Considering a new home purchase? Don't hesitate, especially if it boasts superior design and engineering. Let's engage in technical discussions to exchange various perspectives without the threat of legal action. I am eager to explore the pros and cons of each approach to improve our understanding and address any drawbacks.
To ensure we stay focused, I want to clarify some points. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I am not saying that RCM cannot be applied during the design stage. Secondly, MSG-1, 2, and 3 were specifically designed for what N&H refer to as pre-service programs in the Aircraft manufacturing Industry. This implies that they can be used during the design stage. However, you seem to believe that RCM is only applicable at the design stage. N&H's statements are clear about the decision logic of RCM. In their Preface on page 2, it is stated that the RCM decision diagram differs from the one used for MSG 2. The decision logic focuses on determining maintenance requirements based on the consequences of functional failure. In his book "RCM II, 1997," Moubray mentions that each airline participating in the RCM task force was authorized to develop and implement reliability programs for maintenance. It is important to note that Moubray is referring to airlines (like UA, Continental) and not Aircraft manufacturers (like Boeing, Lockheed). He further explains that a maintenance steering group was established to oversee the development of the maintenance program for the new Boeing-747. From the information provided, it is clear that MSG was intended for the design stage, while RCM was always meant for use during service but can also be applied in new designs. In my opinion, using terms like "propaganda machine" is unnecessary and I suggest we stick to discussing facts.
In my humble opinion, the use of terms like "propaganda machine" is unnecessarily provocative; I urge us to maintain a discussion based on facts. Let's start with the simpler aspect - my perspective on events in the mid to late 90s involves a series of articles by Aladon and associates aimed at discrediting anything other than RCM2, even mocking TPM. Do you remember John Moubray's paper titled "The Case Against Streamlined RCM," presented at global conferences and published in various magazines? It included the statement: "Leaving things out inevitably increases risk, potentially leading to unforeseen and serious failures, and individuals may be held personally accountable." I view the events of that time as a form of propaganda, leading me to counteract misinformation and its consequences through my own campaign. Although TPM eventually rebounded, many were influenced by the RCM 2 ideology. While you may disapprove of my terms like "propaganda machine" and "brainwashed," I believe they accurately reflect my observations. I encounter individuals who adhere strictly to RCM, per the SAE Standard, often dismissing alternative approaches. My use of "brainwashed" reflects this narrow perspective. Referencing Moubray's scaremongering tactics, emphasizing the risks of streamlined RCM landing one in a courtroom, further supports my assessment.
The RCM decision diagram sets itself apart from the MSG 2 approach by focusing on the maintenance requirements of each item based on the consequences of functional failure. While acknowledging the differences between RCM and MSG 2, it does not explicitly state which approach is optimal for in-service assets.
- 22-09-2024
- Shawn Thompson
Vee, the evidence provided does not support your argument. When designers involve users in program development, it does not necessarily mean that the focus was on servicing assets. Moubray's explanation in RCM II (1997) emphasizes that each airline in the task force had the autonomy to create and execute their own reliability programs for maintenance purposes. It is essential to clarify that Moubray is referring to airlines like UA and Continental, not aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing and Lockheed. Furthermore, a maintenance steering group was established to supervise the creation of the initial program for the new Boeing 747, as mentioned on page 319.
Vee, Although your evidence implies a strong case, it lacks a clear statement to support it. According to RCM 2 book by Moubray (2nd Edition), "RCM was developed to assist airlines in creating maintenance programs for new aircraft models before they were put into operation." Can you clarify why you believe Moubray would include this information if it were not true?
- 22-09-2024
- Jessica Freeman
I agree with Vee that Nowlan and Heap originally intended Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) to be utilized for in-service analysis, as discussed in their 1978 paper. However, as the saying goes, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." It's evident to me that the needs of developing maintenance programs for different design technologies that are still in the planning stages are distinct from those of assets already in service. RCM focuses on functions and functional failures to identify failure modes, while Preventive Maintenance Optimization (PMO) identifies failure modes through current maintenance programs and supplements missing information through documentation research, failure history, and expert knowledge. One approach is suited for asset design while the other is better for in-service assets. Regards, Steve
Chapter 12 of Ron Moore's book, "Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Tools; What Tool? When?" delves into the concept of Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). In this chapter, Moore explores the relationship between Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and PM Optimization, which he refers to as "RCM in Reverse". Interestingly, Moore highlights a divergence among RCM practitioners regarding the use of existing equipment histories and known failure modes in initial maintenance efforts. He argues that many plants lack robust maintenance practices, making a thorough analysis of potential failure modes a suboptimal use of resources.
Exceptions to this perspective, as noted by Moore, include Haz-ops analysis, the nuclear industry, and aviation. As someone with experience in maintenance engineering, I concur with Moore's assessment that many existing plants are in a similar position with their maintenance strategies. However, the process of conducting FMEA is not without its challenges, as there is inherent variability based on the expertise of the moderator and team members. Moreover, failures often stem from multiple contributing factors that are difficult to anticipate solely through a meeting room discussion.
