Having a certification is often required in situations where safety and/or legality are a concern, such as for drivers, weapons, aircraft pilots, and crane operators. However, some regulations may seem excessive to some, including restrictions on DIY plumbing repairs in certain areas. In some places, even fishing requires a permit, with detailed documentation needed before releasing the catch. Failure to comply can result in a fine being issued via email.
After reading John Moubray's book on Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), it is clear there are differing perspectives on the topic. While Moubray presents one viewpoint, a more comprehensive and consensus-based approach is typically considered superior. This post intends to further explore the benefits of a collective view on RCM.
- 13-07-2024
- Jessica Freeman
Josh, the consensus you seek may not be easily found, which is why we have such a wide variety of different forms. - Mike.
Josh, regardless of your stance on the RCM 2 approach, Moubray's book is still considered the top resource on RCM available today. I echo Vee's sentiment about avoiding shortcuts and emphasize the importance of rigor in applying RCM methodology. However, where we diverge is in the execution of RCM. The prevalence of simplified versions of RCM, with potential drawbacks, can be attributed to the traditional team-led implementation approach. This doesn't have to be the sole method, as there are numerous ways to implement RCM that are more efficient and less resource-intensive while maintaining the necessary thoroughness. By being more flexible in our approach, we could see more companies embracing RCM principles swiftly and with fewer resources, eliminating the need for overly simplified methods. Best regards,
The Classical RCM methodology can be applied to any type of asset, but it may not be the most efficient choice for many. While it can be highly effective for new plant construction or expansions, it is important to note that similar components may already exist in other plants. Therefore, starting from scratch may not always be necessary when analyzing plant components. This highlights the importance of evaluating the cost-effectiveness and uniqueness of utilizing Classical RCM for asset maintenance and optimization.
Dear Vee, I respectfully disagree with many points in your writing. Your arguments reflect the common views of the Classical RCM camp. I do agree that plants are not foolproof and can fail. This highlights the importance of understanding how failures occur so that we can prevent them. While emotional accounts of disasters may sway opinions, it is crucial to examine them objectively. Disasters rarely stem from a single failure, but rather from a series of events and human errors. RCM, while helpful in preventing some failures, may not address all potential risks. Consider employing a HAZOP analysis or a cause and effect tree for a more comprehensive approach.
RCM typically focuses on individual failure modes, neglecting hidden failures. It is essential to delve deeper into the root causes of failures to truly mitigate risks. Instead of waiting years to identify all failure modes with traditional RCM, consider a more efficient process that can uncover them in a shorter timeframe. It is better to act swiftly in the face of potential hazards.
While you may question the effectiveness of a faster process, I am confident in our PMO approach. Many former Classical RCM advocates have embraced our method after witnessing its success. I encourage you to experience it firsthand before passing judgment.
Best regards,
Steve
Steve stated that if the examples used to justify RCM do the job and effectively answer the 7 questions, he has no special interest in supporting RCM, whether classical or otherwise. He suggested that while Classical RCM may assist in preventing disasters, considering a HAZOP or a sequential cause and effect tree could also be beneficial. Each process, whether it be HAZOP, RCM, FTA, or a cause and effect tree, plays a role in minimizing risks and is suitable for specific issues. For example, HAZOPs are ideal for use in design or design changes but may not be effective in determining maintenance tasks. It is important to address hidden failures promptly to prevent situations from escalating, as exemplified by a recent incident where an unattended oil skillet caught fire in the kitchen.
Steve emphasized the need for proactive analysis to identify hidden failures, as reactive approaches may take years to uncover such issues. While RCM addresses failure modes individually, it may not delve deeply into hidden failures without a multi-level approach. Steve disagreed with the notion that it would take six years to identify 100 failure modes, suggesting that an RCM team could accomplish this task in a few hours. He highlighted the importance of addressing every credible failure mode, not necessarily every failure mode, to establish effective barriers against escalation.
