In this section, we are focusing on how PMO2000 groups failure modes into a single record, while RCM separates them. This distinction is one of the reasons why PMO2000 is considered to be faster. While there are numerous other failure modes not listed here, the main purpose of this paper section is not to cover every single one.
Steve, I appreciate your input and assistance. As a proficient RCM expert, it would be beneficial to showcase the insights that an RCM analysis can provide, including the additional work involved and the potential benefits. Providing a comprehensive view of the costs and advantages would offer readers a well-rounded understanding. I am uncertain whether PMO 2000 considers 'earth fault' as a valid failure mode or if it includes motor failures when assessing for 'no power'. In an RCM analysis, these factors would typically be taken into account. While it is clear that gear box failure would lead to 'no power', there may be other components in the power train that could also result in power loss. The specific task you chose for reverse engineering is 'vibration analysis', but are there other tasks that align with the scenarios I mentioned earlier? It is possible that the example you used was hypothetical, but considering your extensive experience in RCM and PMO 2000, it would be valuable to draw from real-life examples in your records. My goal is to fully comprehend the case at hand without having to make assumptions.
- 12-07-2024
- Jasmine Howard
In the evaluation of failure modes within PMO 2000 and RCM methodologies, the identification of all potential failure modes that could lead to functional failure is crucial. SAE JA 1011 specifies that all failure modes reasonably likely to cause each functional failure must be considered, with a focus on identifying failure modes at a level of causation that allows for appropriate failure management policies. This includes listing failure modes that have occurred in the past, those currently prevented by maintenance programs, and those deemed reasonably likely to occur in the future.
When applying RCM to assets like a car engine, it is important to prioritize the evaluation of failure modes based on current maintenance programs, past failures, and potential future failures with significant consequences. While detailed evaluations of every component may not be practical, including relevant failure modes like an 'earth fault' is essential unless it is deemed highly unlikely to occur. The main objective is not to list every conceivable failure mode, but to create a comprehensive maintenance program that addresses critical issues and avoids missing any crucial failure modes.
During the rationalization and review of failure modes, task duplication can be identified and addressed. This involves ensuring that the same failure modes are not being managed redundantly by different sections within the organization. By reviewing failure modes generated through analysis and incorporating missing failures based on historical data, technical documentation, and team experience, a more effective maintenance program can be developed.
Overall, the focus is on creating a maintenance program that covers a majority of failure modes through existing programs, while also addressing any gaps to ensure comprehensive coverage. The emphasis is on practicality and efficiency, aiming to optimize maintenance efforts without overlooking critical failure modes.
Quote: It is possible that the example you provided is merely hypothetical. As someone with extensive experience in both RCM and PMO 2000, you should easily be able to select a real-world example from your own records. My goal is to thoroughly understand the case without having to make any assumptions. I have a training example that could be useful for this purpose, although I have not included it in my paper due to its length. Even in popular textbooks like Moubray, complete analyses are often not shown. I believe sharing an example would be a compelling way to persuade skeptics of my assertions, or alternatively, to uncover any unintentional misinformation on my part. Perhaps we should start a new thread specifically for this example.
Steve, let's focus on the current example to enhance our understanding. If failure modes are expected to occur and lead to maintenance or modification actions, PMO2000 would address them. Specifically, I want to know if PMO 2000 covers failure modes such as earth faults or motor faults (e.g. motor starter or cable terminations). Can you, wearing your PMO 2000 hat, determine whether a 'maintenance or modification action' is likely to be necessary and explain your reasoning? Let's stick to this example for now to streamline our discussion and avoid confusion. We can always revisit the car example at a later time or in a separate thread if you'd like to discuss it further.
In regards to the failure modes, such as earth fault or other motor faults, it is important to consider whether they should be included in the analysis using PMO 2000. Regarding earth fault, the answer is yes. However, for other motor faults, it is advised not to include them as they are considered vague and not suitable for RCM analysis. When it comes to motor starters, they should be included in the analysis only if there is a history of failures. Cable terminations, on the other hand, should always be included as electricians usually have scheduled maintenance tasks for them. If not, they will inform you that the terminations require maintenance.
I am open to discussing your car analogy at a different time or in a separate discussion. It's important to note that my illustration does not revolve around cars. Let's explore the comparison further whenever you're ready.
Vee, could you kindly attach the copy of the paper you mentioned to this thread? I believe this is my paper, but the pages you are referring to do not seem to align with the version I have. I would like to share the paper to provide clarity on the topic being discussed and to give context to the conversation. To ensure that we are all "on the same page," it would be helpful for you to upload your version. Thank you, Steve.
Steve, could you please attach the paper you mentioned in the thread? I may have made errors in the page numbers. The paper was shared in the AMP discussion. Here is the copy I downloaded for reference. Thank you. You can find the attachment comparing RCM and PMO in the file named comparingRCMandPMO2000(2).pdf, which is 903 KB in size.
