Your 7-step guide to effective PM optimization

plantservices.com/articles/2021/your-7-step-guide-to-effective-pm-optimization

Applying the RCM framework using a checklist approach will

drastically improve your PM optimization efforts.
By Jeff Shiver, CMRP, ARP, CPMM, CRL, MLT-1, People and Processes Inc.
Feb 11, 2021

The harsh reality is that many organizations have poorly developed preventive and
predictive maintenance programs (PM/PdM). From RCM analyses, we often find that 40
to 60% of PMs add little value. Many tasks are knee-jerk reactions to past equipment
failures. Commonly, tasks lack precision and do not address the likely failure modes. Most
groups lament over needing additional maintenance technicians but send out individuals
to do PMs that add no value. When groups do work to optimize their PM program, it is
often with a haphazard approach. There is a much better way.

As a reliability-centered maintenance (RCM2 & RCM3) practitioner, I find tremendous

benefit in leveraging RCM2 concepts as a framework for PM optimization. Before rolling
your eyes and suggesting overkill, understand my logic. RCM2 is a process to define the
necessary actions to cause the equipment to continue to do what its users want in its
present operating context. Competency in the RCM methodology enables one to easily
apply the concepts to a lesser approach, such as failure modes and effects analysis
(FMEA) or basic PM optimization. And using RCM concepts reduces the number of
existing PMs frequently. For example, from an FMEA led by an individual competent in
RCM concepts, more than 1,000 PMs generated over one year were eliminated across
three packaging machines.
People trained in an introductory RCM2 or RCM3 course learn how equipment fails,
understand the assets’ operating context, and how to choose proactive tasks to address
the likely failure modes – tasks that are both “technically feasible” and “worth doing”, a
point often missed without the education. They understand why they choose one type of
task over another. And when a proactive task is not appropriate, they elect to do no
scheduled maintenance; or change how they operate the asset from a procedure or
training perspective with the maintainer or operator; or reengineer the equipment to
address the concerns. Trained individuals view spare part stocking decisions and
engineering the design of new assets or systems differently.

From John Moubray’s RCM2 book, and later written into the SAE JA1011 standard, there
are seven questions for RCM2. From these simple seven questions, you can build a
checklist template to use as a PM optimization framework:

1. What are the functions and associated performance standards of the asset in its
present operating context? (Function)
2. In what ways does it fail to fulfill its functions? (Functional failure)
3. What causes each functional failure? (Failure modes —cause and mechanism)
4. What happens when each failure occurs? (Failure effects)
5. In what ways does each failure mode matter? (Failure consequences)
6. What can be done to predict or prevent each failure? (Proactive tasks)
7. What should be done if a suitable proactive task cannot be found? (Default actions,
i.e., reengineering)

A simple example to explain how to answer the seven questions is to consider a

centrifugal pump located between two tanks (Tank A and Tank B). From Tank B, the
process requires 100 gallons per minute. The design capability of the pump is 120gpm.
Beginning with the first question, why was the asset purchased? What are the
performance expectations? Writing a function statement for the pump:

“To transfer slurry from Tank A to Tank B at a minimum rate of 100gpm.” (Primary
function)

Define secondary functions using the components of the acronym ESCAPES. The “C”
represents control, containment, or comfort. No doubt that the safety officer would be
disappointed if the pump seal or piping leaked, causing a slip or fall. A secondary function
exists using containment.
“To contain all of the slurry.”
With the pump’s purpose known, I understand what I am trying to maintain in keeping
the pump flow between 120gpm and 100gpm without leaks. Answering the second
question will determine how the pump can fail (functional failure or failed state).
Total failure, “Unable to transfer slurry at all.”
Partial failure, “Unable to transfer slurry from Tank A to Tank B at a minimum rate of
100gpm.”
“Unable to contain all of the slurry.”
Unfortunately, the function and functional failure are typically omitted from PM
optimization and, in some cases, FMEA too. Doing so can lead to too few or, often, too
many failure modes identified from brainstorming activities lacking a framework.
Function and function failure identification makes it easy to correctly identify the
reasonably likely failure modes (cause and mechanism). At a minimum, this is the
essential requirement to begin PM optimization properly.
 For the total failure, “Bearing seized due to improper lubrication.”

