Join me at the Exclusive RCM 2006 Event in March 2006!

When referencing Daryl and the RCM standard, it's important to note that SAE JA1011 is the sole Public RCM standard available for purchase. However, the value and credibility of this standard ultimately lies with the buyer. While SAE played a significant role in developing and publishing this standard, they do not hold authority over others in the RCM field. It's crucial to consider if SAE JA1011 is suitable for all reliability requirements across different facilities, regardless of their size, age, resources, skills, and budget. Exploring alternatives to SAE JA1011, such as Mil P 401 used by the armed forces, may lead to a more varied and universal approach to reliability-centered maintenance. During the RCM-2005 event, over 200 RCM practitioners gathered to share their experiences and insights, representing various methodologies. The consensus was a collective push towards a more reliability-centered approach, regardless of the specific methodology used. The key takeaway was that even a small effort towards implementing RCM can yield beneficial results. Our goal is to provide value and benefits to our members through information exchange, offering diverse perspectives and possibilities. Our upcoming RCM learning event in Las Vegas in March 2006 focuses on quality education, not sales pitches, ensuring a valuable experience for attendees. Join us for a dynamic discussion on RCM that fosters growth and learning in the field.

• 16-07-2024
• Zoe Peterson

Before the publication of your book, the development of our RCM Scorecard had already begun, so it's unclear why comparisons are being made. Our RCM Scorecard serves as a comprehensive list of metrics that can be utilized to assess the success of an RCM project. This tool was carefully curated with insights from over 100 RCM practitioners and is currently being utilized in some of the most successful RCM implementations worldwide. It is available for public use at no cost and we welcome feedback for future enhancements. While I do not pass judgment on the Scorecard you have created, I believe that your book is essential reading for all professionals in maintenance and reliability. It's important to note that our RCM Scorecard and your book serve different purposes and are designed uniquely. Rest assured, there was never any intention to make them similar in any aspect. Your valuable contributions to the maintenance and reliability industry deserve recognition. Thank you, Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Chad Cook

Terry, I want to express my gratitude for your detailed discussion on the RCM-2005 meeting. This platform is a valuable resource for individuals like myself to seek guidance and insights from industry peers and experts. I raised the question about the RCM standard to seek clarification, as the historical background and influencing factors can sometimes be unclear to those of us not well-versed in the field. This forum serves as a great tool for addressing such queries. The utilization of scorecard metrics will play a key role in identifying gaps and measuring success. What are the objectives for RCM-2006? Looking forward to your insights. Sincerely, Shelley

• 16-07-2024
• Mia Bailey

Welcome, Shelly! We are thrilled to have you join our forum and are happy to hear that you are finding value in the discussions. Our experts excel at sharing their knowledge and experience, which I also benefit greatly from. While SAE-JA1011 is a standard that includes the 7 RCM questions, the key question is whether it is the most effective approach for ensuring a reliable plant operation for all companies. RCM-2006 aims to delve deeper into this question by exploring alternative reliability-centered methods such as Maintenance Task analysis and PM optimization. We will also touch upon the concept of "readiness for RCM" and provide resources for those who are new to the world of Reliability Journey. It was surprising to see many newcomers at RCM-2005 last year, so this year we have added more sessions and courses to help them catch up and understand the available improvement options. Remember, a little RCM is better than none, and many maintenance programs can benefit greatly from implementing even a small amount of it. We will showcase case studies from companies using RCM as a foundation, as there is no one-size-fits-all approach for every company. It's important to have alternatives to address the diverse maintenance scenarios companies face. It's clear that I am passionate about this subject, as are many of my fellow forum members. Keep asking questions, as that is one of the best ways to learn. Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Laura West

Terry, it's great to see your passion on this subject. The RCM standard SAE JA1011 is globally recognized as the definitive standard for defining RCM. This standard sets the minimum criteria for a process to be considered RCM. While there are other documents for various organizations, the SAE JA1011 standard is the only internationally accepted standard. It does not dictate how RCM should be implemented, but rather outlines what it must include. This has allowed organizations worldwide to develop their own RCM processes based on this standard, bringing order to a crucial area that requires standardization. The RCM Scorecard, contrary to your statements, was in development long before its publication in the book, The Maintenance Scorecard. It is not just a collection of performance indicators but offers a forward-looking approach to measuring the impact of RCM beyond direct performance. This document is distinct from others and should not be confused with similar tools developed by other parties.

• 16-07-2024
• Mason Rogers

Terry, in response to your question about whether SAE JA1011 is suitable for all reliability requirements regardless of the facility's size, age, resources, skills, and budget - I firmly believe it is. The challenge with traditional RCM lies in its implementation, not in the methodology itself. The RCM method is essential and meticulously structured for specific, compelling reasons. Allow me to share two brief case studies illustrating the impact of RCM in an industry with limited resources due to downsizing: 1) A wastewater treatment plant saved £150,000 ($USD300,000 approximately) just two days into the pilot program, with these savings now materializing. 2) A new design review of an incinerator plant anticipates annual operational cost savings of £1,000,000, now being realized. The costs incurred for these RCM implementations were minimal compared to what most companies typically spend on similar initiatives with less impactful results. In both instances, the RCM Analyst method was crucial in delivering comprehensive and resource-efficient solutions that meet RCM standards. Exploring alternatives that deviate from SAE JA1011 standards may indeed regress us to outdated practices. This standard was developed to define authentic RCM principles amidst the proliferation of divergent methodologies, some of which may pose risks or lead to suboptimal outcomes. I consider RCM a serious undertaking, with significant risks and rewards at stake. It underscores the importance of not just what we do, but also what we choose not to do. Like you, I lead a busy professional and personal life, yet I emphasize these concerns because I genuinely believe they are critical. In the words of Einstein, "Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."