- 12-07-2024
- Vanessa Carter
In regards to Earth Fault and other motor faults, it is important to analyze specific failure modes to ensure equipment reliability. Motor starters should be checked for failure history, while cable terminations should also be examined. These failure modes are typically associated with the functional failure of "No Power". In a PMO 2000 analysis, a generic task for testing earth faults, junction boxes, or terminations in the CMMS may trigger further investigation. It is crucial to link these tasks to the specific fan tag selected and consider the criteria used to determine the timing and frequency of these tasks in PMO 2k.
- 12-07-2024
- Shawn Thompson
Steve admitted to his mistake by acknowledging that his example was not related to cars. He should have specified that he was referring to a "car engine" instead.
Vee, this is not an engine but rather the fin fan case we previously attempted RCM on. This case serves as an exceptional example due to its expansive range of possibilities.
One of the first quotes to consider is: What factors determine the timing and frequency of tasks in PMO 2k? We typically follow the RCM task selection criteria, although we can accommodate the client's preferred SAE criteria if they have a different solution in mind.
When utilizing Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), it is important to identify failure modes associated with functional failures such as "No Power". These failure modes can be located under the specific function within the selected equipment, such as a fan.
In conducting a PMO 2000 analysis, it is crucial to determine if generic tasks within the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) trigger inquiries related to earth fault testing, junction boxes, terminations, etc. Additionally, it is essential to establish the link between the identified fan and its specific tag.
While RCM emphasizes starting with function, PMO2000 does not prioritize function as its core. Understanding the consequences of failure is key, as consequences stem from loss of function. Failure modes, which are closely tied to equipment, play a crucial role in maintenance.
In an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM)/CMMS system, the focus is on managing equipment rather than functions. This approach simplifies the process for users who can easily access information on equipment, failure modes, strategies, and consequences. Overall, this equipment-focused approach presents a more intuitive solution compared to RCM.
Steve, in your second example (or illustration or whatever you may refer to it as), you mentioned: "Let me provide an example with a car engine." This particular example is the one I had in mind. It appears that I must include quotes for every sentence from the related posts, even those that are fresh off the press.
Steve, I would appreciate your direct response to my inquiries. I am seeking clarity on the criteria for determining the timing and frequency of tasks within PMO 2000, specifically in relation to RCM task selection criteria. While we typically rely on the SAE criteria, we are open to using a client's preferred solution. I am interested in understanding the scheduling aspect ('when' not 'what') of tasks such as earth-fault or terminations inspections. Can you provide an estimate, such as every 2 years or every 6 months? Additionally, I am curious about the inclusion of specific failure modes in a PMO 2000 analysis and how they are triggered, either through a CMMS task or another method. Furthermore, I would like to know the link to the specific tag of the fan selected for analysis. Your expertise in fan analysis should make addressing these questions straightforward.
In engineering, it is important to understand the difference between functional failure and consequence. While functional failure refers to the loss of function of a machine, consequence goes beyond that to encompass a range of potential outcomes that can vary depending on the specific circumstances. For example, a generator stopping while running is a functional failure, while the consequences may include a blackout due to lack of standby power, with a recovery time of 2 hours, or a seized machine bearing leading to major internal damage and a recovery time of 6 months. It is crucial to distinguish between these concepts as they are related but distinct in their implications. Understanding the potential consequences of functional failures is essential for effective maintenance and risk management.
Steve made a statement suggesting that function is the center of the universe. However, I perceive this as an attempt to belittle me, as you cannot possibly know my thoughts. While it is clear that we have differing opinions on certain issues, I find the comment about function being the center of the universe to be unnecessary. This belief is based on your interpretations of what N&H intended, which you continuously assert as fact, despite it not being true. Let's not revisit this discussion, as we have already addressed it before.
Question 3: How does PMO 2k determine the timing and frequency of tasks? In accordance with the PMO2000 process, the RCM decision logic is recommended, and we provide training on the RCM approach for establishing task intervals. This information can be found in Sections 5.5 to 5.8 of the RCM Standard. During a discussion with Dana Netherton and John Moubray, the term "RCM Task Selection Criteria" was suggested instead of "RCM decision logic" to avoid confusion.
Regarding the frequency of earth-fault or terminations inspections under PMO 2000, I am unable to provide specific intervals as I am not an electrician nor involved in crafting maintenance schedules. However, I am here to guide and educate on the process. If you identify a termination fault, I can assist in determining the consequence category and advising on the appropriate course of action. Feel free to share your specific concerns or objectives. While we adhere to the SAE Standard, we also offer additional task options such as Event-based Servicings and Independent inspections. Let's delve into those alternatives rather than debating the SAE Standard, which I did not create.
Quote: While you may not be privy to my thoughts, Vee, you have demonstrated extensive knowledge on this topic through your published book and active participation in online discussions. It would be fair to acknowledge my perspective to some extent. However, I must admit that the way I expressed my thoughts was not ideal. I could have conveyed them in a more diplomatic manner to avoid causing controversy.
