Thank you, Brian, for sharing your perspective on this topic - it certainly makes for an engaging discussion! While you labeled my statement as ludicrous, I feel it necessary to defend my beliefs. In a world of freedom of expression, it is important to acknowledge differing opinions. I believe that the field of maintenance has been misled by academics and those influenced by them, which may be seen as a controversial viewpoint.
Brian, it seems that your argument centers around the idea that complex software is necessary for Reliability Analysis. However, I strongly disagree with this notion and perceive it as a common misconception. With 27 years of experience in the reliability industry, I have only ever used a simple spreadsheet for reliability analysis. There is no requirement for intricate software to implement reliability practices within an organization.
If a company lacks a CMMS but desires improvement in plant operations, they can establish processes and a culture that prioritizes reliability. Data can be collected through logbooks, tally sheets, spreadsheets, or simple databases. Developing a maintenance strategy based on RCM principles is crucial for a successful preventive and predictive maintenance program, which I consider as Step 1. Installing a CMMS should follow this initial step, not precede it.
I have often faced opposition from traditionalists and CMMS vendors when presenting these ideas, indicating the challenges in changing perspectives within the industry. It is important to clarify that I do not identify as a reliability software vendor. Our company values simplicity and comprehension, which guided our development of user-friendly software tailored for reliability management.
I am passionate about this subject and willing to provide further insights and information if the discussion continues. It is evident that there are differing viewpoints on this topic, but establishing a foundation of reliability principles is key for organizational success.
Thank you, Steve and the rest of the group, for initiating this discussion. I share a keen interest in this subject matter. The article presented resonated with me, and I support the core arguments being made. However, I would like to offer a different perspective. I have witnessed numerous companies invest significant resources in Business Processes, sometimes yielding positive results, but often leading to overly bureaucratic and difficult-to-manage systems that lose sight of the ultimate goals. For instance, some organizations may obsess over maintaining an asset register with excessive precision, neglecting other critical aspects of asset management efficiency highlighted in this discussion. Therefore, while business processes are essential, they should prioritize driving effective asset management in the most streamlined and effective manner possible. (Or, the most suitable processes!)
Before implementing a computerized system for maintenance and reliability management, it is crucial to have a solid understanding of the subject. Without this foundational knowledge, no amount of system automation will be effective. However, when users have a thorough understanding of the subject, operations can be streamlined and executed rapidly, as noted by Bill Gates.
When an organization is in the process of gaining some level of understanding in the subject matter and has access to software developed by experts in the field, utilizing and comprehending the software's functionalities can propel them towards improved performance. It is essential for organizations to implement standard tools that can be easily adopted by all employees, not just a select few experts. Effective practices should be easily replicable across the organization, and one efficient way to achieve this is through computerization.
A key aspect to consider is ensuring that written procedures align with actual practices on-site. For example, while departments may be using practices such as Root Cause Analysis (RCA), if these are not documented in written procedures, the adoption of such practices may still be in its early stages. In this context, a computerized system can serve as a foundation for establishing and documenting standardized procedures for efficient operations.
In many small companies, utilizing advanced maintenance analysis methods can be a daunting task due to lack of expertise and resources. The cost of proper training and potential overtime expenses for employees can be prohibitive. Without effective Preventive Maintenance (PM) systems in place, maintenance often becomes a reactive, "firefighting" effort. Hiring a consultant is often not feasible due to budget constraints. However, investing in a budget-friendly Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) can help small companies streamline their maintenance processes. With a user-friendly CMMS, companies can easily organize their systems, schedule both planned and ad hoc maintenance, and track critical assets. Over time, the data generated by the CMMS can highlight areas for improvement and lead to better equipment performance. Ultimately, the success of implementing a CMMS lies in the hands of the maintenance manager, who can use the tools provided by the system to transition from PMs to more efficient planned inspections. This aligns with my experience working with smaller companies, where CMMS is seen as a valuable tool for optimizing maintenance operations in the long term.
Hello Bryan, I trust you're doing well in Scotland. It's a common struggle for small businesses to consider implementing more advanced maintenance analysis methods due to a lack of expertise and resources. The costs of training and potential overtime expenses can be significant barriers. It's important for companies to understand that effective maintenance policies are crucial for maximizing the lifespan of their assets. Proactive maintenance strategies are key to preventing failures rather than just reacting to them. This is a complex issue that warrants further discussion, so I will follow up with an email.
Brian makes a valid point: it is crucial for the Maintenance Manager (or Maintenance System Engineer) to take charge of doing things correctly, rather than relying solely on the CMMS. One key aspect that seems to be lacking is the ability for the manager (or engineer) to demonstrate to accountants and senior management the potential benefits of having the necessary tools or utilizing specific three-letter acronyms. It is essential for the manager to effectively advocate for these resources to maximize efficiency and effectiveness within the maintenance department.
