Evolution of RCM
- 1. Evolution of RCM The Aladon Network
- 2. The Evolution of RCM 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 BASIC RCM US aviation industry became uncomfortable with validity of existing maintenance practices FAA/industry task force formed to investigate capabilities of preventive maintenance Learned 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
- 3. The Evolution of RCM 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 First decision diagram 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 āReliability-centered Maintenanceā Introduction of the term āReliability-centered Maintenanceā: it is not a generic term, but applies to the strategy formulation process described in the N&H report
- 4. 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 āReliability-centered Maintenanceā MSG3 published by US Air Transport Association (ATA) in 1980 MSG3 rev 2 published in 1993 MSG3 rev 1 published in 1988
- 5. 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 Crashes/million takeoffs (moving average) 60 50 40 30 20 10 US OPERATORS
- 6. 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 Crashes/million takeoffs (moving average) 60 50 40 30 20 10 US OPERATORS NON-US OPERATORS
- 7. 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 BASIC RCM 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
- 8. 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 BASIC RCM 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 āReliability-centered Maintenanceā
- 9. 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 first applied in UK then elsewhere RCM2 global network British NES45 Moubray RCM2 book in UK SAE RCM standard JA1011 published in USA MSG3.2001published in 2001 SAE JA1012 US Navair guide 403
- 10. The SAE standard JA1011/JA1012 ā 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.ā ā 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.ā ā 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.ā
- 11. 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
- 12. 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