evolution of rcm
DESCRIPTION
Presentation on the Evolution of Reliability Centered MaintenanceTRANSCRIPT
Evolution of RCM
The Aladon Network
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
BA
SIC
RC
M
US aviation industry became uncomfortable with validity of existing maintenance practices
FAA/industry task force formed to investigate capabilities of preventive maintenanceLearned that scheduled overhaul has little effect on the reliability of complex systems and that scheduled maintenance has no effect on some items
Rudimentary decision diagram developed
Maintenance steering group refines the decision diagram into a process now called MSG1 and apply it to Boeing 747
The Evolution of RCM
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Firstdecisiondiagram
MSG1 developed and applied to Boeing 747
MSG2 developed: applied to DC10 and TriStar
US Department of Defence asks United Airlines for a report on how the airlines develop maintenance programs
Nowlan and Heap report entitled “Reliability-centered Maintenance”
Introduction of the term “Reliability-centered Maintenance”: it is not a generic term, but applies to the strategy formulation process described in the N&H report
The Evolution of RCM
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Nowlan and Heap report published entitled “Reliability-centered Maintenance”
MSG3 published by US Air Transport Association (ATA) in 1980
MSG3 rev 2 published in 1993
MSG3 rev 1 published in 1988
The Evolution of RCM
59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Cra
shes
/mill
ion
tak
eoff
s (m
ovi
ng
ave
rag
e)
60
50
40
30
20
10
US OPERATORS
What RCM has Achieved in Civil Aviation
59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Cra
shes
/mill
ion
tak
eoff
s (m
ovi
ng
ave
rag
e)
60
50
40
30
20
10
US OPERATORS
What RCM has Achieved in Civil Aviation
NON-US OPERATORS
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
BA
SIC
RC
M
US Mil Std 2173 published in 1986
Nowlan and Heap report published
MSG3 published by US Air Transport Associ-ation (ATA) in 1980
MSG3 rev 2 published in 1993
MSG3 rev 1 published in 1988
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
BA
SIC
R
CM
US Mil Std 2173 published in 1986
MSG3 rev 2 published in 1993
MSG3 rev 1 published in 1988
MSG3 published by US Air Transport Associ-ation (ATA) in 1980
RCM first applied in mining and manufacturing companies in Southern Africa
Rigorous RCM first applied in UK industry, then Europe, North & South America, the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific
RCM2 standard: broader and deeper than MSG3: new approaches to environment, functions, task intervals
Nowlan and Heap report published entitled “Reliability-centered Maintenance”
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
US Mil Std 2173 published in 1986
MSG3 rev 2 published in 1993
MSG3 rev 1 published in 1988
Rigorous RCM firstapplied in UK thenelsewhere
RCM2 global network
British NES45
Moubray RCM2 book in UK
SAE RCM standard JA1011published in USA
MSG3.2001published in 2001
SAE JA1012
US Navair guide 403
The SAE standard JA1011/JA1012
“Since the initial work done by Nowlan and Heap, RCM has been used to help formulate physical asset management strategies in almost every area of industry, in almost every industrialized country in the world.”
“However, the widespread use of the word RCM has led to the emergence of a number of processes that differ significantly from the original and that fail to achieve the goals of Nowlan and Heap. Some are counterproductive.”
“In response, there has been a growing international demand for a standard that sets out the criteria that any process must comply in order to be called RCM. The result is the SAE Standard JA1011/JA1012.”
Advantages to using a Standardized Approach
Focus on plant performance and reliability yields returns 10 to 100 times greater than achieved by focusing only on maintenance costs
Involves maintainers and users in applying RCM: high ownership of results and commitment to best practice throughout the organisation
Tries to identify all reasonably likely failure modes at appropriate levels of detail: results are less risky and much more defensible
Risks of using a Non-Standardized Approach
Financial returns lower No ownership of results Little or no change of behaviour and attitude of users/maintainers Always miss many more significant failures than standardized methods, so
results are more dangerous and less defensible Often take longer and in fact cost more to apply
www.thealadonnetwork.com