The RCM Standard is globally recognized as the gold standard for reliability-centered maintenance practices. In order to ensure consistency and clarity, it is advisable to adhere to the definitions outlined in this standard. One common complaint among maintenance professionals worldwide is the lack of standardized definitions and references in the industry. It is important to utilize the established definitions within the RCM Standard to avoid confusion and maintain uniformity in practices. This approach not only streamlines processes but also prevents unnecessary complexities. It should be noted that the RCM Standard serves as a set of criteria rather than a rigid process, and adherence to these criteria is crucial for a practice to be considered RCM. While alternative approaches such as PMO2000 by OMCS are valid in their own right, they should not be mistaken for RCM due to differences in application and criteria. For more insights on strategic maintenance practices, visit www.strategic-advantages.com.
Apologies, with the number of Terrys here, I may have confused you with someone else. In response to your comment about SAE owning definitions used by RCM practitioners, it is true that SAE sells standards but also allows for referencing and reuse of their materials. I have obtained permission to use their materials for a project recently. It might be worth reaching out to them for clarification.
While SAE does not have exclusive rights to RCM, their standard is internationally recognized as the benchmark for RCM criteria. It is logical to use their definitions as a foundation for any work related to RCM to maintain consistency in the industry. The lack of commonality in definitions is a common problem in the maintenance field, and it is important to avoid creating further confusion.
Regarding the RCM Scorecard, it focuses on measuring results rather than specific RCM processes. However, clear definitions are essential for establishing metrics, and it is puzzling why there is resistance to using agreed-upon definitions and standards.
The need for clarity in definitions is crucial for the success of the RCM Scorecard project. It is important to avoid complicating the issue and reverting progress by introducing new definitions. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the conference due to personal reasons, but I am excited to see the outcome of the project. Best regards, Daryl Mather at www.strategic-advantages.com
- 25-02-2025
- Heather Coleman
Daryl, your absence from RCM-2005 is totally understandable, especially with the new addition to your family! It's funny how the Mather family seems to be expanding like the O'Hanlon's. I am thrilled for you and would like to extend the opportunity for you to contribute remotely to the RCM Scorecard project. This initiative is a collaborative effort, meant to be used and shared by those who help create it. Unlike other services, we do not charge for the use of the Scorecard, as our goal is to support maintenance and reliability professionals with this valuable metric.
While it may seem confusing to have both RCM Scorecard and SAE JA 1011 definitions, we see an opportunity to impact over 50,000 professionals in the field. The door is open for collaboration with SAE, and we can revisit and improve the document annually to align with their standards if needed. This project is a grassroots effort aimed at making a positive difference in the industry.
We do not relinquish our authority on RCM definitions to SAE, but we also welcome their input. Our focus is on providing practical and accessible information to professionals worldwide. The future will show which approach yields better results, and your participation is greatly valued in advancing the maintenance and reliability field.
Thank you, Terry, for your feedback. I value your input and am currently engaging via email. While I appreciate your perspective, I must emphasize that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is not in the business of demystifying or promoting anything. Rather, they are an internationally recognized body that establishes standards with legal implications. Your thoughts on not yielding authority to SAE for RCM definitions are noted. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that these definitions are internationally recognized and hold significant credibility due to their formal standard status. The push to introduce alternative definitions only adds to the confusion in an already saturated field. The focus should be on achieving commonality and adhering to established standards. It is perplexing why there is resistance to utilizing the recognized international standards. Ultimately, the priority should be on the scorecard itself, not engaging in unnecessary debates. It is important to respect the authority that government bodies and courts place on established standards, regardless of personal opinions. Let's strive for clarity and alignment with the existing definitions to avoid further complexities. I have shared my perspective on this matter, and now the floor is yours. Cheers, Daryl Mather, www.strategic-advantages.com
I agree with Daryl's point about the importance and legitimacy of SAE as a leading standards organization. Those exploring RCM should definitely explore the valuable resources offered by SAE to see if they can be beneficial. The grassroots effort behind the RCM Scorecard is poised to make a significant difference in maintenance practices. Our focus is on generating real impact and tangible results, rather than simply seeking popularity. It's encouraging to hear that SAE is delivering positive outcomes, although we have yet to witness their full effects. It appears that our perspectives are more in sync than it may seem, and only time will tell the true story. Keep checking back for updates, and please share your new book with us when it's ready.
In the realm of maintenance and reliability, the Society of Maintenance & Reliability Professionals (SMRP) Best Practices committee is actively involved in shaping the future through their contribution to the development of the RCM Scorecard. This effort is part of their broader initiative to establish industry-standard maintenance terminology. By working together and sharing insights, we are collaborating with SMRP to ensure consistency and accessibility in maintenance definitions. The progress made by SMRP in recent years is evident, and with their current momentum, they are making significant strides in the industry. While SMRP may not have the same global recognition as SAE, they are highly respected in our field. We fully support SMRP and the Best Practices Definition project, knowing that it is led by maintenance professionals. To learn more about SMRP and their initiatives, please visit www.smrp.org.
