Traditionally, paper checklists are employed to identify maintenance activities and their frequency of application. Quite often the format of daily, weekly, etc., checklists consists of the equipment identification number and description along with the required checks or activities to be performed. These checklists usually are generated from a computerized maintenance program or by prepared forms to ensure repeatability at each defined period.

The principal use of the paper checklist is to record predetermined maintenance activities at the component level. Each time the checklist is completed, the information either is keyed into a computerized system to the history file or is maintained as a record itself. In either case, the history of the executed activities may be used to trend degradation, based on the level of sophistication of the organization's management.

Many checklists are developed simply as a reminder of the maintenance on each piece of equipment, with initials or signatures for indicating acknowledgement of the complete or incomplete activity. The status of defects, corrections, or simple adjustments is usually addressed. Failed items are handled through work orders, which identify symptoms, root cause, and rectifications for history records.

The advent of electronic devices allows infrared, ultrasound, eddy current, and similar types of technologies to be used in a measurement system for condition monitoring. Trends of degradation toward failure are based on these measurements. This methodology facilitates prior knowledge of failure, thus triggering the timing of an open window for component replacement prior to failure, consequently enhancing equipment reliability. Paper checklists usually identify the appropriate medium for the applied situation.

Limits to paper checklists
However, paper checklists are limited in their execution:

• Time taken to upload to computer via keyboarding, not real time and it is not unusual for record-keeping to lag behind. It is difficult to recognize critical trends in a timely fashion.
• Do not record the time of execution and responsibility automatically
• Take considerable time for training
• Opportunity for over or under maintenance at the point of execution
• Opportunity for error on uploading data to computerized system
• Do not provide previous records at the point of application for immediate decision making
• Can become dirty in a maintenance environment and difficult to read

Color and bar coded pictograph decals or labels at the component location can replace the paper checklist. Decals allow maintenance instruction (preventive or condition monitoring) to be demonstrated by the pictograph at the component level on the equipment. Different colors on the decals can be used to indicate the frequency of the maintenance activity.

Use of bar codes
Utilizing the concept of maintenance based on degradation management, the bar code provides the location and maintenance activity that are brought to the point of application. It is embedded in the bar code. A handheld palm device with scan features reads the bar code to provide the specific maintenance information required for the site. The scan on the bar code can project on the handheld screen the date, who, location, component, required activity, metrics, and start and complete time of the executed activity. Therefore each bar code is coded differently to reflect the data at each point on the equipment.

Palm technology in a handheld device facilitates the storage and transmission of current maintenance data when the bar code is scanned. The handheld device does not operate independently, but is tied into a computerized database for collecting data. Queries and reports formulate the data to create the information that will best serve to manage reliability at the component level and consequently for the equipment. As with any other system of its kind, the base data and format has to be developed and implemented to drive the system.

Thus the color pictograph decal provides visual information about the location and frequency to the user and the bar code facilitates the activity to be carried out. The handheld device acts as the conduit to provide the upfront activities and stored information at the point of application and the subsequent history on preventive and condition status. Together, these features (pictograph, bar code, handheld) meet the ideal requirements for the display of data, accuracy and timeliness of performance, and speedy history analysis for determining on-going equipment reliability at the lowest cost.

The paper checklist even with the support of a computerized system does not offer this facility. This may point to the key to a successful maintenance information system—the interface management between the computer and the equipment. This also may reduce the complications sometimes associated with the implementation of maintenance information systems.

Create work orders
In the event there are emergency failures, the bar code can facilitate a scanable work order, where rectification activities can be punched in on the handheld and uploaded to the history file. By creating a bar code electronic system for the checklist, work orders can be directed by bar code technology and information on repairs can be directed to and from remote locations.

By eliminating the paper checklist, the requirement for keyboarding information into the system also is addressed. This facility is particularly useful for offsite activity, since information that must be centralized from differing locations, such as in the case of utilities and transport, can be scanned and uploaded via modem (or in the near future by wireless), thus increasing efficiency and effectiveness, and lowering costs associated with manual transmission of information. More importantly, it reverses the negatives as previously described for paper checklists.

The decal/bar code system provides the following advantages to the end user:

1. Presents maintenance activity at the required point of application.

2. Decal color clearly defines the frequency of application, making training easier.

3. Decal allows each point on the equipment to separately define the preventive and condition monitoring activity.

4. Decal changes the focus from the equipment specialist to maintenance for reliability based on defined activities at the point of application.

5. Encourages proactive data input at the initiation of the system.

6. Missed maintenance activity will show up if not scanned.

7. Items will not be scanable if not due for the activity stated on the decal.

8. Records can be updated immediately without the use of a keyboard, reducing the time for doing so compared with a paper system that encourages backlog of information for decision making.

9. Practically reduces the cost associated with administering the maintenance information system, as time reduced for keyboard activity.

10. To develop the bar code system directs that component identification be known as part of the system. Consequently, purchase order generation for spares can take place in a timely fashion.

11. System if properly managed will reduce the opportunity for cascading equipment damage generally caused when consumable spares (bearings, belts, etc.) fail.

New opportunities
These new tools open new opportunities in preference to the paper checklist, when reliability is the objective of the maintenance strategy.

