It appears that the previous statement may have been directed towards me, and I would like to address it. Some believe that RCM analysis should only be conducted by a team, rather than a single RCM expert. However, I support a combination of team collaboration and individual analysis. When should a team be utilized in RCM analysis? It is important to have a group discussion when identifying functions and failure modes, as everyone's input is valuable. However, certain aspects can be addressed through targeted interviews to save time and resources. In the 21st century, with advancing technologies, it is crucial to adapt RCM methods to be more pragmatic and efficient. John Moubray's traditional approach may no longer be the most effective method. It is time to embrace new strategies and approaches for successful RCM analysis.
- 08-11-2024
- Heather Coleman
Dear Vee,
In your quote, you mentioned that estimating risk reduction involves judgement, which is true. However, our RCM team consists of skilled operators, maintainers, and engineers who are trained to use their expertise to make informed decisions in this regard. While this is important, there are modern technologies available today that can accurately predict the level of risk reduction. This shows that there are alternative methods to assess and manage risks effectively.
Best Regards,
I want to express my gratitude to all contributors for their insightful posts. Due to my recent absence from work, I was unable to read the discussion until today. Upon reviewing both perspectives, I believe there is merit in each viewpoint. In certain situations, O&M professionals rely on experience and good judgement to make decisions without the need for exact probability calculations. However, in other cases, quantitative methods, such as those mentioned by Daryl to predict risk reduction, can be utilized. As someone not well-versed in statistical analysis, I am eager to learn more about the basic principles of these methods and where I can find more information (including useful links). I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this area and would appreciate any guidance. I have heard about the concept of "Monte Carlo Simulation" for probability estimation and would like to delve deeper into this subject. Any insights or information on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Best regards, Lester Pino
- 09-11-2024
- Rebecca Murphy
Daryl, I urge you to review my response to Les's query in the context of the discussion. My aim was to address his question and highlight the importance of teamwork in RCM analysis. While you advocate for the solo RCM-analyst approach, there are others in this forum and beyond who share your perspective. My comment was a general observation acknowledging different viewpoints. It is important for each individual to choose the approach they believe is most effective.
In today's technological era, it is vital to embrace advancements in RCM methodologies. Why stick to outdated practices that were surpassed years ago? While you criticized my use of the terms "right" and "wrong" as emotive, I believe they were necessary for clarity. Now, you seem to suggest that team-based approaches are outdated, portraying your method as superior. However, I have found that teamwork enhances the analysis process by stimulating creativity and fostering collaboration. My experience has shown me the value of teamwork in RCM and RCA projects, leading to more insightful and efficient results.
I respect your perspective and acknowledge that everyone's experiences shape their beliefs. It is important to recognize and appreciate diverse viewpoints without dismissing them as outdated. Let's continue this discussion with open minds and mutual respect.
I would like to clarify my stance on the analyst approach in reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) processes. I do not support the sole analyst approach; instead, I advocate for a combination of team facilitation and targeted interviews, with the analyst playing a specific role. This approach differs significantly from relying solely on an analyst. I have previously written an article on this topic, which received wide publication.
In the past, when RCM was gaining popularity in the 90s, resources were more readily available. However, as we entered the 2000s, acquiring resources for RCM analysis became increasingly challenging, making the traditional approach unrealistic on a large scale. This is not just my opinion; it is a fact supported by the changing landscape of industry. I stand by the belief that fully team-facilitated implementations of reliability initiatives are outdated and inefficient, as they often lead to underutilization of resources and take employees away from their frontline duties.
I acknowledge that terms like "right" or "wrong" can be subjective and emotional. My intention is not to criticize individuals but to highlight the need for modernizing our approach to reliability methods. As we move forward, it is essential to adapt to the evolving industry landscape and utilize more efficient methods that align with the current resources available. Thank you for understanding my perspective on this matter.
Hey Les, circling back to your initial inquiry: How can we gauge the effectiveness of an RCM Task chosen to address failure modes with safety or environmental implications? In my publication, "The Maintenance Scorecard," I delved into a concept known as the RCM Scorecard. This was the first instance where the RCM Scorecard was made public, focusing predominantly on the efficacy of RCM strategies in delivering on their promises. Specifically, in enhancing productivity and profitability of assets while managing risks effectively. There are advanced techniques available for foreseeing the efficacy of specific strategies in identifying or preventing the impacts of failures. As highlighted in the NAVAIR guide to RCM, drawing from SAE JA1011 and other references, it is essential to evaluate the accuracy of the tasks implemented. For instance, will an on-condition maintenance task successfully detect warning signs of failure consistently? Or intermittently? Or dependent on operator skills? Or subject to equipment accessibility? Oftentimes, the most reliable approaches at your disposal rely on probabilistic methods that offer a quantifiable level of confidence in achieving the desired outcomes. The RCM Scorecard, on the other hand, concentrated on assessing work order data, failure frequencies and types, probable failure rates, maintenance costs versus repair expenses, and other metrics to ensure that the RCM strategies in place were yielding the intended results. Best regards,
In the process of implementing RCM2 in our factory, we have formed two teams - one for manufacturing and one for packing. With the guidance of a consultant, we have successfully completed three pilot projects using the Moubray model. As I undergo training to become an RCM facilitator, I recognize the importance of continuously updating and reviewing our RCMs to ensure thorough coverage of critical failure modes. Despite the challenges of uncertainty, it is essential to trust our instincts and continuously add to the evolving document. Through collaborative efforts, we have uncovered numerous hidden failure modes and made necessary changes to maintenance procedures. Regular reviews and updates are crucial for the effectiveness of the RCM process. As we progress with RCM, our team gains valuable knowledge about equipment and safety protocols. Overall, approaching RCM as a dynamic tool for asset management is key to its success. Best of luck on your RCM journey, Les. Regards, Mike.
