JC:

Only NAVAIR worked along with civilians for the development of the SAE standard, as they proscribe to RCM 2. Most of the rest of DoD set their own standards, along with NAVSEA, maintaining the original 'Classical RCM,' including the development of a certification program, per the MIL-P standard.

Most of DoD follows the original Nowlan & Heap that was contracted by the Air Force for missiles, weapons and aircraft.

While NAVAIR supported the SAE standard, they did not initiate it.

Sincerely,
Howard

JC,

Good to see your comments on this one. Appreciate the timeline information.

There is a lot of trying to turn the clock back going on in RCM. However, the point remains that now there is an international RCM standard that can be used to protect purchasers of RCM services and methods to ensure they get RCM, not a derivative version that may or may not support the intentions of the original report.

Howard,

A couple clarifications: I did not state that NAVAIR initiated the SAE standard. I said that DoD did. I was there when a group called the RMS partnership asked SAE to take the lead in 1994. The reason we were all there was that NAVAIR made a big stink about the cancellation of MIL-STD-2173 due to the Perry initiative. At that first meeting there were no representatives of other services, I am not sure why. As for civilians, as I mentioned, for the first two years of the standard development the only non-government people involved were from aircraft manufacturers. Later in the SAE process a NAVSEA contractor (Mr. Dana Netherton of AMS) got involved. He later went over to the dark side of RCM II which I suppose is why so many continue to think the standard is an RCM II document. We did attempt at various times to get other services involved; we just never got any interest. Moubray didn't get involved until somewhere around 1997. The standard was released in 1999, after a long and tortured path.

I am aware there are other DoD standards and have read most of them. I am not intending to make any statements on whether they are or are not RCM or whether or not they are JA1011 compliant or even whether they are good or bad. That is the job of the users of them. I'm sure they can all be effective if used properly. We are certainly happy with the results we get with the NAVAIR process.

Which leads to my next clarification. NAVAIR does not "proscribe" to RCM 2, whatever that means. One NAVAIR activity, The support equipment people at NAWC Lahehurst use RCM II, IMHO because they were sold a bill of goods about NAVAIRs process by some overzealous RCM II salespeople. As far as the rest of NAVAIR, many are actually hostile to RCM II because of their sales tactics (they tend to talk bad about everyone else). As far as processes: they are similar but not the same. NAVAIR has its own document for their process, the NAVAIR 00-25-403 manual.

Let me reiterate my original point: JA1011 is only a tool; and that tool is a measuring stick for users, not a hammer for vendors. Its sole intent was to provide its users the means to identify process which stuck to the original tenets of the N&H report which coined the term "RCM". It didn't intend to say anything that didn't follow it exactly was good or bad.

BTW, N&H were sponsored by OSD not the air Force and there work was intended to be used for all military equipment, not just aircraft (ref: N&H executive summary).

That is all. I look forward to discussing this over about 30 or so beers in Vegas... Hit me!

JC

JC et al.

Magnificent discussion - super learning for all.

I happened to grow up in Nebraska so I know a thing or two about corn as well JC.

I am getting really pumped up about learning more about RCM in Vegas.

Ozgypsy - you really need to be there - seriously.

Terry O

I thought those rcm derivatives have been named using distinguisable titles such as RCMII by J Moubray, SRCM for streamlined RCM, RCM Turbo, Company XYZ-RCM, SAE-compliant RCM etc.

What I'd like to know further is whether SAE has a mechanism like in ASME for a "code case" for clarification of issues related to the ASME code implementation. For example, somebody could clarify whether a particular rcm version is in compliance with SAE JA1011.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josh,

Terry,

A few items still to sort out over this year. Maybe next year things will return to normal for us, cheers.

You can call me Daryl mate..

Josh, excellent question. I don't know if SAE has such mechanism. I suspect they would for product standards/specifications i.e. SAE 30 wt oil... but I would shudder to think about any group they could get together to evaluate other peoples processes. The pariahs on all sides wold be falling over themselves to shoot everyone else in the back. I don't believe there are very many unbiased and knowledgeable observers that could do such an evaluation. The politics would be frightening! Maybe we could appoint Jack Nicholas as RCM Evalaution Czar...

JC:

Yep, had to go back to clarify a few things. Looking forward to meeting you at RCM-2006.

The AMS guys turned into CACI a few years back. Jim Todd started T-Solutions in 2001 and Bill Mercier joined him a year later. They still handle NAVSEA, and I worked with them for a few years(helping, then joining T-Solutions) before going it myself, as well as their RCM work with the US Coast Guard.

Attached is that N&H introduction that discusses the history. Yes, the DoD sponsored N&H.

