What do we mean by CBM (condition based maintenance) optimization? We mean, simply, how to "correctly" interpret and act upon data from our condition monitoring (CM) program. Is the decision to act, and the action itself the "right" one? The "best" one? How do we define "best"? What does the "best" time and action depend on? They depend on what we are after - our objective. If our objective is clouded, our CBM target is obscured. To make matters worse, objectives change. Today we seek lower costs. Tomorrow we may want higher availability. Next week we may focus on attaining a better reliability or environmental integrity. Mixed messages and  conflicting priorities impede progress. They demoralize the team. They keep us desperately scampering from foxhole to foxhole.

It follows, then, that the first step towards optimizing CBM is to thoroughly understand our objectives and their dynamics. This is not as onerous a task as one might initially believe. Our physical asset management objectives are identical to those of the asset's owner, its users, and society at large. Formally stated - the objective is "to maintain all of the asset's functions at a level required by its users, its owner, and society". The complexity arises when one enumerates and thoroughly describes those functions. They are intrinsically bound to operating context. When the context changes so may the functional requirement and the consequences of failure. Because context and objectives change, we continually doubt the validity of our plans and policies that grew from those objectives. And if the objectives of maintenance were not systematically defined to begin with ... well you can sense the hopelessness and despair that might result.

Every coin, happily, has its opposite side. While the downside represents the enormity and complexity of the job of controlling equipment failure, the upside reflects the wealth of knowledge and creativity within our ranks. We harness our human assets through a process that begins by describing the functions of a physical asset in its operating context. That vital step permits us to analyze the ways in which each function may fail, the reasonably likely failure causes, the failure effects, and the failure consequences.

The lowest common denominator in our analysis is the failure cause or failure "mode". Systematically identifying and responding to each failure mode will unlock all barriers to effective failure control. The process is called RCM (reliability centered maintenance). The methodology has been extended by OMDEC to optimize CBM tasks generated by RCM. The spin-off benefits (of CBM optimization) include dynamic maintenance information and the  optimal use of the CMMS. The RCM technique delivers two results - the first being tangible, the second intangible, but no less valuable. The concrete deliverable - a comprehensive, readable, actionable description of the functions, functional failures, failure modes, effects, consequences, and appropriate maintenance tasks. The intangible deliverable - an empowered workforce. The OMDEC extension, leverages Nowlan and Heap's extensive treatise on the continuous improvement of maintenance information. That is the management theory behind the EXAKT CBM optimization methodology. OMDEC brings the following two ingredients to your physical asset management plan:

1.    Effective use of CMMS historical records

2.      Optimized CBM

The articles on this website describe the ways and means for accomplishing these goals. Read on.

Do you have any comments on this article? If so send them to murray@omdec.com.