• 16-07-2024
• Isaiah Gomez

Quote: There is no going back to a time when any process could claim to be RCM. It's not as simple as SAE setting a standard - true adoption by the industry is what matters. While we haven't yet seen widespread adoption, we hope to see significant financial gains from its implementation. It is crucial to start hearing concrete numbers that demonstrate the effectiveness and financial benefits of utilizing RCM. Many RCM methods existed long before SAE JA1011, and they are still valid options for organizations. Buyers can choose to define RCM using SAE JA1011 or opt for a non-compliant vendor's approach. Despite SAE's efforts, traditional RCM methods will continue to be recognized as RCM. I acknowledge that SAE is the sole international organization to establish a genuine RCM standard, and I trust that this will bring value to the industry. Regarding the origin of your work, I was not involved in your planning process and cannot comment on its connection to our own work. Keep an eye out at IMC-2005 for our new Reliability metrics, inspired by John Mitchell's research. We look forward to engaging with you, Daryl, and discussing all things RCM. Best wishes from across the pond! Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Tara Anderson

Returning to the initial query, with an 80% likelihood of attendance, I am eagerly anticipating the event! I had a fantastic experience at IMC-2004 and am excited for the opportunity to attend again.

• 16-07-2024
• Paula Rogers

As we've discussed before, the SAE standard primarily focuses on newly manufactured equipment and includes provisions for maintenance. However, it is just one of many standards used in the US Military. For organizations like NAVSEA and the US Coast Guard, the MIL-P standard is commonly utilized. As a NAVSEA RCM Certified Level II professional, I can attest to the importance of understanding various maintenance tools, such as CBM/RCM and TPM. It's crucial to move away from rigid RCM practices and choose the maintenance approach that best suits your needs. NAVAIR mandates RCM implementation with different approaches, while the US Department of Energy offers guidance on RCM in their FEMP guides. Shelley, it may be beneficial for you to explore these resources. Additionally, there are numerous energy companies in the Southern US region. The political aspects of developing the SAE standard are also intriguing. Howard.

• 16-07-2024
• Nina Sanders

Howard, I urge you to review the latest RCM guide for Navair, particularly the introductory pages where there is misinformation. It is important to correct the statement that NAVAIR only specifies RCM be performed, as there are actually various approaches to RCM being implemented. The SAE standard focuses on newly manufactured equipment with an added maintenance aspect. While there may be political aspects to consider, unsubstantiated blanket statements do not contribute to a meaningful discussion. It is important to note that opinions on politics and other non-essential issues do not detract from the RCM standard. The introduction of a voluntary RCM standard has clarified what is considered compliant with RCM. By adopting this standard, companies are ensuring that any method not in compliance is not considered RCM. The recognition of this standard by bodies like the SAE demonstrates a commitment to achieving industry best practices. In the case of the £100,000,000 incinerator project in the North of the UK sponsored by United Utilities, adherence to the RCM standard is evident. Your opposition to the standard is unexpected, given the benefits it brings to maintenance practices.

• 16-07-2024
• Gavin Russell

Terry, I wanted to mention that I follow The RCM Analyst methodology, which aligns with the SAE RCM standard while also being a unique and widely supported approach in various regions globally.

• 16-07-2024
• Isaac Lewis

Thank you, Svanels, for contributing a message that is directly related to the discussion. I am looking forward to meeting you and Howard at the event (80% confirmed). It might be a good idea to begin a new discussion thread focusing on the RCM standards, as conversations can often veer off-topic. While digressions can add interest, a dedicated space for discussing standards could be beneficial. - V.Narayan.

• 16-07-2024
• Wesley Jenkins

Creating a dedicated thread on RCM (Reliability-Centered Maintenance) standards would be beneficial in addressing the need for clarification and discussion on this topic. While I do not oppose the SAE JA1011 standard, it would have been preferable if they had chosen a different acronym, considering that RCM already had multiple interpretations prior to the creation of the SAE standard. The validity of pre-SAE RCM methods is evidenced by user feedback, and it is unreasonable for SAE to expect widespread adoption of a term that has been in use for over 25 years. Delving into the politics behind why the standard was named RCM, and the idea of universal acceptance without regard for previous methods, underscores the need for a broader conversation on this issue. Additionally, it is evident that not all companies are equipped to implement the rigorous process outlined in RCM, and alternative methodologies should be explored to accommodate diverse needs. It is encouraging to hear about the positive impact of SAE RCM in certain scenarios, and I appreciate the valuable contributions made by members of the maintenance and reliability community. Moving forward, creating a dedicated RCM standards thread could facilitate further discussion and insights on this important topic.