Moore introduces the concept of a Business Level FMEA, which may offer a more practical approach for the general manufacturing industry. While it may seem unconventional to draw parallels between aviation and general industry, there are valuable lessons to be gleaned. As a maintenance engineer who has risen through the ranks in the field, I aim to navigate these complexities and remain adaptable in implementing effective maintenance strategies.
Ron Moore, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, holds a special place in my personal hall of fame.
Steve expressed his thoughts on the series of articles published in the mid to late 90s by Aladon and their associates, which aimed to discredit anything other than RCM2. He acknowledged having differing views from JohnM, who has since passed away, and noted that Aladon has been acquired by another company. Steve emphasized the importance of engaging in respectful discussions and refraining from maligning those who cannot defend themselves. He suggested that challenging alleged defamation when it occurs is the appropriate approach. Steve also emphasized the need to avoid using emotive language in discussions, as it can detract from the factual aspects of arguments. He believes that forums should be used for asking questions, sharing advice, wisdom, and experiences, stating personal views, and respectfully challenging differing opinions.
According to Steve, RCM and MSG are distinct approaches, yet it is unclear which one is more effective for in-service assets. Your determination is commendable, but your reasoning is puzzling. Firstly, it is acknowledged that RCM and MSG differ. Secondly, MSG is primarily used before service. Thirdly, RCM and MSG were developed concurrently by some of the same individuals. The Department of Defense (DoD) was responsible for commissioning the RCM report, indicating a practical motive for ensuring the functionality of their aircraft fleet. It is unlikely that they would invest time and resources into two separate processes for the same objective. Despite your persistence, it appears that you are simply arguing for the sake of argument.
quote: Despite his absence, the company of Aladon has been acquired. It is important to engage in debates with individuals who can defend themselves, but it is not fair to attack those who cannot defend themselves. In my opinion, the proper approach would have been to address any accusations of defamation at the time they arose. It is crucial for the human race to learn from history, as it is often written by those in authority. We can progress as a society by questioning the narratives put forth by authority figures. My children and parents would both appreciate the opportunity for their words and actions to be open to debate even after they pass away.
- 22-09-2024
- Vanessa Carter
Wally's unique perspective on comparing airlines to general industry brings an interesting viewpoint to light. Despite being seemingly far apart, both industries face potential risks and hazards. From airplane crashes to plant explosions and train derailments, the dangers are present in various forms. Just like Ron's belief in Hazops, there is value in utilizing both RCM and other methods to manage risks effectively. In many plants, around 20% of systems and equipment are identified as high risk, posing potential threats to health, safety, the environment, and asset/production loss.
- 22-09-2024
- Rebecca Murphy
Steve, I agree that Nowlan and Heap originally envisioned RCM for in-service analysis. Thank you for acknowledging that. I have been focusing on RCM and highlighting the points you mentioned. Your paper suggests that RCM is for the design phase, but that is inaccurate. I hope you can now see my perspective on this matter.
In my opinion, the best course of action would have been to address any accusations of defamation immediately. This is exactly what I did by writing the paper you are currently reading. The subject was extensively debated with John Moubray during his lifetime, as he has had a significant impact on the global community. He holds a revered spot in my list of influential figures, and I believe that just because he has passed away, it doesn't mean we should cease discussing his contributions.
Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) is a crucial method that can be applied to meet both design and in-service requirements successfully. While I utilize the Preventive Maintenance Optimization (PMO) approach for less critical aspects, it is important to note that RCM offers unparalleled advantages in enhancing reliability and safety. As stated in the paper by Steve Turner on comparing PMO and RCM methods, "PMO achieves the same analysis outcomes as RCM." However, based on my experience, this claim can be misleading.
Analyzing current maintenance tasks does not guarantee that all necessary tasks are in place or that all potential failure modes are addressed. Neglecting low probability failure modes can pose significant risks in the long run. Therefore, opting for RCM is essential for improving plant reliability and safety, whether for existing operations or new designs. On the other hand, a PMO approach can be effective in cost reduction and enhancing the current PM program.
It is important not to mislead management into believing that a PMO approach guarantees improved safety and reliability, as the reality may be different. Ron Moore and Steve Turner are respected figures in the field, and I am looking forward to inviting Ron to our site to promote a culture of "Operating for Reliability" aligning production and maintenance efforts. Like many others, I share the belief that Steve's arguments can sometimes be contentious, but his insights are valuable in fostering productive discussions. Cheers to continuous improvement and operational excellence.