Quote: While Consequence and Functional Failure are closely related, they are distinct terms. Consequence refers to what occurs when a failure results in the loss of function. It encompasses more than just function and cannot be described without understanding the function that is compromised. It is essential to recognize that Consequence includes function and is of greater importance than understanding the function alone. When facing a potential failure, it is crucial to not only report the loss of function to the plant manager but also to detail the impact of that loss. Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) begins with a focus on function, while Preventive Maintenance Optimization (PMO) starts with tasks, indirectly addressing equipment as tasks inherently involve equipment inspections. Starting from a blank slate, RCM prioritizes understanding function, essential for effectively addressing consequences.
Before any PMO2000 workshop, extensive time is dedicated to preparing information worksheets. The program is thoroughly broken down to list each task corresponding to every equipment asset. Additionally, we validate the configuration of libraries previously identified. When conducting a PMO 2000 analysis, it is essential to determine the whereabouts of specific failure modes such as earth fault testing, junction boxes, or terminations. This can be triggered by a generic task in the CMMS or through alternative methods. The identification of failure modes from a generic routine in the CMMS is crucial. The connection to the specific fan tag chosen must be established, either through a list of tags or other specified means. Proper preparation for these workshops is key. For instance, analyzing 70,000 tags required the effort of two to three individuals over a month and specialized software code to organize the data efficiently. Ultimately, the results were impressive, with all 70,000 tags analyzed within eight months and re-integrated into the system in another 12 months. In comparison, a traditional RCM approach tackled only 1,500 tags in two to three years, highlighting the superior speed of the PMO2000 software. Trying to handle such tasks on a spreadsheet is not recommended; purpose-built software like PMO2000 is the most suitable choice, offering RCM capabilities as well. Those looking to implement RCM for 20% of critical assets can do so effortlessly with our software solution.
While PMO and other fast-track methods may be quicker than RCM, the key question remains: do they offer a robust and inclusive maintenance plan? Balancing speed with quality is essential for long-term success in asset management.
quote: In response to a question about inspecting earth-faults or terminations using PMO 2000, Steve Turner stated that, as a facilitator and educator, he does not determine maintenance schedules. He guides individuals in identifying termination faults, determining consequence categories, and selecting appropriate tasks and frequencies. It is essential for a consultant to validate the task and frequency suggested by the electrician. In the event of a fault or inadequacy identified through PMO, the consultant should be prepared to support the owner in defending their maintenance strategy.
Hello Josh, that's an excellent question. Can a consultant validate the accuracy of the task and frequency input provided by an electrician? If a maintenance strategy is found to be faulty or inadequate after a PMO review, will the consultant stand alongside the owner in defense? From my personal perspective, our role in conducting workshops involves training individuals in analysis methods. We evaluate their logic against the RCM Decision Diagram. If the logic doesn't align, we document the group's input and address our concerns with company management for further review. Our approach is not to argue with the team but to facilitate understanding and consensus. While we may have differing opinions, we aim to uncover the rationale behind each perspective. Proper training in concepts can lead to a shift in thinking and acceptance of new methodologies. Some entrenched practices may be rooted in tradition, but with the right education, individuals can adapt and embrace change. It's crucial to dig deep into the reasoning behind beliefs to uncover logical explanations. While legislation may influence decisions, a closer examination often reveals flaws in irrational methods. These nuanced considerations play a significant role in the decision-making process. Feel free to share your thoughts on this approach, as there is no definitive right or wrong answer.
While I will make efforts to highlight any discrepancies, ultimately, the responsibility lies with the plant owner. In the event that faults or deficiencies are identified in the maintenance strategy following a PMO, will the consultant be prepared to also take on accountability alongside the owner as a defendant?
- 12-07-2024
- Wesley Jenkins
Josh, your comment raises an intriguing point that can be interpreted in multiple ways. In an ideal world, organizations could operate like computer programs, where we can change the code and see immediate results. However, people and organizations do not function in such a linear manner. They require time to evolve and adapt.
Our approach is to encourage organizations to take incremental steps forward, rather than expecting immediate transformation. We understand that perfection is not always attainable and sometimes settling for a slightly imperfect solution is more efficient in the long run.
While some may argue that prioritizing efficiency may compromise quality, we believe in setting a high standard of quality and then refining our processes to achieve that standard in the most effective way possible. When dealing with a large number of components, we focus on analyzing a select few that have the most impact, rather than getting lost in the details of every single component.
We acknowledge the importance of considering how each component interacts with others and strive to avoid overlooking any potential failures. By creating clones for specific circumstances, we ensure that critical factors are addressed without getting lost in minor details.
At the end of the day, our goal is to strike a balance between quality and efficiency. Whether utilizing RCM or PMO2000, the emphasis remains on achieving the desired outcomes rather than the specific process used.
Our aim is to demonstrate that PMO2000 can deliver the same maintenance program as RCM, despite some skepticism. We welcome any challenges or questions regarding our approach. Regards, Steve
Steve, I concur with your point that consequences occur when there is a failure leading to a loss of function. In a previous conversation, you mentioned that "Consequence by definition is loss of function" in a very assertive manner. I preferred to hold off on the debate until I had a better grasp of your paper. To ensure we stay on track with our discussion on consequences, allow me to clarify my understanding: 1. Maintenance is done to reduce or eliminate consequences. 2. Consequences stem from functional failures, essentially being the outcomes of such failures. Do you agree with these statements?
