The Age of the RCM Analyst

The RCM Analyst approach had its genesis in the Utility industry of the United Kingdom in 2002. 

When RCM was first introduced globally it was 1991, just after the Moubray first edition of RCM2. At the time maintenance departments were not as efficient or as lean as they are today. 

There were no mobile phones and we communicated via plastic devices attached to walls with cables.

There was no widely accessed internet or email, and we sent messages with markings made on bits of trees we would pass from office to office hoping they didn't get lost.

It was into this environment that team-facilitated RCM implementation was introduced. An approach focused on getting relevant stakeholders into a room, and using their collective experience to produce accurate and rigorously produced RCM analyses. 

By 2002 the world was different, and it was clear to me that this would no longer suffice. Recognised by others also, this challenge was being met by "Streamlined RCM" approaches, designed to cut into the rigour of the method.

I wasn't happy with that. While it was clear that the current implementation approach was unsustainable, there had to be another way aside from the sometimes dangerous streamlining approaches. 

Extending Reliability-centered Maintenance

Over the past two decades myself and my team have been working hard to continue the development of Reliability-centered Maintenance. 

It occurred to me a while ago that RCM was not just another tool in the toolbox, but it was the toolbox itself. A structured approach that could and should house a range of additional methods.

Importantly, there is no insistence anywhere that each of these should be addressed every single time. But there are a range of techniques and methods that can be used to obtain more accurate answers where this is deemed to be necessary. 

This post is a brief summary of some of the work we have been doing in this area, and I hope it sparks some interest and research within your own organisations. I will work to detail some of these areas in more detail in later posts. 

A case study of holistic Asset Management

If we think that we are going to make large scale changes based solely on maintenance activities and scheduling, then we are kidding ourselves. 

Accurate and efficient maintenance, while important, is only part of the solution. This post relates to a short case study we have recently published on application of holistic maintenance principles to a centrifuge installation in a wastewater plant.

The results were large scale, and were generated out of combining all three areas of maintenance  renewals and overhaul optimisation, and operational activities and procedures. 

Asset Condition Assessment for Infrastructure and Utilities industries

Over the past couple of weeks I have been working on an article and case study focusing on Asset Condition Assessment for the utility and infrastructure industries.

ACA programs are part of the renewals planning for these industries, and therefore part of the Capital maintenance forecasts they develop. 

When done well these programs can inform renewals spending with confidence for up to 5 years, when done poorly the organisation often finds itself at the mercy of current events with no confident view of replacements and refurbishments. 

In work from 2005 to today it is my opinion that the majority of programs of this nature are misdirected, and often spend large sums of money on information that is misleading or totally useless. 

Common Myths of P-F Intervals in Predictive Maintenance

Even 30 years after the Nowlan & Heap RCM report, there still remains a lot of confusion over the principles and applications of P-F intervals, and Predictive Maintenance (PTIVE) in general.

This post is aimed at highlighting some of these modern myths, but space will probably prevent me from providing a detailed response. Feel free to carry on the conversation in the comments.

Common errors of anti-RCM evangelists

Ever notice how the ones opposing RCM seem to do so with a missionary zeal? 

Evangelists shouting at the top of their lungs that "you too can get what RCM offers... but without RCM!"

This particular brand of evangelism had its genesis in the 1990's. 

Back when team-facilitated RCM was seen as the only way to implement RCM, and organisations were shedding human resources to try to keep up with competition as trade barriers dropped all over the world.

The evangelists (those promoting derivative methods like streamlining or rationalisation) turned their gaze on the method, instead of the implementation. 

And the results have been dramatically, and almost universally, terrible.

5 myths about RCM

I recently found some old posts relating to regularly regurgitated myths about Reliability-centered Maintenance. 

I thought I would repost them here if anybody is interested. They were first published around 2007 so some of the links no longer work, and some of the old webpages are now out of publication. 

But the links below work fine.

• Myth 1 is lost in time right now.. I will see if I can dig it up in the next couple of days

• Myth 2. RCM should only be applied to critical assets

• Myth 3. RCM is only for rotating equipment not for static equipment

• Myth 4. RCM does not support whole-of-life asset management

• Myth 5 RCM requires large amounts of data before it can commence

So over the next ten days, starting from tomorrow, I will work to publish a detailed post every day on one of the common myths (of maintenance, not of RCM) I regularly come up against when we are facilitating or teaching people about RCM. 

