A recent post in the Reliability Success forum asked the question: "Why is time based PM still very popular if 80% of failure are not related to time"
My take on this? There are four reasons. Some are easy to get around with adequate training and mentoring, others take a bot more time to sort out.
1) The message still hasn't reached everybody... Believe it or not. Every single time I give the RCM course, and I have trained nearly 4000 people now, people are always taken aback by the fact that 89% of failures in the N&H study were not related to time.
2) Fear of the new. I have trained and facilitated groups in RCM who, after working through every failure mode themselves, still want to run their old program in parallel with the new RCM failure management strategies. There is no logic to this...just a fear.
3) Safety. The catch cry of everyone who is losing an argument in maintenance and reliability. Yet time based maintenance is demonstrably **more dangerous** than other forms.
4) Bad introductions. I have seen many (MANY) RCM practitioners who drop the Nowlan and Heap failure curves on people without explaining the back story.
What is a "constant failure mode" really, how do they come about, what is the difference between complex and simple assets...etcetera. Once the facts are known, the logic makes sense.
This is what I have seen in any case. I would be interested in hearing what others have seen on this issue.
(By the way) I was working with a colleague once who said that any conversation with an RCM practitioner always starts with "first accept that you are wrong".
That might be part of the reason also... ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment