Download the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Scorecard Document from the RCM 2005 Workshop
Preliminary as of 12 January 2005

This information is designed to provide a method for tracking the short and long term results of RCM improvements in a universal and consistent manner.

Anyone who is interested in RCM and especially attendees of RCM-2005 the Reliability Centered Maintenance Managers' Forum are encouraged to download a preliminary version of the RCM Scorecard document for review. By familiarizing yourself with this document in advance, the RCM Scorecard Workshop will be a more much productive event.

Please post any comments with an emphasis on definitions on this message board.

The RCM Scoreacrd is designed to support all RCM derivations and definitions related only to one specific RCM methodology will not be added.

The final RCM Scorecard for 2005 is expected to be posted by April 15, 2005.

We expect to revisit this document often and post new revisions annually.

I hope we see you at RCM-2005 in Clearwater.

Terrence O'Hanlon
Reliabilityweb.com
Tel 239-985-0317 ext 111
email tohanlon@reliabilityweb.com

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Terrence O'Hanlon,

RCM_Scorecard__Frozen_RCM2005_Preliminary_.pdf (112 Kb, 84 downloads) RCM-2005 Scorecard Preliminary Document

If you would like additional information about RCM-2005 Reliability Centered Maintenance Managers' Forum, including the RCM Scorecard Workshop, March 9-11, 2005, please download the RCM-2005 Event Brochure.

Discount Hotel rate ends February 8 so book today!

Call 239-985-0317 for more information or download the RCM-2005 event brochure below.

rcm_2005.pdf (358 Kb, 15 downloads) RCM-2005 Event Brochure

Trouble Downloading the RCM Scorecard

Several people have had trouble downloading the RCM SCorecard from post above so we have provided an alternate link.

RCM Scorecard Download Site (PDF)

Terry,

I have a lot of reservations regarding this document, however I am not going to get into the minutae here. (Or in public for that matter)

My main comments would be the following:

1) Why is there a deliberate attempt to avoid using the definitions within the RCM Standard published by the SAE (SAE JA1011) www.sae.org. Instead or racing off to try to re-invent the wheel? This serves to further cloud an already complex area for most people.

This is the ONLY internationally recognised standard on RCM in the world today and is the point of reference for determining whether a process is or is not RCM.

2) I would not be too hasty to use the term standard in a manner that tries to compare this document with standards produced by standars producing bodies. That term carries legal implications and refers to certain types of documents that have a certain type of authority. (This extends to the legal arena where we should all be aware of the implications on asset management)

Dont mean to be a wet blanket, and I have no doubt the RCM conference will be as succesful as everything else that Reliabilityweb does, however there is a need to err on the side of caution in this area I have found.

Particularly if the goal is to demistify RCM rather than cluttering up the issue further.

Cheers,

Daryl Mather
Author of The Maintenance Scorecard, which contains The RCM Scorecard within the chapter on RCM implementations.

And Everyone!
Lets not any of us get totally tied into the SAE standard (JA1011). It is not the bible for the RCM process but just the only standard published as a reference. It's a standard developed by the automotive industry and there are excellent uses of the RCM process without following every detail.

Terry Harris

Thanks for the comments Daryl.

To my knowledge SAE owns the definitions they use and does not offer them freely to RCM practitioners - they are a product that is for sale and must be purchases.

That said - I am sure the definitions have significant value as does the SAE JA 1011 standard.


SAE and RCM
SAE has no exclusive right to or ownership of RCM as a whole though. They are simply one organization that has put forth the effort to develop an RCM standard (as opposed to THE standard). It provides the world with an opportunity to purchase it and if deemed worthy - to follow it. We could extend a rigorous debate about the sources of the 7 questions in JA 1011 although you and I both know that will not bear fruit. It is an RCM standard that deserves its due as no other non governmental RCM standard exists. As you have reported prior - many companies are finding extraordinary value in using it.

The SAE standard focuses on the process of RCM. The RCM Scorecard we are working on focuses on a results measurement method that is not dependent upon any specific underlying RCM process.

The RCM Scorecard is not being thrust upon anyone nor is it being touted as some sort of SAE JA 1011 replacement. The RCM Scorecard has nothing to do with comparing or defining RCM processes.

Regarding the definitions we are working on that relate to the RCM Scorecard - we cannot lay out a method for establishing metrics without clear definition of the terms that are related.

To conclude - I do not see any conflict between the RCM Scorecard and SAE JA 1011.