You can subscribe using the link on the tabs at the top of the page, or via the email box on the side page. We don't spam our readers and many people reading this blog have been doing so for over 5 years now. 

Good luck, and let's hope I haven't been too ambitious in the 10 tips in 10 days theme. 

Explaining Run-to-failure

I often read posts and articles railing against run-to-failure as a valid maintenance strategy. or worse, RCM practitioners trying to apologise for run to fail decisions and explain other ways of doing things.

RTF is hard to accept initially because engineers and tradesmen (Journeymen) have an affinity with machinery as Moubrey would say. We like to get them running, tune them to the max, and keep them running smoothly. 

It's in our DNA fortunately... But this doesn't help us to create the minimum safe levels of maintenance for our physical assets. 

Its the FUNCTION stupid!

Clearly understanding this concept is one of the key elements of maintenance and reliability, and the key reason why rationalisation methods will never really be able to challenge correct application of Reliability-centered Maintenance. 

Almost every single analysis I do I come across the example of assets being managed based on what they are. 

A pump receives the "basic standard" of maintenance that you would expect for a pump, a centrifuge is overhauled every 18 months as you would expect and no one asks any questions.

Yet costs are far higher, return to service failures are higher, and a preponderance of redundant maintenance tasks.

Another tool in the toolbox...

As a long term proponent of Reliability-centered Maintenance I regularly hear this trope trotted out to try to minimise RCM, or to try to elevate lesser method to the same standing as RCM.

One variant of this is when people compare two disimilar methods; for example Planning and RCM.

Planning is about doing the job right, about logistics, analysis and contributes greatly to the efficiency of the asset team. RCM is about the effectiveness and applicability of the maintenance regimes. 

And never the twain shall meet. 

Both important, even essential, but not directly comparable.

Another example would be to take a method like, say. Weibull and to compare this directly to RCM.

For those with any experience in the field this is obviously a mismatch. Weibull is a targeted approach for investigative analysis of failures, whereas RCM is a holistic approach to developing maintenance regimes.

In fact, RCM can very easily (and should in the hands of master RCM Analysts) contain Weibull analysis.

Reliability-centered Maintenance is not another tool in the toolbox. RCM is the toolbox!

Maintenance induced failure

We are more dependent on machinery than at any time in the recent past. Today, when asset maintainers hear of issues like the Buncefield explosion or the BP Deepwater Horizon incident we realize that it is virtually an impossibility that asset failure, for whatever reason, is part of the cause somewhere.

And as this trend continues it is also inevitable that we will be hearing more about so called Maintenance Induced failure. (machines require maintenance, more machines means more requirement for maintenance, ergo more likelihood of maintenance error)

I wanted to spend some time running through some of the possible causes of maintenance error, and hopefully they will help you to both recognize them, and to act on them.

How to manage redesign

Redesign is standard output from RCM.

It comes into play when the requirements of the asset exceed it's inherent reliability. In layman's terms, if we want it to deliver, say, 15 HP and it is a 10 HP motor, then it is not fit for purpose. Period.

And there is no form of maintenance known to man that will make it do what the users require of it. That would be a modification, which although sometimes managed by maintenance, is not actually a maintenance task.

The standard way of dealing with this during the RCM process is to note it, and to refer it on for redesign. RCM itself does not cater for redesign, but will determine when one is required.

The problem here is three fold...

A few tips for maintaining conveyors

Conveyor systems are one of my favorite areas when performing RCM analysis.

They are all different, and there is always a lot of scope for improvement.

I thought I would share a few of the changes that come about regularly with the readership in the hope that you may be able to make rapid and worthwhile changes to your conveyor maintenance regimes.

(Without getting too much into some of the great technologies out there for inline checking of conveyors)

Common Errors Implementing RCM

When carrying out an RCM analysis I often get a look at past efforts to perform some form of strategy review. Yet asset performance remains inconsistent. (At best!)

Below is a list of common errors I find in these sorts of analyses. This is not a trivial issue. Failed strategy programs produce failed maintenance, and failed maintenance produces assets that are unreliable, with high likelihood of failures leading to operational, safety or environmental integrity consequences.