It appears that we may not be completely aligned in our understanding, Vee. I want to clarify my stance on the matter once and for all with this final post, which demonstrates that I have accurately cited Moubray in my research. While the thoughts of Nowlan and Heap in the past may not hold much weight, I am focused on presenting the argument that RCM is not the most suitable tool for analyzing in-service assets or assets with established maintenance programs. RCM has been extensively covered in standards and literature, indicating its widespread use and evolution over the years. Nowlan and Heap expressed doubts about the effectiveness of starting from an existing maintenance program, similar to what we now refer to as PMO. However, I have found no evidence that they actually attempted this approach. Moubray and Mac Smith played crucial roles in introducing RCM into the industrial sector, with Moubray emphasizing that RCM was initially designed to assist airlines in developing maintenance programs for new aircraft types. As someone who transitioned to an RCM consultant in the 90s after working in aircraft maintenance, I have found that RCM is often applied to in-service assets already covered by maintenance programs. This led me to develop the PMO2000 methodology, which aims to enhance existing maintenance programs rather than starting from scratch. Despite encountering criticisms, I firmly believe that RCM is more suitable for new technologies rather than revamping existing successful programs. There are differing opinions on the origins and applications of RCM, but my focus remains on improving maintenance processes for in-service assets through the PMO approach. Let's continue this discussion and explore other areas of interest. I have attached the paper that sparked this conversation for further reference.
Gary, I want to address a factual inaccuracy in your statement and urge you to thoroughly review my research papers before misinterpreting them. It is crucial to understand that merely assessing your current maintenance tasks does not guarantee that all necessary tasks are being performed or that all potential failure modes are being addressed. Neglecting to consider low-probability failure modes can have serious consequences. In conducting a PMO2000 analysis, we employ techniques similar to those used in RCM to identify missing failure modes. By examining drawings, inspecting the plant, and seeking out hidden failures, we ensure a comprehensive evaluation of potential issues. As someone with extensive experience in RCM, I can affirm that our approach is aligned with the proven methods of identifying failure modes. It is evident that many maintenance programs in plants have gaps, with failure histories often excluding potential issues that have not yet occurred. Through the meticulous process of PMO2000, we are able to identify and address these shortcomings. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Steve
Many believe that consultants push the FMEA process for their own gain. While it has its place in design engineering, its value as a maintenance decision tool in general manufacturing is questionable. FMEAs often go unimplemented or get shelved after completion, resulting in a high failure rate. Despite the warnings not to skip this process, following manufacturer recommendations seems to cover the basic failures adequately. Building an in-house maintenance program based on these recommendations and refining it over time through experience seems like a reasonable approach, as long as it is continuously reviewed and improved.
I agree with you on this, JW. It's important to consider manufacturer recommendations when it comes to maintenance, but many of these recommendations are overly cautious and focus too much on time-based schedules rather than actual equipment usage. It's common for maintenance programs to start off following these recommendations and adjust them over time based on experience. The key is to continually review and improve the program to optimize equipment performance.
In our evaluations, we have found that manufacturer maintenance strategies tend to be conservative and often suggest replacing parts based on time rather than actual wear. For example, changing water pumps at 20,000 hours when they can actually last up to 40,000 hours if run to failure. Some manufacturer-recommended maintenance programs have been found to consume more machine hours than necessary, but with review and adjustments, this can be reduced.
It's important to pay attention to details that may be overlooked by manufacturers, such as missed maintenance on critical components like emergency escape ladders. Utilizing tools like PMO2000 can help identify potential issues before they become problems, contrary to claims that it may not be effective. I also agree that our previous RCM analysis was thorough but ultimately unsuccessful. Perhaps revisiting it using the PMO2000 process could yield better results.
Regards,
Steve
- 22-09-2024
- Quentin Foster
Steve, I initiated this discussion citing excerpts from your paper: on Page 6 "RCM as a methodology created by Nowlan and Heap in 1978 for the planning phase of the asset life cycle." Page 8 mentions “… intended for implementation in the planning phase of the equipment life cycle (Moubray 1997)." On Page 18, it states "RCM was not intended for use on assets that are already in service." These references clearly indicate your stance that RCM should only be utilized in the planning phase. However, conflicting statements have arisen. On November 2, you acknowledged that Nowlan and Heap did indeed intend for RCM to be used for in-service analysis, as mentioned in their 1978 paper. So, what is your final stance? On November 1, you stated that Nowlan and Heap's opinion, regarding the ineffectiveness of starting from existing maintenance programs, lacked evidence. This was during a time when RCM studies did not yet exist. All US airlines later conducted RCM studies, not PMO studies, with Continental Airlines relying on RCM for their fleet's maintenance, crucial for their survival. If they had opted for a PMO approach, the results would reflect the effectiveness of PMO. Before delving into further discussion on your paper, kindly provide a simple YES/NO response to the query: Do you agree that RCM should be used for in-service applications? Upon receiving your response, we can proceed with the next inquiry.
In a recent statement, Wally expressed his belief that consultants often promote the FMEA process for their own gain. However, it is important to note that I do not offer any RCM software or consultancy services for sale. Instead, I provide RCM training to those who are interested in learning more about it.
It is worth considering that manufacturer recommendations typically cover the basic failures of a product. When purchasing a new car, for example, the maintenance requirements may vary depending on the location of purchase. This begs the question - do these recommendations adequately address all potential failures? And is the vendor motivated by profits when recommending parts and services to customers?