• Shifts the need for ownership of a maintenance computerized system or the need not to have any system at all. Current technology can facilitate accessing information via an Internet platform that is private and secure. The handheld enables the download of proactive activities and upload of historical data for processing and analysis, once the bar code system is in place.
• Requires such little training that where maintenance skills are in short supply, instructions at the point of execution are clearly distinguished. Only relevant records or activities can be triggered by the appropriate bar code, reducing the opportunity for error.
• Facilitates the characteristics of a quality management system for reliability assurances.
• Facilitates more accurate maintenance costing and budgeting, along with increased responsiveness.
• Identifies missing maintenance activities, if any, based on decal location and any root cause determination.
• Encourages the determination and application of engineering principles to resolve the potential causes of degradation and consequently to determine a failure threshold level based on a condition monitoring medium.
• Facilitates all stakeholders' (repairers and suppliers) access, reducing the retrieval time for spares.

Looking ahead, as organizations outsource more activities and retain control over their core production activities only, the system described will provide critical advantages. Contractor maintenance costs can be more accurately tracked, controlled, and consequently managed because the evidence of performance is embedded in the bar code. On the other hand, contractors who provide maintenance services can sharpen their performance because they have real time data, since they can trend conditions toward failure and manage resource allocation for repairs and service. Thus moving to an electronic checklist resolves the problems that create a performance credibility gap when a paper checklist is used. MT

Jeffrey Lewis is president of QMS Consulting, Inc., 2212 Sweetwater Dr., San Leandro, CA 94578; (510) 483-3675

Maintenance benchmarking studies have been carried out for 20 years or more, but only now, however, has it become possible to begin to develop the full potential of this type of study. This is for two reasons:

1. Plants have become more rigorous in their recording of the use of maintenance resources and of outages due to maintenance, and therefore are able to provide more comprehensive data for comparative studies.

2. Software to perform advanced statistical analysis of databases efficiently and economically is increasingly being used to analyze study data.

The result is a powerful new tool for plants to set realistic performance targets on the one hand and to discover their best current means to achieve the goals on the other.

The benchmarks referred to here are data representing the range of observed performance in studies sponsored by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and conducted by Solomon Associates. In the maintenance function, benchmark data is typically of three types:

Reliability and maintenance performance indices. These indices depict both resource consumption and reliability results. They are presented either as quartile results (that is, the values representing the average performances of the first, second, third, and fourth 25 percent of the sample when ranked by performance), or as range charts showing the distribution of performance from the leading to the trailing performer.

Plant characteristics. Plant characteristics are important factors in determining performance. The benchmarks, which cover such factors as plant age, feedstock type, location, operating severity, and equipment complexity, are presented therefore as the average value of the plants in each quartile of performance. Range graphs additionally will show the plants characteristic ranking relative to others in the sample.

Maintenance function practices and organization factors. Physical factors are only a part of the complex interactions which influence maintenance performance. Factors such as ratio of craftsmen to planners, percent of emergency work, and type of contract are all influential and analyzed to detect relationships with performance results. These benchmarks therefore are similarly presented as performance quartile averages and range graphs.

What is maintenance?
As for any function in industry, there must exist an agreed definition of what responsibilities and activities constitute maintenance before its performance can usefully be discussed, measured, or compared. CMA and Solomon use the following definition: "Maintenance is responsible for conserving an industrial facility at its designed level of performance and for managing the necessary resources."

Conserving a facility at its designed level of performance points to the first key objective of maintenancethat is, to ensure the designed level of facility reliability. It is therefore necessary to define reliability: "Reliability is the percentage of time that a facility is mechanically available to perform as designed when operated under design conditions."

The second key objective of maintenance is obviously "to accomplish its mission at a minimum overall cost/lost margin."

Managers want to use comparative industry data on reliability and maintenance to set "best performance" targets for their plants, and that is the role of these comparative studies.

To derive credible targets, however, four dimensions must first be factored into the target-setting process. These dimensions are: Categories of maintenance, process characteristics and equipment complexity, components of overall maintenance effectiveness, and performance sustainability.

Categories of maintenance
When analyzing maintenance performance it is essential to measure separately the different categories of equipment maintenance. Different equipment categories not only are designed by different engineering functions but also are maintained by separate craft groups. At any given plant, high or low reliability and maintenance performance in one category is usually quite independent of that in another.

There are four equipment category families that cover the facilities at petroleum refining and chemical plants. They correspond broadly to the traditional grouping of maintenance technician crafts:

• Fixed plant: Pipefitters, welders, inspectors, boilermakers, insulators, painters, riggers, scaffolders, equipment operators, general labor, and other civil crafts
• Rotating and reciprocating mechanical equipment: Millwrights and machinery, workshop, and pump mechanics
• Electrical equipment: High and low voltage electricians, HVAC technicians
• Instrumentation: Instrument, analyzer, and control systems technicians.

To study maintenance performance, it is important to separately identify and measure the performance of each category. Initiatives that improve maintenance cost and reliability in the fixed plant category differ considerably from those that achieve similar results for rotating equipment. Fixed plant maintenance is dominated by metallurgical and inspection criteria and the need to perform the work during turnarounds. Rotating equipment involves seal technology, lubrication, vibration monitoring, and not least the standards applied to standby equipment. Summing the results of these two categories of performances into one performance metric not only will reveal little, it actually may mask important information in the separate categories.

Combining all four main categories into a single overall maintenance performance metric will reveal even less. Therefore, these data are separated in reports of overall maintenance performance.

Process characteristics and equipment complexity
Every site is unique. Differences in layout, processes, feedstock, products, plant complexity, and equipment redundancy therefore dictate the need for appropriate comparative metrics that account for the differences.