- 25-02-2025
- Jasmine Howard
Terry, I recommend giving greater international recognition to the Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP). Establishing more standards in our field is crucial for advancing best practices. It may be beneficial for the SMRP to consider incorporating these standards into their framework. (Although the logistics of this are unclear to me) - Daryl Mather, Strategic-Advantages.com.
- 25-02-2025
- Quentin Foster
Daryl, what I'm trying to convey is that SMRP still has room to grow in terms of recognition compared to SAE. However, I strongly believe that with time and effort, we will achieve the same level of prominence. As a diligent supporter and contributor, I am committed to advancing SMRP through my dedicated work.
For those seeking internationally recognized standards, the IEC offers an RCM standard through its technical committee on dependability (TC56). This standard, titled "Dependability Management – Part 3-11 Application Guide – Reliability centred maintenance (RCM) IEC 60300-3-11 (1999)," is accessible in a bilingual edition. Access it online at www.iec.ch. Ken Culverson is the contact person for further information.
Thank you for the information, Ken. It's important to note that this standard is not specifically an RCM standard; instead, it serves as a valuable resource for creating initial preventive maintenance routines based on RCM principles. This guide does not provide a strict definition of RCM but offers practical guidance on implementing it. While I have not read it thoroughly yet, this is the impression I gathered some time ago. Regards, Daryl Mather from Strategic Advantages.
When considering the total cost of maintenance, it is important to determine if it includes plant turnaround expenses. Another key factor to consider is the relationship between preventive maintenance (PM) costs and corrective maintenance (CM) costs over time. As PM costs increase, it is expected that CM costs will decrease. The point where the PM cost line intersects with the CM cost line on a graph represents the minimum total maintenance cost, with a 50-50 split between PM and CM costs. However, many individuals in industries like oil and gas aim for a split closer to 75% PM and 25% CM to optimize uptime and reliability, rather than solely minimizing maintenance costs. It is worth exploring whether this scenario holds true in practice, especially in high-demand industries like oil and gas. Have any studies or graphs been created that show the relationship between PM costs, CM costs, total maintenance costs, and uptime over time? Thank you.
Hi Josh, I have personally encountered several scenarios like this in recent years, and there is a significant amount of established thinking on this topic. It is commonly believed that there is a specific level of condition-based maintenance (CBM) for a particular level of predictive maintenance (PdM). However, I personally find this approach to be misleading when discussing maintenance improvement. This is one of the reasons why relying solely on performance metrics is not a strong indicator of reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) efforts. RCM aims to enhance cost effectiveness by focusing on unit costs rather than direct asset management costs. The outcome in this area depends on two key factors: 1) The configuration of the plant or physical assets under analysis, and 2) The level of risk tolerance within your organization. If you are familiar with the RCM decision diagram (refer to diagram 16 or 17 in the SAE JA1012 standard guide), you will notice that the initial question always pertains to "tolerable risk." In other words, does the potential failure pose an intolerable risk to your organization? Additionally, the economic aspect of the decision-making process considers the total maintenance costs over time, including downtime. This involves comparing the costs of downtime with the costs of maintenance. Therefore, apart from costs, the distribution between preventive maintenance (PM) and corrective maintenance (CM) is largely influenced by the plant's configuration and the consequences of failure for each mode of failure analyzed. A plant with redundant systems may have more items designated as "run to fail," leading to increased corrective maintenance. Conversely, a plant with high-risk failure modes may require a higher percentage of PM or routine maintenance. Every RCM analysis is unique due to its situational nature, and it is rare for two analyses to yield identical results. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask. Cheers, Daryl Mather www.strategic-advantages.com
Hello Daryl, I was wondering if you have any data visualizations that illustrate the correlation between overall maintenance expenses and the operational availability of the plant? I would greatly appreciate it if you could share this information along with any insights you may have. Thank you in advance.
Hello Josh, I have some information for you, however, I am currently in a bit of a busy period. If you can wait a week, I will gather all the necessary details for you. (Names have been changed for privacy purposes) Here is a general overview: In a transportation operation, the overall maintenance cost (including routine and planned corrective measures) increased as uptime levels also rose. In a utility operation, the total maintenance cost decreased significantly as uptime levels increased. In a different utility scenario, the maintenance cost decreased while uptime remained stable. As previously mentioned, the outcome is influenced by the equipment setup and initial conditions. Best regards, Daryl Mather - Strategic Advantages. Visit www.strategic-advantages.com for more information.
I am willing to wait for the information. Thank you for sharing it with me and for prioritizing confidentiality. Thank you.