Public service announcements (PS) should emphasize the wealth of knowledge tradesmen possess, as they have learned directly from experienced operators. This continuous learning process benefits everyone involved and contributes to a well-rounded skill set in the industry.
Thank you, Mike, for sharing your experience. It's great to hear that you are utilizing a team approach with an external facilitator to drive your RCM efforts. Don't forget to track your progress regularly to ensure success.
I may be particular about this issue, but the examples provided were infrared thermography and ultrasound technology. These technologies do not directly reduce the likelihood of failure unless there are modifications made to the machine itself. They are primarily used for inspecting equipment and identifying potential future failures. The machine itself, the maintenance it receives, and its operating environment are the key factors that determine when a failure may occur. Enhancing the reliability of a specific asset or machine would require redesigning it or altering the way it is cared for. It is important to assess whether making these changes is worth it in terms of reducing the risk of failure or extending the machine's lifespan. Inspection technologies do not diminish the probability of failure, but they offer valuable information that can be used to prevent failures through proactive maintenance. By analyzing past failure data and conducting thorough inspections, it is possible to accurately predict potential future failures. Am I missing the mark here?
Hey there, I'm back! I recently returned from vacation and finally had a chance to catch up on all the posts. First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to everyone who contributed to answering my question. I still find myself questioning whether it's possible to quantitatively measure the risk reduction resulting from implementing a RCM task on a failure mode that poses safety or environmental risks, in accordance with John Moubray's principles. Perhaps the most effective way to evaluate this is through qualitative analysis based on expert judgment. What are your thoughts on this approach?
When measuring reliability improvements, it is essential to track metrics such as MTBF, uptime, safety incidents, and maintenance costs. The discovery of 'new' hidden failures during an RCM study indicates progress in Technical Integrity. While qualitative indicators hold importance, the availability of quantitative metrics is crucial for accurate measurement. This applies to any reliability improvement initiative, whether it be RCM, RCA, or any other chosen methodology. It is crucial to act on the analysis results to see actual improvements, as many companies fall short in this crucial implementation step.
Les, determining the effectiveness of predictive maintenance methods before implementation is challenging. However, Vee's outlined measures can be used to assess the positive impact post-implementation, showcasing a more reliable asset. It is the experience in utilizing predictive technologies and knowing how and when to apply them that truly makes a difference. Trusting your gut instincts, based on qualitative data from past experiences, will be key to success in maintenance strategies. - Mike.
In certain cases, using multiple predictive technologies can provide added benefits in detecting failure modes. For example, monitoring a gearbox through both vibration analysis and oil sampling can offer a more comprehensive approach for identifying potential issues. This dual approach not only confirms faults within the system but also provides an extra layer of assurance that may not be achieved with just one technology. For more information on technologies and techniques for condition monitoring, search for posts on this topic in relevant forums. By incorporating multiple monitoring methods, you can enhance the reliability and effectiveness of your predictive maintenance strategy.
- 10-11-2024
- Quentin Foster
Mike, I agree with you that evaluating the effectiveness of a maintenance strategy before implementation is crucial, following the principles of RCM2 established by John Moubray. The purpose of conducting FMEA is to identify potential failure modes and take proactive measures to prevent them. However, it is equally important to assess whether the chosen actions are truly effective. While Moubray's book does not provide a specific evaluation method, it hints at the necessity of such a process. Some have suggested statistical approaches like the Monte Carlo Simulation for this purpose, but these may not be practical for FMEA analysis. What are your thoughts on this issue? Regards, Lester Pino, Work Planner at BahÃa Las Minas Plant in Panama.
Advanced technologies like vibration analysis, oil analysis, ultrasound, thermography, and borescope inspections have been proven to be effective in identifying potential issues. However, the key factors that can increase the risk of equipment failure are the technician's expertise, the accuracy of the data collected, and the reliability of the technology used. By prioritizing these aspects, you can significantly minimize the chances of unexpected breakdowns. - Mike.
According to Mike, the measures outlined by Vee can be implemented "after the fact," except for when new failure modes are discovered during RCM analysis that were previously unknown.
Hello gentlemen, in light of our discussion, I believe the most practical approach to evaluating task effectiveness for safety and environmental impact when conducting Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is to rely on the experienced judgment of plant personnel. Utilizing a sophisticated statistical method for such evaluations, especially for a single failure mode or multiple ones, would be costly and may not yield significant benefits compared to leveraging employee expertise. On a side note, Vee and Daryl, I attempted to find your books in local bookstores without success. Do you offer these books in PDF format with a downloadable link for a fee? Thank you to everyone for their contributions.
Les made a wise decision. Ultimately, much of the decision-making process depends on using one's best judgment and trusting the expertise of your team. Thank you, Vee, for pointing out the importance of uncovering hidden failure modes as a proactive measure.
Hey Vee and Daryl, I couldn't find your books in my country's bookstores. Have you thought about offering them in PDF format? I contacted my publisher in New York, but unfortunately, they only have CD-ROM versions available at the moment. You can reach out to Patrick Hansard, the Marketing Director at Industrial Press, for more information. You can contact him at (212) 889-6330, X.20 or via email at phansard@industrialpress.com. If there's a Borders bookshop nearby, they may be able to order a copy for you. Alternatively, you can try ordering from Amazon US for shipping options.