Additionally, Steve queried why there was no mention of MSG-1 and the application of RCM in the design stage, emphasizing the significance of considering different processes that can be equally effective in identifying failure modes in a timely manner.
While Classical RCM is my preferred approach, I am open to various processes to ensure effectiveness. I recommend reviewing the RCM Scorecard created by ReliabilityWeb, which has been continuously improved over time. In cases where RCM is not utilized directly, I still align with the general process to provide effective recommendations. When evaluating existing systems and maintenance, I often utilize the Maintenance Effectiveness Review process to inform my recommendations. However, it is crucial that all stakeholders are involved in the process for successful implementation. For example, I encountered a situation where a complete RCM analysis was conducted without involving SAP personnel, leading to challenges in implementation. It is important to ensure all processes are correctly applied to achieve desired results.
Quote: Nowlan & Heap and United were not working on developing new aircraft; they were focused on saving their existing fleet. Unfortunately, I have been away without my reference materials, including my Nowlan and Heap report and Moubray. The Anthony Mac Smith book on RCM 1993, however, is in my possession. In Chapter 4.3 on Page 47, it discusses the inception of RCM, highlighting the necessity that drove its creation. In the era of jumbo jet aircraft in the late 1960s, the 747 was becoming a reality, leading to the implementation of preventive maintenance programs for all owners and operators. United Airlines played a pivotal role in reevaluating maintenance strategies, with key figures like Bill Mentzer, Tom Matteson, Stan Nowlan, and Harold Heap leading the way. The introduction of MSG 1 for the 747 marked a significant shift in preventive maintenance approaches, making it economically viable to operate such large aircraft. This history is also detailed in Moubray's RCMII book around page 17. I hope this information is helpful, and I am open to other accounts if you have them. My stance on this version of events remains unchanged. Regards, Steve.
- 16-07-2024
- Penelope James
Quote: In my opinion, many of these crises arise from our failure to address underlying issues in a timely manner, allowing for a trigger event to spark an escalation. Vee - I respectfully disagree with your stance. Based on my research, I firmly believe that most disasters stem from obvious failures. Your own example actually supports my perspective.... I do not believe that the burning oil incident was due to a hidden failure. You were able to detect the issue before your house caught on fire. The failure mode leads to the decision-making process in Root Cause Analysis (RCM) being evident, then to identifying hazards, which ultimately results in making modifications such as having a fire extinguisher on hand..... It's possible that our definitions of "hidden failure" differ. I stand by my belief that the emphasis on unidentified failures in RCM services is overstated by many. While I acknowledge that you are not selling RCM services, your approach resembles a typical sales pitch. Regards, Steve
In questioning the inefficiency of taking six years to identify 100 failure modes, I believe that a team utilizing Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) could accomplish this task in a matter of hours. It is essential to actively seek out hidden failures through proactive analysis, as waiting reactively for years may leave critical issues undetected. My previous statement referred to the likelihood of there being 100 failure modes in the plant's hazard category. According to RCM principles, on average, one hazardous failure mode is identified for every 500 analyzed. With a team capable of assessing around 50 failure modes daily, it would take approximately 10 days of workshops to uncover each hazardous issue. This translates to 1000 days of workshops in total to reveal all 100 hazardous failure modes, making RCM an impractical approach for hazard detection. It is crucial for managers to explore alternative methods that offer a more focused hazard analysis to reduce risks effectively. RCM should not be marketed based on its detection capabilities in this regard. Thank you, Steve. PS: Despite the misquote, the main argument remains unchanged. By the way, how do you define "credible"? The SAE JA1011 standard defines it as "reasonably likely."
RCM focuses on addressing failure modes individually, with the exception of hidden failures. However, many analysts do not delve deeper than one level in my experience, as traditional RCM courses do not cover multi-level approaches. By properly addressing each hidden failure mode, we can create a barrier to prevent further escalation, a key principle in preventing catastrophic events. It is crucial to approach each failure mode independently as most disasters result from a series of interconnected failures. While RCM may not fully resolve these complex chains of events, it can reduce the likelihood of catastrophic events by shifting from a reactive maintenance approach to a more proactive one. Thank you for your feedback, as it allows us to challenge the current practices and strive for continuous improvement. Regards, Steve.
