The RCM Solution. Nancy Regan
vibration, increased heat, excessive noise, wear, etc. Potential failure conditions can be detected using relatively simple techniques such as monitoring gauges or measuring brake linings. Additionally, potential failure conditions can be detected by employing more technically involved techniques such as thermography or eddy current, or by using continuous monitoring with devices such as strain gauges and accelerometers installed directly on machinery. The point of On-Condition tasks is that maintenance is performed only upon evidence of need.
In the context of RCM, all proactive maintenance tasks must be technically appropriate and worth doing. Chapter 9 details how to determine if a proactive task is technically appropriate and worth doing.
Step 7: Default Strategies
As mentioned earlier, RCM isn’t just about maintenance. There are a great many solutions other than proactive maintenance that can be derived using the RCM process. Examples include: Failure Finding tasks, Procedural Checks, no scheduled maintenance, and other recommendations such as modifications to operating procedures, updates to technical publications, and equipment redesigns. In the context of RCM, these recommendations are known as Default Strategies. Default Strategies are discussed in detail in Chapter 10.
It is often wrongly believed that FMEA and FMECA are analyses that are accomplished independently of, or in lieu of, RCM. On the contrary, the first four steps of the RCM process produce a FMEA. The steps to accomplish a FMEA are depicted in Figure 1.23.
Figure 1.23 First four steps of the RCM process produce a FMEA
Figure 1.24 First five steps of the RCM process produce a FMECA
Additionally, the first five steps of the RCM process generate a FMECA. The steps to accomplish a FMECA are depicted in Figure 1.24.
When RCM is performed, the requirement for a FMEA and a FMECA is largely satisfied.
RCM is an exciting process that yields overwhelming positive results when the process is applied correctly with the right people. RCM isn’t a new process. The application of its principles spans several decades and has been (and is being) applied in nearly every industry throughout the world. RCM can be carried out swiftly and efficiently when executed properly. Additionally, RCM’s principles are so diverse that they can be applied to any asset such as an airplane, nuclear power plant, manufacturing plant, or an offshore oil platform. RCM principles can be widely applied to an entire asset or more narrowly applied to select pieces of equipment.
After the operating context is drafted, the seven steps of the RCM process are carried out: 1) Functions; 2) Functional Failures; 3) Failure Modes; 4) Failure Effects; 5) Failure Consequences; 6) Proactive Maintenance and Intervals; and 7) Default Strategies. One of the major products of an RCM analysis is the development of a scheduled maintenance program. However, RCM can be used to formulate scores of solutions that reach far beyond maintenance.
A Facilitated Working Group Approach to RCM
When Thomas Edison was asked why he had a team of twenty-one assistants he said:
“If I could solve all the problems myself, I would.”
It is very exciting to see the overwhelming positive results that are reaped when equipment experts—those who are intimate with the asset and the operating environment—are empowered to make decisions for physical assets. In fact, it is such a powerful concept that it is bewildering why organizations don’t employ teams more proactively when it comes to asset management.
Still, most organizations today use a single-analyst approach to RCM. That is, an RCM engineer, or in some cases an outside contractor, gathers technical manuals, drawings, etc., and completes the analysis independently. However, this limited perspective typically diminishes the quality and power of the results. In other cases, organizations claim the use of a working group approach by conducting interviews with equipment experts to fill the gaps in a single analyst’s analysis. These approaches, which sometimes can become counterproductive, pale in comparison to the remarkable solutions that can be formulated by a team.
2.1 The Team Approach to Accomplishing Objectives
Let’s take a look at the team approach because it is essential to the success of so many endeavors. Teams are all around us. For example, one player doesn’t win a World Series for a baseball team—nine members are essential to every inning played, and those nine are part of an even larger team. Anyone who has had surgery knows first-hand that there is never just a surgeon in an operating room. Many other professionals are required to ensure a successful procedure—the anesthesiologist, the circulator, the scrub tech, and the first assistant amongst them. How about flying? Is it just a pilot who delivers passengers safely to a destination? Of course not. Many individuals including the copilot, flight attendants, maintenance personnel, ground crew, and air traffic controllers are essential to the flight. In all of these examples, people working together reach a defined purpose.
When there is an aircraft crash in the United States, the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) immediately dispatches a “Go Team.” This team can consist of several people up to dozens of individuals representing a variety of disciplines including operations, structures, power plants, systems, weather, and air traffic control. Why are so many people involved in a crash investigation? Because it takes more than one expertise to identify the cause of an aircraft crash. Why then, when it comes to RCM—a process used to make vital decisions about assets—would an organization choose to employ a single analyst approach?
Teamwork and Preparation
I had the privilege of hearing Captain Al Haynes, pilot of United Airlines Flight 232, speak at the Aging Aircraft Conference in Missouri in May 2009. United Airlines Flight 232, a DC-10, crashed in Sioux City, Iowa, on July 19, 1989. On that flight, the #2 engine located on the tail of the aircraft suffered an internal engine failure due to an undetected manufacturing defect in the stage one fan rotor assembly. Shrapnel from the failure severed lines in all three, fully redundant hydraulic systems rendering them all completely inoperable. This almost completely crippled the aircraft. All that was left to control the aircraft was the use of the throttles on the #1 and #3 engines. The crew managed to get the aircraft on the ground. Tragically, of the 296 people on board, 112 died—but 184 people lived. Captain Haynes said it was a team of people who allowed so many to live: the airport authorities who readied the airport and runway to accept them, the cabin crew who prepared the passengers for an emergency landing, the air traffic controllers who calmly controlled