I also share Daryl's skepticism. In my opinion, investing in a CMMS and training staff to use it without first ensuring a strong foundation of reliability is established is simply a distraction. It is important to prioritize building a solid foundation before implementing such tools and training programs. This approach will ultimately lead to more effective maintenance strategies and better overall equipment reliability.
quote: Bryan, I understand where you're coming from. Many companies are facing similar challenges, lacking the foresight to address certain issues. Darrell and Steve, it's not about "buying into" it. I'm speaking from my own experience over the past few years. The key to cost-effectiveness in asset management lies in implementing proactive maintenance policies. As consultants, we can suggest changes, but the reality is that many companies struggle to make these changes. In my work with small companies, I often encounter limited budgets. Finding a CMMS system that fits both their financial constraints and capabilities can make a significant impact on their maintenance practices. Ultimately, the success of these changes depends on their willingness to adapt, not just on the software itself.
Hello Bryan, the reality is that as consultants, we often have strong views on the optimal strategies for organizing maintenance departments. However, many companies are not following best practices in managing critical failures, which can ultimately impact their cost effectiveness. Neglecting proactive maintenance not only poses risks for serious incidents, but also leads to unnecessary expenses. It is crucial for companies to prioritize foresight in order to avoid wasting resources. As consultants, it is our responsibility to highlight these issues and provide informative guidance, rather than focusing solely on making sales. It takes courage to challenge the status quo and suggest alternative approaches that may actually maximize asset value. This may seem idealistic, but it is essential in driving long-term success.
What are your rates for a short-term consulting service and the essential software needed to implement RCM for my clients? There may be some remaining funds from the initial budget of £2,000 that can be allocated for this purpose.
- 16-08-2024
- Wesley Jenkins
Brian, it's not just about the cost of what you can purchase, but rather the value you receive in return. Focus on quality over quantity when making purchases.
Pardon me?
- 16-08-2024
- Vanessa Carter
Brian, I would like to further elaborate on my previous post as it may have come across as a bit abrupt - my apologies for that. If a company is working with a limited budget that is not sufficient for major initiatives, my suggestion would be to start by building some financial credibility and establishing a budget based on return on investment (ROI). This brings us back to the main topic of this discussion thread - how can a company achieve initial success? While I am not in favor of implementing RCM in its current form, I believe in promoting the underlying principles to enhance reliability, which aligns with some of my earlier insights. I appreciate our discussion, Brian, but I want to stress the importance of not jumping to implementing a CMMS right away without considering other factors first.
In my experience, I have witnessed many companies successfully managing their maintenance activities without implementing a CMMS system. While some believe that RCM is essential for maintenance management, others argue that it is not a life or death matter. The idea that RCM is the only solution for effective maintenance management is misleading. In fact, there are numerous companies that operate without RCM and still thrive. It is important to consider all options and resources available before deciding whether to integrate RCM into your maintenance strategy. Remember, RCM success can begin with a well-utilized CMMS system that meets your company's needs and budget constraints. Consider the costs associated with consultancy and software implementation for maintenance improvement, and compare them to the price of a functioning CMMS system. Ultimately, the decision to use RCM should be based on what is best for your company and its specific requirements.
Bryan, I apologize for not being in touch recently as I have been occupied in Brighton. I must respectfully disagree with your statement that RCM is the ultimate solution for maintenance management. In my opinion, the primary focus for asset managers, maintenance managers, and production managers should be on establishing a robust maintenance program to effectively manage their assets. I often use this term interchangeably with RCM because managing critical failures is essential for cost-effective asset management over their lifespan. This approach, centered on asset reliability (reliability-centered maintenance), is crucial for success.
A CMMS serves to collect data, enhance efficiency, and analyze information, but its effectiveness is limited if the maintenance program itself is flawed. What is the use of gathering data reactively if asset failures lead to unnecessary expenses? While I have experience implementing CMMS and EAM systems, I believe their benefits are maximized when integrated into a comprehensive maintenance strategy.
Bryan, I want to address your query about consultancy fees for implementing RCM for your clients. The cost for a few days of consultancy and necessary software is more than £2000. However, it's important to note that comparing different services is like comparing apples to oranges. The key factor here is the value that RCM can bring to your clients. If there isn't a clear case for implementing RCM, I prefer not to waste their time and mine. Pushing for it without a clear benefit can be frustrating for both parties.
I don't have any additional insights to share beyond what I discussed in my previous post. This is my final conclusion on the matter.
Hi Steve, I hope you're able to see my response. I firmly believe that implementing a CMMS is a crucial component of any reliability improvement strategy. It's important to note that while a CMMS isn't a magic solution to reliability issues, having a structured system in place is essential before integrating a CMMS. Without this foundation, the CMMS would lack necessary information like machine history and breakdowns. Some vendors, particularly those specializing in Predictive Maintenance, may not be fully compatible with CMMS systems due to their own software. Before investing in a CMMS, it's important to consider questions like whether it can integrate with existing Vibration or IR software, and if it can effectively manage spare parts online. These are just a few key points to consider before making a decision.