• 16-07-2024
• Wendy Baker

Terry, as always, there are different versions of what actually happened that we can explore. Despite the long and sometimes tedious conversations we have, it seems that we both enjoy them. While I may be guilty of going off topic, I agree with Vee. It is important to note that the RCM standard was established to set minimum criteria that processes must meet in order to be considered RCM. This internationally accepted standard holds significant importance. Prior to the standard's publication, there was confusion about what constituted RCM, leading some to misuse the term for their own profit. The Guide to the Standard SAE JA1012, issued in 2002, traces the origins of Reliability-centered Maintenance back to the report by FS Nowlan and HF Heap of United Airlines in 1978. The RCM process has since evolved and been refined, with various organizations worldwide incorporating its principles. However, some have deviated from the original intent of Nowlan and Heap's report, producing processes that are not true to RCM. The existence of an internationally recognized standard sets a clear distinction between authentic RCM and imitations. Embracing this standard, as outlined in the SAE JA1012 guide, ensures that organizations follow the seven steps sequentially. While some may resist this, adhering to the standard is crucial to truly implementing RCM. It is essential to understand that the authority of an internationally recognized standard transcends individual opinions, emphasizing the importance of compliance. I have personally seen success with the SAE compliant RCM methodology over the years and would be happy to share a case study in the future to illustrate this. Ultimately, it is vital to uphold the integrity of RCM and differentiate it from other approaches, such as PMO2000, which may be effective but are distinct from traditional RCM practices. Let's focus on achieving results through standardized methods rather than diluting the essence of RCM.

• 16-07-2024
• Erik Rivera

As a member of the IEEE Standards Authority and other standards committees, I have a unique perspective on the importance of standards. In my experience, the value of a standard lies in how the user perceives and applies it, rather than the authority of the committee that created it. Over time, I have noticed a shift in the makeup of standards committees, with more input from vendors seeking to influence the standards in their favor. This evolution has raised concerns within the industry about the true purpose of standards. For example, within the IEEE, we regularly review existing standards to ensure they are still relevant and valuable. If a standard lacks support or interest from users, it may be retired. This process highlights the dynamic nature of standards and the need for users to stay informed and engaged. When it comes to implementing standards, such as the SAE RCM standard, users must understand the implications for their specific applications. Simply citing a standard without comprehension can lead to inefficiency and unnecessary costs. On the other hand, clearly defining expectations and requirements based on established standards can streamline communication and ensure consistency in processes. In my view, the value of standards lies in their ability to guide decision-making and facilitate collaboration between users and vendors. By aligning operational needs with appropriate standards, users can avoid unnecessary expenses and ensure optimal performance. Ultimately, the success of a standard depends on how effectively it meets the functional requirements of the end-users.

• 16-07-2024
• Xander Cooper

It appears that what you perceive as a criticism of the SAE standard is simply my belief that my perspective does not fit neatly within a predefined framework. I do, however, support the standard and its 7 key questions. I humbly request a simple change - a renaming of the process that the standard aims to define. It is a fact that RCM variations that do not adhere to the SAE standard have existed prior to the standard's creation. These variations have been endorsed by users and will continue to be known as RCM. These facts should not be seen as an attack on the SAE Standard. If SAE truly desires a single, unified standard, they should have given more thought to this aspect. The issue could have been avoided by selecting a different name for the process, rather than insisting on the use of the three letters: R-C-M. It seems that certain individuals on the committee prioritized their commercial interests over reaching a resolution. By relinquishing ownership of the term, the debate could be resolved. Notably, Nowlan and Heap did not copyright the term, making it freely usable by all. Before and after the establishment of the SAE standard. I encourage you to join the SAE committee and advocate for the adoption of a new name, such as Effective Maintenance Management (EMM), Reliability Centered Process (RCP), System Functional Analysis (SFA), Functional Assurance System (FAS), Function Centered Maintenance (FCM), Machinery Centered Maintenance (MCM), and more. By doing so, we can achieve a unified approach that accommodates diverse practices, regardless of plant size, budget constraints, or workforce skill levels. Embrace the benefits that different RCM variations offer - many plants rely on these advantages. It is unlikely that these variations will disappear or alter their trademarked names. If you wish to see your vision of a universal method implemented, urge SAE to reconsider the name. Let's work together to move forward towards a harmonized approach. Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Vince Myers

Embracing diversity in unity is essential for progress, but it requires a high level of tolerance. Imagine a scenario where a client defends themselves by claiming to have a robust maintenance program in place, including Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). However, upon investigation, the RCM process is deemed more of a formality, much like an evaluation of an HSE system after a major incident in the North Sea. It's crucial for the client to not just provide answers to the 7 RCM questions, but for those answers to be effective. This raises the question of whether consensus based on minimum standard criteria is achievable. The validation of RCM derivations by the user is a point of contention - is the user the provider of the RCM derivations or the client? Should a standard contractual clause be included to ensure that the contractor remains fully responsible for the goods or services provided, despite the client's inspection or validation? When it comes to HSE, a safety case must be prepared to demonstrate proper risk assessment and control measures. Waiting for legislation to take effect may not be the most proactive approach. The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) code was born out of a series of explosions, highlighting the crucial role engineers play in ensuring safety. As we contemplate the effectiveness of RCM, it begs the question of how much of a safety net answering the 7 RCM questions truly provides. These thoughts stem from a deep dive into a thought-provoking debate.

• 16-07-2024
• Brenda Green

Josh, the occurrence of incidents can be attributed to incomplete, improper, or delayed work. It is crucial to demonstrate to the Regulator that all work has been completed effectively and in a timely manner. The Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) approach can help in determining the necessary tasks and their timing. However, addressing compliance and quality issues requires a different approach, as RCM focuses on execution. To fully implement RCM, it is important to answer the seven key questions and understand the timing of work to prevent failures. Hidden function failures are often linked to safety incidents, and RCM provides a solution by identifying failure-finding tasks and determining when to perform them. Gathering reliability data is essential for RCM, despite differing opinions on its importance. Responsibility should not be shifted in case of failures, as it is ultimately The Company's duty to ensure correct implementation of processes to avoid the need for blaming individuals. V.Narayan.