- 12-07-2024
- Frances Fisher
Steve, I posed two straightforward inquiries and even proposed potential solutions. First, where can we locate these two missing failure modes in a PMO 2000 analysis? Will a generic task for earth fault testing or other similar tasks in the CMMS trigger this investigation? They should either be found within a CMMS task or identified through another method. Additionally, how can we access the specific tag of the fan you have chosen? If the tag is included in the routine, please provide the link. If not, kindly specify an alternative method. These questions pertain to your analysis of the fan and should be easily addressed. Despite a lengthy response, I still find myself puzzled by your answers. Remember: 1. This is your own example, not one I created. 2. The most significant consequence is "No power." 3. It appears that other potential causes for the failure, such as earth faults or loose terminations, were not considered. If they were overlooked, why the hesitation in providing the information I am seeking?
Steve, remember when I mentioned Vee about the tag analysis? We successfully analyzed 70,000 tags within less than eight months and integrated them back into the system in just 12 more months. This efficient process far surpasses the RCM approach, which only managed to handle 1,500 tags over a span of two to three years. The difference in speed is clear. In case you're unaware, I refer to a tag as a Power Generator Driver, specifically a 20MW Gas Turbine, not simply the gearbox of a fan.
Steve, it is worth noting that I have also shared my knowledge and thoughts on this subject through a book, and I appreciate your transparency on the forum. However, I would appreciate it if you credited me for some of the insight I have provided. I value your interpretation of N&H's work, but I would prefer if you discussed your insights into my thoughts with me first rather than stating them as facts. My intention in asking these questions is to gain a better understanding of your perspective, without passing any judgments. It is within my rights to challenge your approach as long as I comprehend it. If we can communicate clearly and directly, we can move forward in our discussion.
For clarification, I have not written a book specifically on RCM, as you mentioned. My book covers various topics, including RCM, but it is not the main focus. I believe that N&H's groundbreaking work has significantly influenced our understanding of maintenance and risk management, introducing a cause and effect relationship that was previously unknown. Let's refocus our conversation back to the main topic at hand.
- 12-07-2024
- Quentin Foster
Josh, inquiring to Steve about the maintenance strategy's effectiveness during PMO, asked: "If faults are found, will the consultant stand by the owner in defense?" The answer is a resounding no, as Steve clarified: "We typically follow SAE task selection criteria, but are open to the client's preferred solution. Therefore, SAE or the client bears responsibility and should be the ones held accountable. Before awarding the contract, the client should have asked, 'If I am providing the solution, why do I need this expert?'"
- 12-07-2024
- Penelope James
At our company, we prioritize proactive maintenance to prevent any negative outcomes for our clients. Our goal is to effectively manage plant equipment operations by implementing strategic maintenance practices. Our focus is on controlling plant activities and avoiding any unwanted consequences.
- 12-07-2024
- Yvonne Mitchell
Quote: Consequences arise from functional failures, indicating that they are the outcomes. This highlights the importance of addressing issues promptly to prevent further complications.
Hey Vee, the example I provided in my paper serves a different purpose than what you're trying to understand. If you want to delve into these questions, we'll need an example that aligns with your query. I've quoted the entire example (Posted 07 November 2009 04:02 PM) to give you a clear idea of its context. More than 100 words later, I still can't comprehend your response. 1. This example is yours, not one I came up with. 2. The key outcome here is "No power." 3. It seems the example overlooked other potential causes for the functional failure, such as no power. This could be one of the 'advantages' you mentioned. If it did take into account factors like earth fault or loose terminations, why the hesitance in providing the information I'm looking for?
Steve, can you elaborate on the importance of managing plant equipment to align with operational needs? Is it crucial to consider the potential consequences of not doing so? It is often said that unwanted effects can have serious repercussions, also known as consequences. In what ways do you ensure that your actions align with the goals and values of your clients, without causing harm to people, the environment, profits, assets, or society?
I am a professional trainer specializing in teaching PMO2000 and reliability improvement methods to individuals and organizations. While I do not consider myself a design engineer, electrician, or motor mechanic, I am experienced in providing guidance on utilizing knowledge effectively. By using techniques such as RCM decision logic, I assist clients in streamlining their thought processes and knowledge to enhance their operations.
I do not write maintenance programs for organizations; instead, I focus on facilitating the implementation of existing methods. Companies hire me for my expertise in software and facilitation skills, allowing them to achieve tangible results. While we avoid certain methods we deem unsafe, we are open to utilizing alternative approaches that align with the client's preferences.
As expert facilitators, our role is not to replace industry-specific professionals like electricians. If a client requires expert advice on writing electrical PM, they should hire a qualified electrician or engage my services to support the process. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the client or industry standards like the SAE task selection criteria.