Hello Josh, Your query to Daryl suggests that there may be a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between improvement and costs. By effectively implementing Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) on key systems and acting upon the findings, you can actually experience a decrease in costs and an increase in availability. This is contingent upon achieving a compliance rate of over 90% and ensuring that maintenance work is of high quality. - V.Narayan
Dear Vee,
I want to emphasize that as preventive maintenance (PM) works and costs increase over time, corrective and breakdown maintenance (CM&BM) works and their costs decrease. Unfortunately, I cannot visually represent this relationship with a graph in this forum. Eventually, the costs of PM and CM will intersect, resulting in the lowest total maintenance costs (which is the sum of PM costs + CM costs).
On the left side of this intersection point, total maintenance costs decrease over time, while on the right side, costs increase due to excessive PM works. It is important to note that at the point of lowest total maintenance costs, the ratio of PM to CM is ideally 50% to 50%. It is recommended to aim for a ratio of 70% PM to 30% CM to achieve optimal cost efficiency.
It is crucial to strive for a 90% PM work schedule compliance and constantly improve the effectiveness of PM tasks to detect equipment problems early on. This proactive approach helps prevent functional failures or breakdowns that could lead to production or HSE losses. Increasing the amount of PM work can also improve system availability.
I am interested in exploring whether this improvement in system availability due to increased PM work is true in practical scenarios. Are there any case studies that validate this claim? Daryl mentioned that this outcome may vary based on different situations or industries. Therefore, it is essential to verify this as we embark on this journey.
As Stephen Covey famously remarked, "Begin with the end in mind." Any insights or feedback on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
Hello Josh, I wanted to address some misconceptions regarding predictive maintenance (PM) and reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) that are commonly misunderstood. Firstly, it is important to note that the cost of PM may not necessarily increase over time. Additionally, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to the best mix of PM and corrective maintenance (CM) strategies. The optimal strategy depends on the specific asset configuration within each plant.
It is misguided to aim for a 90% PM rate without considering the unique circumstances of each facility. Factors such as plant configuration, risk tolerance, and equipment profile all play a significant role in determining the most effective maintenance approach.
While cost reductions are a goal of maintenance strategies, the ultimate aim should be cost-effectiveness rather than simply cutting costs. Outdated notions of maintenance practices from the 1980s should be reconsidered in favor of more modern and efficient approaches.
Similarly, expecting availability to increase as a result of RCM efforts is not guaranteed. Availability levels may already be high due to other factors, and a proactive management approach may have initiated the RCM process. The idea of waiting for problems to occur before taking action is also outdated and should be avoided.
I hope this clarification helps shed light on the topic. For more information on maintenance strategies, please visit www.strategic-advantages.com.
Hello Josh,
There is a school of thought that strongly believes in the concept you mentioned and there are also several books on the topic. Personally, I do not subscribe to this school of thought. Throughout my extensive experience spanning nearly 40 years across various industries, I have not been able to observe this correlation. On the contrary, I have discovered that by implementing strategies such as Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) on appropriate systems, ensuring high compliance with work orders, maintaining good work quality, and fostering a culture that prioritizes failure prevention through thorough Root Cause Analysis (RCA), we can reduce maintenance volume, costs, and improve equipment availability. However, it is essential to consistently uphold compliance and work quality, which can be challenging at times. This is often where the so-called 'RCM failures' occur.
I align with Daryl's viewpoint that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to these issues. Maintenance outcomes are influenced by a myriad of factors and cannot be reduced to a simple formula. By implementing the right strategies in the correct sequence, we can ultimately achieve success.
V. Narayan.
- 25-02-2025
- Yvonne Mitchell
Josh, I would like to touch on the topic of cost optimization curves. While the concept is sound, it may be impractical for individuals to experiment with different maintenance schedules just to gather data points for these curves. However, the key takeaway here is that if the curve holds true, it tends to flatten near the optimal point. This presents a significant decision-making factor.
When the curve is flat, a variety of preventive maintenance (PM) to corrective maintenance/breakdown maintenance (CM/BM) options can lead to similar costs. This implies that the exact ratio of PM to CM/BM is not crucial, as different maintenance schedules are likely to yield comparable costs. This challenges the traditional idea of optimization.
On the other hand, availability increases as we move away from the optimal point. However, it starts to decrease when PMs are increased to the point where planned downtimes become excessive. The availability curve resembles an inverted bathtub, albeit shifted to the right. Therefore, the true optimal point may lie slightly to the right of the cost optimum point, especially if availability holds value for you.
If you need further clarification on this topic, I am more than willing to discuss it with you offline. Feel free to reach out. Regards, V.Narayan.
It seems that many individuals are experiencing a similar situation as outlined in the maintenance scorecard found at http://www.maintenancebenchmarking.com/best_practice_maintenance.htm. It would be intriguing to observe the real Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) they have attained. Thank you.