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. 

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.

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)

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.

Ensuring benefits from RCM

Estimating, forecasting and tracking benefits of RCM implementations is one of the most under developed area in the implementation process. 


I firmly believe that one of the reasons some projects don't see many benefits is that they don't begin the work with the end in mind. 

• Always focus on what the company wants to achieve.

• Always estimate the impact before you complete the works. At the failure mode mitigation level. (And if the answer is not correct, then you chose the wrong asset or failed in your analysis)

• Always record the impacts somewhere and make sure the story gets told. 

• Start recording the cash impacts the moment the analyses hit the ground. 

Reliability engineers, for some reason, tend to shy away from staking claims on monetary impacts. Preferring to speak to the issues of risk reduction and loss avoidance. 


I am writing a brief white paper on calculating benefits using the Value Quadrant approach. I will post it here when it is done. It covers a range of crash tested techniques I have used for issues ranging from asset selection, through to calculating benefits. 


I will make it available if anyone is interested. 

Risks of successful RCM pojects

Every major resource enterprise that I am aware of, in the world, has a running equipment strategy team somewhere or other. What a dramatic shift in circumstances from the early days of the 1990's.

While good news, I think it exposes some issues related to the consistency and skills of the analysts, as well as larger issues about benefits and implementation.

In asset systems the scale of those existing in these (often hazardous) companies this poses a significant threat. If we get it wrong then the best that can happen is it costs us more cash than we want to spend. The worst that could happen...(fill in the blank)

It does make you ask, what is the minimum criteria here in terms of skills? What capabilities in equipment strategy creation should people have before being let loose on a significant item of plant? Would all of your team qualify right now?

More to the point, what quality checks are you doing now or should you be doing in future? And what are you doing about estimating and tracking RCM benefits?

The list goes on. It is easy for large undertakings such as this to become strategy factories sometimes instead of hubs driving improved performance.

Technical verification of RCM studies

Every major Oil and Gas or Mining house I know runs on an engine room of people and systems dedicated to developing, reviewing and continually sharpening physical asset management strategies.

Every one without fail.

The principles of RCM have spread to such an extent that they now form a major element of most of the worlds major asset intensive organizations - if not all of them.

Sure they have lots of cash, in good years, and sure they are bigger than you. But your assets are just as important as theirs when it comes to profitability and productivity.

The point being, today's argument isn't so much about acceptance anymore. Or at least, it isn't as hard an argument as it used to be. The issue today I believe, is one of quality.

In the commercial world strategy development has become almost commoditized. With every man and his dog (old bush saying) spending time developing maintenance strategies somewhere along the line, combined with contractors falling over themselves to do more, faster, cheaper, remotely...etcetera.

This is, I think,a very real issue. And one that hasn't surfaced as yet. Asset maintenance strategies are serious business. (I am sure that somewhere there is an RBI inspector, an NDT specialist, and a sub sea engineer absolutely panicking over the situation in the Gulf of Mexico...)

Skills cannot be universally at an adequate level, implementation we all know is woeful, and there has to be some question over the technical robustness of the final product. Particularly when they are working in hazardous industries. And industries where downtime quickly converts into telephone number sized bills.

There is a definite need for technical reviews, assessment of facilitator / analyst skills, and overviews of implementation and impacts.

The principles of "good"RCM are universal. regardless of whatever system, streamlined or otherwise, you have developed.

The analysis still needs to be at the right level. Hard to describe what it is, but obvious when you see something that isn't. The functions still need to be written with a quantified performance standard, and describe the function, not the design!

And so on; failure modes at the right level, effects written from a zero base, and tasks that are both Effective and Applicable.

A vital element of modern asset maintenance. Strategy development is about far more than using graduates to wallpaper strategies across an asset hierarchy...

Rapid maintenance programs for small minesites

I was speaking to the head of a small mining company today with a fascinating business plan.


Their intention is to purchase very small mining leases, preferably operating or past the feasibility stage, to rapidly have a cash generating mining asset. Profitable, although not rivers of cash. 


Reminded me of Wessex Water. Another profitable though not huge operation. Assets geographically distributed, with a need to see performance across the asset base, and small margins before unscheduled downtime can impact dramatically on profitability.


