LRCM reliability analyst survey results

Mesh LRCM has two principal objectives. First, to ensure analyzable work order data, and second, to update the RCM knowledge base whenever it deviates from reality as observed by the technician. On a scale of one to 10, six maintenance engineers and reliability analysts, a half year after Mesh’s implementation, rated LRCM against their prior, traditional EAM work order related methods.

1. How does LRCM speed of failure mode instance selection compare with the pick list method on the legacy work order entry form. (10=vastly superior, 1=same or worse).
   1. 7
   2. 10
   3. 1 ^[1]
   4. 8
   5. 8
   6. 8
2. How does the LRCM work order “treeview” structure compare to previous (drop-down lists) with regard to the quality of information entered on the work order? (10=vastly superior, 1=same or worse).
   1. 7
   2. 8
   3. 1
   4. 8
   5. 8
   6. 9
3. How does LRCM ease of failure mode selection compare with the legacy EAM work order entry form. (10=vastly superior, 1=same or worse).
   1. 7
   2. 9
   3. 1
   4. 8
   5. 9
   6. 9
4. What is still missing that would improve the quality of information needed for the reliability analysis of your fleet’s failure modes?
   1. Improve the EAM’s response time. Mesh often has to wait for the EAM. Reports (such as the Qlik dashboard) that would allow us to better monitor the quality of the data entered via the work order.
   2. The technician is the best information source. But since he is providing that information via the dispatcher by radio, there is loss of precision. Improve dispatcher competency.
   3. We have lost 10 years of valuable information by switching to Mesh.
   4. Update the feedback suggestions in the RCM knowledge base more frequently.
   5. Syncronization between the EAM codes and the RCM knowledge base should be executed more frequently. There are orphan codes on both the EAM and Mesh ends.
   6. When a dispatcher is replaced the new dispatcher’s lack of familiarity with the RCM hierarchy results in incorrectly selected failure modes. Direct access by the technicians using a tablet or smart phone would improve this situation.
5. What benefits have you obtained by having better quality work order data?
   1. I have identified opportunites for improving maintenance policies for mitigating the consequences of specific failure modes.
   2. I reduced the time I use to perform analysis.
   3. I still need to do too much data cleaning due to errors.
   4. The RCM knowledge base is still quite out of date in many areas.
   5. We managed to slightly improve the quality of information. According to records, in 2015, we have a 35% dispersion of data that are incorrectly assigned to a component or system. Previously we were between 50-55% of dispersion. I hope to see more of an improvement to 80% error free or more.
   6. The quality of the analysis is improved substantially. The analysis time has been reduced since the information is complete and we can get it in a single report.
6. Assess your ability to perform effective reliability analysis before the implementation of Mesh. (10=Excellent, 1=ineffective).
   1. 3
   2. 5
   3. 10
   4. 6
   5. 9
   6. 2
7. How would you rate your reliability analysis effectiveness after the implementation of Mesh. (10=Excellent, 1=ineffective).
   1. 7
   2. 8
   3. 1
   4. 7
   5. 7
   6. 9
8. How is your ability to evaluate and optimize maintenance strategies now in comparison to the time prior to Mesh. (10=vastly superior, 1=same or worse)
   1. 7
   2. 6
   3. 1
   4. 7
   5. 9
   6. 7
9. What more is needed to improve your analysis capabilities?
   1. We still need cleaner information. The dispatcher who is actually entering the data in mesh must become expert in the subject to avoid mis-communication and so that he can support the technician over the radio in selecting the right failure modes and event types. The EAM should also be faster (IT project under study) so that he dispatcher has enough time to record the data properly.
   2. Greater focus by the dispatcher in the reliability and precision of the information transmitted by the technician and recorded in Mesh.
   3. Go back to RCMCost. At least that worked.
   4. Reports are required with correct information.
   5. Modify or create new failure modes, via the feedback system, using names or components and parts that the technicians use. This will speed up the location of the right leaf in the knowledge hierarchy when completing the work order. These anomalies are causing “blanks” in the reports.
   6. You can still find a lot of work orders that are filled without using (by-passing) the Mesh knowledge hierarchy. There are many failure modes where the cause is specified as “unknown”.
10. What tools do you currently use for analysis?
    1. Minitab, @risk, Excel, SuperSmith, Exakt, among others.
    2. Spreadsheets and pivot tables
    3. Pivot tables
    4. Pareto, DOFA
    5. Excel: Filters and pivot tables
    6. Super Smith
11. Do you consider that the suggestion feedback system in Mesh helps improve the RCM knowledge base? (10=completely agree, 1=completely disagree)
    1. 6
    2. 8
    3. 1
    4. 9
    5. 10
    6. 8
12. To what extent does the image gallery associated with a failure mode add value to the knowledge base, and to the quality of work order data entry? (10=immense value, 1 little or no value)
    1. 3
    2. 5
    3. 1
    4. 8
    5. 2
    6. 8
13. How much value does the failure mode instance count (of failed and potentially failed parts) in the work order RCM tree add to your understanding of the asset’s reliability and failure consequence mitigating policies? (10=immense value, 1 little or no value).
    1. 8
    2. 5
    3. 1
    4. 8
    5. 1
    6. 8
14. List the principal advantages of the Mesh tool set?
    1. Help to improve the quality of information on the work order. Forces the work orders to relate to the RCM knowledge base. Helps identify the failure and apply the correct failure modes affecting the equipment.
    2. Documenting work orders is faster and less prone to error. Also updating the RCM knowledge base is more practical.
    4. Getting to the root causes of the failures that most affect the fleet.
    5. Correct allocation of failure modes to the right systems and components. Ease In modifying the knowledge base using the suggestion feedback system. Control Of the changes made to the knowledge base. Agility To include failure modes that apply to other systems (Copy-Paste).
    6. “Easy to manage failure modes and see their relationship to equipment functions. Easy to maintain and updated fleet RCM knowledge.
15. List the principal disadvantages of the Mesh tool set?
    1. The underlying EAM platform is too slow (true even before Mesh). The competency of the personnel who record the information in Mesh on behalf of the technicians needs to be upgraded. In my opinion these should be skilled technicians or engineers.
    2. In practice, we cannot always identify the failure mode. We know only the symptom at the time of execution of the work. The actual failure mode may be known only when the replaced component is overhauled in the rebuild shop. And the rebuild shop is not using Mesh to close the work order.
    3. Everything. Particularly the slowness.
    4. Missing information.
    5. There have been problems with synchronization of EAM failure codes and failure modes in the RCM knowledge base. It’s taking too many seconds between clicking on the Event and acceptance into the EAM.
    6. No direct connection from Mesh to the reliability analysis tools.

© 2016, Murray Wiseman. All rights reserved.

1. ^[1]The manager of this project has advised that response “c” should be disregarded in this and subsequent questions, since the employee was negatively disposed to the change at the time of the survey.↩