Gentlemen.

What is the role description for a Reliability Engineer.

I was involved in a discussion the other day with my fellow Engineers, the gist of which was they were stating their beleif that trending of maintenance history, is at best, a semi-skilled job, best done by clerks, in light of the developments in the CMMS/ EAM market, which developments have automated most of the trending functions.

I in turn was basing my counter-view on the premise that in the beginning, somebody has to set up the system and get it running, and the person best placed to do that is the Reliability Engineer.

But on introspection, I had to acknowledge that there will be a time when the system is set up and running. At such a time, do we honestly need a professional engineer to nurse the system, for if it is set up properly, most of the decisions will then be programmed decisions, with maybe one or two unstructured problems cropping up, once in a long while.

In that scenario, what does a Reliability Engineer spend his day doing.

Does anybody have a reole description of the Reliability Engineer, detailing the role he has to play on a daya to day basis.

Those Reliability Engineers who have set up systems that are now fully operational, do you really feel useful to your organisations, or you are staying on because you still need to work?

Ecky

See http://www.barringer1.com/jobdescriptions.htm

Regards,

Rogier

Ecky,

E-mail me at mjclemens@yahoo.com and I will forward you at least a dozen job descriptions for a Reliability Engineer from various Blue-chip companies.

When they design a CMMS/EAM can can think for itself, I will happily retire......

Matt

I think the CMMS will have to evolve over time amd the chamges or improvement to the maintenance plan will not or never stop, I guess.

Gentlemen.

Thank you for the links to the various Job Descriptions for the Reliability Engineer. From the contents I have seen so far, yes there is a world of difference between a Maintenance Engineer and a Reliability Engineer

However, small issue arises.
Is a Role Descrition and a Job Descrition the same ?

I was also looking for a role description for the Reliability Engineer on account of an incident that had occured some two weeks ago.

In one of our operating divisions, we run a smelter that is fed by a pulvirised coal fuel lance. It is a complicated piece of equipment that is constantly breaking down.

While on a visit to that particular operation, the lance had a breakdown that lasted over 7 hours, at night.

The Planning Engineer at the site was duly informed of the breakdown and left his home at about 02:00 AM, got into his overalls and for the next 5 hours was more or less an assistant to the repair technician.

When I arrived on site at 07:00 Hrs, I found the Planning Engineer in a dirty state, for the pulvirised coal fuel is no respecter for overalls and humans.

Gentlemen, I felt pity for my Planning Engineer, for I was asking myself some questions like.

• Was it in an Engineer's best interests to reduce himself to being a technician's assistant, in an effort to show the bosses that he was hands on
  
• If such conduct was not, what should our esteemed Engineer have done. He could either pretend to be a Super Mechanic, which he clearly was not or he could have tried to understand the root of the problem and address it once and for all, by conducting some study and enderstanding the design principles associated with the lance or any other problem causing the problem to occur.
  
• In any event, What is the role of an Engineer in the Plant, for there seems to be a general confusion over what an Engineer does, especially in a Maintenance environment, where little design work goes on.

This was what led to our little intellectual discussionon roles.


Ecky

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

I have been pondering this question internally as well. To the point that I considered recommending to my boss that my title should be changed from reliability engineer to reliability manager...

In our plant, our engineers are expected to be hands on, super eletricians... This is not what I feel I should be doing.

I feel that the role is more (not totally) of one of process implementer and facilitator. In other words, giving the supervisors (operations and maintenance) the tools and training to attain reliability, and managing these. In taking from what I have read on this site (and I appologize if I am paraphrasing someones training product), and what I have experienced, reliability engineers should manage:
Process Controls (cmms, planning and scheduling (in terms of reliability), equipment prioritization, equipment-part relationships, standardization)
Process Performance (PM, PdM, Skills (training), RCM, repair standards (mnx quality assurance), FMEA
Integration(Controls and Performance Integration, best practices, team approach, cost optimization,Continual Improvement )

Note that I said manage RCM, FMEA, PM, PdM, not perform. I think in a nuclear plant these are definitely best left to an engineer, BUT 90% of us don't work in a nuc plant. To effectively attain reliability, each of the actors in our plant need to know how to implement RCM and FMEA. Sure, I facilitate, but I don't have enough time in my day to be at each breakdown (hopefully these will decrease to the point where I can).

Finally, I think the role of the reliability engineer depends on the environment. An RE in a nuc plant is going to have quite a different role from one in a paper mill, in my opinion.

Jack

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jack J,

Jack J

That is exactly the point.

quote:

In our plant, our engineers are expected to be hands on, super eletricians..

At times I feel as if I am a big bad boy taking candy from an innocent 5 year old girl child.

It is true that most of our bosses do get the deer in the headlights look every time we get to talk to them. They know that they need engineers, but to know what they exactly need them for is another thing.

Then we come in and realising that we can talk above their heads, confuse them with bull, everytime we feel that embarassing questions are being asked.

We tell them we need to perform Weibull Analysis, Regression Analysis, Curve fitting or some other technical jargon that gets them off our backs. Alternatively, we tell them about this wonderful new gadget that has been launched on the market that will perform an analysis in so many nanoseconds and help us identify a problem in real time, which gadget we must have, for us to execute our mandate.

We are sent for this and that specialist training and the wonder gadget is bought. But at the end of the unfortunate thing is that the plant continues breaking down and in many instances, actually gets worse, when we introduce untried technologies. at the behest of one or another consultant. We lose face when that happensbut nobody can tackle us, for we have another widget that is a must buy this time or some course that is a must attend.

It was not always like that. There was a time when Engineers did their jobs without much ado.

• What was it these Engineers were doing right?
• Have we reached the summit that we cant rise up any more can only go downhill
• What has happened to that old school of Engineers who did their jobs properly?
• Did they go to the pasture or (God forbid) to their graves with their secrets locked up and hidden to the newer generation.
  

It was a beautiful period when you knew that you could leave home and go to work to earn your keep. As has been alraedy mentioned in another thread perception now is realityBut still, at the end of the day, a man must look at himself in the mirror and state that I earned my keep, not get that hollow feeling that I was able to con my way out for one day, let us see what tommorrow brings.

Rogier's Job Descriptions were of significant help. But again, do the job descritions stand in the place of role descriptions or are they different.

I may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, but do we really deserve our jobs and the perks attached?

Ecky