Folks,

I will be participating in this premier event hosted by Reliabilityweb.com and look forward to meeting those of you who plan to attend it. I would appreciate your advising the rest of us whether you will be there. If you prefer to advise me by e-mail, my address is eml@effective-maintenance.com

It would be nice to meet face-to-face and have informal chats, so I look forward to your response.

V.Narayan.

V.

Will see you there!

Howard

I am wondering about something. To quote Terry O'Hanlon from the RCM 2005 workshop which produced the RCM Scorecard, "A little RCM is better than no RCM." It appears that this is the consensus of many experts in the field. Does this opinion contradict the RCM standard (SAE JA1011)? Are there two diverging philosophies about the definition and contents of an RCM process? I am trying to get a feel for how much support exists for JA1011 as a valid set of evaluation criteria. I probably won't be able to attend RCM 2006, so I would love to learn more via this discussion board.

Sincerely,
Shelley Whitener
Sandia National Laboratories

Shelley,

There are not two distinct views on what RCM is, there is only the RCM standard. At present this is the only international recognised standard that defines the minimum criteria a process should comply with if it is to be called RCM.

There are a range of people, for their own commercial reasons, who are trying to turn the clock back to a time when there was no standard and when anything with an FMEA in it could be called RCM.

This is unfortunate, commercially motivated, and somewhat bizzare to be frank. At a time when the asset management world is driving towards requiring further standardization there are a small collection who are trying to go away from standardization.

The standard has gained a strong foothold throughout the USA and Europe as well as partially in Latin America and Australia.

Here in the UK I am aware that it is part of two major (over £200,000,000 GBP) contracts for major capital works, it is stated as the requirement for two current outsourced maintenance contracts (each large scale again) and is quickly becoming recognised as part of the managers asenal to create a defendable maintenance regime using recognised leading practices.

In the USA it is part of the Guide to the RCM implementation within NAVAIR as well as becoming a standard within the energy industry. (IN particular in two of your southern states)

It would be good to see stronger support for it in some other areas, but I understand the reasons why this is not the case.

The RCM scorecard was first published in my book, The Maintenance Scorecardand is a different beast to what is being termed the RCM scorecard at these events.

Hope this helps.

Most likely unable to attend. Interested to know how to specify RCM (SAEJA1011 compliant) for the 2 mega projects, 2 outsourced maint contracts & NAVAIR. Tq

Shelley,

Was Terrence talking about the quality of RCM studies or the quantitity?

Any study that answers all the seven RCM questions fully and respects the R in RCM will do a decent job.

V.Narayan.

Reference to Daryl - There is only one RCM standard and it is SAE JA1011 - I would narrow the statement to say - there is only one Public RCM standard available for purchase.

The value and validity of that standard is up to the buyer.

SAE has no authority over anyone - nor are they the world's foremost authority on RCM - they simply did the world a great service and developed a published standard. We will save the politics of how that standard came to be for later posts.

We are not at odds with SAE - we simply state that that standard may not be the way to realize a more universal approach to reliability centric maintenance being widely adopted. Does Daryl suggest that SAE JA1011 suit every reliability requirement at every facility regardless of size, age, resource, skill level, budget? Is exploring alternatives that do not meet SAE JA1011 bring us back to the stone age?


There is Mil P 401 which the armed forces use extensively - and it is an RCM standard. I think it happens to meet the requirements outlines in SAE JA1011 however that is not the point.

Back to my quote in the context of lessons learned during RCM-2005:

One of the goals of RCM (for some companies) is to improve reliability. We were searching for case studies which could prove that RCM implementation would do just that.

Almost 200 RCM practitioners met and shared RCM experiences.

Every major RCM methodology was represented, even the ones that fall short of meeting SAE JA1011.

What was presented was almost a universal urging for the audience to begin their journey toward a more reliability centric approach - regardless of the specific methodology utilized. There will be a benefit derived. My summary statement "A little RCM is better than no RCM" simply speaks to deriving benefit from a reliability centric approach. For anyone to debate that seems pointless to me.

There were several other summary statements made about the learning from that event as well that would cause disagreement from a certain branch of RCM practitioners (they know who they are).

We view our mission to bring value and benefit to our members (subscribers, web visitors, conference attendees, forum members etc...) and we present all types of information, approaches and possibilities. Many of them conflict. We are not endorsing any specific action - we create a context of information exchange in useful formats and allow the buyer/user to become more educated and hopefully make a more informed choice.

We think that having an information choice that is not selling a follow on service is useful.

We will meet again in Las Vegas March 8-10, 2006 and attendance is limited to maintain quality so book early if you are interested in a focused RCM learning event - that is not put on by an RCM vendor - come on in! Out of all the conferences we produce - this one is my favorite because I actually get to participate!

Glad to see this topic come alive again.

