Dear All,

Just would like to ask your opinions if operators can be excluded in the RCM Analysis most specially if the operators are nonm-technical (Just here to operate) and most specially is a contractual basis, perhaps a year of work and after that contract ends ?

In Moubray's book RCM, he strongly emphasize the importance of operators since one of the reasons is that they are the best source of failure modes.

My Warm Regards,

Select the members properly I guess. What are the criteria for selection or just anybody can?

Choose group members so that you maximise the knowledge of the equipment in the group. That means including equipment operators. It is amazing what they know (and have never told anyone because they were never asked before).

The last analysis I facilitated included three maintainers and two operators. All three maintainers learned something about the equipment, not just some failure modes they were unaware of but they also gained a much better appreciation of failure effects (from the operators who are there when they happen) and gained an understanding of what the operators actually do all day!

The operators also learned a lot, especially why their equipment won't last forever and why the maintainers must be allowed to shut it down sometimes to maintain it. They now take advantage of their new knowledge to spot and report potential failures that previously went unnoticed.

I always ask for operators in the group. When they are not available they are sorely missed.

It always appears tempting to exclude some group from RCM analyses - there's never enough people / time etc. But (and this is a big but) when it gets to the part of the analysis where you log the effects of each failure mode the operations people know what really happens as opposed to the rest of the team trying to guess.

That's important because when you then go on to evaluate the consequences for each failure mode you need accurate information so that hidden, safety and environmental consequences are identified and dealt with accordingly.

I really believe that the operations people get a lot of knowledge from taking part in RCM and that the process would be less effective or potentially dangerous without their input.

Just my 2 cents worth!

You would really have to question their experience and how much benefit they would add to the RCM, especially if they are only short term employees. I would prefer someone who is long term - perhaps even a supervisor who has been on the line previously - although his knowledge may not be as up to date.

Mike.

I think that the operators are one of if not the most critical parts of the RCM Team. They are the ones who are touching, feeling, seeing, smelling, and hearing the equipment continuously. That is why good technicians generally ask the operator for that kind of information before troubleshooting to get the background on the failure. No matter how good a maintenance tech is they generally have large areas of coverage and lack the intimate knowledge of specific pieces of equipment that operators have due to their focused purpose. This is not meant to take anything away from either trade but to express the importance or criticality of both.

Dear all,

It's a nice site, can I join? Yes, I agree all of the opinions. Operators are the hotest source of information, since they are in "day to day" equipment operation. At least we can use as for cross checking and validating the data of failure modes and others.

Alan Libertus

It is my understanding, a rule of thumb is that a RCM analysis is to be conducted utilizing a multi-functional team. In my mind that includes operators. As mentioned earlier they are in many cases the cause of equipment failures. I.e. not allowing the equipment to be removed from service for maintenance, operating the equipment outside it design parameters. Besides, from my experience they bring to the table a different perspective than that of either the maintenance group or engineering.

At the end of the day, they are one of the stakeholders in the process and you definitely need their buy in to ensure the output from the RCM analysis has any hope of success.


Mike