The most influential factor on maintenance cost is obviously the scale of the facility maintained. In recent years, expressing maintenance cost as a percent of facility replacement value has normalized the influence of size. In studies of specific industry sectors, other size normalizing factors are used (capacity, throughput, etc.).

The second family of factors that can influence maintenance cost and process reliability is the location of the facility with respect to the environment. Extremes of temperature, humidity, air borne aggressive agents, and proneness to unusual damage through cyclones, floods, earthquakes, etc., can affect performance significantly. The effects of the design standards used as a consequence of these factors can be both positive and negative on the performance metric. The designs can improve reliability directly; moreover, the effect of any additional maintenance cost on the performance metric may be masked when the resulting higher plant replacement value is used as the divisor.

A third family of physical factors that influence performance is the nature of the plant. Such factors may include age, construction standards, site acreage, and equipment crowding.

A fourth family is the nature of the process. This includes batch or continuous production modes, feed and product changes that require maintenance intervention, operating severity, corrosivity, etc. Performance metrics which are specific to a given product line family will go some way to normalizing these effects. They are not, however, the complete answer. Often facilities in the same product line family will have been built to different standards and may utilize different process variants.

The fifth family of factors that influence maintenance cost and process reliability is the actual amount of equipment in the process. This "equipment complexity" can be measured by the equipment count of a given family of equipment per plant replacement value. It seems obvious that plants with a higher number of heat exchangers per billion dollars of plant value will have higher heat exchanger maintenance costs.

The final category of equipment characteristics that must be mentioned is equipment redundancy. Plants with a lower percentage of spared pumps, for example, will tend to have higher production losses resulting from rotating equipment reliability problems.

Overall maintenance effectiveness
In a project to improve maintenance performance it is wrong to focus on one or two of its components and neglect others. There are at least five interdependent components of overall reliability and maintenance effectiveness. These include:

• The value of production losses caused by maintenance activity
• The direct costs (labor, contracts, and materials) of maintenance work
• Overhead costs of maintenance support staff (supervisors, planners, schedulers, reliability engineers, managers, etc.)
• The cost of operator time spent administering maintenance (scheduling, work permits, preparing plant for maintenance, etc.), and spent carrying out assigned maintenance tasks (condition monitoring, preventive routines, repairs, etc.)
• The costs of tying up capital in an inventory of spare parts and materials.

The following examples of interdependence illustrate this dimension:

• More maintenance by operators reduces the need for craftsman resources
• More (up to a limit) preventive maintenance reduces production losses due to maintenance-caused stoppages
• Too little maintenance overhead support (planning, scheduling, reliability engineering) results in increased direct maintenance costs
• Too much maintenance overhead support adds to the total cost of maintenance
• Too little spare parts inventory reduces service levels and increases repair duration and therefore lost production
• Too high a level of inventory owned and managed by the plant increases the interest to be paid on the capital tied up in spares.

The performance target-setting process therefore must be based on a target objective of overall maintenance effectiveness that optimizes the balance of the targets of the individual components. Five performance indices comprise overall maintenance effectiveness—Reliability Loss Index, Direct Maintenance Cost Index, Indirect Maintenance Cost Index, Operator Maintenance Cost Index, and Spares Holding Cost Index.

Reliability Loss Index. When production is stopped or slowed, an opportunity for potentially profitable sales is lost and schedules are disrupted. But what is the value of the lost production when substantial spare capacity exists, or where profit margins are temporarily negative? The premise of most studies is that reliability always has economic value. To a large degree, plant reliability is also necessary to attain fundamental safety and environmental objectives.

In a growing business, additional capacity created by superior reliability earns an investment credit at least equal to the cost of building new capacity. Therefore, achieving more capacity through reliability is worth at least the anticipated return on the cost of building that capacity. Conversely, losing capacity costs at least the anticipated return on that capacity.

In studies, the percent of planned and unplanned maintenance outages and slowdowns is analyzed by causal equipment categories. Identifying the Reliability Loss Index by equipment causal component is fundamental in gaining an accurate understanding of the impact that the site severity and complexity and organizational factors may have on different areas of reliability.

The benefit of evaluating the Reliability Loss Index, a cost, as opposed to the more current Mechanical Availability Index is that reliability losses and maintenance costs are evaluated thereby on the same basis and therefore can be combined to give an overall maintenance effectiveness performance.

Maintenance Cost Indices (direct, indirect, and operator involvement). All the principal components of direct, indirect and operator maintenance costs are recorded to obtain a total cost index.

Direct costs are analyzed further by equipment category. Identifying maintenance costs at the equipment level is fundamental to understanding the impact of site severity, complexity, and organizational factors on the different cost areas.

Indirect and operator-related maintenance costs normally cannot be collected by equipment category and they are calculated pro-rata to the direct maintenance costs for the same equipment family.

Spares Holding Cost Index. The cost of holding inventory (like any investment) consists mostly of the interest to be paid on the capital tied up. Typically, a standard percentage rate per year is applied to spares inventory value to evaluate the cost of this component. Inventory data is collected for each category of equipment and the associated holding cost is calculated.

Performance sustainability
Plants can take steps that, in the short term, enable them to achieve unusually good performance levels in one or two components of reliability or maintenance cost. Often these can be unsustainable in the longer term. Typical examples are:

• Delaying necessary tank maintenance overhauls for many years to reduce costs
• Adopting a policy of temporary repairs on corroded pipework to reduce costs
• Downsizing support staff to a level that provides insufficient support to equipment or craftsmen
• Over-extending turnaround intervals and/or excessively reducing overhaul content to delay production losses until the next turnaround

World-class sustainable performance is not that which a few plants can occasionally achieve. Rather it is the best performance that a significant number of plants can achieve year in and year out.

