5 Obstacles to Implementing RCM and

How to Overcome Them

In the past, the best maintenance strategy for keeping assets running would require
replacing parts following a strict time-based schedule. However, with the increasing
popularity of reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), organizations now see that it is a
better option for improving equipment reliability, reducing forced downtime, and
increasing the time between one maintenance exercise and the next.
RCM and condition-based maintenance can deliver a more efficient solution than ever
before. Monitoring assets to detect when failures are about to occur, and acting before
they happen, is becoming the benchmark for maintenance.
Unfortunately, implementation appears to be a major challenge. According to a recent
study, more than 60 percent of all RCM programs fail, and most of the other 40 percent
end up performing superficially. Why are so many RCM projects failing and is there a
way out? Following are five of the biggest obstacles to implementing RCM and how to
overcome them.

Poor Planning
Due to the obvious appeal of RCM, some organizations tend to jump into implementation
hurriedly. This inadequate planning and rushed approach sabotages more RCM
programs than any other single issue.
Typically, implementing RCM is a well-laid-out, seven-step process that starts with
identifying the assets for analysis. However, there must be some groundwork and
favorable conditions in place before arriving at this step.
For one thing, how much documentation is available for each asset? Has the
organization identified assets that are mission-critical? Again, the plan must clearly
address issues like unique work cultures, expected duration for implementation, due
dates for every stage of implementation, potential obstacles, and so on.

Insufficient Resource Allocation

After poor planning, inadequate resources also rank high among the reasons for the
termination of many RCM projects. It's such a challenge that some companies have
come to label RCM as a "resource-consuming monster." From their experience, RCM is
complicated, time-consuming and expensive. This type of problem usually occurs when
companies expect quick results or have too many assets on the plan.
RCM is a process-improvement methodology, and like other such tools, it requires some
commitment upfront to see the process through to its conclusion. It can take up to one
year or more of consistent follow-through to begin seeing results, especially when it
comes to recovering the costs of implementation. An enterprise that is only concerned
with immediate reduction in maintenance costs may find the commitment overwhelming
and thus abandon the project.
A better approach would be to consider the improvements in maintenance rather than
focusing on the initial expense. In this case, you can prove the program is gradually
working by comparing trends (e.g., abnormal machine vibrations, downtime frequencies,
etc.) before and after RCM. When this type of comparison is done right, some quick
gains should be evident and help indicate that maintenance costs will begin dropping
over time.
In addition, not all equipment should be selected for RCM analysis, just those assets that
are critical to operations. The best candidates are those whose failure will lead to safety
risks, have a major impact on operations and directly affect the bottom line.

Unrealistic Expectations
Despite the many benefits of RCM, expecting it to work like a "silver bullet" that will fix all
maintenance problems in an organization is unrealistic. RCM is not a stand-alone
solution for deeper system problems like a heavy reliance on reactive maintenance,
excessive downtime, a poor documentation culture, and an inefficient workforce. In fact,
bringing RCM into such a setting may only complicate the problems already existing
because this tool comes with its own set of demands and requirements. Imagine, for
instance, trying to collect and review condition monitoring results when there is a glaring
documentation problem that has not been addressed. If organizations have too many in-
house obstacles, it may be best to employ the services of an experienced RCM
professional to prepare and guide them through the process.

Unclear Responsibilities
Managing the transition from a traditional time-based maintenance system to a
condition-based one is a complete culture change that requires strong and confident
leadership from within the organization. Not specifying a point person for managing the
various steps of the transition is another common obstacle to success. Leaving this
responsibility to a large group of people will not work. Instead, there must be someone
who will be held accountable for tracking implementation progress, monitoring the
timeline and assessing any feedback that can improve the process.

Workforce Problems
An RCM project is only as effective as those who will implement it. It's expected that
there could be some initial resistance from the workforce to this new way of doing things.
This is especially the case where the norm has been heavy dependence on reactive
maintenance. On the other hand, the problem may be a case of management trying to
use inexperienced employees for RCM implementation and expecting stellar results
within a short time.
To manage these issues, it's essential to assess the readiness of personnel and be
realistic about what to expect and how soon to expect it. Rather than rushing into
implementation, focus more on getting staff buy-in and providing adequate training early
in the process.
Ultimately, any organization that sets aside the resources for implementing RCM is
looking to develop a proactive maintenance schedule for every critical asset it owns.
However, before launching an RCM program, it is vital to ensure the exercise will be
sustainable and that the process is not frustrated by any of the five obstacles mentioned
above.