In cases where maintenance strategies are questioned, the client or industry standards should take the lead in addressing any issues that may arise. It is crucial for clients to clarify the role of experts before entering into agreements to avoid misunderstandings. If you would like to explore this topic further, please start a new discussion thread.
- 12-07-2024
- Rebecca Murphy
While I appreciate the emotion, I will address your query: Does it align with the operation in a way that consequences are negligible? I believe we refer to the unfavorable outcomes as Consequences. I have never encountered someone who says "It benefits us to harm individuals, damage the environment, diminish our profits, deplete our resources, or impact society negatively." What are the factors that align with the needs of your customers? There are certain instances where we allow some systems to fail completely even though we have the ability to prevent them. In these scenarios, we are focusing on reducing costs rather than minimizing the resulting repercussions.
In the realm of maintenance strategy for companies, one crucial objective is undoubtedly ensuring the safe operation of the plant. The repercussions of neglecting safety measures can be devastating, potentially leading to the complete halt of plant operations. While I may not feel qualified to enter into a discussion on this topic, I once read a thought-provoking statement in a book about Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) that has stayed with me. The essence of RCM lies in uncovering hidden issues rather than focusing on the obvious ones. Apologies if my input seems somewhat unrelated to the ongoing conversation.
Thank you, Rennie, for your valuable contribution to the forum. It is important to recognize that everyone possesses unique knowledge and experiences that can benefit others. Forums are essential platforms for sharing opinions and gaining diverse perspectives from a wide audience. It is encouraging to see more people getting involved, as it enriches the discussions. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and insights. Feel free to share your ideas with us.
Steve, in your quote, you emphasized the importance of minimizing costs without overlooking the potential consequences. It's crucial to understand that while not all consequences may lead to measurable costs, every cost incurred is indeed a consequence. In a previous discussion, you defined consequence as a loss of function, but it seems there may have been some confusion. Now, you seem to suggest that cost is not necessarily a consequence. You previously mentioned that in my perspective, "function was the center of the Universe," and that your approach involves assessing equipment, failure modes, and failure consequences. It appears that our interpretations of the term 'consequence' differ, as you do not consider cost to fall under this category.
Rennie once said, "Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is conducted to uncover hidden issues, not just the obvious ones. It is essential for identifying and addressing underlying problems effectively." This emphasizes the importance of looking beyond surface-level issues to find sustainable solutions.
Vee, it appears this discussion is veering away from addressing the core issues. It seems there is a group, including yourself, that has reservations about maintenance strategy development approaches that deviate from Classical RCM. Instead of nitpicking at my suggestions, let's take a fresh approach by establishing functional requirements with the goal of establishing a robust maintenance program and then evaluating each process accordingly. To save time, I will address the common misconception that there are flaws in the assessment of tasks and intervals. Both PMO and RCM follow identical processes in this regard. The main difference between RCM and PMO2000 lies in the scope and number of failure modes analyzed. They share the same post-failure mode processes. The primary concern is whether PMO2000 overlooks failure modes that require maintenance, which RCM would identify. I argue that PMO2000 does not overlook these failure modes. Your counterargument must prove otherwise. It is essential to demonstrate that the preventable failure modes identified in PMO2000 cover all necessary maintenance tasks compared to RCM. If you can successfully do so, it would indicate a deficiency in PMO2000; if not, the hypothesis is invalid. It may be beneficial to test this aspect of each method for clarity.
It appears that there is a misunderstanding about my use of a process similar to PMO 2000 since 1998. While I do utilize this process for non-critical systems, it is not a flashy commercial product but rather a tool that I have experience with. I am familiar with both the advantages and disadvantages of such systems. It is important to demonstrate that the pool of preventable failure modes identified by PMO2000 is not inferior to RCM. Failure to provide concise answers to simple questions indicates a lack of transparency. There seems to be a pattern of avoiding direct responses and instead focusing on discussing the use of PMO 2000. This lack of direct communication is a significant issue that needs to be addressed.
quote: Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) aims to uncover hidden issues rather than the obvious ones, just like the Project Management Office 2000 (PMO2000). Both processes prioritize identifying and addressing less apparent challenges.
It is clear that the lack of direct answers to simple questions in concise paragraphs indicates a lot. In the example you provided about being a 'fan', I highlighted missing failure modes or tag links, yet instead of addressing the question directly, you delved into a lengthy explanation about your PMO 2000 process. The issue lies in the absence of direct responses. Feel free to post your questions again, Vee, but remember that correct phrasing is crucial for receiving yes/no answers, as they are dependent on assumptions you provide in the question.
Steve, let's give it another shot. I will recap what we have previously agreed on to avoid repetition. If you disagree with any of these points, please clarify. a. According to your RCM analysis, 'No Power' is considered an unacceptable failure. b. The occurrence of an 'earth fault' can lead to 'No Power'. c. 'Loose/wet terminations' as a failure mode can also result in 'No Power'. d. Your analyst does not possess the technical expertise of a designer or electrician. If you find these statements acceptable, under your PMO 2000 approach, how will these failure modes be identified by the analyst? The potential responses are as follows: 1. Each of these failure modes is addressed in a specific routine within the EAM/CMMS. 2. A generic routine tackling, for example, the 'earth fault' failure mode is accessible. 3. If option 2 is chosen, how is the specific component 'fan motor' connected? 4. Alternatively, if an earth fault has occurred previously on this motor or others, a review of corrective maintenance work orders will uncover it. 5. In cases where there isn't a routine or corrective work order available, the analyst will rely on the guidance of an electrician. A simple Yes/No response is all that is needed for each of the aforementioned points (a-d and 1-5). It's possible for the answers to overlap.