Terry O

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Terrence O'Hanlon,

Daryl -

The RCM Scorecard we developed began well before your book was published so I am not sure why they are being compared.

The RCM Scorecard we developed is simply a menu of metrics one can choose to draw from to measure the effectiveness of an RCM project.

It was created with the input consensus of over 100 RCM practitioners.

It is being used at some of the most successful RCM implementations in the world.

Best of all it is free and open to public comment for future updates!

Of course, my statements make no such judgment for the Scorecard you developed and I am sure that that entire books is a must read for all maintenance and reliability practitioners. As I have stated in several past posts - your contribution to the maintenance and reliability community should be applauded.

I will agree that your book and our RCM Scorecard are two different beasts in many ways - as should be - we had not intention of making them similar in any way.

Thanks

Terry O

Terry,
Thank you for expounding on the RCM-2005 meeting. I am very thankful that this forum exists, and that people like myself are able to seek answers and insight from peers and experts in the field. I brought up the question about the RCM standard simply because I felt there was a need for clarification. For those of us unfamiliar with the history and politics that influenced how things have developed, some things can be confusing. Again, that's another reason this forum is great.

The scorecard metrics will be very helpful in determining gaps and gauging success. What will be the objective of RCM-2006?

Shelley

Shelly,

Glad to have you on board the forum and happy you are getting some value from them. The experts here are great at sharing knowledge and experience and I learn a great deal from them as well.

First - let me clarify that I am not opposed to SAE-JA1011. It is a standard and it does contain the 7 RCM questions.

The real question is: Is that the best way forward toward a more reliability plant operation for each and every company or organization?

One objective of RCM-2006 is to dive into that question a little deeper. We will explore other reliability centric approaches like Maintenance Task analysis, PM optimization.

We also want to explore the topic of "readiness for RCM".

We also want to offer resources and information to those who at the very beginning of the Reliability Journey and may not be familiar with the approaches and strategies discussed on this board.

Last year - we were very surprised to find a significant portion of RCM-2005 attendees were brand new to the topics. This year we have added numerous sessions and short courses to get them up to speed and explain the choices available to make improvement from where they are now. That goes back to a "little RCM is better than no RCM" as many maintenance programs could derive major benefit from a little RCM.

We will also hear more case studies from companies using RCM as a basis.

One thing is for sure - there is no "one way" forward that applies to each and every company. Alternatives are needed to support the wide array of maintenance situations.

Wow - I am really getting long winded - but rest assured - this is an area that I am passionate about along with a number of my fellow forum members.

Keep asking question as that is one of the nest ways to learn.

Terry O

Terry,

It is good to see some passion from you on this matter. And good to see it come alive again I agree.

Again we go into the usual discussion however, the RCM standard SAE JA1011 is the only internationally accepted standard that defines what RCM is and what it is not. Thats simply the facts of the matter.

There is no claim to ownership, merely the fact that this is the only internationally accepted standard to define what RCM is and what it is not. (I would actually recommend the guide to the standard to those new to the subject, SAE JA1012)

There are a range of other documents that have been produced for the US military, the UK military and other organizations but the RCM standard remains the only internationally accepted standard that defines the minimum criteria that a process must comply with to be called RCM.

It is also very different because it does not proscribe how RCM should be applied, merely what it should contain to be called RCM. This is a dramatic change in the way standards are produced and it has empowered many organizations throughout the world to create their own RCM processes based on this standard.

There cannot be any backpeddling to a time when anything could call itself RCM. As you would recall at the time that the standard was produced one of the reasons was because many methods were being termed as RCM despite the fact that they were at times counterproductive to the intentions of the original report, and at times even dangerous!

Its creation remains a watermark event, and it despite many efforts to turn back the clock it has added some order to what is a vitally important area and one that needs some standardization. (There are others but some of those are covered also)

With regard to The RCM Scorecfard, your statements are not correct Terry. Work began on the RCM scorecard many years before it wass published in the book, The Maintenance Scorecard. In fact a year or two before it began to be mentioned in other circles. And you are correct, it is a starkly different document to that which your events have produced.

The RCM scorecard is not merely a collection of indicators aimed at direct performance, it is in fact a comprehensive a forward looking approach to measuring what RCM will achieve. Which goes way beyond only direct performance.

Terry,

In response to your post:

quote:

Does Daryl suggest that SAE JA1011 suit every reliability requirement at every facility regardless of size, age, resource, skill level, budget?

Yes, I most definitely do. The problem with traditional RCM was in the implementation, not in the method. The method is sacrosanct and is structured as it is for very strong and powerful reasons.

Two case studies for you briefly, from an industry where resources (time and money) are almost non-existant due to the ravages of downsizing.