Sustainable reliability or maintenance performance is therefore: Performance that can be achieved on a steady basis over time, preserving the integrity of the process and physical characteristics of the facility. This concept introduces three notions into the measurement of performance: Annualization of data, steady state operations, and performance trends.

Annualization of data. While accounting procedures generally regroup statistics on an annual basis, actual maintenance activity certainly does not occur in such a systematic way. For example, tankage is overhauled on a cycle of the order of 10 years, the components of better performing pumps need replacement at an interval of around 48 months, filters need cleaning once a week, and so on. Both maintenance cost and reliability performance therefore are greatly distorted when the events of only a specific 12-month accounting period are computed. A true reflection of performance can be obtained only if cost and lost production are annualized. However, this involves special computing only in the case that the events are of a frequency of more than 6 months. Events that occur more frequently and consistently normally will average out on an annualized basis.

Steady state operations. The need for maintenance is heightened when the production process is changed and out-of-specification operating conditions occur. In the extreme case, pilot plants of prototype processes require permanent maintenance department attention. It is fair to say, therefore, that the concept of sustainable performance is alien to non-steady-state operations and comparison of performance is unrealistic.

Performance trends. Performance metrics, to be truly useful, must account for and include trends in the measured parameters. These are usually economic in nature, inflation and price drift (up or down) being the most obvious. These are accounted for in most performance metrics by their design as ratios of concurrent costs and plant values.

Calculating sustainable performance targets
To gain credibility and acceptance, performance targets must be realistic. That is, they have to be achievable within a context understood by those responsible for achieving them. To set realistic and sustainable targets, management will best achieve its purposes by adopting the following approach which factors in the different dimensions of performance described previously.

Choose a group of better performers in their industry sector based on first quartile performance in overall maintenance effectiveness. This metric is the sum of the five measurable components of reliability and maintenance.

For direct costs and production losses in each equipment category, set targets based on the first quartile average of plant subgroups with similar equipment characteristics. (Note that the first quartile average should be calculated excluding plants with performance values that are outside the two-sigma range.)

For operator cost, overhead cost, and spares holding cost, set targets based on the first quartile average of plant subgroups with similar overall characteristics. (Again, the first quartile average should be calculated excluding plants with performance values that are outside the two-sigma range.)

The targets derived from this systematic approach provide balanced, equipment category, maintenance component, and overall target objectives. This is more realistic than a target derived by examination of individual component performance values in isolation.

The technique of summing performance components, coupled with the use of performance levels of real sites in the target-setting process, provides the best means of gaining commitment to the new targets and increasing the chance of lasting success. This would seem to be demonstrated overall by the maintenance cost index trends of plants participating in the CMA studies.

Using benchmarks to achieve goals
Once realistic and sustainable performance targets have been derived, set, and accepted, the next management task is to decide which organization practices should be promoted to achieve closure of the different performance gaps between the plant's actual performances and the sustainable targets.

Comparative studies of work practices and maintenance organization are the means to guide decisions. Organization and practices data can be classed in seven interdependent categories (an example of the data collected is given for each):

• Reliability program (formalized improvement projects, etc.)
• Engineering standards (specification of standby criteria, etc.)
• Support staff (ratio of craftsmen per supervisor, etc.)
• Organization (sharing resources across the plant, etc.)
• Procedures (percent of work that is condition monitoring, etc.)
• Craftsmen (percent overtime, etc.)
• Contractors (percent of unit rate contracts, etc.)

Multivariable statistical analysis of plant characteristics, work practices, and organization features enables us to propose links between such features and their leverage on performance metrics. Statistical analysis of these features will potentially demonstrate that a given feature has an influence on performance, and the weight of the feature on performance.

The result is a model formula such as the following:

Electrician hours per year per million dollars plant value = K + a times number of motors per billion dollars plant value - b times percent of motors which are spared + c times product line age + d times percent of electrical work that is emergency  e times percent of electrical work that is condition monitoring + f times number of electricians per supervisor. (K, a, b, c, d, e, and f represent appropriate constants.)

It is our experience from studies that usually less than 10 of the first most significantly correlated features will achieve a correlation coefficient of better than 0.8.

An adequately large and well-designed database will deliver the means to provide knowledge of realistic/sustainable performance targets for individual plants within the database range, and identification of those organizational practices that will help to achieve quantified performance improvement.

The current participation of product lines in the CMA study is olefins, 24; olefin intermediates, 59; chlorinated hydrocarbons, 18; primary aromatics, 19; aromatics intermediates, 10; polyolefins, 23; thermoplastics and elastomers, 32; other petrochemicals, 17; chlor alkali, 21; refineries, 120; and others, 14.

In addition to the sheer size of the database, the quality of the performance targets predicted and the plant characteristics, organization, practices, and statistical models of performance developed depends on three factors: The ongoing development of the design of the database and questionnaire, the quality and validity of the data provided, and the thoroughness of the statistical analysis.

In successive years the conclusions obtained from these studies become more definitive as the scope of the database increases, the data collection by participants improves, and the database design itself evolves. MT

Information in this article is based on studies sponsored by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C., and a paper presented at the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association Maintenance Conference held in Austin, TX, May 24, 2000. The CMA benchmark study is compiled on a 2-year cycle.

