Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) vs Preventive Maintenance Optimisation (PMO)

In previous articles, we have described "What is Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM)?"

and "What is Preventive Maintenance Optimisation (PMO)?". In this article, we will discuss the
similarities and differences between the two, and make some recommendations regarding which
approach may be most appropriate for Preventive Maintenance program development, and the
circumstances under which that may apply.

Similarities between RCM and PMO

There are a number of strong similarities between RCM and PM Optimisation. These include:

 Both processes aim to produce an optimal PM program.

 Both use the identification of underlying Failure Modes (causes) as the starting point for
the decision making process.

 Both processes use traditional RCM decision logic. The second half of both processes is
essentially identical, using the same decision framework and RCM principles.

 Both approaches focus on the business consequences of equipment failure, as well as the
technical characteristics of those failures.

The Difference between RCM and PMO

The primary difference between RCM and PMO is in the initial stage of the analysis and relates to
the way that failure modes are identified.

 RCM starts with a blank sheet of paper and identifies the failure modes by first identifying
the key functions required of the equipment (in its current operating context), and then
the associated functional failures and failure modes. In this sense, it starts from a zero-
base.
  On the other hand, PMO uses existing Preventive Maintenance tasks and failure history to
identify likely failure modes. It only explicitly considers functions when identifying Hidden
failure modes. In this sense, it tends to use current experience and practice as the starting
point.

The Potential Pitfalls with RCM

There are a few potential pitfalls associated with RCM (in comparison with PMO – there are other
pitfalls which we will not discuss in this article). These include:

 As it is a zero-based process, RCM tends to be more time-consuming. In particular, as

much as one third of the analysis time can be spent simply identifying failure modes for
analysis.

 The zero-based nature of RCM also tends to mean that, where teams are used to perform
the analysis, the team needs to be involved throughout the process. There are few
opportunities to do pre-work prior to engaging the team. This makes the process more
labour-resource-intensive.

 When applying RCM, there can be a tendency, if not carefully facilitated, to over analyse
equipment and systems and identify many functions and failure modes – many of which
end up having preventive tasks that are either not technically applicable, or are not worth
implementing (given the business context of the equipment).

 There can also be a temptation, when using RCM, to inappropriately cut and paste
analyses and the results of analyses from one equipment item to another. This can,
however, be avoided by appropriately skilled and trained facilitators.

 Because RCM analysis is comparatively more time-consuming, often the focus and priority
is on completing the analysis, rather than on implementing the outcomes.

The Potential Pitfalls with PMO

There are a few potential pitfalls associated with PMO (once again, in comparison with RCM).
These include:

 PMO ideally requires an existing PM program and/or failure history for the equipment (or
essentially identical equipment). If this does not exist, then PMO is very difficult, if not
impossible, to perform.

 The approach for identifying failure modes tends to be less rigorous. As a result, low
frequency (but potentially high consequence) failure modes can potentially be overlooked.
This may be an important factor when analysing highly critical equipment.

 In addition, low frequency failure modes, even when low consequence, can sometimes be
overlooked when using the PMO process. Failure history in CMMS from events greater
than about 3-5 years ago generally does not exist (as these systems are often updated at
this frequency), and as a result failures with an MTBF > about 5 years can be overlooked. If
the current PM program does not address these less frequent failure modes, then a PMO
review may also miss these.
  Because the starting point for most failure modes is the existing Preventive Maintenance
program, there can sometimes be a bias to maintain the status quo (i.e. retain the existing
PM routines, or at best only vary them slightly), even when more effective tasks exist. This
can be overcome through effective facilitation, but it does require greater vigilance and
effort on the part of the facilitator to challenge this bias.

Which approach should you use?

Given the above, we suggest that:

 RCM tends to be more appropriate for brand new equipment, particularly where this
equipment is using new technology that does not exist elsewhere. In this situation, a
"blank sheet of paper" approach is necessary in order to identify the likely failure modes
although you could potentially use the FMEA developed during the design phase of the
equipment as a starting point, if one exists, and if you have access to it. In addition, where
it is absolutely vital that you make sure you identify all critical failure modes associated
with the equipment (for example, those associated with failure with potentially
catastrophic consequences), then the more rigorous approach applied by RCM in this area
is likely to be appropriate.

 PMO tends to be more appropriate for existing equipment, particularly where an existing

PM program is in place and some operating and maintenance experience has been
obtained. The use of the existing PM programs and experience base lends itself to
optimisation. This is particularly true where the likely failure modes associated with the
equipment are well known. In these situations, PMO will provide essentially the same,
optimum Preventive Maintenance program as RCM will, but will do this in a more time-
and resource-efficient manner.

Of course, there are many other approaches that can be taken for the development of Preventive
Maintenance programs. We discuss these (as well as RCM and PMO) in our article "Alternative
approaches for developing and optimising Preventive Maintenance".

Conclusion

I hope that this has given you a better understanding of the similarities and differences between
RCM and PMO. Assetivity has been training and implementing RCM and PM Optimisation in
organisations for 15 years. If you would like to benefit from our experience, then why not consider
attending one of our two-day courses in Reliability Centred Maintenance and PM Optimisation.
These run in various locations around Australia, or we can deliver the course in-house for your
organisation. Our consultants can also facilitate RCM or PM Optimisation studies and help you to
embed these processes within your organisation. Contact us if you would like to discuss how we
may be able to help you.

Sandy Dunn

Director