• 16-07-2024
• Nathan Scott

Howard, I acknowledge your point and will address it this week. Terry, it seems like you may have missed the essence of the RCM standard. The standard serves as the benchmark for processes that must adhere to specific criteria to be classified as RCM. It was given this name for a reason. Have you read the explanation provided on why this standard was established in the first place? There have been instances where certain processes claiming to be RCM have deviated from the original Nowlan and Heap framework, leading to confusion and potential risks. It is imperative to ensure that any annual conventions or gatherings focused on maintenance analyses accurately reflect their purpose and content, whether they strictly adhere to RCM principles or explore other maintenance approaches. The international maintenance community emphasizes the importance of having standards, with many conferences worldwide highlighting this need. While there may be differing opinions on the application of RCM, the majority still agree on the fundamental seven questions that define the process. Several internationally recognized RCM methods align with these questions, such as Smith's "Classical" RCM, Pluncknett's RCM Blitz, Aladon's RCM2, and the RCM Analyst method. It is crucial to differentiate between compliant RCM methods and those that deviate from the established criteria, as this impacts the effectiveness and safety of maintenance practices. While diversity in maintenance approaches is encouraged, it is essential to uphold the standards set by RCM to ensure consistency and quality in asset management. Terry, let's engage in a constructive dialogue on this topic rather than dwelling on past conflicts. Let's focus on defining the minimum criteria for RCM and promoting best practices in maintenance analysis.

• 16-07-2024
• Ursula King

Terry, I want to emphasize the importance of user verification in the field of Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). As numerous articles and interviews with industry professionals have shown, RCM is not a simple concept that can be easily applied without proper training. The use of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and decision diagrams may seem straightforward, but delving into areas such as probabilistic analysis of human error, determining optimal costs for hidden functions with operational impacts, establishing correct failure detection intervals while managing risk, and other complex aspects is essential for the successful implementation of RCM. When introducing RCM to individuals for the first time, it is common for them to have limited knowledge of these intricacies and the extensive research that has gone into developing the methodology. Without a deep understanding of these components, users may struggle to assess the effectiveness of RCM in delivering the benefits outlined by Nowlan and Heap. To address this issue, clients often refer to internationally recognized standards in their contractual agreements with vendors, providing them with assurance that the method is grounded in expertise and best practices established by industry professionals. By aligning with established standards, clients can have confidence in the validity of the RCM approach and its ability to deliver the promised benefits.

• 16-07-2024
• Oscar Hayes

Terry, this will be my last message for the night as I have an early start at 4 am tomorrow. Your statement brings to light an interesting perspective on the renaming of the process. It appears that some key committee members had personal interests at stake, which might have influenced their decision to stick with the original term. However, it's important to note that not everyone involved had their way all the time, as evidenced in discussions on this forum and the Plant-Maintenance forum. It would be unfair to suggest that any individual was able to impose their views on others without opposition. A thorough examination of the standard and guide would reveal the collaborative nature of the decision-making process. It's possible that certain participants at the RCM Scorecard workshop had their own interests in mind, maybe even believing they owned the term. Additionally, there could be commercial motives for not adhering to the standard at a particular event. While these points are worth considering, it's crucial to stick to the facts rather than speculation. Let's focus on concrete evidence, as outlined in my previous post.

• 16-07-2024
• Betty Young

Vee, do you really stand by what I think you're implying when you said, "To determine the work to be done and when, we can rely on Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)"? It raises the issue of compliance and quality, but RCM may not provide the answer as it pertains to execution. The R and M in RCM cover all necessary actions to ensure that assets meet user requirements. This includes management, quality, safety, and maintenance procedures, as well as asset management methods and routine maintenance tasks. Do you agree, or have I misunderstood your perspective? After re-reading your post, I understand your point. However, I still believe that execution processes could be addressed in an RCM analysis, but they must be carried out correctly. (I acknowledge your viewpoint here)

• 16-07-2024
• Cameron Price

It is important to recognize that the Company holds responsibility that cannot be avoided. While avoiding blame is ideal, it is crucial to acknowledge that the court will assign fault. OSHA has outlined the various parties involved in such situations, including employers, owners, employees, consultants, and vendors. We must all take responsibility, as we are all accountable for our actions. It is essential to conduct Root Cause Analysis (RCA) without placing blame in order to address issues effectively. Instances such as the Occidental and Longford incidents demonstrate the severity of negligence. For example, a maintenance worker was jailed for failing to remove a plastic wrap over an aircraft's height-detecting transmitter, leading to a crash. This incident resulted in substantial compensation paid by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). It is crucial to fully understand and answer the 7 RCM questions in order to ensure the effectiveness of results and prepare for implementation. Questions may arise regarding the minimum criteria set by the SAE for RCM standards and the inclusion of RCM audits in reports. The prompt release of RCM standards by the SAE compared to other organizations like API and ASME raises questions. Similarly, it is important to address how to conduct quality assurance and quality control for IPF studies and RBI in compliance with IEC and API standards, respectively. These processes are essential for effective maintenance practices.

• 16-07-2024
• Uma Fisher

Hi Josh, I've noticed that when I comment on your posts, I don't receive any feedback from you on whether my input was helpful. Nevertheless, I'd like to try again. I recommend that you strive to obtain the standard and accompanying guide (SAE JA1012) in order to better address your queries. Additionally, I would suggest seeking training, as it can greatly benefit you. There are numerous professionals in your region who can provide assistance with compliant RCM practices.

