The Maintenance Effectiveness Review
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
President, SUCCESS by DESIGN
Abstract: One of the more common tools utilized as part of a
Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) program is
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). The RCM process is a
front-end program designed to develop a maintenance program to
provide the right maintenance, on the right equipment, at the
right time and for the right reasons. Unfortunately, most RCM
programs do not contain a continuous improvement aspect as many
assume that the rigorous process will provide accurate and
sustainable results. However, with this process, errors do occur
and changes to technology, or the identification of improved
tests and inspections not identified during the process, may
change the best practice maintenance identified through the
process. With the implementation of a program developed within
the military, the Maintenance Effectiveness Review, a continuous
improvement process can be implemented.
Introduction
You've performed an RCM analysis of your system and the program
is underway. You have had an existing condition-based
maintenance program in place for years. How do you know your
program is effective? What process can be used to determine if
it is performing optimally?
The US Military has a concept known as the Maintenance
Effectiveness Review (MER) in which maintenance programs are
periodically reviewed for effectiveness. It is a continuous
improvement opportunity to upgrade and streamline your program
without the intensity and costs required to perform continuous
RCM. There are several techniques, including the Backfit
Process, which we will cover, that provide the necessary rules.
There are a number of benefits to the implementation of a MER
which include:
-
It provides a continuous improvement dimension to your
condition-based maintenance program;
-
It can be used to identify weaknesses in the program;
-
It can be used to identify new opportunities or methods for
condition-testing;
-
It provides a measurement process for the effectiveness of
your program;
-
It provides a process 'safety net;' and,
-
It is normally used following the application of RCM.
It is a fact that, regardless of how robust your RCM process is,
problems will slip through the cracks and new technologies and
processes, not identified during the original process, may come
to light. The MER process also keeps the concept of CBM in all
stakeholders' minds, following the initial implementation of the
program, allowing for long-term success.
Maintenance Effectiveness Review Overview
The MER usually begins following at least one cycle following
the implementation of CBM processes. When the cycle is unclear,
it should be started after 12 months of the implementation of
the program with the exception of a noticed increase in
unplanned and/or reactive failures.
One of the first steps in the MER process is selecting systems
for review. This is normally done based upon the system's impact
on safety and regulatory issues, the impact on production or
mission, the expense of repairing or replacing the equipment and
the rate of failure. The prioritization of systems for review is
based upon the systems low or high availability, RCA reporting,
high rate of failures and a pre-set schedule.
A team is assembled that consists of a facilitator, associated
system stakeholders, including operators and maintenance, and
vendors, as appropriate. Each system should be MER'd in a
process that should take about 4 hours to three days, depending
upon the size of the system and the personalities involved.
Unlike the RCM process, however, the MER can be performed on one
system up to a common system across the corporation.
Perform the MER process then assign responsibility for
implementing findings and a time-schedule. Follow-up can be
performed at the beginning of each MER meeting with feedback
that can be as simple as a list of findings assigned on a
red-yellow-green chart.
Does the MER Follow the Seven Requirements for RCM?
While the MER is not meant to be a full or rigorous RCM process,
it does meet the requirements for RCM. Following are a list of
the requirements and a brief explanation:
1. Identify the functions of the system: The first part of the
MER process, when used with an RCM program, is to review the
functions of the system as outlined in the original RCM process.
2. Identify functional failures: Not only does the MER review
the functional failures outlined in the original process, but it
is used to identify if the functional failures have actually
occurred.
3. Identify failure modes: The MER verifies the failure modes as
they have actually occurred.
4. Identify failure effects: The MER verifies the failure
effects as they have actually occurred.
5. Identify failure consequences: Same as 3 and 4.
6. Identify methods to identify failure or to reduce
consequences: The purpose of the MER, including reviewing the
Risk using a Risk Chart.
7. Identify solutions should a proactive task not be identified:
The purpose of the MER is to verify that the solutions and
proactive tasks are actually identifying the issues that they
were selected to identify.
The purpose, of course, is to verify the findings and
implementation practices from the original RCM process.
Conclusion
The purpose of the MER process is to provide a continuous
improvement step to a Condition-Based Maintenance process. It is
not designed to replace the RCM process, but to enhance it and
find weaknesses in the original program, as well as to support
the program through the implementation of a continuous process.
It utilizes the original information, regardless of the type or
rigorous-ness of the original process, and meets the
requirements of an RCM program.
About the Author
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP, is the President of SUCCESS by
DESIGN, a reliability and maintenance services consultant and
publisher. He has over 20 years in the reliability and
maintenance industry with experience from the shop floor to
academia and manufacturing to military. Dr. Penrose is a past
Chair of the Chicago Section of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers, Inc. and is presently the Founding
Executive Director of the Institute of Electrical Motor
Diagnostics. Dr. Penrose may be contacted via phone: 860
575-3087 or email:
howard@motordoc.net
|