We welcome your specific comments and more importantly - we welcome your participation in the finalization of the RCM Scorecard. You might have to take a few days off and fly over the big pond - for your participation would be a welcome event!

Terrence O'Hanlon

Terry,

The RCM Standard is the only internationally recognised standard on RCM. As such areas where there are reference to definitions would be wise to use the common definitions already defined under this standard.

One of the more common complaints of maintainers throughout the world is the lack of standards and the lack of commonality in definitons and references.

Here is one, whay isnt it being referred to in terms of definitions? Particularly as we are not talking about redefing what RCM is or is not, merely using common definitions already established in an internationally accepted document. Rather then re-inventing the wheel.

Seems logical, and the best way to not further cloud an already complex issue.

With regard to the comment "no need to get caught up on detail" the standard is merely a set of criteria. NOT a process. And to be honest it really isnt that detailed. If a process doesnt contain this minimum level of criteria, it isnt RCM.

For example, PMO2000 offered by OMCS from Australia is not RCM, it never claimed to be and is used in different applications.

Doesnt mean it is no good, merely that it isnt RCM.

Daryl Mather
www.strategic-advantages.com

Terry O (Sorry, getting confused with the abundance of terrys here )

YOur comment:
"To my knowledge SAE owns the definitions they use and does not offer them freely to RCM practitioners - they are a product that is for sale and must be purchased"

Answer:
The SAE, as with other standards bodies, do sell standards. However they also allow reference to their materials and they also allow for parts o their material to be reused free of charge at times. I have recently gotten such permisison for some work that I am doing.

Perhaps they should be approached?

YOur comments:

"SAE has no exclusive right to or ownership of RCM as a whole though. They are simply one organization that has put forth the effort to develop an RCM standard (as opposed to THE standard)"

Answer:

No argument here, nobody "owns" RCM and I doubt severely that they would state otherwise. (Thanks to the publication of the NH report without copyright by your Defence department, a valuable contribution to the discipline)

HOWEVER, the fact remains that this is the only internationally accepted standard on what criteria need to be contained within a process in order for it to be called RCM. Nothing else even comes close.

As such it seems logical and sensible that the definitions therein should be used as baselines for any work purporting to add to the RCM method. (As this does, and I am sure it will)

Failure to use these terms and definitions will create an additional source of definitions, not backed by an internationally recognised standard and cloud the waters. This is one of the over riding complaints of practitioners in maintenance the world over, the lack of commonality, and here we are endeavouring to do it again!

Your comments:

"The SAE standard focuses on the process of RCM. The RCM Scorecard we are working on focuses on a results measurement method that is not dependent upon any specific underlying RCM process"

Answer:

I am aware of this, however surely it is being created to measure the benefits etc of RCM correct? As such it applies to RCM processes correct? In any case, the argument here is that the common definitions need to be used, not swathes from the standard itself. This appears to be a logical argument and to be frank I cannot fathom the resistance to do so.

Your comments:

"Regarding the definitions we are working on that relate to the RCM Scorecard - we cannot lay out a method for establishing metrics without clear definition of the terms that are related. "

Answer:

My point exactly. These are already defined and differ from what is being proposed. Why are we clouding the waters on this isue?

I am aware that this is not a competitive document to the standard, it is merely a set of metrics from what I have read currently. But the point remains, why are we not using agreed upon definitions and standards in relation to this issue rather than trying to REMYSTIFY the entire area and turn back the clock?

I would love to come and am disappointed that I can't. However aside from everything else my daughter will be born around that time and the fallout from zipping away to attend this conference could have catastrophic consequences.

Cheers

Daryl Mather
www.strategic-advantages.com

Daryl,

You have the best reason of all for missing RCM-2005! I thought you were an Aussie not Irish (the way the Mather's are multiplying - you'd think you were a branch of the O'Hanlon's)

I am happy for your new addition and I extend the invitation for you to contribute remotely.

Listen - this is not MY RCM Scorecard - it will belong to those who create it and wish to use it. There is no exchange of money for use of the Scorecard and no money motive as you cannot buy any RCM services, consulting or training from us. In fact - we are supporting the development with out of pocket funds.

I know it seems sticky to have RCM Scorecard definitions and then have SAE JA 1011 definitions but we have an opportunity to touch over 50,000 maintenance and reliability professionals with this metric.

SAE is not excluded from this process and we will be able to re-open this document annually to improve it and if the makers decide - align it with SAE definitions.

This is a grass roots effort and we predict it will have a positive impact.

