A lot of things can go wrong during the implantation
of an RCM Project, in the same way, that other projects, recording the acquired
knowledge-based in experience is important to be exploited in the future.
Some of the lessons that I have learned during my last
projects are listed below.
1. Project scope. Usually, this item is a source of conflicts among the
stakeholders, this is due they have got different experiences in RCM, since
every project is different, to find disagreements is normal.
The problem is increased when we find external staff
because it produces a project cost increase. Well-Defined project scope is
important to avoid misunderstandings and problems among the stakeholders, an
increase of period and costs.
2. Level of detail. The level of detail must be defined, it should include
as the analysis of equipment as the description of tasks and actions to implant
as a result of the RCM analysis.
A level of detail too low makes the
analysis useless because it doesn’t define the results; a level of detail too
high is also useless because the result will be too long and costly, and
difficult to implant.
Regarding the analysis of equipment, in
accordance with ISO 14224 standards,
to analysis up the level of components is recommended, the level of an element only is
interesting for equipment with a special complexity.
Regarding tasks description, it is
sufficient to be explicit enough for maintenance operators to identify them
right, to replace work orders is not
necessary. If actions are redesign to define a target, delivery and cost is
enough.
3. Expectations of stakeholders. Different expectations among stakeholders
is usual, to solve this problem is possible by a good definition of goals.
Usually, stakeholders consider the result
of an RCM analysis is a reduction of maintenance costs, an increase of the
number of tasks, the elimination of failures or a full replacement of
preventive maintenance to on-condition maintenance.
We must consider RCM is a methodology to
optimize maintenance, increasing reliability with minimum cost, so we should
neither predict outcomes nor enforce results.
4. Are we doing true RCM? Usually we
believe we are doing RCM but
it is not true, RCM is not a way to justify the current maintenance plan, to
perform all the maintenance tasks recommended by the OEM, or to implant a full
on-condition maintenance plan.
We should consider that RCM is to follow a structured procedure, by using logic trees, to obtain a maintenance plan that
provides maximum reliability with minimum cost.
5. Training of stakeholders. RCM training to all stakeholders is the
best way to avoid false expectations and to ensure we are doing true RCM.
Training must be at different levels of
intensity depending on the degree of involvement of stakeholders; it must
provide a culture of reliability in the organization and make clear goals, scope,
level of detail and possible results. Training
should provide deep knowledge of the procedure to members of analysis and
implantation teams.
To ensure the efficient fulfillment of
targets, to perform training at the beginning of the Project is recommended.
6. Continuous improvement. The RCM maintenance plan is a living paper;
it must be updated continuously, so to try to design an RCM plan for several years
is a mistake.
The plan must be updated when the
operation conditions, the financial environment, the product sale price, or the
raw materials and energy cost change, even when the condition monitoring
techniques develop.
Also, all the new functional failures,
that are not included in the RCM plan, and regular system failures must be
analyzed by RCA and must be included in the maintenance plan.