Before we move forward, Vee, it's important to acknowledge that the excerpt you cited from my paper is just a small part of a much larger analysis. If you are trying to argue that PMO2000 is lacking based solely on this snippet, then our conversation loses its significance. Do you agree that this isolated quote does not accurately represent a thorough examination of PMO2000? Please respond with a simple Yes or No.
Hello Subject Matter Experts, Both RCM and PM02000 are valuable tools to assist customers in improving equipment maintenance. As someone who is not an expert in the field, I have observed that customers often feel overwhelmed and unsure about which approach to take. The lack of emphasis on basic care maintenance and the lack of guidance on advancing maintenance concepts can lead to confusion. While RCM and PM02000 provide valuable equipment studies, they are only beneficial if customer engineers can clearly see the advantages. It is better to conduct these studies imperfectly than not at all. Ultimately, customer engineers must be able to effectively utilize study outcomes to develop improved maintenance strategies. Whether it is RCM or PM02000 analysis, these are essential engineering studies for equipment. In the case of electrical equipment, hidden failures are more common than in mechanical equipment, where evident failures are easier to address. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. By implementing the right engineering practices for each specific piece of equipment, reliability can be maintained.
Recently, I was asked by a customer in the oil and gas industry whether maintenance tasks are necessary for new equipment and if maintenance activities can be skipped. In my opinion, if reliable products are selected, undergo a good FAT acceptance, and are properly installed, minimal visual inspections should suffice for at least five years. Do you agree with this approach?
Lammie, quote: Basic maintenance care is often overlooked, but it is crucial for advancing reliability. In my opinion, approximately half of reliability improvements stem from properly maintaining machinery. This involves ensuring the machine remains dry, clean, lubricated, aligned, balanced, and with tight bolts. Adhering to work orders and operating the machine with care is also essential. Neglecting these basics can render more advanced maintenance efforts futile. Moreover, conducting such maintenance studies serves as a valuable training tool and emphasizes the significance of foundational maintenance practices. It is important to prioritize investments in these areas judiciously.
Steve, it's important to acknowledge that the excerpt you cited from my paper is just a small part of a broader analysis. You have the chance to provide additional context by including more lines to fully showcase that example. Perhaps the potential failure modes were not apparent during the time of writing the paper, such as with PMO 2000. There's no need to worry; you can address this now. Remember, the content you include in your promotional materials is up to you, but what you share publicly can be subject to scrutiny and critique.
According to Lammie, regular maintenance may not be necessary if you opt for high-quality products with good FAT acceptance and proper installation, as long as you conduct minor visual inspections every five years. However, the reliability of any item decreases over time due to factors like fouling, environmental conditions, and lubrication oil oxidation. While degradation is a natural process that can be managed, it cannot be completely eliminated. As internal parts wear out and metal components experience fatigue, the machine's reliability will inevitably decline without timely attention to these degradation mechanisms. In most cases, maintenance should begin as soon as the machine is put into use, although there are exceptions like consumer products such as watches or computers, which may not require maintenance for a year or more. Precision equipment operating in stable, low-stress environments is also an exception. Therefore, there may be some disagreement with the assertion that maintenance is unnecessary for reliable products.
Vee, it is unjust that my example of PMO2000 boxing up multiple failure modes was not fully displayed in the paper. I urge you to include more lines so that the example can be properly understood. I will not engage in this discussion if my analysis of PMO2000 is reduced to just one line. I am prepared to share a thorough PMO2000 analysis for further discussion.
Steve, I am eager to delve into a detailed PMO2000 analysis and engage in a thorough discussion about it. Feel free to proceed with this if it aligns with your preferences. I recommend focusing on analyzing just one or two items to keep our discussions focused. It would be beneficial if you could demonstrate your RCM approach to addressing the failures of these items, as this will ensure coherence in our analysis. Based on your response, it seems that your previous analysis may not have been as comprehensive as you had hoped. It is intriguing that you aim to showcase PMO2000's superiority using an example that you yourself do not consider a proper analysis. In regards to your original paper, there are more questions I had in mind, but if you prefer to move on from it, then I respect your decision.
Vee, I urge you not to make assumptions about the accuracy of my advertising until you have thoroughly analyzed it. Remember, what you choose to showcase in your advertisements reflects on your brand. However, once something is out in the public eye, it is subject to scrutiny. I welcome you to point out any areas where you believe my advertising may be misleading, so that we can address them openly and transparently. Let's engage in a constructive and public discussion to clarify any misconceptions.