It is acknowledged that Nowlan and Heap believed that RCM should be utilized for in-service assets. However, contrasting views exist on whether this was their primary intent. One argument is that RCM does not resemble a typical review process, while another perspective, as presented by John Moubray in his book, suggests that RCM was originally meant for the design phase. The discrepancy may lie in the interpretation of the term "intention." Personally, I align with Moubray's view that the initial purpose of RCM was for design. Nevertheless, Nowlan and Heap proposed that reviewing maintenance requirements for in-service assets requires a return to the original design and functions, disregarding the current program. This approach essentially involves a design-oriented process for maintaining in-service assets. The question remains whether Moubray's book misleads readers in this regard, and the answer to this question determines who is right. If Moubray is correct, then my viewpoint is validated. Your input on this matter is still pending.
Wally shared a quote about the importance of implementing FMEA in plant equipment reviews. He highlighted the challenges of high failure rates, variability in output, and reports sitting idle on shelves. The key to successful implementation lies in having a structured project process with milestones and effective management. Tools like RCM, PMO, and TPM can aid in implementation, with companies like Meridium, Isograph, and PMO integrating SAP portals for support. A recent RCM study on a 10-year-old plant revealed 61 critical equipment items, 708 failure modes, and identified improvements to prevent £640,000 in potential production losses. The study took 3 weeks, with implementation plans in progress under a responsible engineer's guidance. Cheers, Gary.
In terms of maintenance methodologies, my top two authors are Ron Moore and John Moubray, with Moore being my favorite. Moore takes a practical approach to maintenance philosophy and management, while Moubray tends to be more idealistic. Despite their differences, both authors offer valuable insights.
Congratulations, Gary, on the success of your analysis implementation - you are in a small minority of successes. I'm curious about the details of your team and the costs involved in the process.
As an in-house maintenance engineer with experience in FMEA, PM Optimization, and consultant moderation, I have specific viewpoints on the topic. While FMEA can be beneficial, its implementation may not always align with real-world maintenance practices.
I recently purchased a Honda Fit and I am impressed with its engineering and on-board condition-based maintenance system. This system takes various driving conditions into account to determine the optimal oil replacement schedule.
Overall, the Honda Fit exemplifies how manufacturers can improve maintenance tools and requirements for end users.
It's important to note that the PM Optimization strategy we implemented was not affiliated with Steve's PMO2000 program - it was a custom initiative developed in-house.
Steve, as you are aware, MSG is rooted in the principles of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). The foundational research that led to the creation of RCM also contributed to MSG, with some individuals being involved in both. While RCM focuses on maintenance requirements, MSG is specifically geared towards the design phase of new aircraft. In essence, MSG builds upon the philosophy of RCM for aircraft still in the conceptual phase.
I disagree with the notion that the primary intention behind RCM was for review processes. As John Moubray explained in his book, RCM was originally developed for the design stage. This aligns with the fact that RCM is not a review but rather a method to determine maintenance needs. The connection between RCM and MSG becomes clearer when considering that MSG, which is based on RCM, is intended for design purposes. Moubray references N&H's rudimentary decision diagram from 1967, which laid the groundwork for MSG-1, a manual used to develop maintenance programs for the Boeing 747 based on reliability centered maintenance principles.
Moubray's statements may seem misleading out of context, but when viewed within the complete narrative, they offer valuable insights. It is important to understand the full story before drawing conclusions about N&H's primary intentions. It is fascinating how different perspectives can lead to varied interpretations of the same information.
- 22-09-2024
- Wesley Jenkins
Wally mentioned that implementing methodologies like FMEA or RCM often face challenges leading to a high failure rate, with many studies and initiatives getting stalled before completion. While new methodologies like Six Sigma and Lean gain initial traction, they too can lose momentum post-analysis. Projects requiring time and effort tend to get sidelined, while those with quick wins receive strong top management support. Implementing RCM, for example, may not show immediate results, potentially leading to credit going to others in the future. Despite the structured nature of processes like HAZOP and RCM, success heavily relies on competent facilitators. While no method guarantees perfection due to human involvement, investing in structured methodologies increases the chances of success. Personal motivations, rather than monetary gains, drive interest in RCM training opportunities.
Vee, I sincerely apologize if my previous comment came across as questioning your objectivity. I am curious to explore your insights further by delving into your published works to enrich my knowledge. In my observation, consultants often advocate for their services, much like automobile manufacturers striving to minimize unnecessary maintenance for consumers. However, there are instances where dealer service centers, independent mechanics, and quick oil change shops push for unnecessary services. Can we draw parallels between these businesses and maintenance consultants who may promote specific improvement programs without disclosing potential drawbacks or alternative options? As a skeptic, I raise concerns about the evolution of maintenance consulting practices. While acknowledging the presence of diligent consultants, I am wary of encountering those who may not prioritize clients' best interests. Reflecting on the challenges in implementing Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), I contemplate how a failure in the FMEA process could warrant a redesign due to its recurring issues. As a learner without formal consulting experience, I value engaging in discussions like this forum to exchange insights with seasoned professionals and align my experiences with industry standards. I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue on this topic.