We do not cede authority for RCM definitions to SAE nor do we have any objection to them.

As for re-mystifying the definitions - you basically accept the word must use the SAE standard simply because it is there - and anything that does not match it is a cause of confusion. The truth is that if the standard is so powerful and valuable - it has nothing to fear from our grass roots approach.

I might suggest that SAE have done very little to de-mystify RCM and it definitions. If a tree falls in the forest with no one around - does it make noise? SAE need to reach people to have it definitions even begin to claim de-mystification.

We seek actionable information that is freely accessible to maintenance and reliability professionals from around the world and this is one way we can deliver it.

History will tell which approach bears more fruit.

You sir are a great next-generation contributor to moving the maintenance and reliability profession forward in thought and in practice and I am glad we have your scrutiny as part of this process.

Terry,

First thanks for the comments, I truly appreciate them and am trying to participate in this via email currently.

You are missing my point entirely and I am not an apologist for the SAE by any stretch.

They are not about demystifying anything as I see it, nor are they promoters or any other sort of player in the game. They are an international body that produces internationally recognised standards. These are a hierarchy of documents, specifications, standards etc, that have legal implications as well as representing agreed methods, etc.

Your comments:


"We do not cede authority for RCM definitions to SAE nor do we have any objection to them."

"As for re-mystifying the definitions - you basically accept the word must use the SAE standard simply because it is there - and anything that does not match it is a cause of confusion. The truth is that if the standard is so powerful and valuable - it has nothing to fear from our grass roots approach."

Answer:

It does not matter if you recognise them or not Terry, they are the only definitions in an internationally recognised standard as described above. That is a formal standard recognised under law and so on and so forth. Your willingness to cede authority or not is not the issue. They already have credibility by the fact that they exist. (As goes with any internationally recognised standard)

And as stated previously this is the only recognised international standard on the subject in the world currently, again in line with what was written above. As such the effort to deliberately sideline them and to push ahead with the creation of definitions not in line with a recogniosed international standard serves only to add further definitions to an already crowded field.

Again, the world is after commonality and standard definitions. These exist in a formal standard and they are being ignored. I am baffled as to why, the definitions themselves are not the crux of what you are doing. It is the scorecard itself that is the important issue.

So why such a fuss, and why such a deliberate effort to avoid using them?

I have said my bit on this I feel, you aseked for comments on the definitions, these are my comments. If you are determined to use the popularity of the site to promote an alternative set of definitions, thus re-clouding the issue, then continuing to argue the logic is going to end up driving us both nuts.

As for history being the judge, popularity based on reach does not replace the authority that governments and courts place in standards, of all types, throughout all developed nations. Ignoring it doesnt make it go away...

It is not a matter of who is correct and this is turning into a spitting contest, the important issue is that there are an existing set of definitions with respect to this theme, and the definitions being used in this document are not in agreement with them. Thus further clouding an already complex issue.

So, Im done, last word is yours,

Cheers

Daryl mather
www.strategic-advantages.com

Well stated Daryl.

No argument on the authority and validity of SAE as a standards organization. People interested in RCM should check out the SAE resources and decide if they are useful.

The RCM Scorecard is a grass roots effort and it will have a positive effect on maintenance.

We are not interested in promoting a popularity contest - we are interested in impact and results.

It sounds like you are saying SAE is producing results and that is super. We have not seen much of its impact but we accept it as positive.

I think we are more aligned than it looks like here and time is the real reporter.

Stay tuned (as I am sure you will) and let us have a look at your new books as soon as you can.

Daryl,

One other thought that might provide some insight for the future is that the folks from the Society of Maintenance & Reliability (SMRP) Best Practices committee will be actively participating in the development of the RCM Scorecard.

They are doing this in the context of their own broader project to define maintenance terminology. (Best Practices)

In addition to their input and contribution, we are offering them full access to our work on the RCM Scorecard.

SMRP has recognized the lack of consistent, meaningful and accessible definitions and are taking action. They have made significant progress over the past few years and I see them moving at an even greater pace now that they have momentum.

SMRP may not have the worldwide clout of SAE but in our part of the world - they command a great deal of respect.

We are active supporters of SMRP and the Best Practices Definition project - and we like that this is in the hands of maintenance professionals.

Interested parties should visit www.smrp.org

Terry,

I would give a little more credence internationally to the SMRP than what you are doing.