In small enterprises such as these, and countless others globally, they either go too big or not at all. 


They "over-capitalize" by installing systems that are too big, complex and require too many people to feed them.


Or...they do nothing. "it's too small", "We don't have any funds", "It all costs too much", "Just focus on production". Paralyzed into indecision by their limitations.


Fortunately, technology has changed the options that these companies have available to them. Only they aren't looking for them it would seem.


I have ranted here before about online systems, and will continue to do so until something better comes along. Particularly in small enterprises such as these.


Online CMMS means you instantly have a view of the asset / maintenance performance in every site, globally, with the infrastructure of a web browser. Not a bad start. 


And there are other online systems, such as the very powerful Google Docs, DimDim.com for communications and training, and a few other projects that are currently under development. (I have one or two being built right now)


There is simply no reason why these companies cannot be up and running within a few short weeks, with global infrastructure, global document management and collaboration, and global reporting processes. 


A few big company types will of course see this as lightweight, and not rigorous enough for "our"processes. And that may be fair enough...


But it is good enough for profitable, small enterprises to rapidly gain control over their physical assets, and start to put in place the sustainable, low cost processes they are going to need to manage marginal assets like this. 


Reliability for every company...imagine that. 

Fundamental elements of any defect elimination program

We tend to burrow more than most managerial disciplines for some reason. We often get so buried into our methodologies that we cannot see the world around us.

When we implement defect elimination the rooms explode with heated debate over techniques, styles, semantical terminology arguments and so on. All very valid, and often debated by people with more grasp of it than I have.. but it tends to miss the point.

Most, if not all, RCA approaches are designed and honed by people who have been there and done it. They are pretty good, let's face it. And most will probably deliver different paths to a similar result.

All well and good.

The real heated issue, the one that is often forgotten, is that of implementation. How to you set up your organization so that you are able to rapidly find, analyse, approve and implement the results?

First, set up a screen. A production accounting system, capable of tracking the lost production opportunities and reporting on their dollar value.

Second, act on it - do the analysis. (Maintenance first, resist the urge to automatic redesign, etc)

Third, implement it. Increasingly efficient and rigorous implementation pathways. (Ops, Design, Maint, Procurement/Supply)

The first of these elements. Setting up a screening process, or processes, is possibly the most vital. It will decide whether your initiative is proactive, and dealing with issues before they become chronic, or reactive and waiting for the next ambulance to whizz past.

The goal is simple. Set daily production targets. record reasons for variance, and then quantify them in $/Ton sales or gross profit terms. (Whatever you prefer)

Act every day on every incident and trend them weekly to see what is happening over the medium term. Biggest number wins in terms of targeting resources, and the work needs to be well publicized when completed. 

A shot in the arm, performance "jump start" techniques

There are numerous things I have seen as examples of leading practice in jump starting flagging performance. Some have been really very inventive, while others have been re-application of basic tenets.

In my experience turnaround initiatives need to have three fundamental qualities;

1. they must be easy to implement, with pilots and small projects up and running within days or weeks, not months, 
2. they need to be designed to deliver impacts early and often, and
3. they need to be sustainable. (Defect elimination (for example) when poorly implemented, tends to produce endless lists of design changes.)

Within asset maintenance there are numerous jump start techniques. Most of which came to the surface during the recent financial crisis. They include areas such as CM for operational parameters - not just asset failure, alignment surveys, cleanliness (remarkably), as well as basic issues like torquing charts, time and motion studies and a raft of others. 

Within the usual suspects for jump start initiatives are three stand out candidates. 

• Defect elimination (well implemented) - Focuses on lost production recording and accountability. Drives existing staff to reason through commonly occurring issues and rapidly implement solutions. 

• Capacity Scheduling - Uncovers a raft of issues in running efficient operations. Everything from exposing waiting times through to issues with front line supervision. (And it's always "too hard" at first)

• Equipment Level benchmarking - Often overlooked. A quick shot in the arm for rapid discovery, validation, and transferral of leading practices. 

Everyone of these delivers rapid results, a positive morale boost, and more importantly - Momentum! 