Steve, I want to clarify that I do not believe my advertising is misleading, and I make a clear distinction between what can be debated and what cannot. Your use of words like 'misleading' does not contribute to a constructive conversation, in my opinion. In a previous instance, you inserted the word 'important' into a statement from N&H, which seemed to exaggerate its significance. You justified this by citing your familiarity with English, but in my opinion, this distorted the original meaning. It appears you are trying to distort it again with your recent addition.
Could it be that the PMO 2000 did not take into account these failure modes because they were not as apparent at the time of writing the paper? No, Vee. When I wrote the paper, I used this example to depict something entirely different from what you are trying to convey. If you wish to delve into the failure modes incorporated in the analysis, please refer to the section of the paper titled "Methodological differences between RCM and PMO" with the diagram provided on page 21 that highlights the point. I find it surprising that you want to convince readers of the superior performance of PMO 2000 with an example that you yourself do not consider a thorough analysis. Vee, in your book on risk and reliability strategies, you discussed numerous techniques but did not include a single worked example. Yet you are surprised that my brief paper lacks one? This inconsistency is worth noting.
Quote: Cost as a Consequence Not all consequences result in measurable costs, but every cost is a consequence. In a previous discussion, it was mentioned that consequences inherently involve a loss of function, but that viewpoint was later retracted. There seems to be confusion as to whether cost is considered a consequence. While it was suggested that my perspective revolves around function being paramount, it is important to understand that cost is indeed a consequence in my understanding. It appears that there is a misunderstanding of the term 'Consequence', especially in relation to costs. Despite attempts to present unrelated arguments, the core of my statement remains unchanged – emphasizing the importance of functional analysis in Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). Functional analysis serves as the foundation of RCM, leading to the identification of Functional Failures and Failure Modes. Recognizing function is crucial in RCM for establishing starting points and performance benchmarks for maintenance activities. Contrary to PMO2000's approach, we prioritize detailed functional analysis in workshops by outlining equipment schematics, functions, operating conditions, and failure characteristics. While PMO2000 may not mandate documented functional analysis, it does emphasize documenting consequences, which are intrinsically linked to understanding function. In this context, consequences are described as outcomes resulting from a loss of function. It is important to note that maintenance is not solely about minimizing consequences but rather managing plant operations cost-effectively. Sometimes, a more expensive maintenance strategy can yield greater revenue. It is essential to clarify that at no point did I suggest that cost is not a consequence.
Steve pointed out that Vee's book on risk and reliability strategies lacks worked examples, even though it discusses various techniques. The book primarily focuses on risk management, specifically not just RCM. For examples, readers can refer to section 9.4 (pages 163-172) and Appendix 3.1, which highlights Failure Pattern F where nearly 50% of failures occur within 20% of mean life. The hazard rate remains constant (or exponentially distributed) until week 100. Additionally, Appendix 3.2 demonstrates the impact of the shape factor on reliability. Another reviewer, Andy Hunt, emphasized the importance of including real-life examples to make the points more relevant. Hunt noted that the examples, such as the PMO 2000 showcase, only cover a few failure modes while potentially missing more common ones. The search continues for the reasons behind these omissions.
Below are the URLs for examples I have created: http://www.slideshare.net/OMCS...resentationfor-forum and http://www.slideshare.net/OMCS...ring-rcm-and-pmo2000. If there are still people following this discussion, the paper can be accessed at the second URL. Before commenting on any perceived rights or wrongs, it's essential to clarify the purpose of this case study. It serves to demonstrate the core PMO2000 process and is not meant to be a flawless engineering solution. As an aeronautical engineer, I acknowledge that my expertise is limited to this field. While I can explain how task intervals are derived, I will not engage in debates over their accuracy. However, I am open to discussion on failure modes, RCM, and PMO2000 processes. It should be noted that the tasks presented in the study lack detail, as our company's standards require more thoroughness. This case study does not aim to showcase technical writing proficiency. If someone argues that PMO2000 overlooks maintenance tasks, they must provide evidence that an alternative process would have identified the missing task. These points should be considered before delving into further discussions.
- 12-07-2024
- Jessica Freeman
Hi Vee, I would like to address the example you mentioned in your previous post. In order to clarify our discussion, could you please clearly outline your hypothesis? Are you suggesting that "PMO2000 poses risks due to potential task omissions, which RCM would be less likely to overlook"? If not, please elaborate on your hypothesis for further discussion.
Steve, are you suggesting that the "PMO2000 program is risky because it may overlook important tasks, which RCM would not overlook"? I am not familiar enough with the PMO 2000 process to form an opinion on this. Your responses to my questions have hindered my attempts to understand it better, leading to doubts due to the lack of transparency. However, I am eager to learn more about it. I do not currently have a hypothesis and will not formulate one until I have a better grasp of the topic. In my opinion, setting preconditions for a debate may not be the most conducive approach to ensuring its success. Is this your goal?