I believe that what is needed in our discipline is more standards. Possibly some of the best practices could be funnelled down into this route sooner or later. Or possibly the SMRP could even look into it themselves. (I have no idea what that would take)

Daryl Mather
www.strategic-advantages.com

Daryl -

I simply mean that SMRP has not reached the stature of SAE in terms of recognition. We will get there in time.

I am an active supported and actually perform a good amount work for SMRP to make forward progress.

Concerning the availability of internationally accepted standards, there is an RCM standard available from the IEC. The IEC technical committee on dependability (TC56) has responsibility for the international community to develop standards for mechanical and electrical equipment. The standard is: Dependability Management – Part 3-11 Application Guide – Reliability centred maintenance (RCM) IEC 60300-3-11 (1999) is available in a bilingual edition. It is available on line from www.iec.ch.
Ken Culverson

ken,

Thanks for the information. THis standard is not acutually an RCM standard as such, rather a guide to developing initial preventive maintenance routines using RCM principles.

The difference being that this guide does not define what RCM is, or is not. Rather it is one of the many "how to" guides that are around.

I have yet to read it in full but this is what I gleaned from it a while ago.

Regards

Daryl Mather
www.strategic-advantages.com

For Total cost of maintenance, does it include plant turnaround cost? Second question is that It is expected that as PM cost increase, the CM cost is expected to decrease with time/years (X axis). Therefore, where the PM cost line meets the CM cost, the meeting point gives the minimum total maintenance cost (on the Y axis) where the PM cost equals CM cost ie a split of 50% PM & 50% CM. However, it is known that many people are aiming for a split of around 75%PM & 25%CM to give an optimum uptime due to high RAM and therefore the optimum uptime is NOT achieved by operating the minimum total maint cost. My personal question is that how true is this scenario, let say in a oil & gas industry? Anybody have plotted an actual graph (not typical)showing the relationship between:
1) PM cost and CM cost versus time in years
2) total maint cost versus uptime? TQ

Dear Josh,

I personally went through a number of scenarios like this over the past few years. And YES, there is a lot of accepted thought on this issue. As you say there is the belief that there is an accepted level of CM for an accepted level of PM etc. (THis is also true for the graph that is often used for risk and cost)

However I personally believe this graph to be absolutely misleading when discussing maitnenance improvement. This is one of the many reasons why performance measurement alone is a very weak indicator of RCM efforts.

One of the things that RCM will achieve is an increase in cost effectiveness. This is a focus on uniot costs rather than direct costs of asset management. The ultimate result in this area is dependant on two key issues:

1) The configuration of the plant or physical assets that are being analysed, and
2) The level of risk that your plant is willing to tolerate.

If you are familiar with the RCM decision diagram, a working example can be found in diagram 16 or 17 of the guide to the standard SAE JA1012, then you will note the following:

At all times the first question revolves around "tolerable risk" that is to sday, does this failure, in your organization, represent a level of risk that your people find to be intolerable.

Secondly, on the economic sides of the decision diagram, there is a focus on "the total costs of maintennace over time." This does include downtime and is a comparative calculation between the costs of downtime and the costs of maintenance.

Therefore, costs aside, the ultimate result in terms of the PM / CM split will be almost entirely driven by the configuration of your plant and by the consequences of failure of each one of the failure modes that are analysed.

A plant with a lot of redundancy may find that there are a lot of items that are left as "run to fail" thus creating corrective work. A plant with high potential risks associated with each failure may find that there is a higher than normal percentage of PM / Routine maintenance that is required.

It is situational and there are almost no two RCM analyses in the world that will come out with the exact same result.

It is early in the morning here and I have written more than I intended to, so if this is not an easy one tounderstand let me know and I can go into it in further detail.

Cheers

Daryl Mather
www.strategic-advantages.com

Dear Daryl

Do you have any graphs showing the relationship between total maint cost versus plant uptime? Appreciate if could share the info and your valuable experience. TQ

Dear Josh,

I do have some, however this is REALLY not a good time for me at the moment, so if you can wait a week I will get them together for you. (All names will be changed to protect the innocent of course)

What I can tell you is the following:

In a transport operation the total cost of maintenance (routine and planed corrective) rose while the level of uptime rose

In a utility operation the total cost of maintenance (routine and planed corrective) declined sharply while the level of uptime rose

In a different utility the total cost of maintenance (routine and planed corrective) reduced while uptime stayed relatively the same.

As stated in the previous posting, it all depends on the configuration of the plant equipment, as well as the point where we started at.

Cheers

Daryl Mather
www.strategic-advantages.com