Dear Vee & Canpeng, to continue the discussion from the post on rcm for forklifts.

How to ensure that the quality of the rcm results are proper and no major variations?

P/s After reading the NH's rcm report, I'm more for rcm now (after being told it stands for resource consuming monster). Thanks to MotorDoc for the NH's report, Reliabilityweb/Terry O and Vee & DM for answering my questions.

The consistency in RCM applications is wholly dependant on the RCM Analysts skills and abilities.

The logic contained within the system itself is definitely part of the consistency of results equation, but so too is how it is applied.

The RCM ANalyst needs to be very highly trained in the areas of Reliability centered maintenance and needs to be able to perform the facilitated meetings, targetted interviews, one-on-one and one-on-many discussion meetings as well as guiding all those involved towards the correct use of the methodology in general.

Some common errors to watch out for, more often than not by people who don't understand correctly the method:

• Starting too high and making the whole thing superfluous and not effective
  
• Starting at equipment level, (a novice error to be frank) and this creating a whole range of problems within the eventual analyses
  
• Not developing the functions correctly, similar for the remainder of the method
  
• Targetting only assets where there are economic benefits and not getting the full impact from RCM as a strategic initiative
  
• Thinking that task reductions can easily be applied accross the board without the full understanding that RCM outputs will provide the minimum level of activity for a given level of performance and risk. (Taking into account other unique issues such as op context, asset configuration etc)
  
• Incorrect use and development of templates
  

JUst some of the potential failure points to watch out for. The RCM Analyst will be able to deliver consistent results on any and all equipment as long as they have access to the experts on that equipment and those that best understand its operating context.

Have attached the article "The Age of the RCM Analyst" again for your information. Some of these issues are alluded to in this document.

This method is now becoming the default method for implementing RCM throughout a range of companies and industries in Europe, the Americas and the USA in particular. Am happy to provide a track record statement off-line is required.

Age_of_the_RCM_Analyst.pdf (279 Kb, 25 downloads) The Age of the RCM Analyst

hello everybody. i'm currently doing the RCM implementation for gas compression system. anyone would like to share your idea or experience about gascomp.

Busker:

Might be a good idea to ask your question as the start of a new thread. That way it attracts more attention.

Howard

Josh:

I have found that it is a good idea to have a facilitator with some experience in the actual systems being evaluated. I have observed several instances where facilitators without experience in the system have been misdirected. So, if you are working with industrial systems, ensure that the facilitator has experience with those systems.

So far as consistency: 1) Keep good records as to why each decision was made; 2) Ensure that the teams are set up correctly; and, 3) Periodically review the process through a Backfit-type process for continuous improvement.

Sincerely,
Howard

Howard,

I would only reply that a facilitator is part of the "old" way of performing RCM and is not physically possible in many companies today. Particularly given the effects of rationalization during the late 80's and 90's.

I believe sincerely that the RCM Analyst method is the only way forward for RCM into the 21st century.

You know yourself that the facilitated method has a lot of failings such as:

• Not all the resources you need are available for the time it takes to do a rigorous analysis
  
  
• Even when you do get the resources you asked for there is no guarantee that they will have the full level of knowledge needed to do the job right
  
  
• Even with the right level of team members there is no way that all of them are being utilised to their full capacity when working through the analysis itself.
  

Towards 197 I personally started to have some issues in getting reources released for analyses. By the beginning of the 21st century this had become downright impossib le in many instances. It is for this reason principally that we began with the RCM Analyst method.

If RCM is going to continue to be one of the central planks of modern asset management, as I think we agree it should be, then there is a need to change dramatically the way it is implemented.

One of the key failings of the facilitated teams method is that it has led to a growth in the number of streamlined methods, with all of the inherent dangers and lack of benefit reaslisation that involves. (Aside from the fact that there are now a number of people trying to claim anything with an FMEA in it is RCM)

I believe that the focus needed to be on the method of implementation, rather than cutting down the method itself.

My 2 c worth, very much a tangent sorry bout that.