The issue, as I see it Darren, isn't with the certification but with the interviewing process.

Any time when people who are inexperienced get between a company with a need and talented people then they reduce the talented people to commodities.

In these cases giving them your CV or attending an interview with them is just asking to be fed into the candidate meat grinder.

I have long since boycotted them and hope many others will do the same.

Hey Luis, Hope all is well for you.

I think it is very valid because it skews the playing field, and provides one side (the independent"player) with an incredibly large advantage. (The advantage that people see them as an honest broker)

There are standards out there that say that my company, for example, is certified to perform quality audits etcetera. From there I think it is up to the market to choose.

They tend to do a good job over the medium term of sorting out the real value providers from the dross.

Hi Greg,

Maintenance first does not mean maintenance only., just as defect elimination does not necessarily mean redesign only. (In fact it is a grave error to approach it as such I believe)

Also, there are additional decision diagrams for evaluating redesign as a cost effective solution.

Many defect elimination / RCA programs get overly focused on the redesign element when there is a cost effective maintenance task that can be applied TODAY.

The result of this thinking is often a long list of modifications, all backing up the system, and all requiring approval, capital, design, planning etcetera.

Yet the problem that you have determined is important enough for you to act on is still there...

Taking a maintenance first approach, where it is suitable, gives you the quickest way to achieve a result.

This does not mean that a redesign should be ignored...not on your life. If there are safety implications, then it should be a consideration, if the downtime / costs consequences are high then it is also worth considering...

But this goes to the basis of the post Greg.

When there is no decision algorithm approach it ALWAYS ends with some for of redesign. (Because that is what engineers do) With all the time issues, the potential for introducing additional problems, and the fact that the underlying issue is still there until the redesign takes place.

It is ALL about managing failure, even the elimination through redesign is about managing failure.

Make sense?

Daryl...

Gentlemen, thanks very much for the comments. Always good to hear from experienced heads and recognised thinkers in the field.

Gents,

You can find the RCM Analyst decision algorithm, along with a one page description of the coding structure, one our news page at the website.

The link is here:
http://www.reliabilitysuccess.com/contacts/news/r...

In my very humble opinion ROn every RCM analysis should run through developing failure modes to the correct level of causality.

My own personal experience has been that often this is deeper, and more thought out than RCA analyses for some reason. (Possibly the detailed focus on cans and wants)

This is not a deep investigative method using weibull and other techniques. Although a capable analyst will know when these tools should b deployed obviously.

The definition of actions to address the causes is implicit in the RCM decision diagram. In fact this is fundamental to the method and the reason why I have doubts over methods where there is no guidance as to what maintenance to perform.

For example, Hazop is a great idea on paper... but ends up producing many additional protective devices which are as under maintained ass the other devices they have been installed to protect.

As far as making sure they are done... there are measures, and training, and rules / policies etcetera. But ultimately if the organization doesn't have the will for it, then nothing is going to stick. (As you well know)

And again, and again, and again...

No worries, let me know what you would like to explore more and I will tell you what I have done with it.

Thanks Jim,

The mobile assets area of the mining industry is one where OEE is not applicable in its current form.

The way I have dealt with this in the past is to take quality as being 100% or 1, or to exclude it all together.

Gives us a pretty good measure of what is going on.

other areas where it has been a problem, believe it or not, has been in the process area. Not because they do not have easily measurable yield or quality performance, but because quality has evolved into a powerful corporate influencer and do not brook any interference in whatever it is they are up to.

Strange days indeed...

Daryl Mather

Have a look at this for a brilliant way to display data. The real action starts at 4:07 and is an excellent view of motion charting and how data can tell an incredibly powerful story.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_b...