What's your idea of involvement of the facilitator in contributing to a RCM study he facilitates?

Should the facilitator suggest/add Functions /FF /FM and failure effect etc. himself if he has the technical knowledge?

Regards,

Rogier

Good question!

I think that the facilitator does have an obligation to ask the right questions of the team so that failure modes / effects get included. For functions the role is really to ask the right questions and then interpret what the team comes up with. - this usually involves turning it into a succinctly written function and making sure that performance standards are agreed and included.

'Cleaning up' the analysis at the end of each day usually involves some re-writing / editing so from that standpoint there are usually some changes initiated but any fundamental changes to the analysis have to be reviewed by the team at their next meeting to be sure that the changes reflect reality.

In the end, if the facilitator has technical knowledge and rather than placing things into the analysis him/herself they ask questions like "Have you thought about failures of the impeller?" they will often be invited to share their experience.

It's a fine line - the last thing you need to hear as a facilitator is that the team doesn't feel they need to be there if so many decisions are taken out of their hands.

The good news is that finding this balance gets easier with experience. Once a facilitator becomes fluent with the RCM process, it becomes much more centered on the soft skills / people business.

In my opinion that's why it is almost impossible to simply read a book on RCM and then lead a team through a successful analysis.

Hope that helps.

The facilitator should have done RCM before.

One of the most important skills for the facilitator is to be able to set the analysis at the right level and set boundaries.
A wrongly defined analysis can cause all sorts of problems.
The facilitator needs to be able to look at the broader details and make sure the analysis is going in the right direction and within time frames - keep the pace moving.

And as delboy said be a manager of personalities and a "harmoniser" where neccessary. There will always be elements of contention.

Mike.

We recently went through a RCM assessment process with a facilitator that was; 1) not well versed with the RCM software they were using, 2) was new to facilitation and 3) did not meet our expectation in providing the level of service we expected.

In my mind the RCM study facilitator should be experienced, technically knowledgeable and suggest to his client the path that should be pursued.

In our particular case, for the most part the personnel that participated in the RCM assessment RCM was new to them. Their history or experience was with an organization that was in a "Firefighting Mode" and did not have the concept or expectation what a RCM maintenance regime should look like, let alone understand how it should operate.

As Mike66 indicated, a wrongly defined analysis can cause all sorts of problems. As he indicated, the facilitator needs to set the tone of the study, establish the boundaries and provide guidance to the participants doing the study. The facilitator is also there to ensure the group does not begin chasing ghosts or go down any rabbit holes. That only slows down the process and provides no return on investment.

Oh, we have learned our lesson and are currently re-doing the RCM analysis. All of the participants of the study have been training in RCM methodology and strategies.

Mike

Mviz - I suggest thats a common pitfall amongst those attempting an RCM programme in their environment.
The people involved need to be "inducted" into RCM - how it works, the benefits etc so they know themselves what to expect and how we get there - leaving it all up to the RCM fadilitator on the day is a recipe for disaster for the poor RCM chap.
I think what you are doing now is starting off on the right foot - well done.

I also think there is a fine boundary between an RCM facilitators knowlege of RCM methodology - the how it works - and what he should know about the plant the team are analysing.

Some RCM facilitators can become the team if they know too much. I think it is better for them to have an overall understanding of the plant and how it works but the more important attribute is to be a question asker and enjoy learning about new things - in other words have a keen technical mind able to absorb and understand.

Mike.

Some excellent insights into RCM facilitation in this thread!

One of the most challenging things for a facilitator is having deep knowledge of the system being analyzed. It can be very difficult to tread the line between facilitating the RCM process (which is what they are supposed to be doing) and allowing their own bias to unduly influence the outcome of the analysis. It's a common mistake to assume that the facilitator needs to have deep knowledge of the system - in reality it can make it much harder and distract the facilitator from their job.

Absolutely agree with Mike66 - they need to lead the analysis process but not lose focus on the RCM process by getting emotionally involved with the team - it's a balancing act!

I'd have to say that there is no substitute for good facilitator training and then being allowed to get in there and apply it quickly and regularly to build experience and confidence.

Best wishes to all for the holiday season,

Delboy

Thanks for all the good response.

Rogier