Unfortunately, within the HME community, RCM seems to have been labelled “a waste of resource, time and effort”, preferring to refer to OEM recommendations, Subject Matter Experts (SME) or using inherited plans to develop preventative maintenance or mitigation plans for HME.
This could be due to
the relatively “short life” of HME, in comparison to other assets such those associated with infrastructure, oil and gas, power generation, manufacturing or even Electric Rope Shovels, resulting in little opportunity to have an effect on major component life thru fundamental reliability analysis and techniques; and
the fact that RCM is generally used for “new or unknown” assets or systems prior to the asset going into service (usually during the design phase)
I guess this is why we have seen summarised versions of the RCM methodology being used in the HME community, such as Streamlined RCM, Reverse RCM, PMO or MTA etc
These methods generally centre around failure history (actual events) of assets already in service, rather than perceived or predicted failure modes (as in the case of true RCM as intended by Nowlan and Heap).
RCM in Heavy Mining Equipment
This could be due to
I guess this is why we have seen summarised versions of the RCM methodology being used in the HME community, such as Streamlined RCM, Reverse RCM, PMO or MTA etc
These methods generally centre around failure history (actual events) of assets already in service, rather than perceived or predicted failure modes (as in the case of true RCM as intended by Nowlan and Heap).