Maintenance & Reliability News - Maintenance Journal

RCM has to be used for what system? The RCM
level selection process provides the solution.
The RCM level selection process assigns a
category to a system by weighting nine criteria
according to the RCM criteria table (figure 2).
Based on the total score of the RCM criteria table
a system category is assigned which represents
a RCM level. The higher the score, the higher the
level of RCM that needs to be applied.
• Category A: Full RCM
• Category B: Fc -RCM
• Category C: ECM
To visualize the system’s score, the system
compass has been developed. The system
compass makes clear the weighting of each
criterion at one glance (figure 3).
One marginal but important note has to be taken
in to account:
Figure 2
RCM criteria table
Although the total score of the RCM level selection process may be
assigning perhaps the C category to a system, the score for risk regarding
to safety, health & environment (SHE) may be required to trigger an
upgrade to the system category because of the high score for SHE risks.
Phasing
When the category and so the required level of RCM is determined for
each system, one can start to set up the preventive maintenance plans.
But be aware, if a higher level than ECM has to be applied, don’t demand
that required level of RCM at once.
Set up the preventive maintenance plan in phases (figure 4).
This achieves that preventive maintenance plans are set up step by step,
in a structured way and do gain benefits at an early stage.
Conclusion
Where RCM determines the effectiveness of the preventive maintenance
plans, the RCM level selection process determines which level of RCM
is effective for each system. This avoids that too extensive analysis are
performed for ‘low priority’ systems.
In combination with management support and the required resources it
will make RCM accessible for each system manager.
This approach increases the chance of
successful implementation of RCM so that the
RCM advantages like securing maintenance
engineering knowledge, substantial cost
reductions and improvement of system
availability are achieved.
Figure 3 - System Compass
References
1 Bureau Veritas North America. 2010. Asset
Integrity Management. [online]. Chicago:
Bureau Veritas. Available from: http://www.
us.bureauveritas.com/wps/wcm/connect/
bv_usnew/Local/Home/Our-Services/
Industrial_Asset_Management/Asset_Integrity_
Management [accessed 22 July 2011].
2 Smith, A.M., Hinchcliffe, G.R., 2004. RCM
Gateway to World Class Maintenance. Oxford:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
3 Zaal, T.M.E., 2011. Profit driven maintenance
for physical assets. Geldermalsen: Maj.
Engineering Publishing.
Tim Zaal
Emeritus Professor of HU University of Applied
Sciences, Utrecht , The Netherlands
Consultant at TZConsultancy, Hoorn, The
Netherlands ( tim.zaal@hu.nl )
Lars Eelman
Research MoE Thsesis at HU University of
Applied Sciences, Utrecht , The Netherlands
Maintenance Consultant at Royal Netherlands
Navy
Figure 4 - Phasing
(Residual) Life Cycle
Legislation
System Compass
System importance
4
3
2
1
0
Risk SHE
Category A System
Category B System
Category C System
Risk economic loss
Asset categorisation
A. Full RCM
Abbreviated RCM
B. Fc-RCM
RCM Level
Involvement of third parties
Maintenance budget
C. ECM
26
Category A Category B Category C
Score 28-36 Score 19-27 Score 9-18
Maintenance complexity
Technical complexity
Step 1 2 3 4
AMMJ
July 2013
Go To Contents Page
Go To Last Page