This question is primarily for RCM facilitators:

RCM generates tasks and frequencies to reduce or elimiate consequences of potential failure modes identified by the RCM team. However, it never fails that as we follow the RCM logic and find that some of our current tasks are not addressing failure modes (and therefore not necessary), someone makes an argument that we must continue our current PM program in full in order to satisfy codes, state/local laws, or manufacturer's warranty.

Does anyone have experience and/or advice in challenging these things?

Thanks,
Shelley

What you are answering is if if the sole, unique, only reason for the existance of PM tasks is to reduce or eliminate failures.

My answer is no. It is the main reason, but not the only one.

Mfg Warranty:
Could we continue working cost-efficiently this equipment without it? Are our confidence in the failure finding, reducing, and eliminating PM tasks enough to just cut tasks required to ensure free support (warranty) of manufacturer not be needed?
If we judge, warranty PM tasks are a waste of time and money then negotiate with mfg to keep warranty active based on the care we provide to the equipment with the RCM developed PM.
Until that negotiation is successfull, the warranty PM tasks must continue.

Laws / Codes:
Same for the PM tasks inserted to comply with state/local laws/codes. Until the law changes, you have to comply or risk to be out of business. Consider it to be part of cost of doing business such as taxes. Could you, or with other industries groups, enginering associations, influence the lawmakers into review the law or code? Until then, while the law exists the PM tasks must continue.

Eugene,
I don't disagree with your statements. However, sometimes the tasks are "recommended" by the manufacturer at certain frequencies which cover the worst case operating environment. The same may also go for code-based requirements or recommendations. Operating contexts vary greatly, so generic maintenance policies don't apply across the board.

At some point, we have to look at risk and cost of performing prescribed work. If the work really doesn't reduce the risk of failure, maybe it shouldn't be done.

By the same token, RCM often finds failure modes and identifies tasks that haven't been addressed previously. So it goes both ways.

Some codes are written establishing minimum requirements to be follow. It is our task to show the regulating agency inspectors that our PM program has better tasks designed and the purposes sought by the code are taked in consideration and complied by the instructions we developed using RCM or other valid method.