The key here is to gt them in quick, produce the impacts even quicker, and then move on... Build on success and move towards sustainable low cost enterprises. 

The problem with turnaround activities is that they generate so much initial results that they end up becoming the centerpiece instead of what they are intended to be. Just a standard part of operational discipline. 

Good luck.

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)

Responses to The Super profits Tax

In Australia, The PM Kevin Rudd, and his cohorts, The Ruddy Gang, have successfully demonstrated that Paul Keating (love him or hate him) was the only economic visionary in that party in it's history.

It's not going to have an impact, it is having an impact already.

A 40% tax on any profits above 6% is tantamount to nationalization, and puts a large portion of wealth generated in this country into the hands of those who are least qualified and least likely to spend it wisely.

The argument is that these are Non-renewable resources. We get one chance to sell them, and we (Australia) needs to benefit from that.

Fair point.

But The Federal Government isn't Australia. We are. Raking off large scale profits, primarily out of Western Australia, so Canberra can squander this cash on bloated government spending, short term point scoring and pork barreling.

If miners are going to see this through, particularly miners with deep cyclical products such as nickel and zinc, then asset costs will need to be reined in, and in a sustainable manner.

This will mean substantial hardening of the asset management practices underlying many companies.

• A focus on more accurate capital projections up to five years out.
• Higher focus on whole of life management of asset performance, not only costs
• Alternative funding avenues for asset maintenance. (PPP, MARC, regulatory frameworks spring to mind)

The need for accurate short term forecasts and performance, tied with greater accuracy in longer term projections, is going to force a sea change on some miners in the short term.

Do you really think it's about management commitment?

The oil leak in the Mexican Gulf is truly nearing calamitous proportions. With ramifications that are still widely unknown, but surely spread far beyond that small part of the world.

It is increasingly being referred to not as a crisis scene but a crime scene, and Tony Hayward, successor of the scandal ridden Lord Brown, as a criminal.

Keith Olbermann summed it up succinctly saying "Why is this man in charge instead of in jail?"

Of all the unknowns in this truly disastrous event, the one thing we know with certainty is that asset failure, of some kind, had at least something to do with this.

It is practically unavoidable in a failure of this scale in this industry.

Do we still think that management don't support physical asset management? Still? After the Hatfield Rail disaster (leaders charged with corporate manslaughter), The BP Refinery Explosion, the Buncefield explosion, and... the list goes on.

Then there are all the lessons to come out of the GFC.

• Resource companies bloating in high cash times and having to thin down in low cycles,
• the damage wrought when production becomes the only economic factor (because prices are incredibly high)
• The extremely sharp and continual eye needed on bottom line costs. Particularly int he wake of The Ruddy Gang's proposed Super Profits Tax in the Mining industry.

In the past I think it was true. But today, I just don't buy the line that executive management do not support asset management initiatives.

Every senior executive I have spoken to in the last decade "get's it", and often get's it deeply.

What they often lack however, is a good guide to help them work out exactly what they should be doing about it.

"Lack of management support"when quoted today as an excuse for failure, normally means you are not engaging with them in the right way.

Not always, there are exceptions - but very, very often.

If you haven't been able to get support for what you want to do then the fault lies with either the initiative itself, the underlying story being told, or the right people haven't been spoken to yet.

That's it. They aren't uninterested, they just aren't hearing you clearly.

Another rapid results method

When everything hit the fan a year or so ago, I recall writing a post on rapid ways to improve asset performance. From the few emails I received, (nobody writes emails anymore...), I think it was able to help at least a few people.

The reality is, there are always rapid means of improving asset performance. But in the hurry-up world of daily operations we often neglect to deal with them - Even though we know they are good for us. (Sounds like vegetables doesn't it?)

This is the real challenge. Finding time to do the important things instead of continually chasing after the urgent things.

We've known this for years, yet we continue to cut employee levels to a point where dealing with both becomes a physical impossibility, but that risk management issue is another blog post.

Jump starting asset performance initiatives are pretty standard these days. Alignment surveys of critical assets, lubrication management storage, cleanliness, defect elimination, etc. There are a standard set of "go to" initiatives that can turn around the bottom line or raise the top line. (Or both)

But often overlooked is equipment level benchmarking, yet if done correctly it holds a lot of easily realized benefits.

The basic premise is this...

Comparing costs per ton (say) for maintenance doesn't give you any idea as to the actual asset performance underpinning it.

For example, site A may have lower unit costs than site B, yet site B has dramatically lower costs of maintenance and higher operation rates for a key, and high cost, asset.

In site or even process level benchmarking this sort of thing would go largely unnoticed. But when compared with others within its asset class and type, the underlying performance narrative emerges.

The process? Straight forward, and only requiring some technical capability towards the middle.

a) Define what good performance is. (Not as easy as it first looks) Determine the key performance indicators that will best represent this thinking.

b) Break the asset groups into types / classes

c) Compare each of the assets to one another and to indicators selected.

d) Determine the landmark performers, and comprehensively investigate the maintenance strategies in place.

e) Validate them! The most important and overlooked step. They might not be smart, they might have just "gotten away with it"for some reason. Each failure management strategy needs to be validated against effectiveness and applicability criteria.

f) Implement them. (Again, not as easy as it sounds - And more than changing a few lines in your ERP.)

The result? The financial result is the rapid transition of validated leading practices, within your own organization, that can be easily transferred.

But there are intangible results here. Issues like momentum building, gaining support, and pulling a rabbit out of your hat. By far the most important, as I read it, is the reliability focus it builds, particularly as the end result is a combination of existing work, with a few minor tweaks.

Very enjoyable projects, particularly the implementation part.

Getting good SME's involved in the RCM analysis

When I started out facilitating RCM analyses the "standard" approach was to try to get the BEST people, lock them away for a week or more, and send them off with Homework to ask others in the plant. (If they didn't know the answers)

And what happened? It all got very busy. Resources were slashed to the bone. Instead of getting the best people you started to feel privileged if you had any available people. 

Not only that but people (or at least me) started to come to the conclusion that maybe the answers we require aren't in the room?

This is the beauty of implementing RCM in the modern era. If I want to speak to a rocket scientist with experience in extreme cold climates you could find one in less than 5 minutes. 

I use LinkedIn as first port of call for all hard to get SME requirements. And it hasn't let me down yet.

Most people are more than happy to answer s brief question or recommend someone who can. 

Send an email, get in touch within days if not immediately, and with Skype and DimDim.com in particular you can even set this up in a good environment for knowledge transfer. 

Thought it might be of use. 

The continuing popularity of Time-Based maintenance

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... ;-)

Preventing Failures of RCM - Pt 1

After a long and winding journey RCM is finally findings its rightful place as a cornerstone of modern asset management. The benefits are well documented now and cover all aspects where physical aspects have an impact on corporate performance.

Yet still many programs end with a whimper.

Lack of management support, poor asset selection, lack of momentum and taking technical shortcuts are undoubtedly killers of any RCM program. The overuse and misuse of criticality, streamlining the method instead of the implementation process and poor program management accounts for a lot of these issues.

Yet all are joined in one classic error; the failure to adequately train RCM Analysts.

When reviewing RCM analyses I often come across annoyingly similar mistakes, all of which have potentially harmful impacts, and all of which are avoidable if the RCM Analysts are properly prepared in the first place.

These errors tend to fall into three categories, and aside from the impacts below they are all motivation and momentum killers.

Failure modes at the wrong level of causality. Leads to blanket strategies not connected to the failure mechanisms, over use of the run to failure options, and excessive spares options required.

The worst effect of this of course is the fact that not all of the reasonably likely failure modes have been uncovered. Yet everyone familiar with RCM expects that they are. False sense of security, unmet expectations, classic failure of the implementation.

Combed of ambiguous failure modes - "Control Failure" is a classic example of this, so too is "bearing fails due to wear or contamination". Again there is almost no way to get the right sort of failure management strategies in these situations. This is not uncommon where someone is trying to justify what already exists, instead of determining the real maintenance requirements.

Developing strategies without using the decision diagram(s) - This is a shocker and almost always happens to first time RCM Analysts. The trap is to fall into inserting the strategies that already existed instead of developing strategies to manage the failures found. This has the effect of a zero benefit analysis, or worse - one that is incorrect. (And potentially dangerous)

It is easy to come undone here. Time based failures really seem like they should be managed using a predictive task of some sort... but how is this done? Lots of questions like this exist between completing an RCM Analysts course and becoming good at it.