Wally, I appreciate your understanding. While there are individuals who may try to exploit clients for money, they are in the minority. It is unfortunate to see clients lose money due to inaction. It is common for these same clients to place blame on consultants. However, many consultants genuinely want their clients to succeed. Regardless of the industry you are in, take a moment to review maintenance recommendations in a pump or compressor manual from a vendor. You will see the importance of following these recommendations. This is why I mentioned looking at car manuals - the maintenance instructions for my 2002 car are not as comprehensive as those for your Honda. Once the warranty period is over, I only take necessary actions for maintenance.
In a quote from Wally, he mentions the pervasive challenge of fully implementing Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) due to high failure rates. This is a common struggle in industries where the priority is usually on getting things done quickly rather than properly. The expression "We never have time/money to do things right but it is never a problem to keep doing it till it is right" encapsulates this sentiment.
To be honest, I have had the opportunity to work with consultants who were dedicated to delivering high-quality results. However, I found that once their report was completed, their involvement seemed to end. This lack of ongoing support and implementation coaching is a crucial aspect that cannot be overlooked. For example, when we had two consultants working on developing a training program for FMEAs, they were unable to provide information on the success rate of implementation. I strongly believe that thorough understanding of both the success and failure rates of a method is essential for effective practice. My concern lies not in questioning their credibility, but in the fact that they lacked this important knowledge.
Perhaps we are veering off track, as Consultancy is a separate topic that may deserve its own discussion thread. However, I will address your concerns in response to your post. If you have more questions, feel free to initiate a new topic. When inquiring about a vendor's equipment reliability, many may not have specific information, even after conducting a design FMEA. They often emphasize the quality of their design and manufacturing processes, but may struggle to provide an MTBF figure. This is partly due to their lack of insight into how the equipment is operated and maintained by the customer, which significantly impacts the MTBF. Additionally, vendors may only hear from customers when there is a major breakdown, limiting their feedback on failure rates.
Similarly, Consultants face challenges in obtaining accurate data on failure rates for various processes they implement. Clients often expect strong involvement and resources from them, but once their recommendations are delivered, they may be shown the door. Companies may not see the value in retaining Consultants for extended periods. Consequently, Consultants may rely on secondhand information, negative feedback, or internal sources for their knowledge.
Therefore, it is not uncommon for vendors and Consultants to lack comprehensive information on failure rates. When teaching Root Cause Analysis (RCA), I remind participants to consider their own accountability before pointing fingers at others.
Hey Vee, if you're not using the forum to sell anything, it might be a good idea to remove the details about your books from your signature. It appears that every time you post, information about your books is visible to everyone on the forum. A quick comparison between your signature and mine gives the impression that you are the seller, not me. My signature contains no sales information. Another option is to embrace the fact that you are promoting your credibility and books. There's no harm in that, but it's important to be transparent about your intentions rather than trying to persuade skeptics with vague information. You mentioned that my interest in RCM is driven by monetary gain. You may be surprised to learn that aside from publishing articles and engaging in forum discussions, I do not actively promote my interest in RCM. My website reflects this as well. Every opportunity I've had to teach RCM has come from unexpected emails or calls from strangers. My income from RCM training is minimal, as it is not my main focus.
While researching an answer to Vee's question, I came across a valuable piece of information on page 368 of Nowlan and Heap. The text emphasizes the importance of comparing the set of tasks generated from Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) analysis with the existing maintenance program to identify any differences. It highlights the risk of critical maintenance tasks being overlooked during the RCM process for in-service assets. Therefore, it is essential for analysts to use a Post-Maintenance Optimization (PMO) approach to ensure comprehensive coverage. This revelation warrants a deeper discussion and reflection for the next revision of my paper. It seems that RCM may not be entirely safe for in-service assets, according to Nowlan and Heap. Your thoughts, Vee and GLT? Let's delve deeper into this topic. Regards, Steve.
- 22-09-2024
- Gregory Hughes
In their book, Nowlan and Heap discuss the expansion of the decision-making process outlined in Chapter 4 to include the development of a Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) program for existing equipment supported by a different maintenance program. They emphasize the importance of developing the new RCM program independently to avoid bias from past programs. The RCM process was originally designed for new equipment but can be extended to in-service assets. They argue that using the existing program will skew the analysis, making RCM a valuable tool for determining maintenance requirements for assets in service. Despite initial skepticism, many have found success in implementing RCM, such as a team who saw significant improvements in their maintenance tasks for diesel engines. The results from BELCO over the past year are a testament to the effectiveness of implementing RCM. Planned work is ahead of target, and corrective work has decreased significantly. Employees have embraced this new approach, realizing the benefits of analyzing tasks to improve efficiency.
