Is the maintenance reliability improvement program you are leading tied into improving business results or is it aimed at keeping equipment running?
 
It is up to you to ensure that maintenance reliability is supporting the AIM of the business - so a great starting point may be to do some research about what the overall AIM of the company is.
 
I worked with a young reliability engineer who was leading a corporate reliability initiative and he assured me 100% of the plant reliability staff were aware of and aligned with the AIM of the company.  I had a chance to interview this group and it turned out that only 50% even had an idea of what the AIM of the company was and almost all of them did not fully understand how the reliability initiative fit into the AIM.  Remember - this was in an organization that had actively attempted to communicate the AIM and ensure alignment with this initiative.
 
If you are not actively in communication about AIM of the organization, you cannot expect that your maintenance reliability program is aligned in support of it.
 
Keep your ship upright and:
 
1) Be clear about the organizations AIM
 
2) Communicate clearly and often to your team members about this AIM
 
3) Design your maintenance reliability improvements to target alignment with the AIM
 
4) Find ways for your team to communicate this understanding back to you and others co-workers.  

Reliabilityweb.com published an interesting article on the topic by Joel Levitt - posted here:
http://reliabilityweb.com/index.php/articles/what_do_bosses_really_want_from_the_maintenance_effort/

After reading it I wondered how many of us actually know what our bosses really want, what they really expect and if they are aware of the consequences of those choices?

Do you have written guidance on the expectations for maintenance? Or do you understand the expectations because you have been on the other side of enough emergency conversations about "what will NEVER happen here again!".

How we maintain equipment and function can make a huge difference to the organizations we deliver this service to. How many bosses have taken the time to understand the consequences and how many maintenance professionals are prepared to explain the consequences in a logical - defensible way?

Terry O

I am rereading John  Moubray's article "The Case Against Streamlined Reliability Centered Maintenance" http://uptime4.me/cq7iVK  and he states: "under certain circum-stances, individual managers can be sent to prison in connection with equipment failures that have sufficiently nasty consequences."

When a loss of life happens in that instance - Mr. Moubray states that United Kingdom has proposed that the laws governing involuntary manslaughter be revised to cover three new categories of crime, one of which is to be called ‘corporate killing’ which can result in life imprisonment for the managers involved.

Away from the moral violation involved, I would suggest that no job - and no manager is worth taking that kind of fall.

Do the right thing and stand up for reliability when you know it is the right thing to do.

(more)

Does anyone agree that in addition to being smart business that Reliability should rise to the level of safety and environment in today's organizations?

 

Can and should Reliability be held as a Legal/Regulatory, Ethical and Moral responsibility by the companies that operate in the USA/North America?

 

Could a framework for Reliability as a standard requirement be one of the things that separates the companies North America and raises the bar for Global Manufacturers to reach?

 

Is Reliability a business advantage or business disadvantage?

 

Are the reliability decisions in your organization transparent and most importantly - DEFENSIBLE - as in defensible in a court of law?

 

Remember Moubray's article "The Case Against Streamlined Reliability Centered Maintenance"
http://uptime4.me/cq7iVK

It is worth a read right now.

Please add your comments to this discussion below