LRCM reliability technician survey results

These are the results of a survey of a group of 9 technicians tasked to interact with the new Mesh work order closure form. This alternative entry method, a feature of “Living RCM” is meant to improve data quality for eventual reliability analysis.  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 1 to 10, 8 maintenance technicians with the responsibility to convey the work order data from technicians in the field to the EAM, rated LRCM against traditional EAM work order procedures.

1. Rate your efficiency and agility in transferring the required data to Ellipse with the former drop down pick list style work order form. (10=Excellent, 1=Poor)
   1. 8
   2. 5
   3. 6
   4. 10
   5. 10
   6. 9
   7. 4
   8. 7
   9. 3
2. Rate your efficiency and agility in transferring the required data to Ellipse with the Mesh RCM tree view failure mode selection method. (10=Excellent, 1=Poor)
   1. 10
   2. 9
   3. 8
   4. 10
   5. 10
   6. 6
   7. 8
   8. 8
   9. 8
3. Do you consider that the RCM knowledge feedback function helps to improve the RCM knowledge base? (10=Immense help, 1=no help)
   1. 10
   2. 8
   3. 6
   4. 10
   5. 10
   6. 8
   7. 7
   8. 9
   9. 8
4. How much value does the image gallery for a failure mode add ? (10=Immense value, 1=no value)
   4. 10
   5. 10
   6. 10
   7. 5
   8. 6
5. How much value does the failure mode count visible in the RCM analysis tree view  add to your understanding of the equipment’s reliability ? (10=Immense value, 1=no value)
   1. 10
   3. 8
   4. 10
   5. 10
   6. 10
   7. 6
   8. 9
   9. 8
6. How well trained to you feel in the use of the LRCM Mesh tools? (10=Highly trained, 1=poorly trained)
   1. 10
   2.  8
   3. 7
   4. 8
   5. 8
   6. 8
   7. 8
   8. 10
   9. 7
7. List the advantages of the Mesh tools.
   1. More failure modes are identified, and identified correctly. It identifies the number of times a failure mode occurs, and specifically within which systems. It enables us to suggest preventive maintenance actions when failure modes are identified and selected. It helps to bring the PM control closer to day-to-day observation.
   2. It is faster
   3. We can consider alternative preventive actions with regard to a failure mode.
   4. It’s very fast
   5. With the latest systems improvement Mesh is more responsive and secure. Takes 5 seconds.
   6. It helps recognize specific equipment with particular failures.
   7. It helps the analysts make recommendations for improvement.
   8. It is quick
   9. Fast and versatile
8. List the main weaknesses of the Mesh tools.
   1. In some systems the current analysis is too general.
   4. At this time I see none.
   5. I do not see weaknesses.
   6. We need to include maintenance areas other than just the downtime activities. Include also the PM work orders and rebuild shops. Supervisors, schedulers, and coordinators should use Mesh so as to be be more involved in the work orders they open.
   7. We need more precision from the operator who should also be involved in the review and update of the knowledge base.
   8. Slowness
9. What improvements would you like to see in the Mesh tools?
   1. Add more failures to the RCM analysis. Sometimes there is insufficient detail. E.g. “Engine speed alarm, RPM X not attained.”
   3. Refresh training.
   5. It should be faster and more reliable.
   6. Nothing. All OK
   9. When the technician makes a selection, the icon in the tree should change color to avoid confusion. The name of the technician should be visible in the feedback form. The remaining useful life estimates should be shown on the tree. The work order should change color when filled out.

© 2016, Murray Wiseman. All rights reserved.