• 16-07-2024
• Yasmin Hill

Your contributions are valuable not only to me but also to those seeking to understand Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). Our need for RCM implementation is in the near future, so it is important to delve deeply into maintenance and reliability strategies now to be mentally prepared. It would be beneficial for all forum members if you could outline the minimum criteria of the SAE RCM standards, providing a solid foundation for your stance in this ongoing debate. Additionally, has SAE released a review article on this RCM standard, similar to other reputable organizations, to introduce it to the public? While training is important, I believe it is essential to have a basic understanding of the subject first before engaging in hands-on RCM activities under the guidance of experienced RCM analysts like yourself.

• 16-07-2024
• George Turner

I concur with Josh that this debate has spiraled out of control, making it challenging for ordinary individuals to keep up. It would be helpful to see some concrete data on SAE (rcm) versus other options, allowing us to form our own informed opinions.

• 16-07-2024
• Andrew Clark

John Moubray referred to RCM as 'thoughtware', a term I strongly believe in. RCM is a structured and systematic process that helps us analyze failure, understand its causes, and determine how to mitigate its impact. It is not a simple formula or equation that can be programmed into a computer. The decisions made during the RCM process are based on factual information, and individuals who conduct RCM use their knowledge and experience to reach conclusions. While experts guide the process, the responsibility for the outcome lies with the analysis team. Implementing an RCM process does not provide a quick fix for all issues; it requires ongoing effort to maintain quality and reliability standards. Properly following the RCM process helps in effective work planning and reduces the impact of quality and compliance on reliability.

• 16-07-2024
• Rebecca Murphy

I have thoroughly enjoyed the valuable insights shared in these forums and am excited to meet fellow attendees at RCM-2006. Looking forward to connecting with all of you there!

• 16-07-2024
• Zack Morgan

Ahmed, I appreciate redirecting us back to the main topic. I am excited to see you there. Looking forward to our meeting. Regards, V.Narayan.

• 16-07-2024
• Olivia Brown

Hello Terry and others, I stumbled upon this engaging discussion about the SAE standard. Even though I'm not sure if anyone is still following this thread, I feel compelled to address some misconceptions. As one of the key contributors to the development of the SAE standard, which was initiated by a request from the Department of Defense (DOD) to replace MIL-STD-2173, I believe I am qualified to provide insights. The DOD wanted to transition to commercial standards to save costs, leading to the creation of the SAE standard. Initially, there was limited commercial interest in the standard, primarily from a few aircraft Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) seeking compliance guidelines. NAVAIR saw the importance of having a standard reference for contracting RCM services amidst various interpretations of RCM practices. Regarding the use of the term "RCM" by SAE, there were concerns raised about maintaining the integrity of the original concept introduced by Nowlan and Heap. While some argued for a name change, the standard aimed to stay true to the foundational principles of RCM. The involvement of John Moubray in the later stages brought a commercial perspective, but efforts were made to safeguard the standard from being overly commercialized. The development process focused on preserving the core tenets of RCM, ultimately transforming N&H principles into a comprehensive standard, known as JA1011. It is important to clarify that the term "RCM" is not trademarked, allowing for diverse interpretations and applications. The standard writers, mostly NAVAIR personnel, acknowledged that a standard serves as a benchmark rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. While JA1011 offers a structured approach to RCM, it is not mandated for every scenario. The goal was to provide a reference point for RCM practices, ensuring transparency and reliability in aircraft maintenance processes. In conclusion, the JA1011 standard offers a guideline for implementing RCM based on N&H methodology. Users have the flexibility to adapt their RCM approach according to their specific needs. Despite differing opinions on RCM practices, adherence to JA1011 ensures a standardized process. Our intention is to clarify any misconceptions surrounding the standard and its purpose. Thank you for your understanding.

• 16-07-2024
• Victor Thompson

Thank you for the insightful explanation, JC. While my mention of using a different acronym does not reflect on the validity of the SAE JA1011, it is more of a historical observation, similar to your previous lesson. 1) The original report on Reliability Centered Maintenance was authored by Nowlan and Heap. 2) Pioneers like Mac Smith and John Moubray applied RCM concepts in industrial settings, while adding their own adaptations, mostly in line with the N&H report. 3) Organizations such as the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) advocated for RCM in Nuclear and Fossil plants. 4) However, many of these plants found traditional RCM to be complex and impractical. 5) EPRI funded research into a streamlined RCM methodology, which eventually became commercialized. 6) Simultaneously, others developed abbreviated forms of RCM. 7) Different versions of RCM were implemented, leading to various outcomes. 8) Numerous RCM derivations were marketed and trademarked. 9) Professionals like Jack Nicholas have extensively studied various RCM methodologies and blended techniques in their consulting work. 10) SAE formed a committee and established an RCM standard. While I acknowledge the efforts made, I believe that some RCM enthusiasts and well-meaning supporters may overlook the complexities of implementing a unified RCM standard. It would have been more practical to introduce a new name for the methodology, considering the widespread use and varying interpretations of RCM. Perhaps a different approach would have been more effective in achieving success. In conclusion, it is evident that the term RCM has become widely adopted, making it challenging to redefine its meaning. My personal opinion is that a new name would have facilitated a clearer path towards progress. As they say, a rose by any other name... Just my two cents. Terry O PS: I look forward to seeing all those who are dedicated enough to read these RCM posts at RCM-2006. Your interest in these discussions makes you a perfect fit for the event!

