There has been a rash of methods and practitioners out there actively recommending approaches that start in the middle.
By this I mean starting with the existing maintenance regimes and strategies and working their way backwards, then forwards from there, somehow optimizing the whole thing.
My experience with existing maintenance programs is that this is a inherently flawed approach.
This sort of thing started out as a way of getting rid of duplication and data errors within maintenance programs. it has turned into a religion unto itself unfortunately.
If you start in the middle then you are accepting that most strategies in place already are generally okay.
This begs the question why they would call you in the first place. But even if they did the assumption is dead wrong.
First, there are some obvious signs of a company that has lost control of it's maintenance regime. One of them is the over use of daily inspection sheets.
When a company is not in command of it's maintenance these things multiply like rabbits. With huge lists asking technicians to check everything, everyday. And yet asset performance is still poor.
Second, most companies have not built their strategies based on any form of failure mode analysis. More likely they have built it based on vendor recommendations and the wisdom of experience. (Ouch that hurt, lets not do that again)
This raises two additional problems.
a) The vendors business model is different to that of the operating company. They exist to sell machines, sell parts and make sure they don't get sued.
Nothing wrong with that, this is how capitalism works BUT it does mean that analyses using this as a baseline without question are bound to have outcomes with that focus instead of the optimal operational focus.
b) When failure mode analysis has been applied, there is a high percentage chance that it will include some of the common errors. And I say this because I regularly find this when performing analyses.
Lastly, they often recommence the program without performing the functional analysis phase. This just guarantees that the problems already included will continue. The functional analysis is an essential step to produce effective and applicable maintenance.
Without it the likelihood of missing reasonably likely failure modes, through inexperience or just human error, increases dramatically.
Summary
The start in the middle catchphrase has run its course. People are starting to recognize that it starts from a bad place, and that without the functional analysis to guide it the likelihood of substandard analyses increases dramatically.
There are still those out there without the substantive knowledge required to be fooled by the smoke and mirrors, but they are an ever dwindling number.
If you enjoyed this post you may like to subscribe to get each blog post as they are written in your inbox here.