Maintenance Is Not Effectively Applied

Testing/inspections not performed - Route compliance, staffing levels, backlog management. Maintenance not performed %u2013 Planning, scheduling, staff to the work (work ID) Inadequate maintenance - RCM, PMO, work ID methodologies. Failure to document maintenance actions - Process Compliance, CMMS Electrical failures %u2013 Infrared, ultrasound, MCA Improper installation or construction %u2013 RCM design, Failure to adapt to change of function or use %u2013 Evolving process management, Training We are the catalyst for change and in my opinion (I seem to say that a lot these days) we are on the right track. Yes culture can be a road block but if it was easy everyone could do it. In our life time reliability will become the norm and the movement started by the founders of our industry will prevail. The world has nether the resources nor the environment to sustain reactive maintenance.

Having worked with FM Global I have found that they tend to take the helicopter view when analyzing losses. All of the list that Terry posted are SYMPTOMS not the root cause of the problem. Testing/inspections not performed Maintenance not performed Inadaequate maintenance etc. WHY?? Production wouldn't release equipment due to heavy schedule Someone changed the priority Not enough people due to right sizing Lack of training Hurried installation All are cultural issues and that is reality. Christer has been in many different situations and I'm sure he will agree that even with the best intentions of the maintenance departments , without the culture implementation is impossible. I once worked at a paper mill that hired Christer's group to develop an effective maintenance strategy a year after I left and even though individuals may have gained from the intervention the company did not - no fault of Christer's group. The reason was simple - the culture that created the need for Christer still prevailed.The sad part is that while I was at the mill I ignored the culture and the maintenance group became World Class. So i think we have choices and I quote from my Reactive maintenance Blog post and it was reading Gung Ho that motivated me! we could just take the ostrich approach but is that satisfying? - become determined to make your department the best it can be given the circumstances and the try and change the circumstances ( for those who like a good if somewhat hokey story - read Gung Ho by Ken Blanchard it explains this in a much better way than I can)

Hard to argue with the concept of execution. Unfortunately getting to the position of being able to execute without being disiplined for it is kinda important. Not to mention the need to stop managers from assigning engineering projects to reliability departments.

Perfect timing, I just read an article in the September issue of maintenance Technology magazine by Christer Idhammer. The article is "Saying What We Really Mean" great article but the last few sentences are what I am focusing on here. he talks about the program of the month, the changes in leadership, the lack of the ability of reliability programs to truly deliver all that they could. His quote from the last sentence of the article is KEY. %u201CHere, then is my revolutionary "concept." Why not call "Maintenance management" just that, Maintenance management," and, for a change, start executing?" I believe this to be a wonderful statement. We can plan and schedule and develop extremely intelligent programs but it all comes down to the execution. Execution is the human element in maintenance and reliability.

Uh oh, you mean the Reliability group can't just create maintenance strategies and schedule PM/PDs and have all the problems go away! It might actually take some training of the craft and operators? Damn, my plant manager is going to be upset that the Reliability group needs more then our magic wands. Some of the things our management teams has said is causing many gray hairs.

I don't know Angelo, I've worked lots of places where things "just fall off" or " it just happened" - at least that's what I'm told. Which takes me to the next point, whereas all of these failures are caused by humans I'd like to offer that they are 'Culture Induced" and that's what leads to comments like above. If true RCA was carried out I think you'd find that the prevailing culture induces the human induction

Aw common Terry. YOu know better than that. All failures are induced by people. It is like safety, hazards exist and can be managed. Safety incidents occur becasue a person has taken a short cut or does not properly understand the risks they are taking. Loss due to maintenance realted incidents occur becasue people either do not understand how or chose not to appropriately manage reliability risks.