Misapplication of the Detective maintenance formulas - This is far too big to discuss as part of this stream. But suffice to say that it is one of the real potentially dangerous areas of the analysis.

These are all errors related to technical soundness of the analysis, and there are of course, lots more like:

• Defining design capacity instead of user requirements
• Defining functions that are already covered by the primary function
• Basing detective maintenance frequencies on evident (safe detected) instrument failures... and so on...

In the next posting in this series we will go into some of the program management failures. Those failures that almost guarantee the work will get little support, little momentum, and very little chance of accomplishing what the organization has set out to accomplish. 

The way to combat these failures is to have adequately trained RCM Analysts. Analysts who have received both classroom and on the job training, as well as being coached through the program management issues. 

Monkey see, monkey do...

Ever hear the one about the monkeys and cultural change? I am probably not going to do it justice but it goes something like this...

There are three monkeys standing in line in a cage, and above the third monkey there is a bunch of bananas. The third monkey naturally reaches for the sweet treats, and as he takes one, the other two monkeys are drenched with water.

So they immediately start at the third monkey who is busily munching on his favorite food. But he doesn.t realize what.s happening, so he reaches for another banana and the other two are deluged.

By the time the third monkey has eaten the bunch of bananas, the other two are quite annoyed. So in steps the scientist, and replaces the third monkey with a new monkey. He spies the bananas and as he stretches out his arm, he is attacked by the other two monkeys.

The new monkey doesn.t quite understand why, but quickly stops going after the bananas. Some time passes and the scientist comes back and takes one of the drenched monkeys and replaces him. This new monkey again goes for the bananas and the other two attack him.

Then the scientist replaces the third of the original monkeys, with a new one. This new monkey is immediately attacked, and has no idea why. Even when the banana/water system is disabled, and another monkey introduced, he is attacked immediately.

And if the scientist keeps repeating the experiment, the two monkeys in the cage attack the new ape being introduced, though nobody can remember why, its just the way it is.

This is how maintenance regimes are formed, how streamlined and often counterproductive RCM techniques become "the way we do things around here", and repeat or chronic failures become accepted as part of the cost of doing business.

In the past twelve months we have seen the downfall of several global banking institutions. Accompanied with more than a few career burn outs as well.

These people were all exceptionally smart, just like you. And they were all exceptionally motivated and hard working, just like you.

So what went wrong? Mindless copying of their peers... monkey see, monkey do...

What are you doing?

RCM Rules of thumb

I thought I might just post some of the rules of thumb I have learned to use for RCM over the years.

I hope they are useful to you, feel free to add your own in the comments section at the end of the post.

Operating Context

Anything nearing a page or more is generally wrong, over technical and focused on the process description or functions instead of how the assets are used.

Functions

Anything less than 16 shows an analysis at too low a level, or a highly inexperienced facilitator.

Much more than (say) 28 functions means you are generally in too high and the analysis risks becoming superfluous.

Omitting functions is often a tool used by facilitators with a vested int erest in making the analysis agree with what they had developed in the past.

Failure Modes

An analysis filled with human errors and containing little in the way of engineering failures (Mech/Elect) generally indicates two things:

1. The analysis team is inexperienced and probably has no right being involved in the analysis from a technical standpoint.
2. Their is an incredible level of distrust between maintenance and operations which is being made worse by conducting the analysis without operations involvement and over sight. 

If you have more than (say) 30 failure modes for the primary function then you are going in at too high a level and risk an analysis that is superfluous and devoid or real ability to deliver results.

If you have doubts over the level of causality of the failure modes the question to ask is, "what causes that?" If there is a plausible answer that the team could deal with, then the analysis is at risk of being a waste of time.

Strategies

Strategies that are shoe horned in and do not comply with technical feasibility or effectiveness criteria are generally because the facilitators want them to be included and is unable to justify them on the logic. It means things are not headed in a good way.

Developing strategies is the best point to include corrective actions and develop the zero based budget, as well as the whole-of-life framework.

