Determining the return on investment from Reliability-centered maintenance is often a difficult thing to do. We so often get caught up in some of the myths out there on RCM that it is easy to lose sight of the fact that it remains the leading maintenance strategy development methodology in the world today.

Moubray, in his book RCM2, referred to the ability of RCM to get a reduction of between 20% and 70% of routine maintenance where there is an existing maintenance schedule in place. He stated this as a tangible benefit from RCM.

This immediately challenges one of the myths of RCM that we have tackled earlier in this Blog. That RCM should only be applied to critical assets. If we do not apply RCM widely, then we are not likely to get the full reduction in routine maintenance across the entire asset base.

There are always additional and intangible benefits such as the reduction of safety risk, or the reduction of risk to the environmental integrity of the assets. But there are also some more dramatic and tangible benefits available from most RCM implementations.

Have a look at the image below. This comes from the website of the Royal Australian navy and it details the benefits they have achieved from applying SAE compliant RCM throughout sections of their fleet.

In the second column, “% Reduction in PM Hours” we see immediate support for the statements Moubray continually made regarding RCM and its ability to reduce routine maintenance content and workload.

With extremes at 2% reduction up to 75% reduction there is no doubt that this alone would probably have provided the required ROI for implementation of RCM. But look at the third column, “% Reduction in Through Life Support Costs”.

With whole-of-life cost reductions ranging from 6-40% for target indicating radar, through to a gigantic 75% savings on sewerage systems, this project has at least returned a healthy benefit to the RAN.

What is not mentioned here, because it is not a profit generating enterprise, is the advantages gained through increasing the uptime and availability of the physical assets. Even though the benefits case mentioned here is impressive, it pales in comparison to the amount of additional value than can be generated through enabling a company to produce and sell more products.

Through the elimination of process losses we are able to achieve to dramatic changes in operating statistics. First, we can make the Best Achievable Rate possible throughout the entire Uptime periods, meaning that we can maximize the utilization, wiping out issues such as poor quality and partial shutdowns. Then we can drive to make sure that our Uptime is equal or close to our Planned Capacity.

Case studies like this, and others that are now out there in the public domain, only add to RCM continuing in its role as the central plank for Modern Asset Management programs throughout all asset-intensive industries.

For those of you involved in the field of Reliability-centered Maintenance you will no doubt be familiar with the publication in 1999 of the RCM standard by the SAE.

The Standard is part of the ongoing evolution of the asset management discipline and provides asset managers and maintainers throughout the world with an instrument, created by an internationally recognized standards producing body that can be used to determine what Reliability-Centered Maintenance is and what it is not.

This capability is as important today as it was when the standard was originally produced in 1999.

For those of you unfamiliar with the RCM standard it does not provide companies with a process to follow, what it provides is a set of minimum criteria that must be followed in order for a process to be labeled as RCM.

So it is able to be implemented in any fashion that is required, and with any number of resources that are required. It is a common falsehood to state that standard compliant RCM is resource intensive to implement. Implementation is not even covered within the standard!!

This is just one of the many untruths that are expounded by those with commercial interests in the standard not being adopted. Fortunately for physical asset managers the world over these companies are few and far between these days.

Since the Nowlan & Heap report was published, a great many processes have emerged that claim to be RCM. Many of them bear little or no resemblance to the process described by Nowlan & Heap. This became a cause of grave concern to many organizations. In particular, the US Naval Air Command (Navair), which was one of the sponsors of the original N&H report, found that some vendors were using all sorts of weird and wonderful processes which they described as "RCM" to develop maintenance programs for equipment that they were selling to Navair. (The history of RCM in the US military has been ably described by Dana Netherton, chairman of the SAE RCM committee, in articles that appeared in maintenance journals in Australia, the USA and the UK.)

Although the RCM standard has been widely adopted in the USA and Europe, there are still companies, consultancies and software vendors that continue to label their products and services RCM even though it is not true to either the intentions or the practices outlined within the original RCM report.

In practice this often means that maintenance strategy formulation methods are being sold as RCM when they may produce results that are at times counterproductive, at times even dangerous, and nothing to do with reliability centered maintenance at all.

This is obviously not in the best interests of the companies purchasing such software and services, it is not in the best interests of the professionals faithfully being trained in such processes, and it is not in the best interests of the discipline of asset management as a whole.