In considering the role of the fin fan in various processes, it is important to recognize the value of analytical processes such as PMO2000 and RCM. An analytical process like PMO2000 is effective because it can uncover relevant facts through systematic questioning, rather than relying solely on expert opinions from the client. Just as different approaches are used in root cause analysis (RCA) with the same data and personnel, the way we analyze tasks can lead to different insights. It is not sufficient to rely entirely on a group of experts; claims should be supported by a robust analytical process. Readers may be more familiar with RCM than PMO2000, but they can still compare your analysis and determine its validity. In discussions like these, it is important to challenge and question claims presented, rather than blindly accepting them. Ultimately, claims should be substantiated by the person making them, and challengers should approach with a critical mindset to draw informed conclusions.
- 12-07-2024
- Heather Coleman
I will not be providing an RCM version at this time due to time constraints and the lack of necessity. Instead, I have shared a PMO2000 version. I challenge you to identify any instances where RCM would have recommended a different maintenance program compared to PMO2000, given the same asset and information set. The removal of people as a fixed element is acceptable, as doing so can improve the accuracy of hypothesis testing. The focus here is on proving the importance of the process rather than the group involved. Analytical processes excel at uncovering relevant facts through targeted questioning. The maintenance program for this asset is detailed and has been developed using the PMO2000 line of questioning. If utilizing standard RCM Decision logic, the solution typically centers around the failure mode set. In this case, all preventable and hidden failure modes have been identified, leading to a maintenance program that aligns with the same decision logic. Our goal is to demonstrate that every necessary maintenance task for this asset has been accounted for, based on the provided design and operating context.
Quote: I am currently without a hypothesis, but I will not form one until I have a solid grasp on the subject of Vee. I find myself quite perplexed about the situation at hand. After I wrote a paper, you indicated that failure modes were not appropriately addressed in an example intended for another purpose. In response, I provided a comprehensive PMO2000 analysis for you to examine and provide feedback on the included and excluded failure modes. Can you kindly point out where my paper may be flawed? In my paper, I mentioned that PMO2000 will yield the same maintenance program as RCM - do you agree with this statement? Yes or no. If not, could you elaborate on your reasoning? GLT has stated that PMO2000 does not contribute to the current maintenance program – however, I believe this assertion to be incorrect. I am eager to engage in discussions in order to clarify my points and ensure that my message is clear, or to receive guidance on where my perspective may need adjustment.
Help us, please! It's important to live and let live, and it's okay to agree to disagree. Let's find a way to coexist peacefully.
The analysis using RCM has already been conducted on this website. Consider exploring it for comparisons. If copy/paste didn't yield good results, try referencing the scenario towards the bottom of page 1 for further insights: http://maintenanceforums.com/e...451/m/9181072733/p/1.
- 12-07-2024
- Victor Thompson
Steve, I agree with Vibe-rator. Without providing your RCM analysis, it is impossible for others to understand the functions due to the unique operating context, equipment drawings, performance standards, and P&I D's only known to you. It is unclear how you expect anyone else to verify the effectiveness of PMO 2000 without this information. Without it, we are simply going around in circles. It would have been helpful if you had filled in the missing failure modes in your fan example. However, it seems you are unwilling to do so. If you are seeking a debate, you may need to reconsider your position. Alternatively, if you agree with me, please start a new discussion thread. If not, I will no longer engage in this non-productive debate.
To facilitate our discussion on Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), I have started a new forum thread. Follow this link http://maintenanceforums.com/e...=460103974#460103974 for more details. I will be sharing essential information for Vee to showcase RCM. Please note that if I handle the RCM process, there may be potential distortions in the outcome.
In a recent quote, Vibrator emphasized the importance of respecting differing opinions and viewpoints. "Someone save us.....live and let live, agree to disagree, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!" Vee then reiterated this sentiment, stating that misquoting others can lead to a futile debate. In order to avoid a thread filled with irrelevant dialogue, it is crucial to accurately quote and discuss the content presented by others before adding your own thoughts. Let's strive for meaningful and respectful discussions by quoting verbatim and expressing our opinions in a constructive manner.
- 12-07-2024
- Heather Coleman
Steve, I must address your tendency to misquote myself and others. It is important to accurately represent someone's words or statements, as misquoting can lead to misunderstandings. Let's take the recent example with Vibe-Rator. I did not quote them; I simply acknowledged that they were correct. When quoting sources, it is customary to use quotation marks or explicitly state that you are quoting. I make an effort to accurately reflect your statements by sharing my understanding and allowing you to clarify if needed.
However, in the case of N&H, you added a key word to their statement and then claimed a significant revelation in a post. While you attributed this to your interpretation of English, it actually distorted the original meaning of N&H's statement. By inserting this word, you transformed their simple statement of respect for quality and humility into one that supposedly questioned the validity of RCM. In doing so, you overlooked the context that led to their statement, such as the need for a prior maintenance program for comparison.
Ultimately, the key takeaway should have been the realization that your belief that RCM does not apply to existing equipment was incorrect. Instead of acknowledging this, you celebrated a 'discovery' of your own making. It is crucial to approach quotes and statements with care and integrity to avoid misrepresenting the original intent.