Hello Steve, I would like to share a segment from Anthony Mac Smith's RCM 1993 book. In Chapter 4.3 on Page 47, he discusses the preface to the RCM report, which was published in December 1978 under the Department of Defense (DoD). N&H emphasized the importance of decision diagrams and maintenance programs in the report. They noted that prior to RCM analysis, MSG-2 was the main reference for such procedures but focused primarily on pre-service programs. It did not cover post-service maintenance adjustments based on operational data. N&H highlighted the significance of understanding failure consequences and modes in determining maintenance requirements. This approach eventually led to the development of RCM, which addressed the limitations of MSG-1 and MSG-2. John Moubray, in his work, acknowledges the evolution of maintenance procedures from MSG-1 and MSG-2 to RCM due to their specialized focus and brevity. The RCM report, commissioned by the Dept of Defense in 1974 and published in 1978, marked a significant milestone in the field of maintenance management. Howard Penrose may have a PDF version of this report on his website for further reference.
In agreement with Steve's perspective, many disasters stem from obvious failures. While trigger events are often visibly apparent, the escalation of these incidents typically arises from malfunctioning protective mechanisms. Instances like relief valves failing to lift, fire pumps not activating, drain valves remaining closed, emergency shutdown valves not closing, or extinguisher systems failing to operate can all lead to significant consequences. For instance, in a scenario where a gas fire is left unattended, a properly functioning fire extinguisher prevented a catastrophe. However, had there been a hidden failure, the outcome may have resulted in the need to rebuild the entire house.
Steve, in his quote, discusses the chain of events leading to disasters and the human decisions made in specific circumstances. While RCM falls short in resolving these chains, it does play a role in reducing exposure to catastrophic events by breaking the cycle of reactive maintenance. The key is in understanding how RCM functions to prevent events from escalating, by ensuring that barriers are effective when needed. RCM aims to identify hidden barriers and ensure they work to stop the chain reaction before it escalates.
After conducting a thorough investigation on the topic, I have come across two criticisms of reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) as stated below. What are your thoughts on these perspectives? According to http://www.barringer1.com/reliability.htm, RCM is recommended for only 15-30% of equipment that can benefit from it, while total productive maintenance (TPM) is suggested for 60-80% of equipment in most industrial plants.
The main goal of RCM, as explained at http://www.maintenanceresources.com/ReferenceLibrary/ezine/rcmvsrca.html, is to determine the maintenance needs of physical assets like equipment in their operational context. This is achieved by addressing seven key questions about the equipment to decide on the appropriate maintenance approach. RCM offers a visual flowchart that guides users on selecting the ideal maintenance type based on their responses. By identifying all potential failure modes through the seven questions, a predictive maintenance strategy is developed to minimize the impact of failures based on their criticality.
Unlike RCM, root cause analysis (RCA) focuses on uncovering the fundamental reasons behind any event, not just equipment failures. RCA employs a logic tree that emphasizes rigorous verification at every step to ensure that the revealed root causes are based on verified facts. The contrast between RCM and RCA lies in their approach to maintenance - RCM emphasizes preventive maintenance strategies, while RCA prioritizes maintenance prevention strategies. In essence, RCM addresses symptoms, while RCA identifies and rectifies root causes.
It's becoming increasingly common for people to share their expertise on maintenance practices online, with discussions arising on the differences between Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). If an RCA investigation reveals that a bearing failed prematurely due to reckless use of a sledgehammer, it's not a failure of the maintenance approach itself but rather a failure in training and management. The true root cause could be attributed to lack of training for the individual responsible, inadequate supervision from their boss, or even broader issues surrounding company leadership and decision-making. In these cases, it's not a maintenance problem but rather a reflection of larger management issues within the organization. RCA can be a valuable tool for assessing and addressing maintenance challenges within a company.