For any of you out there actively involved in purchasing, implementing, or working with RCM software, services or other products I urge you to review a copy of the standard and the guide (available at http://www.sae.org/), study it, and then apply it to your processes in place.

These are some common deviations that I have witnessed first hand over the past ten years or so, and often sound the alarm that things are not as they should be for me personally anyway. I hope they are of use to you:

• Is the operating Context Defined?
• All primary / Secondary functions defined?
• Writing of Function Statements correct?
• Performance Standard defined?
• All functional failure defined?
• Separate Hidden from Evident?
• All scheduled tasks comply with technical feasibility and worth doing criteria?
• All formulae logically robust and available for approval?
• Detective maintenance tasks (For hidden failures) take into account the need to reduce the probability of the multiple failure of the associated protected system to a level that is tolerable to the owner or user of the asset?

RCM remains the best form to develop the minimum levels of maintenance for a given level of performance and risk. There are many strategy formulation methods that often take a long way around trying to do similar, but to date none that I have seen is able to be compared to RCM for speed of implementation, rigorousness of approach and the best management of risk and cost effectiveness.

If your company wants to get the benefits of RCM, and you believe you have bought a system or process to do so, then I suggest that you check whether or not it really is RCM. (Or better yet stipulate it within the RFP when it goes out)

All the best,

This posting continues the 10 part series on the 9 deadly Myths of RCM. Continuing to question commonly held beliefs throughout the maintenance engineering community regarding the application, implementation and evergreen processes involved in managing physical assets. Next Posting - Myth 5: RCM is Qualitative not Quantitative.

One of the first things taught by RCM practitioners in training courses around the world is the nature of failure, and the assignment of routine maintenance tasks. From the original RCM report we are provided with four basic routine maintenance tasks.

• Predictive Maintenance (PTIVE) – A task aimed at detecting the onset of failure or the potential failure. Often referred to as CBM or On-condition Maintenance the goal is to ensure that the occurrence of failure modes that have undesirable consequences are predicted so that they can be mitigated through planned activities. Within RCM PTIVE tasks are the preferred option.
• Preventive Restoration (PRES) – A task to restore a machines original resistance to failure based on some measure of hard time. (Such as calendar hours, hours run, or liters pumped for example) This task is generally applied to failure modes that can be restored without the need to replace the asset. Examples in this area include; re-machining, cleaning, flushing, sharpening, re-positioning, tightening and adjusting. Often PRES task can include calibration where this is done on a hard time basis. Within RCM PRES tasks are the second preferred option.
• Preventive Replacement (PREP) – A task to replace a physical asset in order to restore its resistance to failure. As with PRES tasks these are also hard time tasks. Common examples of PREP tasks include greasing bearings, changing oil filters and oil (if done on a time basis), and routine light bulb replacement (often but not always). Of the standard routine tasks PREP is the least preferred within an RCM framework.
• Detective Maintenance (DTIVE) – These are tasks that are done to detect whether an item has already failed so that action can be taken. These tasks are only used with items that have hidden functions. For example with protective devices such as circuit breakers, stand by pumps, lanyard switches on conveyor systems and High-high level switches. DTIVE tasks are only used within the four categories on the Hidden side of the RCM decision diagram and are not referred to in the four categories on the evident side at all. DTIVE tasks include proof testing of critical instrumentation and the occasional running of stand by pumps. Although often associated with safety related failures this is not always the case. Within RCM it provides the last line of defense for routine maintenance when a failure mode cannot be predicted or prevented.

The four routine tasks within RCM are generally well known and most of us with any exposure to this area of activity will have at least some understanding of them. This does leave out age exploration as this is a task aimed at increasing our level of knowledge rather than predicting, preventing or detecting a failure. It is relevant in terms of failure management policies but only so that we can decide the frequency of one of the tasks above.

But how does this help us when we start to look at whole-of-life asset management?

RCM provides the framework to define not only the 4 routine tasks, but also to define the three additional corrective tasks and calculate their expected frequencies.