Partial failure, “Impeller wears over time due to slurry abrasion.”

Containment, “Pump seal packing leaks following a maintenance intervention.”

The fourth RCM2 question, the failure effect, explains what happens when the asset fails,
and no action prevents it. The failure effect is written as follows for the bearing failure.

“The bearing seizes, the pump stops, and the level in Tank B drops. When the tank level
reaches 250 gallons, an alarm sounds in the control room. It takes four hours to repair the
pump (stocked), and 2.5 runtime hours of water is in the tank before it runs dry.
Downtime cost (in addition to the repair cost) is $10k per hour, and 1.5 hours are lost
($15k). The cost of repair is $4k. Maintenance history shows this has happened two times
in four years.”

Note the spare parts, estimated cost of the repair and downtime, job duration, and past
failure history. With typical PM optimization efforts lacking a framework, these details are
often omitted in the decision process. Many of the effects are similar depending on the
failure mode, i.e., downtime cost allowing for a cut and paste approach with minor
changes. Even if documented at a basic level, the information can help address the
“technically feasible?” and “worth doing?” questions when choosing a proactive
maintenance strategy. Simple bullets on a checklist can prompt a PM optimization effort
to address the effect components, i.e., spares (y/n), downtime (hours, $), repair (hours,
$).

The fifth question, failure consequence, categorizes hidden, safety, or environmental,

operational, or non-operational consequences for choosing proactive or default actions.
With failure effects written at a basic level, the failure’s consequences can be determined
and business decisions made regarding the potential loss.
Answering the sixth question provides proactive maintenance strategies when the tasks
meet both the “technically feasible” and “worth doing” conditions. Test the two states for
on-condition or inspection/PdM tasks first; time-based scheduled restoration, or discard
tasks next; or in the case of safety/environmental consequences, a combination of tasks if
a single task is not appropriate. In the case of hidden failures, where the failure would not
be evident to the operating crew under normal circumstances, a failure finding task may
be more appropriate.

If a proactive task from the sixth question is not appropriate, then a default action
(seventh question) is required. The consequences determine whether to perform no
scheduled maintenance, change the operation or maintenance of the asset with training or
procedures, or reengineer it. A standard error in PM optimization is not applying the
“technically feasible” or “worth doing” criteria to the task selection. With containment
failure mode from above, the pump seal leaking could result from improperly packing the
seal and using the incorrect packing. Selecting a proactive on-condition or time-based
task would be inappropriate as the failure follows a maintenance intervention. A one-time
change to the procedure to properly perform the work would be appropriate.

Another final challenge for many is implementing the checklist results, be it proactive
tasks, reengineering, procedures, or training. Write tasks with precision in mind. For
example, a failure mode on a cartoner might be “chain stretched due to carton jams.”
Across several cartoner bucket pitches, the chain may measure 72 inches when newly
installed. The chain is known to be in the failed state at 72.38 inches. Determine the
frequency of inspection. We can inspect at one half the P-F interval, and when the chain
measures 72.25 inches, create a notification to replace the chain proactively.

Invest in RCM2 or RCM3 training to build a level of competency in your workforce. Based
on your systems, develop and implement a checklist template that uses simple bullet
points to prompt people to address the seven questions of RCM2, including the
“technically feasible” and “worth doing” questions. For on-condition tasks, add the P-F
interval. Include the precision aspects and the frequency of the tasks. While you may
never intend to conduct a single RCM2 or RCM3 analysis, gaining a level of competency
and applying the RCM framework using a checklist approach will drastically improve PM
optimization efforts. Be sure to capture the completed checklist in software or save it in
Excel or Word files for reference later. Ideally, revisit these when a failure occurs or every
18 months to adjust the frequency if needed.

About the Author: Jeff Shiver

Jeff Shiver, CMRP, ARP, CPMM, CRL, MLT-I, People and Processes Inc., guides people
and organizations to implement effective reliability solutions in industry and facilities
environments. Connect with Jeff on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffshiver.