We had about 180 people participated at RCM 2005 the Reliability Centered Maintenance Managers' Forum in Clearwater March 9.

This event, as the name implies was 100% focused on the process of Reliability Centered Maintenance.

The general lessons I learned over the course of 12 case studies were that:

• A little RCM is better than no RCM
  
• The RCM Process you select is not as important as ensuring your site is ready for RCM
  
• RCM often fails to get implemented even after a successful analysis
  
• It is OK to blend different RCM derivations based a your own decision criteria
  
• Leadership and strong management commitment are required
  
• The payback from successful RCM is 10:1 to 15:1
  
• Find a qualified RCM consultant to get you started - once you master RCM facilitation - you can run your own RCM
  
• Implementing RCM requires a different talent and skill set than running a maintenance program based on RCM
  

I hope others who were in attendance will comment on lessons they learned.

Thanks again to all the presenters.

Terrence O'Hanlon, CMRP

Terrence,

Great conference! I agree with your conclusions about RCM. There are numerous ways to achieve equipment reliability. The biggest obstacle in my opinion, is getting the "decision makers" to understand what they're making decisions on. The way most organizations operate is to have operation managers making decisions that dictate maintenance actions(or lack of). Eventually the maintenance actions will start dictating operation schedules, because the equipment won't be running when they want it to. The "M" in "RCM" stands for "maintenance". That fact automatically causes a lot of operations people to ignore it. Maybe we should call it "RCO". "Reliability Centered Operation". (That's all we need, another acronym.) After all, our pursuit is not to perform maintenance, it's to ensure optimal operation. At the conference, I found out about many good RCM processes that can help in that pursuit.

Appreciate if could elaborate on why "implementing RCM requires a different talent and skill set than running a maintenance program based on RCM"? I'm a bit puzzled by this statement. And I'm about to start an RCM based on FMEA & operator-based basic equipment care. TQ

The skill set required for performing the initial RCM analysis and getting it applied (that is what I am calling implementation) is different than the skill set required to perform the tasks as defined by the initial RCM analysis.

Performing and RCM analysis and performing the tasks that results from the RCM analysis are different.

Does that make sense?

Terry O

Ok certainly performing the RCM analysis is a different activity than carrying out the tasks from the RCM. However, I believe the RCM team members should be leading and implementing the action items that their analysis recommends for ownership purposes. TQ

RCM is so great idea for modern industry maintenance.I am so regret that i can't attending it to learning more knowledge about it!

If there have some documents for us to share the forum.
When i am in university my paper subject is RCM,about on china state owned chemical plant,and we caculate the MTBF and give some suggestion to plant maintenance to do the preventive manitenance work.But now i thing it is so simple not professional.

Wish in future we can communicate the idea how to excute the RCM in chemical plant.

best regards!

ramon

Ramon,

We are pleased that you are a member of this forum and are willing to share your information.

Most members of this forum are all glad to learn more from your experience.

I suggest that you post your report so we can all learn more about RCM.

Thanks again for being part of this community.

Terry O

PS: I hope to visit China in 2006 for the maintenance conference there.

RCM2005 gave me freshment and encouragement for maintenance strategy which I don't think much more before.

Now RCM2005 ignited for me to start RCM in POSCO where one time it failed to perform RCM.

Actually , someone in POSCO still have strong resistance about RCM here because of time-consuming process and fixed idea that must follow a standard RCM whatever we sacrifice(my extremely expression).

In their opinion, my simple and light modified RCM analysis process is not proper and effectiveness.

Gentlemen !
Would you tell me what is so called RCM analysis requirement requirement bottomline.

I am afraid that there is not contactable RCM facilitator in Korea as far as I know.

My point about succesful RCM is feasibility in short term and consensus among administration who support ,staff who plan and fieldman who do a task.

As Terrence said,
That's good definition about "implementation" RCM analysis .

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

Thank you for your kind words.

I wish you very good luck with your RCM project.

I will see if I can find an RCM project consultant who works in Korea.

I hope to visit Korea in October so perhaps we can meet in person then.

Terry O

Hi Daeilkim,
Now i have the some issue with you. In my company we have one CMMS MP2,in this system we do the PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE work ,and we also have RCA procedure.So i think first we must have one very good PM system and then adding the RCA to constructure one FT(Failure Tree).That to find the failure reasone and do the spare parts or inventory plan.
In MP2 system we have the idea when we input the equipment number that is ET(Equipment Tree),that mean we break down the key equipment into two layouts(Location)and detailed recorded in system.
In addtion we also make one SD(shut down) record system to analysis the MTBF ,do RCA.If we get the MTBF ifnormatiom for one components we can optimize the PM interval.

Just share with U!



ramon

Daeilkim:

I tried to contact you by responding to your email. You requested information on FMEA but the email address bounced.

The document: MIL-STD-1629A "Procedure for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis" can be downloaded from http://www.motordiagnostics.com/presentations.htm.

I also posted MIL-HDBK-2173 "Reliability-Centered Maintenance Requirements for Naval Aircraft, Weapons Systems and Support Equipment." It provides detailed information on how to perform a Classical RCM process that you might find interesting.

Howard

Dear Terrence and all RCM pros, How do you come up with this statement ie "The payback from successful RCM is 10:1 to 15:1". Appreciate if you could publish the whole data to the forum, from which I guess you have concluded the above statement. Also why "A little RCM is better than no RCM"? TQ

Josh:

Relating to the 'A little RCM is better than no RCM.'