For example, in a predictive maintenance task the PTIVE task is the task that we are applying at a given frequency in order to detect he onset of failure. However, there is also a corrective task. Once we have predicted that a component or asset is going to fail we need to plan, resource and execute a task to correct this situation. This is called the Predicted Task or PTED. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1 - Tasks Involved in Predictive Maintenance

Within the hard time tasks there is only one task, that of Preventive Restoration (PRES) or that of Preventive replacement (PREP). However, in Detective Maintenance tasks (DTIVE) there are also corrective actions. Once we have determined that a detective maintenance task is required, RCM enables us to derive a frequency based on managing the risk of a multiple failure to a tolerable level. The Detective task (DTIVE) is then performed on a routine basis to detect whether an asset has failed or whether it is still working.

Regardless of whether the asset is a switch, a circuit breaker, a sensor or a stand by pump, at some point we will detect that the asset has failed. This means that at some point there will be a corrective task, the Detected Maintenance task, which will normally be a replacement or repair of the failed asset. As with the Predictive Maintenance task (PTIVE) we have allowed this to happen because it is the best failure management policy available to us and wee are able to manage the consequences of the corrective task.

Figure 2 – Tasks involved in Detective Maintenance

The last of the corrective tasks that we can derive from a standard RCM analysis is that of run-to-failure. In this failure management policy we have eliminated the likelihood of either safety or environmental consequences and have determined that the most cost effective strategy is to allow the asset to fail. Any other action would cost more to carry out than to maintain the asset itself. In this case the only task that we need to consider is the Run-to-Failure task itself which is obviously a corrective action.

Figure 3 - Tasks involved in a Run-to-Failure Strategy

So once a comprehensive RCM Analysis is completed for an asset-system or an asset, it can include up to 7 planned tasks. 4 are routine tasks, 3 are corrective tasks, but all are proactive tasks. All are the result of careful decision making regarding maintenance policy and strategy. This allows us to build what is known as a Proactive Whole-of-Life Model.

• Predictive Maintenance (PTIVE) - Routine
• Predicted Maintenance (PTED) - Corrective
• Preventive Restoration (PRES) - Routine
• Preventive Replacement (PREP) - Routine
• Detective Maintenance (DTIVE) - Routine
• Detected Maintenance (DTED) - Corrective
• Run-to-Failure (RTF) – Corrective

The whole of life model is produced through calculating the resource burden of each individual task, then calculating this by the frequency of the task until the end of life event or threshold tine period. In the case of the routine tasks we can be pretty sure that our estimates are correct, however in the case of the corrective tasks these are often estimates based either on manufacturer’s data, our own maintenance history records and the experience of the people involved in the analysis. As time goes on we begin to collect data that will enable us to become more accurate in our predictions.

For those familiar with attempts to calculate whole-of-life costs for assets there has always been a level of doubt regarding how to manage corrective tasks. This often results in some form of average of historical costs with an arbitrary cost reduction thrown in for improvement. When practiced rigorously, RCM and the Proactive WoL models that it produces enables accurate lifecycle cost management for a given level of performance and risk.

Here are some recent articles regarding safety in maintenance that are on the net. When I first started talking about issues related to this it was seen as a bit of "fire and brimstone" and as an effort to scare the living daylights out of people.

However the reality has far exceeded anything I was talking about at the turn of the century. Today we are seeing a solid link forming in societies laws and regulations that recognises the unique roel of asset maintainers in the area of asset safety.

I hope these are of interest:

Three Swiss Skyguide managers, two maintenance staff and three other employees have been charged with negligent manslaughter in relation to the accident. The accused, who have denied any responsibility, also faces charges of negligent disruption of public transport.

http://www.nzz.ch/2007/05/15/eng/article7819313.html

The state is considering charging two senior Israel Railways executives with negligent manslaughter in three different cases. It was recently reported that the Israel Police recommended indictments against IR CEO Ofer Linczewski and Deputy CEO of Operations and Maintenance Harel Even, following an investigation of the railway accident at Beit Yehoshua last June. Five people were killed and dozens injured in the accident.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/859269.html

WASHINGTON — Two congressional Democrats set to question BP’s top U.S. official at a Wednesday hearing are investigating whether the company disregarded necessary maintenance before oil spills in Alaska last year.

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070514/NEWS01/305140037

The second in a series of short columns from ASSETS magazine, published by the Institute of Asset Management in the United Kingdom.