1) Wastewater treatment plant, two days into the pilot program savings of £150,000 were identified and are now becoming a reality. ($USD300,000 more or less)

2) New design review of an incinerator plant, forecast savings of £1,000,000 per year on operational costs. Now beiong put into reality.

Both times the cost was minimal in relation to what most companies pay for a fraction of the results in more time from CMMS implemenations, and both times The RCM Analyst method was needed to ensure that it was deliverd in a comprehensive manner that was resource light and fully compliant with the RCM standard.

quote:

Is exploring alternatives that do not meet SAE JA1011 bring us back to the stone age?

Yes it is Terry. The standard was created because of the growing demand to define what is and what is not RCM. As stated previously many of the streamline methods int he world today are not supportive of the original intentions of the RCM report and some are even dangerous.

What we do is serious business in my books Terry, the risks are great and the prize is even greater. It is often not what is done, but what is not done that is the frightening bit.

Like yourself I am pretty busy these days, with affairs both personal and professional, and I would not make a big deal of this if I did not truly believe that there was serious issues at the heart of things.

"Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Einstien

quote:

There cannot be any backpeddling to a time when anything could call itself RCM.

Simply not so - just because SAE creates standard - does not make that so. The widespread adoption by the community makes it so. So far - we have not seen it as widespread - although we hope that you are right and that there are operations getting huge financial returns from its use. I hope we will begin to hear real numbers in a format that can be verified as to its effectiveness and financial impact.

Many methods of RCM were in place long before SAE JA1011 and they have not been invalidated by SAE JA1011. They are still free to claim the title RCM - the distinction is up to the buyer - who can use SAE JA1011 to specify what RCM is or can decide or can choose to accept what a non JA1011 compliant RCM vendor offers as RCM.

Nothing SAE can do will change those methods from being referred to as RCM.

Again - I agree with the fact you state that SAE is the only international body that has created a true RCM standard - and hopefully that will add value to the community.

As for the genesis of your work - I was not involved with your planning meetings - so have no idea when, where and how your work was created - nor is it connected in any way with our work.

At IMC-2005 we will actually roll out a new set of Reliability metrics (based on John Mitchell's work) so stay tuned Daryl - we will keep you so busy commenting that you will not have time to implement all that SAE RCM!

Hope all is well across the pond!

Terry O

Coming back to the original question, 80% chance to be there, I am looking forward to it!!! I was at the IMC-2004 and I loved it.

I think we had this discussion once before:

The SAE standard was directed towards newly manufactured equipment, with an add-on for maintenance. As I had also stated before, it is one of many standards. Within the US Military, there are a number of standards that are in play. For NAVSEA and the US Coast Guard those are the MIL-P standard - I should know, I am NAVSEA RCM Certified Level II (the only known independent RCM certification).

Personally, I subscribe to an RCM scorecard that was collaboratively developed and discussed.

Again, we need to get away from the RCM religion. In reality: Which maintenance tool fits your needs? CBM/RCM, TPM, etc.

I do wish to make sure and correct something: NAVAIR only specifies that RCM is performed and has numerous 'flavors' in play.

The US DOE has specific ideas on RCM, etc. that it has published in the FEMP guides. Shelley, you may wish to check into that.

Do you realize how many energy companies there are in the Southern US?

And, yes, I was also quite interested when I learned more about the politics involved in the development of the SAE standard, myself.

But, I digress.

Howard

Howard,

Please have a look at the latest guide to RCM for Navair in the first couple of pages where this is shown to be an incorrect statement.

quote:

I do wish to make sure and correct something: NAVAIR only specifies that RCM is performed and has numerous 'flavors' in play.

This is simply incorrect..

quote:

The SAE standard was directed towards newly manufactured equipment, with an add-on for maintenance.

With regards to the politics and other points, I am sure there could be some interesting statements made regarding the politics of many situations, but blanket statements with no supporting evidence are just that, comments and opinions.

Statements about politics and other side issues remain opinions aimed at turning back to clock to where there was no RCM standard. Not really part of any issue, nor substantiated.

I do have some idea how many energy companies are in southern USA, not to sure why this is an issue.

Terry,

Am a little surprised about the comments you made there.

(I have substantially changed this part of this posting because I am not interested in getting into a personal argument here, for various reasons, one of which is that today is armistice day and not the time to do such things I would suggest.)

And your statement regarding invalidating methods not compliant with the RCM standard is also not correct and a little misleading.

There is now a standard for determining what RCM is and what it is not. It is a voluntary standard, of course, and if companies choose to use this standard then any method that is not compliant with this standard is then not, according to the minimum criteria, RCM.

And yes, a recognised standard producing body such as the SAE, merely by publishing an internationally recognised standard on this issue, have caused this to occur. This says less about the SAE and more about the companies who are taking up the standard.

In the case of the £100,000,000 incinerator construction project sponsored by United Utilities in the North of the UK, this is obviously the facts.

