As we run this failure through the diagram, we answer the following questions:

1.      Is there an on-condition task that would detect the failure?

Answer: No – Failure of this electronic device occurs too quickly to be predicted.

2.      Is there a scheduled rework, discard, or inspection task that would reduce the failure rate?

Answer: No – The failure is electronic in nature and random, simply looking at the device or checking its function will not indicate if failure is about to occur.

3.      Is there a business case for redesign?

Answer: No – The component has been in service several years with no failures.

            The decision process has leads us to “No scheduled maintenance”, this where RCM used to end.  Note we have added to this box the words “Implement a consequence reduction strategy”.  The tells the RCM team that making the decision to run to failure is ok, provided they now consider how to reduce the consequences of the failure or the mean time to restore.  This can be accomplished several ways so I ask teams to take the following things into consideration when asked to reduce consequences:

1.      Spare parts – If we are going to allow this component to run to failure, should we keep the part on hand?  Run this part through a part decision diagram and make this decision.

2.      Replacement Procedure - Is there a procedure in place that describes the most effective way to replace this part including, where is the part located, a lock-out, tag-out try-out procedure?  Describe how the component can be changed and aligned to ensure functionality.

3.      LOTOTO- Ensure a lock-out, tag-out, try-out procedure exists

Assessing each of these things can significantly reduce equipment down time or mean time to restore (MTTR).  The assessment and reduction of failure consequences across an entire RCM analysis will result significant savings to your company and save your RCM program some serious grief.