Steve,

quote:

I am happy to post a proper PMO2000 analysis and discuss that

By all means do that if that pleases you. I suggest you trim it to show the analysis for just one or two items, to limit the scope of our discussions. As you did in your paper, please show your RCM approach to the failure of these items. This will ensure consistency.
As to fairness, I guess from your response that your paper did not present a 'proper' PMO 2000 analysis. I am surprised you wish to convince readers of PMO 2000's superior performance with an example you do not yourself consider a 'proper' analysis.
As to the original paper, I have several other questions I would have liked to ask, but if you wish to drop it, so be it.

Vee,
Please dont infer that my advertising is misleading before you have completed the analysis.

quote:

What you print in your advertisement brochures is your business. What you publish in the public domain is open to critical analysis.

Can you publish where you think my advertising is misleading and we can openly and publicly debate the issue.

Steve,

quote:

Please dont infer that my advertising is misleading

I do not infer any such meaning . I make the distinction between what is open to challenge and what is not. Your adding words like 'misleading' does not help meaningful discussion, IMHO. Earlier you added the word 'important' to an N&H statement, and using your own addition, went 'Wow' over an alleged insight. At that time you explained that addition as one relating to your knowledge of English. In my view you distorted N&H's meaning completely and are attempting to do so again with your latest addition.

quote:

Could it be that PMO 2000 did not actually consider these failure modes because they were not obvious at the time you wrote the paper?

No Vee,
When I wrote the paper I used this example to illustrate something completely different to what you are trying to explain.
If you want to discuss the failure modes that become part of the analysis, please use the section of the paper with the heading "Methodological differences between RCM and PMO" diagram provided on page 21 that illustrates the point.

quote:

I am surprised you wish to convince readers of PMO 2000's superior performance with an example you do not yourself consider a 'proper' analysis.

Vee, you wrote a whole book on risk and reliability strategies and discussed many techniques. In your book there is not one worked example yet you are surprised my short paper has none??? This statement lacks consistency.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Steve Turner,

quote:

Cost IS a Consequence All consequences do not result in (measurable) cost, but every cost is a consequence. Earlier you said that "Consequence by definition is loss of function" and after some discussion agreed you were mistaken. Now you have a new twist, implying that Cost is NOT a Consequence ! In an earlier post you alleged that in my (Vee's) thinking, "function was the center of the Universe". You also said that "We (i.e. PMO 2000) look at equipment, failure modes, and failure consequence." I am not sure what exactly you understand by the term 'Consequence'. Clearly it means something different from my understanding, since cost, from your perspective, is NOT a consequence.

Vee,
I don't accept I have been mistaken.
You seem to be a master and putting up unrelated arguments, force me into a yes no question on these, which I agree with and then claim, because I agree with your unrelated argument, I admit I was wrong.
Let me get back to my original statement which has been hijacked into something else – as well as the “killing people, ruin the environment” scaremongering.
My point is this:
RCM starts with a functional analysis. Functional analysis is the nucleus of RCM because from function, RCM derives Functional Failures and then its Failure Modes.
Understanding function has a very important role in an RCM analysis - for two reasons,
- one of them being RCM needs a starting point, and
- the other being it sets the performance measures or standards to which maintenance needs to preserve.
PMO2000 does not start with a detailed functional analysis. When we run a workshop, we always draw a schematic of the equipment on the white board and discuss the functions, operating context, failure characteristics etc etc. Some groups record this as it sets the basic framework. Documented functional analysis is optional in PMO2000.
I make the point that PMO2000 documents consequence, which can not be documented without knowledge of function. In this discussion I said consequence is loss of function. Perhaps I could have been more precise and said consequence is what happens when we have loss of function.
I did not say anything about minimizing consequence. You brought that into the argument. And I have to say that maintenance is certainly not about minimising consequence, it is about managing the plant in the most cost effective way. Sometimes we take a more expensive maintenance approach because it gives us more revenue.
For the record Vee, Nowhere did I say cost is not a consequence

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Steve Turner,

Steve,

quote:

Vee, you wrote a whole book on risk and reliability strategies and discussed many techniques. In your book there is not one worked example

