The reason becomes obvious when you consider and compare the meticulous RCM process with that used in developing failure codes. If traditional failure codes could capture the complexities of maintenance related informaton, there would have been no need to invent RCM. The fact is that the process for developing and using failure codes (including the ISO 14224 process) pales in comparison to the depth and subtlety of an RCM analysis.
A surprising fact is that most RCM shops, having invested heavily in meticuous RCM analysis then drop the ball and use ambiguous failure codes in communicting information to their CMMS. There are two reasons for this:
The CMMS has not been configured to work with the RCM hierarchy, only with codes, and secondly
The RCM consultants did not consider, or even imagine that their RCM analysis could have an important and vital life beyond the initial RCM analysis and the setting up of the maintenance plan.
These two reasons explain the paucity of good data and resulting poor or non-use of Reliability Analysis techniques in maintenance. So how do we correct this problem? Here are some of the LRCM procedures we use:
Keep the failure codes (e.g. the catalogues in SAP, categories in Maximo) synchronized with the RCM knowledge base (The RCM knowledge repository will often be contained in RCM software such as RCMCost, Meridium, etc.).
Manage the daily relationships between the RCM Knowledge base and the Work Order system. And update the RCM knowledge base dynamically.
Generate samples for Reliability Analysis
Perform reliability analysis
LivingReliability Inc. provides assistance and software solutions in each of these four areas.