the essence of the case study so he or she can decide whether or not to read further, and hopefully, to draw the reader in. Write the synopsis in advance of the case study to clarify your objectives in your mind, then come back and revise and/or correct any deficiencies once you have completed the case study.

2. Body of the article – Begin with your outline – that will help keep you on track when you write the article.

2.1. Describe the opportunity – material and/or design defect that affects reliability and/or maintainability, procedural, organizational, skill deficiency, etc.

2.2. How did you discover the opportunity? Previous failure or failures, case studies, theoretical models, etc.

2.3. How did you assess the potential benefit associated with eliminating the defect? Include production/uptime, production yield, quality improvements, cost and/or waste elimination/reduction, safety/injury risk, environmental and/or other compliance issues, cultural improvements (improves working relationship between maintenance and production), vendor selection and/or management, etc.

2.4. What were the options for eliminating and/or reducing the impact of the known or suspected defect?

2.5. How did you arrive at the option you implemented (only one way, cheapest up front, cheapest life cycle cost, etc.).

2.6. How did you estimate the scope and costs associated with eliminating the defect?

2.7. Describe the project justification and estimated cost/benefit analysis (show net present value, internal rate-of-return, payback period, etc. where applicable). Be sure to include the hard-to-quantify benefits.

2.8. Describe the approval process. Did your proposal meet with resistance? If so, describe it and explain how you convinced the detractor(s) and/or got around them.

2.9. Describe the implementation. Was your estimated scope and cost estimate on-target? If not, describe what happened.

2.10. Describe results. Has the initiative delivered the expected results? If so, has the solution been expanded (where applicable)? If the project has under performed, what reductions in resource allocation were made? If the project has outperformed your expectations, describe increased resource allocations where applicable. Be sure to comment on cultural and other soft improvements.

3. Concluding remarks – the conclusion should complete the thought started in the synopsis/introduction.