Steve strongly believes that it's time to wrap up this discussion on different approaches to maintenance program development. There are two main methods: a design-oriented approach that starts from scratch, and a renovation approach that builds upon existing maintenance programs. While design approaches are ideal for analyzing in-service equipment, renovation can be effective for evolving equipment models. Despite Nowlan and Heap's preference for design approaches over renovation, Steve introduced the PMO2000 method, disproving the belief that reviewing existing maintenance activities leads to biased results. The focus should be on exploring alternative methods for creating comprehensive maintenance programs, rather than sticking to traditional design approaches. Steve values constructive debates and welcomes challenges to his ideas, as they help him grow. He looks forward to learning more from Vee and improving his paper further. The final word is now in Vee's hands.
Steve emphasizes that he is not promoting any products or services on the forum. He clarifies that his signature is a personal choice and does not impact anyone else. The signature appears on all his professional emails, including those sent on the forum. If anyone finds it offensive, they are encouraged to reach out to the list owner.
Allow me to shift the focus here. Vee, I have nothing more to add, but I would like to clarify a statement that seems to have been misunderstood. During a training program on FMEAs, I asked two consultants about the implementation failure rate, and they were unable to provide an answer. I believe that understanding both the success and failure rates of a method is crucial when practicing it. My point is not to discredit them, but to highlight the importance of being knowledgeable about the failure rate of FMEA implementations. It seems there was confusion, as I was referring to the failure rate of implementing FMEAs, not the failure rate of equipment in the analysis. Similar to a doctor discussing procedures with a patient, practitioners should be aware of the success and failure rates of the procedures they are using. I sought acknowledgment that FMEAs can fail to be implemented successfully, but I got the impression that the consultants were unaware of this possibility. The failure to implement FMEAs should receive more attention in discussions about them, as it is not always as simple as it may seem. Steve, do you have any data on the failure rate of PMO2000 implementations?
The debate around the best tool for analyzing maintenance programs in existing plants has been captivating. To determine the most suitable tool, one must consider its overall effectiveness, taking into account both successful implementations and failures. It would be insightful if Vee and Steve could present current statistics to back their arguments. My personal belief is that a dedicated, engaged, and creative in-house maintenance engineering team is the most powerful tool available. Unfortunately, I do not have statistics to support this.
List of Industry Scores by Country:
- In Australia, the Paper Manufacturer scored a perfect 10, while the Aluminium Refinery and Food Manufacturer also received high scores of 8 and 10, respectively.
- The USA's Oil Company received a score of 7, losing momentum after a key team member left.
- The Oil Company in Saudi Arabia scored a 9, while the Oil Company in Australia scored a 9 as well.
- The Power Company in Bermuda and the Food Manufacturer in Australia both received a perfect 10 for their exceptional performance.
- New Zealand's General Manufacturer scored a 9, and the Lumber Mill in the USA also received a 9.
- The Steel Company in Australia faced challenges due to the economic climate, resulting in a score of 7, while the Chemical Company implemented successful strategies with a score of 8.
- The Mine industry in Australia faced various challenges, leading to scores ranging from 5 to 8.
- The Aluminium Refinery in Europe and New Zealand both achieved sensational scores of 10 for their outstanding performance.
Overall, companies in various industries and countries faced different obstacles, leading to a range of scores based on their efforts and circumstances.
Hey Wally, here are the assignment results from the last three years: only two failures out of 57, with five receiving a score of 5 or less, and 35 scoring 8 out of 10 or higher. The importance of an efficient process cannot be overstated. Additionally, we are constantly analyzing and implementing improvements. Renovating is often a simpler and more practical option than completely rebuilding. Best regards, Steve.
Steve, in your quote you mention that the tasks derived from the RCM analysis should be evaluated against the current program to identify any discrepancies. Thank you for highlighting that N&H originally intended RCM to be utilized in in-service programs, as indicated by the need to compare against existing programs. Your response has addressed my initial inquiry on your paper.
According to Steve, Nowlan and Heap discuss how the implementation of RCM for in-service assets may result in crucial maintenance tasks being overlooked. However, Steve interprets their statement differently, identifying two key points. Firstly, Nowlan and Heap recommend a "Sanity Check" post-analysis, as suggested by Mac Smith. Secondly, they demonstrate humility, a common trait among great thinkers, acknowledging the possibility of errors when humans are involved. By incorporating a quality assurance check as proposed by Nowlan and Heap, thoroughness can be ensured. Steve questions whether the inclusion of the word "important" in their statement was intentional or accidental, emphasizing the significance of word choice in altering the sentence's meaning.
Steve stated that the development of the new RCM program should have minimal ties to the current program. The process starts with creating an RCM process for new equipment, which according to Nowlan and Heap, also applies to equipment already in use. It is important to note that the new RCM program is not the same as the RCM program for new equipment; it is intended to enhance the existing program. This situation can be likened to the analogy of a carpenter and a nail.