I really do take your opposition to the standard as very surprising.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Ozgipsy>,

Terry,

As an aside. I implement The RCM Analyst method, it is a process that is compliant with the SAE RCM standard but it is very much its own stand alone methodology with very braod support in parts of the world.

Svanels,

Thanks for posting a message directly relevant to the thread. I am glad you will be there (80%) and will be delighted to meet you and Howard.

Perhaps a new thread can be started on the RCM standard(s). I know how people(myself included) veer off from the subject from time to time. The digression adds flavour, but this discussion on standards may need its own airing space.

V.Narayan.

An RCM standards thread would be good Vee - and yes - this subject could use some space.

Daryl - I may simply not be stating my point clearly enough - I am certainly not opposed to SAE JA1011. It would have been great if they picked a different three letter acronym to use to describe the standard they created as RCM already existed in many flavors by the time SAE got around to creating the standard.

The various flavors of RCM that were pre-SAE are validated by their users - end of story - and SAE cannot expect people to stop using a term that predates their work by 25 years.

We could dip into the politics of the standard to see why it had to be called RCM and why a new names was not selected to describe the process - and the craziness of the idea that the whole world would go marching in goosestep behind it as if nothing came before.

That is my primary point from these long discussions that seem to be boring everyone on the forum.

I also do think that there are companies who are not prepared for the process required by RCM and we must seek methods that can help any company improve. That is our interest in alternative methods

Again - it is great to see some of your posts where SAE RCM made such a positive impact.

I take no offense to anything that has been posted and again I applaud your work and contribution to the maintenance and reliability community.


Terry O

PS: Who will create the RCM STandards thread?

Terry,

We can dip into anything you like, as usual I am sure there are a range of versions of what actually occurred.

As for these long and boring conversations... sadly I enjoy them and it appears that you do also.

I agree with Vee and am one of the chief offenders of wandering off the theme... but the question was asked...

Everytime you state that you are not opposed to the RCM standard you then attack it directly.

They didn't choose a different three letter acronym because it is the RCM standard, to define the minimum criteria that a process needs to comply with to be called RCM.

As an internationally accepted standard this has a lot of wieght as you would be aware of. The problem prior to the publication of the standard was what many people, for their own copmmercial reasons, are trying to regress back to now.

That is, the time when there was no standard, when anything could be called RCM regardless of whether it actually supported the original intentions of the Nowlan and Heap report or not.

From the front page of the Guide to the Standard SAE JA1012, (Issued 2002-01)

quote:

Reliability-centered Maintenance was first documented in a report written by FS Nowlan and HF heap of United Airlines and published by the US Department of defence in 1978. It described the then current state-of-the art processes used to deverlop maintenance programs for commercial aircraft. Since then, the RCM process has been extensively refined and developed. These refinements have been incorporated into numerous application documents, published by a variety of organizations around the world. Many of these documents remain faithful to the basic principles of RCM as expounded by Nowlan and heap.

However, in the development of some of these documents, key elements of the process have been ommitted or misinterpreted. Due to the growing popularity of RCM, other processes have emerged that have been given the name "RCM" by their proponents, but that are not based on Nowlan and Heap at all. While most of these processes may achieve some of the goals of RCM, a few are actively counterproductive, and some are even dangerous.

Today this is not the case, fortunately. There is an internationally recognised standard on one side, and nothing on the other side.

Have you even read the standard Terry?

It is not a very detailed document, although the guide (SAE JA1012) is pretty useful in assisting organizations to get going with RCM, and basically states that if a process is to be called RCM then it must follow the seven steps, as Vee stated, in the sequence that they are listed.

Yet why is this so difficult for many to accept?

Because they have processes that are called ""RCM" that miss or misinterpret steps...and are potentially counter productive or even dangerous?"

The point I am making throughout these exchanges is the following, an internationally recognised standard carries with it a certain level of authority that stretches far beyond our opinions. Regardless of who publishes it.

I am facing a similar situation whereby a standard I disagree with is being produced by an internationally accepted body. This gives it weight in the international community regardless of my (our) opinions to the contrary.

If there is no standard Terry, what determines what RCM is? He who shouts the loudest? Anything with an FMEA in it?

You will notice that I am not necesarrily arguing that RCM is the best for reliability in all situations or anything like that. (Although I do believe this)

For example, Steve Turner has developed and widely applied PMO2000. This is not RCM, does not claim to be, and is extremely effective.

Whats wrong with that? If it ain't a potatoe, dont call it a spud!

We are getting great results using an SAE compliant methodology, and I personally have been getting great results using SAE compliant RCM for many years.

Am happy to get a case study up here in the near future so that you can verufy this. But, in exchange, I am not going to ask you to publish any of your case studies to verify them.