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!
RCM provides many opportunities for other methods to be connected to it to extend the power of the method, and to increase the rigor and achievement possible.
And at not time does this actually detract from the method itself.
For example:
- Reliability Growth Analysis (Crow-Amsaa) can be used to identify candidates, target efforts, and for review of the results of past analyses.
- Weibull Analysis can be used to help identify the characteristics of a failure during investigation, or to answer that very important question "what is life?"
- H.E.A.R.T (Human Error method) can be used at the failure mode level to identify failure modes and to determine the risk of occurrence.
- RAM modelling (or Deterministic methods) can be tacked onto well formed RCM analysis, and their secondary (Corrective) failures to determine whole of life costs and risk
- Probability of Detection can be slotted into the method to provide a means of linking Condition Monitoring / NDT to corporate risk registers.
- L.O.P.A can / should be integrated particularly when dealing with protective devices and / or hidden functions. (This is actually a standard, although behind the scenes element of RCM today)
- Fractional Dead Time is already a key element of RCM thinking that can be build out further to embrace other methods such as Markov etc.
I have always wondered about this "tool in the toolbox" statement, and the older I get the more I see it as a method of trying to either discount RCM as an approach or as a means of trying to elevate something else to the level of credibility that RCM has.
But have no doubt, int he hands of a trained RCM Analyst Reliability-centered Maintenance is not another tool, it is the toolbox!