I advise a PhD student who is working on the RCM analysis then redesign of an in-line electrical heart pump. By performing a very intense RCM, requiring some months of research, we were able to identify the weaknesses inherent in the design. We are presently performing studies on how to optimize the life of the heart pump from 2 years to 10 years. In that case, the amount of time and effort into the analysis makes sense. (ref: "An Initial Investigation of Insulation Failure Effects On LVAD Performance," Accepted and to be presented in September at the IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference).

In another case, I had to review the condition of rotating machinery life, in a mine, that was 5-8 years average MTBF and provide recommendations to increase the average machine life to 20 years. Limited budget. The basic rules of RCM provided one of the tools that were used to make recommendations on the existing MR&E program to achieve this goal within budget.

In other cases, I may utilize a 'Backfit' RCM process to evaluate the effectiveness of a maintenance program. In others, I have to utilize a full Classical RCM process.

In each case, the effectiveness of the program, utilizing RCM as a tool, and to provide rules of evidence, the extent relies upon the will of management to put teeth behind the program and the will of the participants to take part.

I think, based upon my experience, that you will find that even just following the rules and structure that RCM provides will provide an appreciable benefit. If your company has the will to apply the findings and recommendations.

Thank you very much.
I will download from there.

Anyway, email bounced? I will check that.
daeilkim@posco.co.kr

quote:

Originally posted by MotorDoc:
Daeilkim:

I tried to contact you by responding to your email. You requested information on FMEA but the email address bounced.

The document: MIL-STD-1629A "Procedure for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis" can be downloaded from http://www.motordiagnostics.com/presentations.htm.

I also posted MIL-HDBK-2173 "Reliability-Centered Maintenance Requirements for Naval Aircraft, Weapons Systems and Support Equipment." It provides detailed information on how to perform a Classical RCM process that you might find interesting.

Howard

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
Ok certainly performing the RCM analysis is a different activity than carrying out the tasks from the RCM. However, I believe the RCM team members should be leading and implementing the action items that their analysis recommends for ownership purposes. TQ

Dear Josh,

Any implementation process needs certain specialized skills. These include skills in, for example,
- change management
- project management
- communication
- marketing
- presentation

Doing RCM analysis needs knowledge/skills in e.g.,
- operations
- maintenance
- RCM process
- team work
- ability to challenge status quo

There are some areas of overlap, but, as you can see from the above, implementation needs other skills than analysis.

I was hoping to meet you in KL; my loss.

V.Narayan.

-

Dear Vee, sorry my schedule did not permit to go to the capital that time, however I'm in KL so I can easily meet any coming professionals.

Thanks for the clear differentiation between doing RCM vs implememting it. Judging from it and your other posts, you are a great and patient guru (teacher)! Guess what now I'm responsible to implement the RCM results after project team's handover.

Anyway, I'm really interested to see tabulated data to support the conclusion that "The payback from successful RCM is 10:1 to 15:1". Pls delete any reference to actual organizations for confidentiality purposes. I hope with this data, it would be easier to convince people to properly carry out RCM tasks. TQ

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

Dear Josh,

In John Moubray's book on page 320, he states that the there was a 50% reduction in the requirements of spare engines, each costing over $1,000,000; in the Boeing 747 case, the effort for structural inspection post RCM was 66,000 hours, compared with 4,000,000 hours for a less complex DC 8.

In my experience, RCM expenditure of about 10,000 enabled a cost reduction of about 90,000 in one case and about 250,000 in another. It all depends on the starting point, how good are you at present?

But cost reductions are NOT the real issue. It is the improvements in reliability that really matter. First, the Technical Integrity of your Plant goes up; that means reduced Safety and Environmental incidents and of much lower severity. Second, the Plant availability goes up, so you can turn out more products of a more consistent quality. That mean more revenue, which is where RCM relaly makes a difference. Improvements of 1-3% in Availability are normally achievable, which can mean huge increases in income. This is where the real benefits are, and accounts for the 30:1 or higher ratios.

Technical Integrity is hard to evaluate. How do you price a safety event that was avoided? RCM enables you to work safely, and your reputation and image are preserved. What is the value of that?

If your Management insists exclusively on hard numbers, you are fighting a losing battle. They will always find a hole in your argument, e.g., we are not the Airline Industry, it may work in the USA or UK but not in Malaysia etc. Other peoples results dont impress me etc.

You have your work cut out. Good luck.

V.Narayan.

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

TQVM Vee for the info. However, this kind of info on quantitive payback from RCM is spotty (here and there). It's a bit risky to quote this kind of info as an example for presentation. Have anybody like SMRP compiled all the data and tabulated them? TQ

Vee I fully agree with your statement of Management insisting on hard numbers, these is a typical beancounters (accountants) mentality.

Some years ago we started with an initiative to perform steamtrap surveys on a regular basis with ultrasound. To justify the equipment I just used data from the DOE, made some average numbers of repair costs and did a little financial analysis.

Some time ago a financial guy asked how much we $$$ saved with the implementation of the project. My answer: I don't know, nor care, but I do know that the steam distribution is no maintenance/operations headache anymore.

If I had to quantify in $$ the time spend to push the project, motivate people, go in the field, explain the working of steamtrap and how to isolate a tracer around a faulty transmitter, ... and look at my salary.

At the end of the day THEY will miracoulously the burn the money you have saved.