Perhaps there are terms that have different meanings to different people which creates a dispute. For example, what does RCM (Reliability Centered Maintenance) exactly mean and what are its outcomes?

This is a topic sentence from the article:

"RCM can only release its benefits if the degradation rate of failure modes is suitably consistent."

Perhaps some reliability specialists would argue/disagree with it. If I recall correctly, the RCM study may advise the owner (based on many inputs) to keep an asset running without any planned window for repair (run to failure strategy). It may recommend focusing on a redesign or condition monitoring. Each strategy obtained from the RCM depends on (among many inputs) the rate of failures.

Perhaps what was meant is:

"A condition-based maintenance strategy can release most of its benefits when the degradation rate of failure modes is suitably consistent." but I could be totally wrong as in many cases.

Regards- Ali M. Al-Shurafa

Yes, there are many examples where authors use different terms to define same strategy.

Also, authors use different meanings/applications for the same term/strategy. Frankly, there are so many contradictions.

Do all agree that a major planned overhaul of a large compressor is considered a PM? No.

Do all agree that a routine vibration measurement survey is maintenance by itself? No.

Do all agree that an action based on a routine vibration measurement survey is proactive maintenance? No.

Do all agree that an online vibration measurement is exactly a routine survey but done on an intensive basis? No.

Do all agree that a routine vibration measurement survey is helping equipment reliability? No.

There are so many inconsistencies and preferences in this domain. Move from one industry or even company to another to see the differences. I'm sure even in the same company, one can find some disputes. But again I could be totally wrong.

Regards- Ali M. Al-Shurafa