• 16-07-2024
• Marcus Woods

Thank you JC and Terrence for providing clear explanations. I believe that the concepts of N&H may have been distorted by some promoters of RCM variations, while others remain faithful to the original concept. N&H conducted thorough research and it is questionable whether subsequent followers have done the same, making it unethical to use the RCM title without following the original path. If N&H had copyrighted or trademarked the original RCM, unauthorized users would not be able to claim the name. Even those who claim to follow the original path often only pay lip service to certain aspects, particularly the "R" in RCM. Moving forward, the commercialization of the RCM name is inevitable, with some having the right to use it as defined by N&H, while others do not. It is common for people to be misled by incomplete RCM processes due to cost-effectiveness. Encouraging validation, such as with JA 1011, can help individuals differentiate between true RCM practices and imitations. Not every approach will work for everyone, as illustrated by the analogy of different shoes fitting different feet. Educating individuals through platforms like these forums can help them understand these distinctions, though changing mindsets may take time. Gresham's law may still apply, emphasizing the importance of persevering in spreading the message about genuine RCM practices. V.Narayan.

• 16-07-2024
• Kelly Hughes

Dear Sirs, It is a common occurrence in various successful initiatives that they quickly become a trend that everyone wants to join. However, not everyone fully understands what they are getting themselves into. Many uninformed chief executives were demanding reengineering without grasping its true meaning, leading to potential disaster. Reengineering was seen as a quick fix that CEOs could simply delegate, which is a misconception. Instead of taking the time to understand the concept and make difficult decisions, many managers sought easy solutions and turned to equally uninformed consultants for assistance. These issues were also found during the Motor Diagnostics and Motor Health Study, where shortcuts were sought in motor management and energy programs. There is a tendency for individuals to look for quick fixes, and there are plenty of consultants willing to support them in this approach. - Excerpt adapted from "Reengineering the Corporation" by Michael Hammer and James Champy Sincerely, Howard Keywords: reengineering, chief executives, uninformed, consultants, motor management, energy programs, shortcuts, easy solutions, consultants.

• 16-07-2024
• Jasmine Howard

Terry, I value your perspective and respect where you are coming from, but I must politely disagree as diversity in viewpoints adds fun to discussions. I do not perceive your comments as an attack on the standards. I would like to point out a few things: JA1011 was initiated somewhere between 5-7, not at 10. It was developed in response to the DOD's preference for continuing to purchase RCM, rather than adopting new processes. It makes sense for the DOD to stick with a process it knows and trusts. The process you outlined is typical of how standards are created: 1. A product or process is developed 2. It gains acceptance and usage 3. Others start to modify the process or product 4. Chaos ensues 5. Eventually, standardization is deemed necessary 6. Standards are established. To illustrate, consider the amusing anecdote of the DOD having a military standard for canned corn. This standard likely originated from a situation where the military needed to purchase corn in bulk. Due to unforeseen circumstances like a drought, vendors began cutting corners by filling cans with less corn and more water. This led to confusion and the need for a standard to define what a "can of corn" should contain. After convening with knowledgeable individuals, the standard was set to include criteria such as the minimum percentage of actual corn, color and size of kernels, and even the geographical origin of the corn. As a result, the cost of a can of corn escalated to $8000 for the DOD, while regular consumers in grocery stores continued to pay a fraction of that price. Isn't it funny how standards can affect costs and perceptions in such unexpected ways?

• 16-07-2024
• Ruby Cooper

NAVAIR collaborated with civilians to develop the SAE standard, following the principles of RCM 2. Other branches of the DoD, such as NAVSEA, continued to adhere to the traditional 'Classical RCM' method and established their own standards, including a certification program based on the MIL-P standard. The majority of DoD still utilizes the original Nowlan & Heap approach, which was originally commissioned by the Air Force for missile, weapon, and aircraft maintenance. Although NAVAIR backed the SAE standard, they were not the originators of it. Regards, Howard

• 16-07-2024
• Liam Foster

It's great to see your input on this topic, JC. Thank you for providing the timeline details. Despite attempts to backtrack in RCM, it is crucial to note that there is now a global standard for RCM, aimed at safeguarding buyers of RCM services. This standard ensures they receive genuine RCM practices, rather than a modified version that may not align with the original objectives of the report.

• 16-07-2024
• Quincy Brooks

A clarification regarding the initiation of the SAE standard: it was actually initiated by the DoD, not NAVAIR. Back in 1994, a group known as the RMS partnership requested SAE to lead the standard development process. This came about after NAVAIR raised concerns about MIL-STD-2173 being cancelled due to the Perry initiative. Interestingly, the initial meeting did not have representatives from other military branches present, and civilians were only involved in the standard development process later on, mainly from aircraft manufacturers. Mr. Dana Netherton from AMS, a NAVSEA contractor, joined the SAE process, contributing to the misconception that the standard is related to RCM II. Despite attempts to involve other military services, interest was lacking until around 1997 when Moubray got involved. The finalized standard was released in 1999 after a challenging journey. It is worth noting that NAVAIR does not adhere to RCM II as a whole, with only a specific NAVAIR activity at NAWC Lakehurst utilizing RCM II due to persuasive sales tactics. In contrast, many within NAVAIR are opposed to RCM II due to negative perceptions of its sales approach. Each organization has its own unique process, with NAVAIR following the NAVAIR 00-25-403 manual. In conclusion, JA1011 serves as a tool for measuring adherence to the original principles of RCM outlined in the N&H report. It was never meant to dictate what is right or wrong, but rather to guide users in identifying processes aligned with the foundational concepts of RCM. Notably, the N&H report was sponsored by OSD for the benefit of all military equipment, not just aircraft. Looking forward to further discussions on this topic, possibly over drinks in Vegas. Cheers!