Starting out

Money generally speaks louder than risk. If you select assets where their are revenue improving or cost reduction opportunities then you are more likely to get corporate support, and more likely to gain the momentum required to turn a pilot into a project, and ultimately into "the way we do things here".

Most (not all) variations from SAE JA1011, the RCM standard, are due to the limitations of software sold by vwendors, as opposed to any true scientific or logical divergence. Your question needs to be - are they selling you their solution - or are they selling you your solution. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Not a Moubray-esque summary of rules of thumb - just a short note on some of the things I have noticed during my career running around doing these things. Feel free to add to it in the comments below.

Decision Making in Asset Management (Or...beyond criticality matrices)

Making decisions in physical asset management is an incredibly complex task, and one that carries with it substantial risks, penalties and rewards.

Yet for an area with so much importance there is surprisingly little information out there on how to make high confidence decisions. Decisions that will progress the organization and support present goals and objectives.

These could include decisions on operational budget spending, CAPEX spending, where to start with a reliability / improvement initiative, how many assets a company should have (fleet management being a gigantic issues here), and many other areas. IN fact, the list is as long as your imagination is...

My experience is that there are four very different ways that asset intensive organizations can make decisions.

Yet they normally all gravitate to one method, that of criticality.

A method that is severely questionable both in terms of application and in terms of results.

This is a short list of methods I have used, their applications and their limitations.

1) Criticality (Of course)

Overused, misunderstood, and often the cause of reliability program failures. However - criticality does have very good uses, and can be deployed for great effect where certain criteria have been met.

Namely:

1. It must be applied at the failure mode level. Meaning all functions and all failure modes must be identified first.
2. Best used where assets/systems have relatively few functions. Such as instrumentation systems or "simple assets". (Pipes, tanks, vessel structures etcetera)
3. It should not be used in any way that aggregates the consequences, nor tries to place numeric dollar values on issues such as human life. This is an inherently dangerous practice as you can often find high cost operational failures coming in as more critical than failure that can kill people. An unacceptable situation. 
4. Very useful for managing the work order backlog as the corrective / reactive tasks therein are already at the failure mode level.

As indicated above criticality approaches need to be conducted based on a "first past the post" approach. If it is intolerable in the safety area then you do not need to assign any further consequences to it. (At all, ever)

Safety wins...

One of the most puzzling issues surrounding criticality is that it is a term that is used so widely in industry, without any real consistency.

But normally it is a process used to determine the most important assets. This is where the problem actually starts.

Most important does not mean most beneficial, nor does it mean worst performing, highest cost, or largest impact on the companies bottom line. Just the most important. (More on that in another post)

2) Prioritization (Analytical Hierarchical Process)

I discovered AHP when I was working int he UK and it has proven its value to me time and time again. I really like this method as a quick way of prioritizing work and / or spending.

The heart of the approach is to first find out what is really important tot he organization. (Not just what they say is important) And then use this as a guideline to prioritize the work/spending that is under consideration.

This is of course a simplification. The process is a bit involved, but it is rapid, accurate, and delivers superior results in my views.

The reason for this is that it supports the current views and thinking of the organization at large. Particularly if it has been well applied. So instead of the most important assets, we immediately shift to thinking about the highest impact assets.

Variations of this approach have been adopted by rail and infrastructure organizations throughout the world.

3) RAM Modelling

Another favorite of mine. Availability modelling of process plants, heavy equipment fleets, conveying systems, water networks and so on is probably the most accurate and rapid way of highlighting weak points in the existing asset base.

The overall approach falls under de-bottlenecking and is another excellent proactive means of deciding where to place resources and funds for future performance requirements.

4) Bad Actor Analysis

Easy, simple and abundantly available. Production loss accounting is probably the most widely used prioritization method globally and for good reason.

It enables maintenance / reliability managers to pinpoint where the money is draining from the organization (in terms of lost profit opportunities) and provides short term results that are normally of a very high magnitude.

I hope this is of some use, and I hope it stops you reaching for the criticality matrix first next time you need to make decisions related to how your maintenance is carried out.

Taking decisions is a very complex area, and one that needs to be addressed using a range of sophisticated solutions.