I hope these are useful for you. I would also want to counter some of the uninformed hype out there that any RCM is good for you.

If it is poorly done then it can quite easily put you further behind where you are now!

Why start maintenance analysis in the middle?

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.

Common mistakes of methods with NO decision algorithm

One of the key differentiators between RCM and other failure strategy management methods is the decision diagram. I use one I created based on the SAE JA1012, and there are other publicly available diagrams out there.

The real beauty of the algorithm is that it forces you to think very hard as to whether a strategy is both applicable, or able to be applied, and effective, or that it will make things better than not doing it. (In layman's terms)

It is never so relevant than when you look at the strategies that have been concocted using methods or approaches that do not rely on a decision diagram of some fashion.

RCM doesn't have to be a team sport any more...

When RCM was first popularised it was heavily promoted as a team activity. One requiring a group of people around a table for the duration.

The key here is the promotion, not the original intention which lent itself to analysts - not facilitated teams. (Who all need training)

And of course, they had to be good people. Technicians, operators and engineers who knew the assets, knew the area of operation, and understood the design and limitations of the machines.

All well and good. A very good way to transform culture, a good way to embed learning, and a good way to get the best available knowledge available in the company into the analysis.

If you can do it that way, you should do it that way. Unfortunately.. it is no longer very practical.

Many companies cannot spare the resources to do this type of approach even if they deeply understand and want the benefits that a facilitated team approach will provide.

Trying to force companies down this path leads to delays, one-man analysis team sessions, more delays, loss of momentum, people drifting in and out of the analysis, and worst - instead of getting the best people, you just get the people who are available.

Team facilitated RCM is great when you can do it... but modern pressures are making it it is largely a thing of the past unfortunately.

There is another limitation that could not have been foreseen when the method was popularized.

The old way of doing this generally limited your inputs to those available and in the room. Today that often means one or two people at best.

When RCM started to be popularised people commiunicated via large devi ces with circles on the front that were attached to walls with cables. (Telephones)

Today, I can find, contact and establish a conversation with the leading hydraulic expert globally in off road mobile hauling assets.. within 12 - 24 hours. (And then I can call her on her cell no matter where in the world she is at the time)

So why would I ever consider limiting my options to the people trapped in the room?

RCM didn't need streamlining, it needed a more efficient way of implementation, one I developed at the turn of the century called the RCM analyst approach...

If you enjoyed this post you may like to subscribe to get each blog post as they are written in your inbox here.

The great cost risk debacle!

If you have been working in the field of reliability or asset management for any level of time you have probably come across the figure below. Right?

The implication is that as costs reduce, risk increases, and there is a point where the trade off between cost and risk is at its lowest point, or optimal. There are a few of these around. Spares management uses it, and a few other areas... but for now we are most interested in the use in managing assets.

This has infiltrated all levels of asset management and it appears in academic texts, training courses, framework publications and a whole host of other documents that have given it credibility over the years.

The problem is that in most cases this line of thought is not only wrong, but it can actually be counter-productive to balancing costs and risk.

The number one reason for failures of RCM programs...

Is undoubtedly due to un-mentored facilitators.

Facilitators who, due either to commercial or time concerns, or merely a lack of knowledge, are unleashed with a potentially fatal weapon. And when they inevitably run into problems there is nobody there to assist them through it.

In the worst of cases there is a level of arrogance that prevents people from being mentored correctly. This is tragic for the recently trained facilitators, and for the company who has invested in them.

I have personally seen this time and time again. They are responsible for most brands of streamlined RCM as well as a range of other common mistakes.

However, my most vivid memories of un-mentored facilitators performing analyses comes from my own personal experience when I was first trained.

Some things reliability can learn from RCM

Some of the stuff that came out in the original RCM report has often been either maligned or just lumped in with RCM. Over and over again some of these principles have proven to be some of the underpinning concepts of reliability.

This is particularly true when I work with people who have deep personal experience in reliability, but have had no dealings with the information in this report.

Here are a few of them. I don't think this is going to change the world, but hopefully it will help you to sharpen your own focus a little and be better prepared for these discussions when they arise.