• 16-07-2024
• Tiffany Gray

The insightful discussion by JC and others was truly magnificent and offered valuable learning opportunities for everyone. Growing up in Nebraska has given me a good understanding of corn, just like JC. I am extremely excited to delve deeper into RCM in Vegas. Ozgypsy, it is essential for you to attend this event - it is a must. Looking forward to seeing you there! Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Diane Kelly

The naming of RCM derivatives, such as RCMII by J Moubray, SRCM for streamlined RCM, and RCM Turbo, along with variations like Company XYZ-RCM and SAE-compliant RCM, is done in a distinguishable manner. I am curious to learn if SAE has a system similar to ASME's "code case" for addressing ASME code implementation queries. This would be beneficial for determining if a specific RCM version meets the guidelines of SAE JA1011.

• 16-07-2024
• Simon Ward

Terry, there are still a few loose ends to tie up before the end of the year. Hopefully, things will go back to normal for us next year. Feel free to contact me, Daryl, my friend. Cheers!

• 16-07-2024
• Penelope James

Josh, that's a great question. I'm not sure if SAE has a mechanism in place for evaluating processes. They probably have one for product standards like SAE 30 weight oil. However, the idea of a group coming together to assess other peoples' processes is concerning. It's hard to find unbiased and knowledgeable observers for such evaluations. The political dynamics could be quite daunting. Perhaps appointing someone like Jack Nicklaus as the RCM Evaluation Czar could be a solution.

• 16-07-2024
• Quentin Foster

I had to go back to provide some additional clarification. I am excited to meet you at RCM-2006. A few years ago, the AMS team transitioned into CACI. In 2001, Jim Todd founded T-Solutions, with Bill Mercier joining him a year later. They continue to manage NAVSEA projects, and I had the opportunity to collaborate with them for a few years before branching out on my own. They also have been involved in RCM projects with the US Coast Guard. The attached N&H introduction provides a detailed history. N&H was sponsored by the Department of Defense. Howard has included a document with more information.

• 16-07-2024
• Shawn Thompson

I am excited to meet up with Howard soon. I'll treat for the first round, or perhaps we can persuade Terry to foot the bill since he's the one raking in the cash!

• 16-07-2024
• Jack Parker

Sure, I'm game for that. How about you pick up the first round, Terry?

• 16-07-2024
• Bob Smith

Discover the ASME Code case addressing boiler pressure issues at http://www.asme.org/Codes/Publications/CodeCase/Code_Cases_Boiler_Pressure.cfm. This case highlights how the ASME code has effectively dealt with political influences or biases, providing valuable lessons for RCM to adapt and grow.

• 16-07-2024
• Fiona Blake

Hey JC, Howard, Vee, svanels, and others! It's on me for the first round - we've got the whole 70-lane bowling alley booked at the Orleans Hotel and Casino on Wednesday night, starting at 9 pm until late. Let's finally resolve this debate with a cold beer and some friendly competition. Can't wait to see you all in Vegas! - Terry O

• 16-07-2024
• Aaron Bennett

Let's finally put an end to this debate with a friendly bowling match and drinks. Will we see any gutter balls, or will we all be scoring spares and strikes? Unfortunately, I won't be able to join in. - Jack

• 16-07-2024
• Helen Diaz

Terrence, whether we settle or not, I am ready for the next round. Let's continue the game.

• 16-07-2024
• Jessica Freeman

Hey everyone, have you had the chance to check out this fascinating piece of asset management history? A few years back, a discussion took place on an open email forum in Australia involving prominent figures in the reliability field. What struck me the most was the respectful exchange of different viewpoints without anyone taking offense. It's a four-part series that I believe is worth exploring. I'm certain Terry has archived it on this website: http://www.total-productive-maintenance.com/articles/ma...task_selection.shtml.

• 16-07-2024
• Vanessa Carter

Thank you, Daryl, for taking me on a trip down memory lane. It was fascinating to revisit those old conversations, especially with the influential figures involved. John Moubray, for example, made a memorable appearance at MESA ICOMS in Melbourne, where he was met by a passionate RCM community eager to discuss his latest article challenging traditional maintenance methods. Despite initial tensions, he quickly won over the room with his expertise. My own dedication to upholding RCM2 standards, even before the introduction of SAE JA1011, led to some spirited debates with John. While he may not have been my biggest fan, his commitment to advancing maintenance practices was undeniable. His impact on shaping current industry standards cannot be overlooked. Reflecting on our discussions, I can't help but wonder how he would have viewed The Reliability Centered Maintenance Managers' Forum. I like to think he would be pleased with how the field has evolved. As Roger Zanatta takes the reins as the new torchbearer for RCM2, I am confident that the legacy of improving maintenance practices will continue to thrive. Thanks for resurrecting those old posts, Daryl. It's been a trip down memory lane that I won't soon forget. Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Ethan Wright

Terry, the debate we had was truly fascinating and still holds relevance today. It was the first of its kind that I was involved in personally. The thread contains a collection of all comments, not just Moubray's. John was not against maintenance improvement, as you suggested Terry, but rather emphasized the need for maximum defensibility in changing times. He understood the risks involved and was a pioneer in these discussions during the 97 era. He had a deep understanding of the issues and disliked recommendations made without that level of understanding. I shared this to add context to current discussions and invite present-day comments on the matter. How would he have viewed your maintenance regime forum? I didn't know him well enough to say, but he surely would have had some insightful remarks. Best of luck with the forum next month, I'm certain it will be a successful and enjoyable event for all attendees! Cheers!