Steve mentioned his desire to conclude this part of the discussion, to which I also agree, as I have some questions regarding the points made in your paper. Q2 will be addressed once we finalize Q1. However, every time you introduce a claim or statement, I must have the opportunity to question it, unless you prefer a lecture-style approach over a debate. One such statement is: "In the absence of anything better, this became the standard for the development of maintenance programs for both design projects and in-service assets." KJAP provided a timeline of events from 1960-1979, involving the investigation by the FAA/industry task force, the development of maintenance decision diagrams, and the publication of the Reliability Centered Maintenance report by Nowlan&Heap in 1978. It was the cause and effect relationship demonstrated by N&H that enabled the creation of MSGs and RCM, rather than a lack of alternatives. The intentions of N&H regarding RCM and its application are known only to them and not to us. The notion that RCM was initially for design and later adapted for in-service is disputed in the preface of their work. It is not accurate to dismiss the significance of MSG or N&H's insights; disagreement remains on this point. I am open to proceeding with the discussion, provided no new arguments are introduced.
In discussing the failure rate of FMEA implementation, Wally clarified that he was not referring to equipment failures but rather to the overall implementation process. Many companies opt to oversee improvement projects without outside consultants, often prioritizing cost over quality. This can lead to attributing implementation failures to the FMEA process itself rather than acknowledging their own missteps. It's common to hear complaints that SAP is difficult to use, yet some companies achieve success by investing in proper implementation. Others, however, blame SAP for their own shortcomings.
Unlike Steve, I have successfully implemented Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) in a large company during my employment there. While my consultancy career began post-retirement, I do not have a extensive track record to share, unlike other RCM consultants. However, the results achieved at that company were truly remarkable. Over a period of approximately three years, maintenance costs decreased by about 50% in current currency terms or around 55% in real value. Plant availability saw a significant improvement from an average of 90% to 95%, essentially generating an additional 'phantom' asset that contributed to real production output.
Two key contributing factors to this success were witnessed during the process. Firstly, work compliance saw a substantial increase from an average of 60% to between 90-95%. This was attributed to the reduction in overall workload post-RCM implementation and the heightened focus on RCM methodology (commonly known as the Hawthorne effect). Secondly, the enthusiastic support and involvement of the top executive were pivotal. Regular progress updates were requested, attendance at RCM introductory courses was mandatory for senior management, and a clear understanding of key performance indicators (KPIs) was evident. The company had a diverse asset portfolio comprising of 15 medium-large assets and a few smaller ones. All critical systems related to production and safety underwent analysis, amounting to approximately 1500 individual tags and 30000 potential failure modes.
The ability to replicate functions, functional failures, and failure modes for similar assets such as Fire Pumps, Emergency Diesel Generators, and Gas Turbine drivers allowed for efficient analysis with a necessary verification check. Reflecting on the overall effectiveness of RCM, I attest that under the right circumstances, it can yield exceptional results. Conversely, without adequate support and a skeptical outlook, any process may be prone to failure.
Dear Vee, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from spreading false information about me and my working process. To clarify, I have successfully implemented RCM in a major corporation as a licensed and certified RCM 2 facilitator. I led RCM 2 initiatives across multiple facilities over a span of three years, with one facility fully embracing the process and reaping its benefits. While some companies expressed interest in our proposals, many did not follow through with the pilot programs. Instead of making baseless claims, I encourage you to ask me questions to better understand my experience and expertise. For instance, I can share how PMO2000 addresses maintenance program shortcomings and provide real-life examples, like the successful case study at Belco where enhancements were made to address previously undiscovered failure modes. Let's focus on constructive dialogue moving forward. Best regards, Steve.
Hi Vee, when I studied English and clear thinking in school, we were taught to take a statement and then discuss it in our own words. In the discussion you mentioned, I quoted Nolan and Heap directly. I then delved into a conversation about the quote, emphasizing the term "important". I used this word to highlight the significance of an analyst overlooking tasks that are based on experience rather than just reviewing drawings and technical documents. This showcases the flaws of a zero-based approach that fails to consider the changes and lessons learned since the asset was put into operation, compared to what was initially known during the design phase. I fail to see the issue you are raising. You mentioned that I added the word "important" to their statement - was it an oversight or intentional? Including this word significantly alters the sentence's meaning. To clarify, I did not add the word "important" to the quote by Nowlan and Heap intentionally. There was no mistake made, and it was a deliberate choice. I believe my assessment was accurately articulated and valid. Regards, Steve
Quote: In this project, there were a total of 15 medium-large assets and several small ones. The analysis covered all production and safety critical systems, totaling approximately 1500 individual tags assessed using the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) method. How much time was required to complete the RCM analysis of 1500 individual tags? Were these tags associated with various equipment items?
- 22-09-2024
- Heather Coleman
quote: I have successfully implemented Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) in a prominent company. Could this company possibly be Shell in Aberdeen?