Michael Hernu is a senior consultant at Solomon Associates, Inc., Dallas, TX 75240. a benchmarking and management consulting firm; telephone (972) 385-8600.

Web enabled; mobile computing; browser interfaced. These terms can mean much the same thing and are very inter-related when discussing an enterprise asset management (EAM) system. All provide the opportunity to connect and communicate using the Internet and/or company Intranet.

For example, your department has just been issued a new tool. You've unpacked it, started reading the instructions on how to use it, and cannot figure it out. This tool, of course, has an asset number. Instead of calling the manufacturer or wasting more time trying to figure it out, you simply go to your computer and enter the asset number, going to notes. Good news—your facility in the U.K. also has one of these items. They have put in the notes how they got it working in their plant.

Perhaps, instead, you are interested in transferring parts from one facility to another as they are needed. In a pinch, you can find out who has the item you need and instantly issue a transfer request online. At a click of a mouse, you can quickly determine which machines are your most costly to maintain.

Browser interfaces becoming mandatory
Utilizing the Internet is a logical extension of an EAM/CMMS system and the way most modern systems are being and will be implemented. Web-enabling means all applications, including work orders, inventory, purchasing, shop floor, dispatch, and other modules and functions, can be accessed via the Internet from anywhere, including all plants and any virtual office that has a phone plug. And, if you have a wireless unit, you do not even need the plug. Mobile computing becomes a reality. Handheld units become Web browsers with which to access an EAM/CMMS system.

Instead of having software physically available in each facility, the application resides in one centralized location. From their PCs, laptops, or even personal digital assistants, maintenance managers and technicians can enter and transmit work order requests, determine work order status, e-mail operational reports, and view approved work orders. They can check on inventory status, dispatch parts, create purchase orders, and keep maintenance procedures flowing on the Internet.

Facilitate upgrades
When distribution of software is browser-interfaced, users can obtain software upgrades faster. No longer are updates loaded locally. All downloads go to one centralized server, alleviating IT personnel from having to upgrade every computer. At once, everybody is updated. This saves considerable time and assures everyone is working off the same page at all times.

As importantly, the hardware budget will shrink. To make people more efficient, main hardware purchases will be of the mobile computing variety, not infrastructure. That is because the Internet is the backbone of the system, not the innumerable clients, servers, and network interfaces that make up the spinal columns of the client/server systems. Hardware is bought to empower workers, not upgrade networks.

Unencumbered by all that hardware, the speed of the browser-interface system is faster, as fast as Internet delivery. Since the Web is platform independent, nobody cares if you or others on the system are using a Palm, AS/400, PC, or any other platform type or brand name. You can even access your EAM from home on your family's iMac.

True EAM
Once browser-based, an organization can go from being plant-centric to enterprise-centric. It can optimize inventory, minimize downtime, maximize productivity, and make faster, more intelligent decisions. The company's database can be searched for information about each and every asset. Maintenance engineers can find out what others have done to solve problems they are facing now.

With organizations wanting to optimize every aspect of their operations, maintenance professionals now are being recognized as keys to increased profits. With quick time-to-benefit and payback, browser-based EAM/CMMS provides the tools to become the chief financial officer's best friend. MT

You will have to excuse me up front for my newfound long-winded consultancy talk while introducing the subject matter of performance. I have come to learn, however, that when attempting to express a viewpoint on an issue it is important to take the time up front to establish both a literal and visual common ground by way of definitions and models.

Performance in the workplace tends to be the result of two factors: the first being the motivation or the will to do something, and the second factor being the ability or skill to be able to do it.

The formula for achieving performance is straightforward:

Performance = (motivation or will) x (ability or skill)

The will to do something tends to be highly dependent on a very clear understanding of the value that comes from the doing.

The skill to do something is dependent on training and experience acquired in the past that have provided you with the abilities to do the job to a predefined standard.

When these concepts are substituted into the formula, it becomes:

Performance = (clearly understood value achieved by doing) x (training and experience to be capable to do)

At this point it is fair to ask, "If the formula for performance is so simple, why is it that we experience such diverse ranges of performance among organizations in every industry?"

The diverse ranges of performance are due to the high degree of variability that exists in organizations providing employees with a clear understanding of the value of doing a job as well as the diverse range of training and experience among employees. Suffice it to say, an organization's performance is directly correlated to the sum of all the individual performances of each person in the organization.

So what does all this have to do with high performance maintenance and reliability?

The core purpose of a maintenance organization in any industry should be to ensure the physical equipment or assets it is held accountable to care for are maintained to a standard allowing them to always meet the business objectives of the company—product quality, throughput, delivery, safety and environmental integrity, all at the lowest possible cost.

The performance of the maintenance organization, therefore, is completely dependent on the degree to which the maintenance standards required to meet the business objectives are adequately defined and the degree to which they are adhered to.

It is here where due diligence to adequacy and adherence varies greatly among high performance maintenance and reliability organizations and all others.