Next posting - Myth's of RCM number 4, RCM does not support Whole-of-Life Asset Management


Surging oil costs, rapid population growth and the desire to diversify the regions income streams has made the Middle East one of the world’s boomtowns. The scale is unimaginable; everywhere you look there are new towers being built, whole new suburbs, vast expansion projects, and massive infrastructure projects.

And, as astute business people, they have had no hesitation to invest in the systems, knowledge and skills required to develop truly world class asset management programs. However, unlike other regions of the world the reasons are different.

In the West, Asset Management is generally used as a means of increasing cost effectiveness and managing risk. Wise goals maybe, but here, at this time, the end goal is one of sustaining performance, maximizing production opportunities, and customer satisfaction. Cost effectiveness, worthy as it is, is the least of concerns here.

Take the booming Dubai real estate markets. Depending on who you talk to there are between 100,000 and 300,000 new residences coming online within the next twelve months, with more being announced and planned every single day. The horizon is littered with tower cranes in every direction. Not only that, but here they build islands!

In Saudi Arabia they are building an entirely new industrial city, other gulf states are also in the throws of their own gigantic expansion projects, and then there is the infrastructure to support all of this.

Regardless of what happens with the price of oil over the next 5 -10 years, it would take a brave man to bet against this region continuing to grow as an economic powerhouse. And there can be no doubt that strong asset management and reliability will continue to underpin this as the vision becomes reality.

We are going to take a short break from the Myths about RCM series of articles to post a couple of articles recently published in the UK.

Among some of the magazines I write for is "Assets", the journal of the Institute of Asset Management in the UK. Most of the columns I write for there are designed to challenge views in that country. I hope they are of interest.

In recent time western countries such as the UK, Australia and the USA have suddenly become aware of the looming resources crunch for asset management. Experienced workers continue to retire and fewer young people enter the discipline, opting for often more lucrative fields of computing and financial services.

Yet in the Middle East there is no such shortage of labor. I currently work within the Gulf States where, in the United Arab Emirates for example, a population of approximately 200,000 has been able to generate a GDP on a par with Australia. And with growing percentages of their revenue coming from areas other than oil production.

So if few or none of them actually work in directly technical roles, how could they have done this?

The Gulf States have embraced concepts and principles of free trade that the West has yet to come to grips with, although they are perfectly positioned to do so. With an estimated 80% foreign population the entire nation operates a permanent “guest worker” program. People stream in from all over the world to perform the skilled and professional roles required to make this region the modern day success story that it is.

When a requirement surfaces, recruiters go to India, the Philippines, Europe, and the Americas looking for suitable talent. (They even take the odd Australian like me!) The result is a productive nation built on the back of experienced and skilled labor drawn from wherever it is found.

European states have the advantage of easily drawing from a resource pool across many countries; the USA has the advantage of drawing from their neighbors in Latin America, and Australia has Asia on its doorstep. India, for example, generates more engineers than any other country in the world, as well as a substantial level of the worlds IT capacity.
So I ask you; what skills shortage? Do we still believe that people trained in the “developing world” do not have the level of skills we require?

In the West we persist in looking inwards; generating competency frameworks, encouraging investment in internal training programs and tweaking professional memberships through tax incentives, and raising barriers to guest workers or temporary migrant workers. And while all of these are valuable efforts, they are missing the point.

We seem to have lost sight of one fundamental issue; we don’t have any real issues with employment. We have issues with levels of professionals in specific areas.

What I have witnessed in the last year has led me to the following conclusion. If western nations don’t start to look outwards, and embrace the free movement of labor throughout the world, then they will soon find themselves being eclipsed by other nations that do.

Don’t believe me? Come to Dubai.

The Modern Asset Management blog is a totally non-commercial blog and is dedicated to trying to stop poor practices becoming common practices.

We now have just over 5000 readers of the blog on a regular basis, from countries as diverse as the USA, Thailand, Chile and Saudi Arabia.

As a way to add value we are happy to post job openings for reliability practitioners around the world. (Either a consulting or operational role) Please feel free to send me the details and I will post it on the blog.

There are not enough good sites for roles in Root Cause Analysis, Reliability-centered Maintenance or Reliability Growth anaytical functions.

Cheers,