I dedicate my utmost effort and creative thinking to every project I undertake, ensuring they exceed expectations. When choosing maintenance improvement tools, I prioritize selecting the most effective option. Although my choice may not always be the final decision, I always collaborate with the team and deliver excellent results. With 11 years of experience in the biotechnology sector, I specialize in maintenance design, troubleshooting, electrical design, and plant start-ups. Additionally, I have worked in various sectors such as circuit board manufacturing, printing, mining, precious metal refining, and oil shale mining and refining. My expertise includes electrical troubleshooting, instrument maintenance, start-ups, and turn-arounds.
In the lifecycle of a plant project, compliance with building and engineering codes such as FDA, OSHA, MSHA, NEC, NFPA70E, IEEE, and ASME is crucial. Insurance companies mandate adherence to these codes and conduct periodic inspections. During construction, we ensure equipment is built according to our specifications by attending Factory Acceptance Testing. In the start-up phase, a skilled team manages the complex process of balancing airflows, testing systems, and calibrating instruments. It is essential to detect engineering and construction errors early on. Job plans are meticulously crafted, often based on manufacturer manuals, to meet warranty requirements and ensure operational safety.
Continuous improvement is a key aspect of our operations. We implement a Non-conformance-Corrective Action/Preventive Action system to address deviations from standard operating procedures. Root cause analyses guide corrective and preventive actions, enhancing operational efficiency. Regular reviews of job plans and PMs lead to adjustments based on real-time feedback and equipment condition. Utilizing data analysis tools and investing in technological solutions have proven to be beneficial in optimizing plant operations. Conducting thorough reviews of P&Ids helps uncover hidden failures, contributing to the success of our real-time improvement initiatives.
Steve, I want to address the misunderstandings that have arisen about me and GLT commenting on your process. I apologize for any lack of clarity in my previous statement. My intention was simply to explain my limited experience in Consultancy, not to question your RCM credentials. I should have been more careful in how I communicated this.
Vee, as we discuss misquoting and making inferences, it's important to clarify that Nowlan and Heap always intended for RCM to be applied to in-service programs. This is evident in their use of the phrase "extended to," suggesting a clear intention for existing programs to be compared and differences to be found. The word "Intended" may not be explicitly used by Nowlan and Heap, but their use of "extended to" signifies their purpose for RCM implementation in in-service programs.
According to Steve, Vee, how long does it typically take to complete an RCM analysis on 1500 various equipment tags? The process spanned over 3 years and involved a mix of equipment types and services. Although some tags had similarities, there was a range in sizes and operating environments. While previous studies provided some insights, each tag had to be carefully reviewed and verified.
Steve said, "I used the word important." When paraphrasing someone's statement, it is important to acknowledge that change. In my opinion, it is incorrect to insert words that were not originally there and then provide commentary without clearly stating the alteration. Claiming to know the intentions of N&H surprises me. Based on your own quotation, it is evident that they want their findings to be compared to the current program. Comparing results to an established program does not correlate with a new design, so it is puzzling how you arrived at your conclusion.
- 22-09-2024
- Jasmine Howard
Feel free to have it your way - there's no issue. Ultimately, the decision will be left to the jury.
- 22-09-2024
- Yvonne Mitchell
Hey Vee and Steve, if you can hear me over the noise of your egos, let's refocus on the topic at hand. Let's delve into the concept of maximizing value for the investment and compare FMEA to other tools that I believe are more effective for current maintenance programs. Personally, I find it more beneficial to make major decisions based on similar data types to optimize maintenance resources. While I will share more tools in future posts, I am choosing to enjoy this beautiful Saturday away from the computer.
FMEA often gets bogged down in minutiae and fails to deliver cost-saving decisions promptly, directly impacting the budget. One example that comes to mind is a failure that a maintenance-centric FMEA would never have foreseen but could have been caught during the design FMEA. Identifying failure trends quickly and taking swift action is essential.
Lastly, I will introduce a process that I believe could revolutionize existing maintenance program FMEAs. Have a great weekend, Jeff.
- 22-09-2024
- Victor Thompson
Hi Wally, I hope you had a great Saturday! I am excited to see your process and approach to things.
During the RCM Analysis process, Vee was able to evaluate 150,000 individual tags over a span of three years. While some tags represented similar equipment types and services, there was a variety of sizes and operating contexts to consider. Leveraging insights from past studies, each tag had to undergo thorough vetting before being included in the analysis. With a single facilitator, a PMO program successfully covered 70,000 tags in under eight months. However, it took an additional year to obtain approvals and fully integrate everything into the system.
Vee, if your calculations are accurate, it appears that your Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) approach could potentially require close to 15 years to achieve the results we were able to achieve in under eight months.
Vee, it appears that you may have overlooked responding to this inquiry. It is mentioned that you have successfully implemented Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) within a major corporation. Was this corporation possibly Shell in Aberdeen? Regardless of the specific organization, I am curious if they have implemented Project Management Office (PMO) or RCM practices at present.