Interestingly, where most organizations completely miss the mark on both adequacy and adherence is by treating them as two completely separate issues; they do not ensure that employees expected to adhere to maintenance tasks also are involved in developing them. Experience has shown that if employees (people that know the equipment best—maintainers, operators, first line supervisors, technical staff) are not involved in the development of maintenance tasks by working together in a small group with a highly structured methodology, the organization is:

• Less likely to use as a starting point, the business objectives of the asset the maintenance tasks are meant to achieve
• Less likely to uncover all the most reasonably likely maintenance tasks required to achieve the business objectives
• Less likely to be compelled to adhere to maintenance tasks they do not have ownership in, since they were not involved in developing them in the first place
• Less likely to have a crystal clear understanding of how the maintenance tasks support the business objectives and thus unlikely to be motivated to adhere to them

Essentially it now becomes much clearer why maintenance and reliability organizations can easily experience either low performance or high performance when inputs to the formula become:

Low performance = (low adherence to tasks with unclear business value) x (inadequate task definition)

High performance = (high adherence to tasks with clear business value) x (adequate task definition). MT

Gino Palarchio - Gino T. Palarchio is director of consulting services, Ivara Corp., Burlington, ON, specializing in the delivery of maintenance and reliability solutions, including software. He has 20 years of experience in the maintenance and reliability profession, 18 years working in industry, moving through such roles as maintenance engineer, first line supervisor, business unit manager, and over time towards a manager of corporate reliability.

Robert C. Baldwin, CMRP, Editor

The 63-page document contains some valuable information for making a self-assessment of organizational effectiveness. The criteria are designed to help organizations focus on performance management that results in

• Delivery of ever-improving value to customers
• Improvement of overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities
• Organizational and personal learning.

The criteria are built on a set of interrelated core values and concepts that make up beliefs and behaviors found in high-performing organizations. Outlined topics include visionary leadership, customer-driven excellence, organizational and personal learning, valuing employees and partners, agility, focus on the future, managing for innovation, management by fact, public responsibility and citizenship, focus on results and creating value, and systems perspective.

The core values and concepts are embodied in seven categories that form the structure of the program:

• Leadership
• Strategic planning
• Customer and market focus
• Information and analysis
• Human resource focus
• Process management
• Business results

They are concepts that can be scaled to department level. But in the larger scope of the business enterprise, for which the Baldrige Quality Program is designed, reliability and maintenance seems to fall into Item 6.3 Support Processes, key process that support daily operations in delivering products and services.

So far, so good. Then I turned the page and read the point values for the various categories and items. Support Processes counts for only 15 points out of a total of 1000, just 1.5 percent. And, asset management shares those 15 points with finance and accounting, legal, and human resources. That puts us way below 1 percent.

If we assume that company leadership focuses on the most important issues, those categories with the most points, it is no wonder maintenance and reliability professionals have a hard time getting their attention. What category gets the most attention? Business results, with 450 points.

Obviously, using this scorecard, it is virtually impossible for a group to get any attention from top management without building a case for its contribution to business results. Will your case stand top management scrutiny? MT

The U.S. Navy faces the great challenge of becoming the Navy of Tomorrow. However, in this age of shrinking defense budgets, it has been shown that there simply are not enough funds available to maintain the current degree of readiness and modernize the Fleet for the future. As reported by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), current operation and support (O&S) costs for naval aviation weapon systems consume 50 to 60 percent of the Navy’s total operating account and it has been shown that these O&S costs will increase if they are not arrested. As a result, Vice Admiral John A. Lockard, former Commander, NAVAIR, has mandated Affordable Readiness to reduce the total cost of ownership of naval aviation weapons systems now in order to provide funding for modernization and recapitalization of the Fleet.

In an effort to reduce the total operating cost of common support equipment (CSE) and aircraft launch and recovery equipment (ALRE), the NAVAIR CSE program manager, the ALRE program manager, and Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst (NAWCADLKE), together with the Fleet, have instituted Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). RCM is a process used to determine the maintenance requirements of any physical asset in its operating context. RCM has been applied to various end items of CSE as well as ALRE equipment such as recovery, assist, securing, and traversing (RAST) equipment. As a result, maintenance plans have been re-established. In addition, numerous changes/improvements to the equipment and various processes have been identified that, when implemented, will significantly reduce O&S costs.

Need for a standard
RCM, when carried out properly, offers a method to develop the most safe and cost-effective maintenance policies for physical assets. However, RCM is a time- and resource-intensive process. In this age of do more with less, there is a problem that has infected the discipline of physical asset management. In the interest of saving time and money, corrupted versions of RCM, versions that irresponsibly shorten the process, continue to flood the market; these tools are incorrectly called RCM. They boast that they are quicker and cheaper, yielding dependable results. This simply is not true.

A group of asset management professionals dedicated to the proper use of RCM (including representatives from NAVAIR and the Naval Sea Systems Command) developed a standard for RCM. In September 1999, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) approved SAE JA1011, "Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered Maintenance." The standard does not detail how to perform RCM, but it sets out criteria that any process must comply with in order to be called RCM. The standard is not yet legally enforceable but offers a tool to evaluate any process that purports to be RCM.

Too many maintenance managers do not understand what RCM is and believe they cannot bear the expense to do it properly. On the contrary, they cannot afford not to; lives depend on it.

Why RCM?
CSE encompasses a range of equipment including tow tractors, mobile electric power plants, mobile air conditioners, avionic test systems, hydraulic test stands, weapon loaders, and bomb trailers. CSE serves several functions such as handling, servicing, maintaining, inspecting, and testing aircraft; aircraft components; and other end items of support equipment. The equipment, located ashore and afloat, is used throughout the Navy providing critical support to naval aviation operations.

RAST equipment is used to traverse SH-60 helicopters in and out of aircraft hangars and to aid in recovering the aircraft to the decks of nearly 100 air capable ships, such as frigates and cruisers in foul weather conditions.

