Without a mechanism to evaluate a Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) program’s evolving performance CBM activities will degenerate to “busy work”. Data will continue to be collected, manipulated and filed as a matter of routine. To counter this tendency towards apathy, managers should periodically justify, in terms of profitability and safety, the resources allocated to CBM. Reliability engineers should assist in that effort by reporting, assessing, and continuously improving CBM predictive capability. The following presentation summarizes how to succeed in these endeavors via a “living” RCM process.
A related article about the probability density, failure rate, and conditional failure probability can be found here.
© 2011 – 2014, Murray Wiseman. All rights reserved.
- Structured free text (53.9%)
- The elusive P-F interval (50%)
- Measuring and Improving CBM Effectiveness (21.4%)
- How much data is required for RA? (12.4%)
- 2011 Applied Reliability Symposium (10%)
- Predictive analytics (RANDOM - 2.3%)
[…] rebuild policy that considers not only age but relevant condition data? The article “Confidence in predictive maintenance” describes the Living RCM methodology that will enable the maintenance engineer to arrive at […]
[…] that have been left out of the decision model. More information on this can be found in the article Confidence in CBM decision making […]
[…] model calculates a remaining useful life estimate (RULE). This subject is discussed in the article https://www.livingreliability.com/en/posts/confidence-in-predictive-maintenance/ […]
[…] See also Confidence in predictive maintenance […]