In distinguishing between Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA), it is important to note that RCM focuses on addressing symptoms, whereas RCA is all about identifying and fixing the underlying causes. As demonstrated in a previous example, RCA, when conducted effectively, can pinpoint the root of the issue. However, taking corrective action can sometimes be overlooked, leading some to opt for inaction.
- 16-07-2024
- Yvonne Mitchell
When searching for solutions, it is crucial to determine the validity of the Do-Nothing approach as an alternative. This evaluation should be the first step in the problem-solving process.
- 16-07-2024
- Quentin Foster
The correlation between Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is crucial for industries like manufacturing and mining where maintaining 'basic equipment conditions' and skilled operators are essential. Implementing TPM as a comprehensive improvement strategy is recommended to ensure optimal equipment performance and operator competency before diving into a full RCM analysis. Neglecting to establish 'basic equipment conditions' and address operator errors can lead to inconsistencies and inefficiencies in maintenance practices and spare parts management. Unlike RCM, which focuses on maintenance enhancements, TPM emphasizes the involvement of all employees in minimizing losses and enhancing equipment reliability through defect avoidance. A successful TPM implementation requires a gradual shift towards a cleaner, safer work environment through cultural changes. While noticeable improvements may be seen within six months, true benefits from TPM may take several years to materialize, depending on the company's commitment to quality and maintenance activities.
In our company, we have implemented a comprehensive maintenance strategy focused on improving HSE, financial, reliability, and availability performance. This strategy involves the use of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) methodologies. RCA serves as a valuable feedback loop for enhancing availability by identifying the root causes of unplanned disturbances. Each month, a TOP 10 list of these disturbances is compiled, and priorities are determined in collaboration with production. Maintenance engineers then work with specialists to conduct RCA and identify root causes, rather than immediate solutions. Subsequent actions are defined and implemented in coordination with production and maintenance managers to prevent future disturbances.
RCM, on the other hand, functions as a proactive measure to prevent disturbances from occurring in the first place. By implementing preventive maintenance based on Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), we aim to break free from reactive maintenance cycles. Our approach prioritizes focusing on the 20% of equipment that contributes to 80% of issues, following the Pareto principle. This targeted strategy streamlines the process and addresses the most crucial areas of improvement.
Achieving sustainable enhancements in HSE, financial, reliability, and availability performance requires dedication to well-executed RCA and RCM processes, as well as the active participation of all stakeholders within the organization. There are no shortcuts to success in this endeavor, but by committing to these methodologies and engaging key players, we can foster lasting improvements. Best regards, Erik.
One key distinction between Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) lies in their respective approaches. RCM is touted as a maintenance enhancement tactic, while TPM acknowledges that reliability cannot be solely enhanced by the maintenance department. To truly engage operators in understanding their vital role in maintenance, involving them in RCM/PMO processes is crucial. If you want to boost operational effectiveness and efficiency, harnessing the power of RCM and TPM is essential.
Hi Josh, Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) is a systematic method for determining the maintenance needs of an asset to ensure it functions properly. While setting up the team is straightforward, the challenge lies in conducting the analysis. Meetings ranging from 2 to 4 hours are necessary, and achieving full attendance can be difficult, especially among operators. Despite completing the analysis, there is still a subjective element involved. I recall an instance where RCM helped optimize a substation's performance, but unexpected events like lightning strikes can still occur. Documenting failure effects in 20 to 60 words per mode can be laborious, and starting from scratch can be daunting. However, starting with existing maintenance practices can be advantageous. Despite challenges, implementing RCM can bring peace of mind. One obstacle is the "Add on PM syndrome" where additional tasks continuously pile up, adding pressure from customers, CEOs, audits, and other stakeholders. Have you encountered this problem before? - Rolly Angeles
Looking for reliable resources on Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)? Look no further than John Moubray's book, considered by many as the go-to text in the field. Whether you support the RCM 2 approach or not, Moubray's book provides valuable insights that will help you navigate the various opinions surrounding RCM. Another recommended read is "RCM: Gateway to World Class Maintenance" by Mac Smith and Glen Hinchcliffe. For a fresh perspective, check out Neil Bloom's "Reliability Centered Maintenance – Implementation Made Simple," which offers a streamlined approach to RCM. Interested in joining a reading club to dive deeper into RCM topics? Check out the reliability magazine website for more information. Embrace the collective knowledge of RCM experts and enhance your understanding of this critical maintenance strategy.