And you kindly reviewed it. The book is on risk management, not just RCM. As to whether there are examples, see e.g., section 9.4, pages 163 to 172. Similarly, from Appendix 3.1, you can see e.g. that in Failure Pattern F, nearly 50% of failures have taken place within 20% of mean life. thereafter the hazard rate is constant (or exponentially distributed, also called 'random' by some people) till the end of chart at week 100. Appendix 3.2 shows the effect of the shape factor on reliability.
Perhaps with these in mind, another reviewer, Andy Hunt says
….. the fact that there are a number of real life examples that make many of your points more relevant to the reader.
My comment on your example, which presumably showcases PMO 2000, shows only a few failure modes, and seems to miss other, more common ones. I am just trying to find out the reasons these are missing.

Vee,
Below is the URL I have created as an example.

http://www.slideshare.net/OMCS...resentationfor-forum

If there are any people still following this discussion, then the paper can be found at the following URL.
http://www.slideshare.net/OMCS...ring-rcm-and-pmo2000

Before people comment on the rights or wrongs, I should put this case study in perspective.
First of all, it has been developed to illustrate the core PMO2000 process. It is not intended to be a solution that is perfect from an engineering perspective. I am an aeronautical engineer and I don't profess to be qualified in other fields of engineering. There is no point in arguing with me if the intervals or task types are right or wrong. I can explain how to derive them but I will not enter into discussion on what I have written. If someone thinks the intervals are wrong, then I am happy to accept their opinion providing their basis aligns with the decision logic of RCM.
I am happy to argue about whether failure modes are hidden or evident or on any points to do with the RCM Process or PMO2000 process.
Secondly, the tasks are not properly written. Our company would not leave an analysis with tasks written in such a brief manner. This case study is not designed to debate or illustrate proper technical writing procedures or writing standards or structures.
If someone says PMO2000 misses maintenance tasks because the PMO2000 process is different to what they believe is better, then they need to prove that If I were facilitating the better process with the same "group" and the same information, then the alternative process would have found the missing task where PMO2000 has failed. The argument that the fin fan should have a task that is not on the list, will not prove any difference between PMO2000 and other processes.
I want to make these points before we get into discussion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Steve Turner,

Vee,
Here is an example that I am happy to discuss with you providing you accept the points I have made on the previous post.
In the interests of being clear about what the discussion is about, can you please list your hypothesis clearly.
Is your hypotheses that "PMO2000 is a risky program because it could miss tasks that should be done and that RCM would not miss them"?
If not, please tell me what it is.

Steve,

quote:

Is your hypotheses that "PMO2000 is a risky program because it could miss tasks that should be done and that RCM would not miss them"?

No, I do not know or understand the PMO 2000 process well enough to have a view on it. My efforts to do so with your earlier example in the paper have been blockaded firmly by your replies to my questions. The lack of openness and clarity raise doubts, but I am quite willing to learn about it.
I do not have a hypothesis and will not have one till I gain an understanding of the subject
If you want a debate, preconditions are not the best way, IMHO, to make it successful. Is that your objective?

Steve,

quote:

The argument that the fin fan should have a task that is not on the list, will not prove any difference between PMO2000 and other processes.

The strength of an analytical process is that it is able to find the relevant facts through its line of questioning. If all we have is a group of technical/ professional experts from the client who tell us what tasks to do and when to do them, we do not need PMO 2000 or RCM. It is not a rubber-stamping process.
To consider a parallel example, we use various processes when doing an RCA. The same raw data and people are available to question. Only the analytical process differs, and occasionally the process provides more effective insights is clearly preferable.
So your argument of total dependance on 'the group' is not valid. If you make a claim, please be prepared to be challenged.
If you provide only the PMO 2000 version, we cannot have a discussion. Please provide your RCM version as well. You have RCM expertise, which is your basis for the claims you make for PMO 2000. Your readers may not know anything about PMO 2000, but perhaps they understand RCM. They can compare your RCM version with their own and then see whether that corresponds to your PMO 2000 analysis.
Claims are to be defended by the one who proclaims them. Those who challenge them have a duty to question and draw conclusions, no more. They have nothing to prove themselves, because they have not made the claims.