Scheduled maintenance for CSE and RAST is a huge cost driver within naval aviation. NAVAIR reports that O&S costs increase at a rate of 5 percent per year. With the ever-increasing need to reduce O&S costs, one solution is obvious. A re-establishment of maintenance plans is compulsory. By direction of Vice Admiral Lockard, RCM was implemented to accomplish this goal.

What type of RCM?
Because there are many methods of RCM available, an appropriate RCM strategy, and one that complies with the criteria set forth by SAE Standard JA1011, had to be identified. First, it was necessary to distinguish the qualities desired in the process used.

However, perceived shortcomings of the CSE and RAST maintenance management systems’ circumstances impeded the initiation of an RCM program. First, it was believed that a previously prepared failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was mandatory to perform RCM. Additionally, adequate detailed failure data is virtually nonexistent.

Taking into account what was desired in the chosen RCM process and the perceived obstacles to initiating an RCM program, research into the various methods of RCM revealed that RCM2, a modern derivative of RCM developed by John Moubray of Aladon, Ltd., was the ideal method to use. Its strengths lay in many areas:

• The RCM2 philosophy is consistent with the message of Vice Admiral Lockard. It requires that rather than relying solely on a single analyst or engineer to perform the RCM analysis, it must be executed by a team of equipment experts, under strict guidance of a highly trained RCM facilitator. The CSE and RAST RCM teams recognize the absurdity of expecting one individual to know all of the failure characteristics of a complex system. The CSE and RAST RCM analyses are completely team oriented and cannot be performed without the Fleet.
• RCM2 recognizes that most historical data, with respect to maintenance planning, is typically inadequate. The analysis can be performed without extensive failure data.
• The RCM2 analysis is zero-based. The analysis is conducted as if no maintenance (including pre-operational inspections) is being conducted. As a result, the new maintenance schedule is not biased by current practices that may not be technically appropriate.
• RCM2 focuses on identifying the equipment functions that the user wants the equipment to do—not what it was designed to do (as the two are often drastically different).
• The completed RCM2 database provides a legally defensible audit trail for all decisions.
• RCM2 has a proven track record with other military organizations, namely the Royal Navy, and is used extensively throughout industry.
• RCM2 does not require that a previously prepared FMEA exist before the analysis is initiated.

RCM process
In order to complete the RCM analysis, a team of equipment experts called the Review Group answers seven questions about the equipment being analyzed. The first four questions make up the FMEA.

1. What are the functions and associated performance standards of the asset in its present operating context?
2. In what ways does it fail to perform its functions?
3. What causes each functional failure?
4. What happens when each failure occurs?
5. In what way does each failure matter?
6. What can be done to predict or prevent each failure?
7. What should be done if a suitable proactive task cannot be found?

RCM focuses on identifying what must be done to ensure safe system functions. Therefore, the first step in the RCM process is to clearly identify the functions of the unit from the point of view of the user.

One of the most distinguishing features of the RCM2 process is that functions and performance standards are recorded as what the user wants the asset to do rather than what it was designed to do. In some cases, what the Fleet needs equipment to do and what it was designed to do are very different. This may have a large impact on the maintenance requirements.

Consider a mobile electric power plant that has been in service for 16 years yet has considerable service time remaining. It is equipped with both ac and dc power supplies. When the unit was first commissioned, the dc power supply was required Fleet-wide.

Today, with the emergence of newer aircraft, the dc power supply is required at limited sites only yet it is still maintained. Using the careful identification of functions, it is often noted that the user’s expectations of the equipment and its original design capabilities are different. By identifying what the user needs the unit to do, superfluous equipment functions and the corresponding maintenance may be eliminated.

Functional failures, or the ways in which the asset can fail to meet the expectations of the user, are identified. Both total and partial functional failures must be documented. For ex- ample, the primary function of a mobile air conditioning unit may be to deliver conditioned air at the required performance parameters. The total failure of this function is to be completely unable to cool aircraft compartments.

However, a partial failure may occur—the unit may continue to produce cool air but not at the rate required, thus still cooling the aircraft compartment but not in as timely a fashion as required. It is important to list total and partial functional failures because the consequences of total and partial failures may be drastically different.

The third step in the RCM process is to identify failure modes. A failure mode is defined as an event that causes a functional failure. Examples of failure modes are "bearing seizes due to lack of lubrication" or "thermostat fails closed due to corrosion."

All failure modes that are reasonably likely to happen are recorded. Specifically, failure modes that should be recorded are:

• Failures that have happened in the past
• Failures that have not occurred but have severe consequences
• Failures that are currently prevented by existing maintenance schedules

Typically, in RCM analyses that are conducted solely by an RCM analyst or engineer, only failure modes associated with normal wear and tear and deterioration are recorded. Little emphasis is placed on failure modes that may result from human error or design flaws. Because equipment experts conduct the RCM2 analyses—personnel who have intimate knowledge and experience with the equipment and the operating environment, up to 30 percent of the failure modes identified in some CSE and RAST RCM analyses are attributed to human error.

The purpose of recording such failure modes is not to place blame but rather to identify and address impediments to preserving safe system functions of the equipment. Most of the "mistakes" are not the fault of the user/maintainer but can be traced to confusion or deficiencies in the maintenance process. Properly identifying the failure modes that are reasonably likely to occur is a crucial step in the RCM process.