Quote by Vee: If streamlined, turbo or jet RCMs can provide cost-effective solutions without overlooking any critical issues, then we should consider adopting them. However, it is crucial to identify all potential failure modes, rather than cherry-picking the easier ones. Missing just one significant hidden failure can have serious consequences.
I respectfully disagree with the notion that only streamlined RCM processes can uncover all potential risks. Should we abandon RCM altogether if it misses any risks? The ongoing debate about streamlined versus traditional RCM approaches is becoming tiresome. Many claims lack solid evidence and are based on personal opinions rather than facts.
I have reviewed various articles, including Moubray's, and none of them definitively prove that streamlined RCM processes are inadequate. The key is to focus on continuous improvement and not insist on a single approach. Different providers of streamlined RCM have delivered valuable results and efficiencies to companies, addressing the demand for quicker and more cost-effective solutions.
Customer feedback plays a vital role in determining the effectiveness of RCM processes. Many companies are satisfied with the outcomes achieved by streamlined RCM providers, indicating that they are meeting their needs. No RCM analysis is flawless, which is why ongoing improvement and refinement are necessary.
I appreciate the valuable insights and advice shared on the forums. However, I do have reservations about some of the criticisms and claims made regarding RCM. Thank you for the exchange of ideas, which has been beneficial.
In the realm of reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), it is crucial to understand that no single method, whether Classical, RCM 2, or any other "non-streamlined" approach, can guarantee capturing all potential failure modes, also known as "sleeping tigers". This raises the question: should RCM be disregarded altogether if it has the potential to overlook even one critical failure mode?
It is essential to clarify that my focus is on a structured and comprehensive RCM process that thoroughly examines all credible failure modes. While streamlined RCM methods may work well for experts, they may not be suitable for novices as they could miss important failure modes. Additionally, RCM processes that jump directly from functions to failure modes are flawed.
It is important to note that not all software packages labeled as RCM adhere to the principles laid out by Nowlan & Heap. It is true that no RCM process can guarantee catching all failure modes, with efficacy rates varying from 80% to 99.5%. In a high-stakes situation like the Texas City incident, the choice of RCM process could mean a significant difference in the outcome.
When selecting an RCM approach, it is crucial to consider the specific needs of your industry. While cost may be a factor, it is important to prioritize effectiveness over affordability. Remember, the more hazardous your industry, the more meticulous you should be in choosing the right RCM process. It is advisable to focus on simple yet effective strategies, as they can often yield significant reliability improvements. Ultimately, if RCM is necessary for your operations, ensure that the chosen method aligns with the unique requirements of your industry.
I fully endorse the idea of conducting thorough research before choosing an RCM provider. It is crucial for businesses to exercise caution and avoid rushing into decisions. Providing mentorship is essential in the realm of Revenue Cycle Management (RCM). I apologize if I misinterpreted your instructions. Your expertise in this field shines through, and I appreciate your clarification. Let's stay wary of those who claim their approach is the only correct one. Thank you for the enlightenment.
According to Robbie, it is crucial for companies to avoid sending employees for training and expecting them to work independently upon their return. Mentoring is a vital component of Reliability-centered Maintenance (RCM). Robbie believes that team-based RCM activities are essential, with representation from Operations, Mechanical and Instrumentation Maintenance, and possibly Inspection, Rotating Specialists, and Process Technologists on a part-time basis. He emphasizes that individual trainees should not work alone. Having an external RCM expert as a Facilitator can be a valuable resource, despite the cost, as they guide the RCM team in the right direction. These are Robbie's personal views, which may be worth considering.