Hello Rolly, I believe that a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) should not be viewed as the final stage in a reliability initiative. Rather, it is just one of the important steps in the process. If we break down CMMS and focus on the Maintenance Management System (MMS), it becomes clear that establishing an effective maintenance program should be prioritized. This involves creating equipment hierarchies, identifying failure modes, and implementing a preventive maintenance (PM) schedule. These critical tasks lay the groundwork for successful maintenance management.
While some companies may choose to implement a CMMS from the start, there are potential risks and rewards associated with this approach. Subsequently, establishing robust systems for data collection and reliability analysis is crucial. It's worth noting that traditional CMMS may not be equipped to support these advanced functions, necessitating further refinement and improvement steps.
Thank you for initiating this discussion, Rolly. I regret that I am pressed for time today, but I trust that my insights are valuable to you. Best regards, Steve.
The ongoing discussion about CMMS systems brings up an important point from my personal experience. It is crucial to avoid overwhelming and making the system unmanageable by allowing everyone to input their suggestions on what should be checked on a weekly or monthly basis. While it is understandable that people want to protect their equipment, it is important to ensure that maintenance tasks are carried out in the most cost-effective manner. Overloading the system with unnecessary checks can lead to frustration among technicians, resulting in wasted time and potential equipment breakdowns. It is essential to find a balance in maintenance tasks to avoid unnecessary strain on maintenance staff. By focusing on what truly needs to be done, we can improve morale, increase maintenance efficiency, and achieve a successful CMMS implementation. This insight is based on real-world observations in a factory setting and highlights the importance of practical and efficient maintenance practices.
Mike, it is crucial to avoid filling the CMMS with maintenance activities that lack focus or are overly conservative. I completely agree with you on this point. The key is to efficiently establish the correct PM's from the start. -Steve
SEO-friendly version:
Mike, it is important to avoid putting maintenance activities in the CMMS that are unfocused or overly conservative. I fully agree with you on this. The key is to quickly establish the correct PM's from the beginning. -Steve
I was intrigued by Steve Turner's (PM Optimization) stance against RCM, as it raises important points about optimizing maintenance processes. While many industries view CMMS as a silver bullet solution for improving reliability, the reality often leads to frustration. This issue is evident in the trainings I have conducted on Root Cause Failure Analysis and World Class Maintenance Management - The 12 Disciplines. The key is to begin with addressing basic equipment conditions, implementing a solid maintenance strategy, and then integrating advanced technologies like PdM and CMMS. It's crucial to lay a strong foundation before moving on to specialized tools. For more insights, refer to the attached presentation.
Implementing a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) is crucial for efficient work management, rather than solely focusing on reliability programs. However, a well-configured CMMS can also gather data for reliability analyses. In today's digital era, it is advisable to store important information such as asset registers, PM task lists, equipment BOMs, spare parts inventory, maintenance contracts, and work processing in a computerized system. Setting up this maintenance infrastructure before production begins is essential for a successful reliability program. While a paper-based system may still be functional, leveraging computer technologies can streamline maintenance operations. Analyzing maintenance data using spreadsheets or paper documents may not yield accurate results. As Bill Gates once said, utilizing computers can accelerate business processes to the speed of light.
In the realm of maintenance management, reliability analysis and condition-based monitoring (CBM) software offer distinct features compared to Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS). While a reliability analysis software can be linked to a CMMS for enhanced efficiency, CBM tools such as vibration monitoring software function independently of CMMS platforms. Combining these technologies can optimize equipment reliability and prevent costly downtime.
Dealing with an excessively detailed preventive maintenance task list is not a problem directly related to CMMS software. Instead, it is an issue with the maintenance team that should not deter you from utilizing a CMMS system.
- 16-08-2024
- Penelope James
Josh, you are absolutely correct. When it comes to a CMMS system, the processing of a heavily detailed PM order compared to a concise and straight to the point PM order is essentially the same, with only a minimal difference in processing time, perhaps just a nanosecond.
I completely agree with you, Josh, about the distinction between CBM software and CMMS software. However, it is essential for these two systems to work together seamlessly and share information for efficient data processing. Many CBM systems come with their own software that may not be compatible with other vendors' CMMS systems unless purchased together. If these two software systems can effectively communicate with each other, then all is well. The key to maximizing the benefits of computerization and CBM practices is to ensure that all the basics and strategies are properly aligned and in place.
- 16-08-2024
- Quentin Foster
While it is ideal for work management and condition-based maintenance (CBM) software to be in sync, they are distinct tools. Therefore, I believe that implementing a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) should take priority, regardless of its compatibility with future CBM software. Our machinery team currently utilizes both CMMS and vibration monitoring software separately, without any issues or requests for integration. However, is there a necessity for these systems to be connected in order to optimize efficiency and maintenance operations?
- 16-08-2024
- Jasmine Howard
At the end of the day, everyone wants the best of both worlds, but finding that perfect balance is often a rare occurrence. Optimal satisfaction is hard to come by. - Mike.
I fail to understand the necessity of CBM equipment integration with a CMMS. Dealing with a CMMS interfacing with a Financial Management System (ERP) and other myriad acronyms can be challenging enough. The prospect of adding SAP, Microsoft, or Oracle analyzers to the mix is not something we are looking forward to.