• 16-07-2024
• Ian Butler

I tend to pay attention to John's comments because I value his perspective and feel that he had valuable insights to offer. However, I believe that his approach may not be suitable for companies that are not yet prepared to embrace the RCM2 methodology. It's important to recognize that only a small percentage of maintenance facilities worldwide are currently utilizing RCM2, despite the widespread need for effective maintenance practices. Implementing a universally compliant version of RCM, such as SAE JA1011, is not a straightforward solution that can be applied across the board. While we often discuss the concept of world-class maintenance, it's essential to address the challenges faced by organizations that are struggling with limited resources and a reactive maintenance approach. It's not enough to simply define world-class maintenance without providing actionable steps for achieving it and showcasing real-world examples of successful implementation. We commend the consultants and companies that have achieved world-class status, but it's important to acknowledge that sustaining such excellence over the long term is a formidable challenge. Many organizations may initially adopt best practices only to later revert to reactive maintenance due to various factors. At the core of our mission is the belief that knowledge is power. By providing comprehensive information, including insights on RCM, we aim to empower maintenance professionals worldwide to make informed decisions. It's crucial for readers to critically evaluate the information they encounter, rather than accepting it blindly from various sources. We welcome diverse perspectives and encourage open dialogue in this forum, where individuals can engage in peer-reviewed discussions about maintenance practices. While some may prefer in-depth analysis and complex solutions like consequence analysis, others may find value in simpler recommendations that can be easily implemented in real-world scenarios. Ultimately, I do not dismiss the idea of a universal maintenance solution, but I believe that there are alternative approaches that warrant exploration and discussion. It's essential to continue seeking innovative solutions that address the varied needs of maintenance professionals in different contexts.

• 16-07-2024
• Quinn Bell

Terry, it seems like you may have strayed from the main point a bit... The concept of world-class asset management is often used as a distinction between clients and their financial assets, but the definition of this term can vary greatly. What really matters is the level at which an organization must operate to derive maximum long-term value from their physical assets, considering all aspects of their lifecycle. I firmly believe that asset management is not a one-size-fits-all practice, and this belief has only grown stronger over time. While Aladon and John focused primarily on RCM, it's important to recognize that RCM alone cannot solve all maintenance challenges universally. The principles behind RCM, as outlined in the RCM standard, serve as the foundation for advanced asset management in today's world. These principles are crucial for proactive management, reliability modeling, and daily operational tasks. Nearly every aspect of asset management can be traced back to the fundamental need to establish routine maintenance tasks based on SAE compliant RCM principles. It's not about rejecting simple recommendations, but rather acknowledging the value of comprehensive approaches in certain contexts, which aligns with my perspective. Asset management is a dynamic field that is constantly evolving, with no one-size-fits-all solution. RCM remains a vital tool in current asset management practices, but as technology advances, new solutions may emerge. I am open to exploring alternative solutions and continuously seeking improvement in my services. The field of asset management is still evolving, and I anticipate integrating new advancements into my work in the future. I am dedicated to providing the best solutions to my clients' challenges and will readily adopt any proven better approach that may arise.

• 16-07-2024
• Faith Perry

Terry noted, "I find myself drawn to John's comments as they held great value and insight. It's a fair observation, and I wholeheartedly agree." Terry emphasized the importance of John's comments and acknowledged that they won't be heard again, making them even more worth paying attention to.

• 16-07-2024
• Diana Spencer

Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that I am unable to attend this time, but perhaps in September. Two members of our team recently attended the IMC-2005 event and came back brimming with enthusiasm. Howard, our electrical specialist, particularly enjoyed your informative session on the importance of lubricating electric motors.

• 16-07-2024
• Kyle Russell

Thank you, Svanels, for your well wishes. I am confident that the upcoming events in Vegas will be among our best yet. From the impressive lineup of speakers and presentations to the high-quality guests attending, this promises to be an exceptional experience. Rest assured, we will be sharing a lot of the conference content in the coming months. Howard's successful bearing lubrication short course has inspired us to consider expanding it into a full-day course for future events like IMC. In September, we are excited to shift our focus to Predictive Technologies at the PdM-2006 conference in charming Chattanooga. We appreciate your kind words and value the insightful contributions you make to this forum. Thank you for your support. Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Warren Lopez

In the realm of asset management, the term "world-class" serves to distinguish between clients and their financial resources. While I may have veered off track briefly, I find your quote quite compelling and may include it in an upcoming presentation. It's worth noting that for nearly three decades, the mainstay of our operations has been effectively managed by RCM. The RCM Analyst method, which we have spearheaded throughout Europe, represents a unique and fully SAE compliant approach that is both comprehensive and resource-efficient. As I prepare to visit the Continent in June, I've observed significant acquisition activity among European buyers in the reliability service sector, potentially leading to the export of innovative practices to our side of the pond. Let's continue to engage in discussion and drive our evolution forward. Your insights are greatly appreciated. Thank you, Terry O.

• 16-07-2024
• Hannah Stone