In my opinion, RCM activities should always be team-based, with representatives from Operations, Mechanical and Instrumentation Maintenance, and if necessary, Inspection, Rotating Specialists, and Process Technologists on a part-time basis. I believe that relying solely on one trainee to handle RCM tasks is insufficient. Bringing in an external RCM expert as a Facilitator may require additional costs, but their guidance is invaluable in keeping the team on track. It is essential to have proper guidance in place when implementing an RCM program internally to avoid potential failure. Starting with an experienced RCM professional as a facilitator and gradually transitioning to independent management is the recommended approach. Thank you for your valuable insights.
Vee / Robbie, I want to address a crucial point here. I fully agree with Vee's views on the importance of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and the need for a structured approach. I am a strong advocate of the RCM standard, SAE JA1011, as I believe it serves as a vital foundational document that our industry has been seeking. In my experience, any opposition to this standard is usually driven by commercial interests rather than concerns about RCM process integrity. It is worth noting, however, that the standard does not prescribe a specific method for RCM implementation. The team approach is not the sole method, nor is the individual analyst approach the only alternative. I have successfully utilized a hybrid approach that combines team collaboration where necessary with individual expertise and adaptability where appropriate. This approach, which emphasizes a comprehensive view and significantly reduces analysis time, has enabled numerous organizations to adopt RCM practices that were previously deemed unattainable. In today's digital age, where communication tools and research resources are readily available, relying solely on traditional team meetings may not yield optimal results for a company. Let's embrace innovative approaches for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness. Just a morning thought to share with you both. Cheers...
It's important to address potential disasters with a proactive approach rather than relying on reactive measures in court. Disasters often result from a combination of obvious and subtle factors that can escalate quickly. While Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) focuses on individual failure modes, it falls short when it comes to identifying hidden failures that can lead to catastrophic events like the Texas City incident. RCM does not analyze the sequence of failures, making it inadequate for disaster prevention. Therefore, claims linking RCM to disaster prevention should be approached with caution. It is essential to consider alternative methods to reduce the risk of disasters effectively.
- 16-07-2024
- Gregory Hughes
Steve, your point is well taken. After examining the Houston refinery disaster and initial findings from the Buncefield explosion (which was quite close to me at the time and truly frightening), it appears that a targeted RCM analysis could have possibly prevented these tragedies. While RCM may not be the sole solution, it does seem like it could have made a difference in these instances. Thank you.
In certain situations, a team approach can be beneficial. However, I am not a supporter of a fully facilitated approach where individuals are confined to a room singing campfire songs. I do believe that everyone should be engaged and included in the process. The involvement of the entire team is crucial, but I prefer a more dynamic approach rather than simply sitting in a room and discussing every detail. It is essential to have someone experienced leading the team effectively. Thank you for considering these points.
In discussions about disaster prevention and risk management, it is important to consider various processes such as HAZOPs, FTA, RBI, IPF, and RCA. These processes, including RCM, play a crucial role in minimizing the occurrence of major incidents. While some may argue that RCM alone is not the best method for disaster prevention, it is undeniable that it contributes to reducing the risk of major events. By implementing RCM and focusing on strengthening barriers through effective task identification and frequency, organizations can improve their safety measures. It is crucial to proactively address both evident and hidden causes of potential disasters, as these hidden causes may not be apparent until it is too late. While RCM may not uncover every hidden cause, it provides valuable insights into the functionality of safety devices and systems during critical situations. Ultimately, the goal is to prevent major events by continuously improving risk management processes and maintaining effective barriers.
- 16-07-2024
- Rebecca Murphy
Hey Vee, I was just confirming that the balance is accurate. - Steve
SEO-Friendly Text:
Hey Vee, I just wanted to make sure the balance is correct. - Steve