Three elements for successful RCM Implementation

When implementing RCM there is often far too much focus on analysis or "discovery" elements of the work, and nowhere near enough focus on the "making it happen" elements.

When companies try to it is often wrapped up in warm statements such as cultural change, which normally come blaring banners and posters (even Mugs!), and a vague threat of horrible consequences from an Executive sponsor.

But what is really required to implement RCM? And what is the end goal anyway?

Sure, managers always refer to reduced costs, increased uptime, reduced Safety / Env risks or increased knowledge. But I have been working with companies on these issues now for sometime, and almost always the final answer is "confidence".

Confidence that costs and performance are at or near leading practice, confidence in budget production and maintenance costs estimates, confidence that safety and environmental incidents are controlled to a tolerable level, confident that "we will make it to the next shutdown", and confident that we actually didn't need that regular outage anyway.

If we look at it this way the question becomes "How can we establish an environment of confidence?", instead of "How can we implement RCM?".

Three elements of Successful RCM Implementation

Nowlan and Heap, as well as Resnikov, all recognized one thing. probabilistic analysis, when performed correctly, is a far better means of determining equipment strategies. (As long as it adheres to the fundamental concepts of RCM)

The problem was, and is, that the data for performing probabilistic analysis is almost never available. A few years ago I wrote an article stating that most companies have approximately 30% of data and 70% information when it comes to asset knowledge.

If this company wishes to be taking high confidence decisions, then they need to correct this issue. When a company starts to take decisions based on data and facts it changes the entire dynamic of the organization.

As he underlying data increases in integrity, quantity and quality, the company develops capability to perform accurate and relevant probabilistic analyses.

The early RCM people, Resnikov in particular, realized that the benefit RCM truly brings, is that it raises a lack of data to a positive. It provides a framework, structure, speed of implementation and rigor that allows minimum safe maintenance to be delivered.

My experience is that companies where the following three elements are in place, are best positioned to get the benefits of RCM, and to embed the thinking as part of the organization. Each are pretty complex and detailed, but there are only three.

• Quality, speed and effectiveness of the Analysis effort. (From training to electronic implementation and every where in between)
• Frameworks  for the capture, management and use of Asset Data.
• Introduction of probabilistic reliability techniques and higher confidence techniques

Its not the introduction of RCM by itself that causes corporations to change. it is the underlying driver towards increased confidence over asset decisions that drives many of them to make wholesale changes to core elements of their day to day work management. 

This is often a shock for those who have been forcing RCM into a discussion about software and functionality. Reducing it to a process to be applied when it could be a transformational initiative. 

(I thought the "RCM software wars" finished at the end of the last century)