Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Below is the standards nos. which one can refer to.
However i am sure of IEEE standards for RCM.
I am not yet informed on standards for RCM's sub-processes like FMEA, FMECA, RBI, RCA etc.
If you have any such reference guide for the standards related to RCM, i would be glad to have it.

IEC 60300-3-11 : Part 3-11: Application guide – Reliability centred maintenance

SAE JA1011 is for SAE's standard for Reliability-Centered Maintenance,

SAE JA1012 is a Guide to the Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Standard defined in SAE JA1011

Looking for your reply,

"Never innovate to compete, innovate to change the rules of the game"
We have given FMEA Pro a good try. We had two consultants, one CMRP, one Aladon trained guy and a bunch of maintenance engineers for training.

FMEA seems to better suited to, say, small system boundaries like a skid or a car or a single widget machine or simple systems. We have a biologic process in which every process is extremely interrelated to all other processes. The process takes a month or better to do its biologic thing and moves through several biologic phases.

I've even heard about a process FMEA which had Six Sigma people involved with an Aladon guy and a maintenance engineer that in the end didn't produce much for results.

Trouble is, FMEA relies on people's experience, and ultimately, their imaginations to predict failure modes. I don't know about you, but my imagination is good at some times and pretty poor at others depending on mood, workload, personal issues and all.

If everyone in an FMEA study had poor imaginations, what would your output be? Then there are other times when participants have overactive imaginations and come up with all sorts of far out failure modes.

I know the facilitator is supposed to moderate that, but consultant moderators don't know MY process. How can they? In the end they have to rely on the input of the participants.

I'm obviously not a consultant. I'm an in-house maintenance engineer trying to improve our maintenance process the best way I can. Our maintenance program was pretty good to begin with, but there is a lot of room for improvement, especially when you start thinking that maybe you're doing too much and resulting in maintenance induces failures.
I wonder if one of the problems is that companies don't know what to do with the output of the FMEA (if it makes it that far). After the analysis is finally finished, the data still needs to be assembled into job plans to make it actionable. Until it becomes job plans in your CMMS, the FMEA has not been implemented.

That's the part consultants aren't around for is the converting of the FMEA data into job plans. They are long gone before the failure to implement occurs.

Again, I have to say that I know it's not this way in every case in every industry. I'm speaking generally for the average company.
Dear JW,
I agree to every idea you have presented above. But what i am looking for is that......Are any of your processes compliant to any of the standards i have mentioned. If you had consultants for FMEA....can you consult them and ask if the FMEA analysis is beneficial to be compliant to the standards ?
I know in the end maintenance optimisation is what matters which should result in prevention of failures or mitigating the risk arising out failures to an acceptable level.

So please ask the CMRP guy and Aladon guy about the opinion on the question stated.
In the end i subscribe to " That's the part consultants aren't around for is the converting of the FMEA data into job plans. They are long gone before the failure to implement occurs".

"You can use all the quantitative data you can get, but you still have to distrust it and use your own intelligence and judgment"
want to make something of it ? :-))
That's the part consultants aren't around for is the converting of the FMEA data into job plans

Why is that so? Should it not be a part of the scope of the project for the Consultants to deliver a full task list bundled into maintenance routines? Was this part removed from their scope?
I am not familar with FMEAPro, but I have used a package called RCM Pro3 (from Cambridge Database). This takes you through all the 7 RCM steps AND task bundling into routines allowing an audit trail from routine/task back to the failure mode, functional failure and function.
Personally, if it's all possible, I would comply with the standards which are sometimes are not exhaustive and contain minimal requirements or a guide.

If you choose not to comply with standards, then reasons for deviation or preference should be stated clearly upfront e.g. RCM, there are many derivatives of it. So do you want to comply with RCMII and thus answering all the 7 standard questions or you choose to do sreamlined RCM derivatives which may be faster but its technical integrity may be questionable?

The other 2 processes (RBI & IPF) are rather standard ones without much variation that I know.

The methods of my reliability engineering/consulting firm comply with all of the recognized standards, including ISO 17359, JA1011, JA1012 and PAS-55.

With regards to the quote "That's the part consultants aren't around for is the converting of the FMEA data into job plans". Our reliability engineers utilize the results of the RCM/FMEA analysis and apply the required maintenance strategies including CBM/PdM assignment, PM Optimization and detailed/quantitative job plan/task list development.

Steve Cyr CMRP
As SteveT rightly says,
quote: are either using the wrong consultants or the wrong software or both. Either that or you did not budget right.

There is no point in doing an RCM exercise if we don't get a complete set of revised tasks (including Failure Finding tasks), suitably bundled into PM, PdM routines plus a list of redesign actions and run-to-failure decisions.
Defining the scope of work clearly up front is an important starting point. Implementation of reliability initiatives follow the iceberg model; analysis is only the tip of the iceberg; the hard work of implementation is not always appreciated. Often, Consultants are to blame for not explaining this clearly to Customers, who are looking for (and get) 'low-cost' solutions, which invariably ignore the implementation activities.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.