Dave Reiber, senior reliability leader with Reliabilityweb.com, explains in a recent webinar the importance of having a framework that allows the organization to build short- and long-term strategies. Everyone in the organization should recognize the framework, and everyone should understand and participate in the asset management process.
Within the Uptime Elements framework, the domains include reliability engineering, asset condition management, work execution, leadership and asset management. Reiber focuses on an asset condition management (ACM) program for this webinar, and he explains that a criticality analysis (Ca) is a fundamental element to this, which includes identifying highly critical and critical assets. This must happen before moving to advanced Reliability Strategy Development (RSD), which he explains in more depth in the webinar.
Several attendees submitted questions to Reiber during the webinar, and his answers can be found below.
A Q&A on using a framework for reliability strategy with Reliabilityweb.com’s Dave Reiber
How do you convince all groups to use one framework? Or is it okay to have different frameworks?
Reiber: The only way to get this done is to have an awareness of value, presentation or workshop for the leadership. As far as using different frameworks, I think there will always be more granular strategies and plans inside each department, but the overall framework needs to be the same and recognized by everyone.
Does it make sense to start an RCM (reliability-centered maintenance) program all over the plant, or is it worth it to choose a part first and run a pilot project to show management its effectiveness?
It makes no sense to attempt to use an RCM approach across the entire organization. The concept of RCM is meant to be used only on your highest critical assets. The time and resources required to use a robust RCM program will limit the opportunities to a few of your most critical assets related to throughput, quality and safety. As far as a pilot goes, you will walk before you run with all RCM projects, with leading and lagging indicators used to determine what’s next and to evaluate effectiveness. Once the value of the RCM project is understood, it is much easier to continue the path and to add new projects for the future.
In the area of Asset Criticality determination, have you encountered conflicts/large differences of opinion between the various members of teams working on this? Operations/maintenance/engineering will probably have differences of opinion.
Not really. The most important thing is to facilitate the Asset Criticality with all stakeholders in the room. When all opinions are on the table, we learn from each other, and we should agree to default to the highest level of criticality decided by the team. Also, remember that you should be required to re-visit and re-evaluate the Critical Asset list annually. Some things may change.
What is the best first step to move this process forward?
I refer to the first question here: The only way to get this done, is to have an awareness of value, presentation or workshop for the leadership. We teach What & Why for Leadership. Until the value of this work is understood, no one is going to promote or support it going forward.
Be sure to sign up for our next webinar! Register for free here.