Howard

Pages_from_RCMOrig.pdf (217 KB, 6 downloads)

Howard,

Looking forward to meeting as well. I'll buy the first round... or maybe we can get Terry to since he's making all the money!

I'll go for that... You up to buying the first round, Terry?

Here is the link to ASME Code case:
http://www.asme.org/Codes/Publications/CodeCase/Code_Cases_Boiler_Pressure.cfm

Rgdg politics or biase, I guess ASME code has resolved this issue from which RCM can learn and evolve.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josh,

JC, Howard, Vee, svanels et al...

I am buying the first round - we have the entire 70 lane bowling alley reserved at the Orleans Hotel and Casino on Wednesday night starting at 9 pm till whenever...

We will settle this discussion once and for all over a beer and a few strikes (and spares).

See you in Vegas.

Terry O

"We will settle this discussion once and for all over a beer and a few strikes (and spares)."

Like there won't be any gutter balls! But then again, I won't be there.

Jack

Terrence,

Settle or not, I am game for the next round.

GUys,

I am not too sure how many of you all havbe seen this. It is a part of asset management history now and took place a few years ago on an open email forum out of Australia.

It included a lot of heavyweights in the reliability world and is an exchange that I remember well.

Nobody got offended when their point of view was tested! Wow, imagine that!

Is a four part series I think. I am sure Terry would have archived it here somewhere also.

http://www.total-productive-maintenance.com/articles/ma...task_selection.shtml

Daryl,

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane.

When you read those old threads - there were certainly some heavyweights involved. Many of those guys helped me shape my ideas about RCM.

I remember John Moubray showing up at MESA ICOMS in Melbourne with an angry RCM mob waiting for him as he had just written the anti-streamlined/abbreviated article which appeared to condemn any method that was not RCM2. (of couse he owned the room within 20 minutes).

I had taken a firm stand against going to jail for maintenance that did not meet RCM2 standards (that was before SAE JA1011) and that is where JM and I got off to our start.

I miss the discussions with John Moubray - even though he wan no real fan of mine - due to my enthusiasm for anything that improved maintenance - even a little bit!

With John - it was either his way or the highway.

That said - he certainly can be credited with moving much of the current thinking to where it is today. N&H may have developed the original RCM but John did much to put it on the map.

I can only imagine what John would have thought about The Reliability Centered Maintenance Managers' Forum. I hope is watching (and smiling) from his new vantage point.

Roger Zanatta will be there as the new holder of the RCM2 Torch and I cannot imagine a better person to carry it forward!

Thanks again for bring those posts back - I had almost forgotten them.

Terry O

Terry,

It was an interesting debate at the time as you will recall. And many of the issues etc still crystalise the discussion at present I think.

There were others, but this was the first wing-ding of its kind that I was personally involved with.

The thing about the thread is that it is a collection of all of the comments being made, not just Moubrays. (Although it seems to have drawn your attention)

I don't think I would ever have characterised John as being against maintenance improvement as you did Terry. As you point out much of the early popularisation of the method and its advances were definitely down to his participation.

His point, and one that I agree with fully, was that times are changing. Going to jail and other punitive measures were becoming part of the asset managers world. Today it is a reality.

So he was advocating maximum defensibility, not his method will keep you out of jail. Nothing is a get out of jail free card and he recognised that fully I think.

He had a clear, and deep, understanding of the issues around the dangers involved and how things could go horribly wrong. He was a pioneer in some of these discussions as you will recall from the 97 etc periods.

He also had severe disdain for anybody making recommendations without, what he considered to be, that depth of understanding.

I posted this really to put some history into the recent flurry of conversations on these issues, and maybe even draw some present day comment on the issues there.

What would he think about your maintenance regime forum?

I didnt know him well enough to comment. But I am sure he would have some memorable quotes of some kind whatever he thought.

Good luck with the forum next month, I am sure it will be a succesful and enjoyable event for all who attend!

Cheers!

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

Daryl,

Well I guess I focus in John's comments because I know there will be no more and because he was worth listening to.

I think where he and I were on 2 different roads is that I do not think he had much to offer a company that was not ready to take the RCM2 ride.

As you know - there are hundreds of thousands of facilities around the world with maintenance as an activity and only a very small percentage of them use (or are ready for) RCM2.

If it was as simple as applying an SAE JA1011 compliant version of RCM universally - then I could switch off Reliabilityweb.com and this forum as all of our work would be done. I might even have some time to get the beach that is less than 5 miles from where I type this message!

There are more places that are under funded, under staffed, over reactive and lack the asset-owner vision to invest in proactive maintenance.

We all talk about world class maintenance - what are we to do about basement class maintenance, first floor maintenance, in the valley maintenance etc...? Do you offer them anything? If I read one more magazine article about the definition of world class maintenance - without showing us how to get there and without showing us who is really running world class maintenance - and telling us long they sustain such activity - I am going to puke - most of it is worthless drivel.

My hat is off to both the consultants and the companies who operate in the elite circle of world class - I think we should all strive to join them - but I also think it should be acknowledged that many of the companies who claim (or clamed) world class - did not sustain the program for the long haul. They won an award - they wrote an article - they made a presentation - then they got promoted - the second guy started deferring maintenance -got promoted even higher - and then the poor third guy got stuck with a reactive program and skyrocketing maintenance expenses.

That may be a broad generalization and I am sure a few escape the vicious cycle (invitation to post if this means you) of the corporate Peter principle.

There are realities that RCM will not address universally and that is why we choose to supply as much information (inclusive of RCM) to maintenance professionals from around the world.

Our position is that information empowers people and they can make better decisions when they have as much information as possible.

The reader must use his/her judgment to determine the value and accuracy - and not simply accept what the New York Times, CBS News, Various book authors, the posts on this forum and what we post at Reliabilityweb.com say!

We also think that this forum offers the perfect balance as anyone is invited to comment on anything we (or anyone else) publishes - right here in a peer reviewed community!

So John might not have liked simple recommendations that did not involve days and weeks of consequence analysis, but many people find value in information and then make adjustments as they gain experience in the real world.

Again, I do not think we are in debate - I simply do not share your belief in a universal maintenance answer, as fine as it may be in certain situations where all the conditions for success are being met.

We think there are other answers that need to be found and brought to light - so that we spend our time doing.

I have to get back to work as the day escapes!

Terry O

Terry,

You really seemed to go off the track there a bit mate...

First, I think world-class asset management is a term used to separate clients and their money. I have yet to read a definition that applies universally.

What is important is the state where a particular organization needs to be at to get permanent maximum value from their physical asset base. (Based on whole-of-life considerations) (Nice motherhood statement there, not really going to go into it within this discussion but happy to if you wish)

I have always stated that AM is not a one size fits all discipline, and remain convinced of this point even more today.

Aladon and John categorically dedicated them selves to RCM. So I suppose they didnt have much to offer outside of that, they never intended to have.

quote:

If it was as simple as applying an SAE JA1011 compliant version of RCM universally - then I could switch off Reliabilityweb.com and this forum as all of our work would be done. I might even have some time to get the beach that is less than 5 miles from where I type this message!

Well, it isn't. I think we both know that.

But the principles behind RCM, as compliant with the RCM standard, (Rather than anything with a FMEA in it etc) , do provide the backbone for advanced asset management in the modern era.

This is an undeniable fact.

The basis for proactive and stochastic whole of life economic management.

The basis for deterioration and reliability modelling.

And the basis for day-to-day routines and activities.

Almost everything else springs out of these areas, or is attached to these areas, or can provide information into these areas.

Name a subject and you can tie it back to the basic need to develop first the routine maintenance tasks. (The fundamentals behind SAE compliant RCM)

quote:

So John might not have liked simple recommendations that did not involve days and weeks of consequence analysis, but many people find value in information and then make adjustments as they gain experience in the real world.

No one ever said he didnt like simple recommendations. Not sure where this came from. He thought there was a need for a comprehensive approach and this is a view that I broadly share.

That doesn't mean that simple recommendations arent efective, of course they are! (?)

quote:

Again, I do not think we are in debate - I simply do not share your belief in a universal maintenance answer, as fine as it may be in certain situations where all the conditions for success are being met.

I hope we are in debate, I learn nothing when everybody agrees all the time!!

Asset management is not a one size fits all discipline Terry. At all. RCM is evolving, maintenance is evolving, Asset Management is evolving. There are NO universal solutions and I am not stating any.

To date the core of what we do is best done by RCM, in the future I am sure that will change as technology etc changes. But it hasnt happened yet. So if you are working in this area, this is the best tool currently available.

Further more, don't confuse the method with the mode of application, or implementation. The RCM Analyst method that we have pioneered throughout Europe now is a vastly different implementation approach and one that is fully SAE compliant and comprehensive.

(And takes a lot less resource and time than the default approach does.)

Keep looking for answer and alternative solutions. I am grateful that you are among those doing this. (as am I)

The discipline is still young and I am sure that there will be many advances during my career that I will be able to integrate into the services I offer to my clients.


For me things are a little different. I am not a promotor or a "reporter on" the game.

I need to offer the best solution to my clients problems or I am out of work and my clients will go elsewhere.

As such, if something provably better comes along, then I will adopt it immediately, no zealous attachment here.

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

Terry,

quote:

Well I guess I focus in John's comments because I know there will be no more and because he was worth listening to.

Fair comment, fully agreed.