Vee,
I am not going to provide an RCM version. I dont have the time and I dont see any need. I have provided a PMO2000 version. I challenge you to tell me where RCM would have come up with a different maintenance program than PMO2000 with the same asset and same information set... if you want to remove the people as a fixed element, that is fine. In most hypothesis testing removing variables makes the test more accurate not less. The same information set will do but we will assume the group can be any group. We are not trying to prove the group matters - we are trying to prove the process matters.

quote:

The strength of an analytical process is that it is able to find the relevant facts through its line of questioning

Take any line of questioning you like. The maintenance program for this asset is thorough and it has been produced using the PMO2000 questioning set. If you are using standard RCM Decision logic, the solution revolves around the failure mode set. This example has listed all the preventable failure modes and hidden failure modes so it will result in the same maintenance program - given the same decision logic.
It has taken a long time, but I think we are close to proving the point that you wont find a maintenance task for this asset that is not been listed - given the design and operating context listed.

quote:

I do not have a hypothesis and will not have one till I gain an understanding of the subject

Vee,
I am very confused about what all this is about.
I wrote a paper. You start suggesting failure modes are not listed in an example designed for another purpose. I provide you an example that is a complete PMO2000 analysis so you can discuss failure modes that are included and ones that are not.
Can you please tell me where my paper is wrong. I say in the paper, PMO2000 will deliver the same maintenance program as RCM - do you agree with that or not? yes / no. If not, why not?
GLT came out and said PMO2000 did not add to the existing maintenance program - well I hope he understands he was incorrect.
I am keen to discuss because I want people to understand what I write or show me where I need to change my thinking.

someone save us.....live and let live, agree to disagree, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!

I think the RCM version of this analysis has already been done right here on this site. Try making comparisons to it...

That copy/paste didn't work so well. Try this. The scenerio is towards the bottom page 1.

http://maintenanceforums.com/e...451/m/9181072733/p/1

Steve,
Vibe-rator is quite right. This debate is a non starter

If you do not provide your RCM analysis, there is no way for others to locate the functions, since the operating context, equipment drawings, performance standards and P&I D's are known only to you. How you expect somebody other than yourself to do so is unclear. Without that we cannot verify whether or not PMO 2000 does what you claim it does, so we are playing Snakes & Ladders here.

It would have been easy enough for you to fill in the missing failure modes in your fan example. But you will not do that either.

If a debate is what you want, you have to reconsider your stand. If you agree with me, please post a new thread. If you do not agree, so be it, I have no further interest in a non-debate.

I have created a new thread for this discussion
http://maintenanceforums.com/e...=460103974#460103974
I will post information needed for Vee to demonstrate RCM - If I do the RCM it might be distorted.

What Vibrator Said

quote:

someone save us.....live and let live, agree to disagree, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!

What Vee reworded this to be

quote:

Vibe-rator is quite right. This debate is a non starter

Vee - you have to stop misquoting me and others - otherwise I will continue to object and this the new thread will become a trash heap of irrelevant dialog.
If you want to discuss what I and others write, please quote it verbatim and than mount your discussion in your own words

Steve,

quote:

Vee - you have to stop misquoting me and others - otherwise I will continue to object

Even you must know I did NOT quote Vibe-Rator at all. I simply said he is right. A quote is usually in quotation marks, or there is a statement that he/she said so, often with a 'quote... unquote'.
I try NOT to misquote you; usually I state my understanding of your statements, which you can always correct.
On the other hand, in quoting N&H, you added a key word into their statement. Then you announced that you have made a great discovery (in the Wow post). You explained this as part of your knowledge of English.
By adding the word, you cleverly converted a simple statement of N&H, which I believe demonstrated their respect for quality and their humility into one that (you allege) showed they did not believe in the validity of RCM.
Of course you conveniently ignored that by doing so you have established some contextual facts that led to N&H's statement:
- There had to be a pre-existing maintenance program, else you can't compare the RCM study with it.
- In order to change the current program to the RCM-based one, you have to do such a comparison, so it is not extra work.
So the 'Aha' point should have been the acceptance that you were completely wrong all along in saying that RCM does not apply to existing operating equipment. Instead you celebrated your 'discovery', one that you created by your own action.