The failure effects of each failure mode are documented. A properly written failure effect should:

• Be written as if nothing is done to detect or prevent the failure
• Describe the failure to the first point of evidence to the operating crew
• Identify how, if so, someone could be killed
• Identify how, if so, an environmental standard may be breached
• Record any secondary damage to the equipment as a result of the failure
• State what must be done to repair the failure

Only with a properly written failure effect may the consequences of a failure be appropriately assessed.

A great strength of RCM2 is that it recognizes that the consequences of failures are far more important than their technical characteristics. In fact, it recognizes that the only reason for doing any kind of proactive maintenance is not to avoid failures per se, but to avoid or at least to reduce the consequences of failure.

Using the RCM algorithm, one of five failure consequences is identified:

1. The failure mode is first considered to be either hidden or evident. A failure mode is hidden if the loss of function caused by that failure mode does not become evident to the operating crew under normal circumstances. Examples of components that have hidden functions are smoke detection systems, over-speed governors, and over-temperature switches. For example, the user of the mobile air conditioning unit does not know that the over-speed governor is in a failed state unless the engine over-speeds and the engine is not automatically shut down. In other words, two failures have to occur for the first one to become evident.

   If the failure mode is evident to the operating crew under normal circumstances, it is documented as having:

2. Safety consequences if someone could be injured or killed
3. Environmental consequences if an environmental standard may be breached
4. Operational consequences if operations may be adversely affected
5. Nonoperational consequences if only the direct cost of repair is involved

It is important to note that the RCM2 process considers the safety and environmental implications of each evident failure mode first.

The sixth question in the RCM process addresses the establishment of proactive (predictive and preventive) maintenance tasks. One of the following types of tasks, if technically feasible and worth doing, is assigned.

On-condition task.
Assignment of on-condition tasks is condition-based maintenance (CBM). The subject of CBM and RCM is grossly misunderstood. Many believe that the two are stand-alone processes. Properly applied, they are not. RCM offers very powerful tools for determining if a CBM task is technically feasible and worth doing and, if so, how often it should be performed.

It has been explained that there is seldom a relationship between equipment reliability and age. However, many failures give an early indication that failure is imminent. For example, if Point P is the point where the potential of a failure can be detected and Point F is functional failure of the component (failure as identified by the user), the P-F interval, or the time between when a potential failure can be detected and the time actual failure occurs, must be long enough to be of use in order to prescribe an on-condition task. The on-condition task must be performed at intervals less than the P-F interval.

On-condition tasks have nothing to do with how often a failure occurs but rather how quickly it happens. As an example, a variable-flow axial piston pump is used to deliver hydraulic fluid to the RAST system. One of the failure modes associated with the pump is "Traverse pump wears internally due to normal use." The RCM team established that the on-condition maintenance task of performing a leakage rate test was technically feasible and worth doing. In this case, the P-F interval was recorded as 2 mon. Therefore, the task was assigned to be performed every month, which leaves ample time (the remaining 1 mon) to schedule and complete replacement of the pump. Note that the task periodicity has nothing to do with how often the pump has failed in the past.

This example explains why using technical history information such as mean time between failure is inappropriate for determining the periodicity of on-condition tasks. In nearly all cases, the information needed to determine the periodicity of on-condition tasks does not exist in technical history data. But, in most cases, it is very clear in the minds of equipment experts.

The identification of the P-F interval allows inspection periodicity to be sensibly assigned. Further, CBM allows components to be replaced only on the condition that they require it. One of the advantages of CBM is that it allows a component to stay in service as long as technically possible thus realizing its maximum life. Other examples of on-condition tasks are inspecting tires and brake pads for wear.

Scheduled restoration and scheduled discard tasks.
Scheduled restoration and scheduled discard tasks are appropriate only for those items that exhibit an age-related failure pattern. Regardless of their condition at the time, components are restored to their original resistance to failure or completely replaced. Examples of scheduled restoration and scheduled discard tasks are lubrication routines and the replacement of components, respectively.

RCM provides three default actions if an appropriate proactive task cannot be identified.

Failure finding.
A failure-finding task involves checking a hidden function at regular intervals to find out if it is in a failed state. Proactive tasks (on-condition or scheduled restoration/discard) are performed to prevent failures. Failure-finding tasks are performed to check if the item is in a failed state. For example, while the engine is idling, an emergency stop switch may be activated. If the engine is shut down, the switch is functional. RCM2 offers robust tools for determining if a failure-finding task is technically appropriate, and, if so, how often the task should be performed.

Redesign.
A redesign may be a physical change to equipment. However, redesigns may include such tasks as changes in operating, training, or supply procedures. Likewise, a redesign may entail a change to a technical publication or a recommendation for a better tool.

No scheduled maintenance.
For those failures that do not have safety or environmental consequences, there may be no form of scheduled maintenance that is technically feasible and worth doing and, thus, the equipment may be deliberately run to failure.

CSE RCM analyses
Each CSE RCM analysis lasts, on average, two weeks. During that time, a Review Group convenes to perform the analysis. Every CSE RCM Review Group comprises Navy CSE technicians, a Marine Corps CSE technician, an equipment operator, training personnel, East and West Coast and Reserve Type Commanders, Naval Air Technical Data and Engineering Services Command (civilian equipment expert), and the in-service engineer. Under the strict guidance of an RCM facilitator, the Review Group carries out the RCM analysis.

Eight end items of CSE have been analyzed: three A/S32A-30A aircraft tow tractors, an A/M32C-17 mobile air conditioning unit, two mobile electric power plants (NC-10A/B/C and MMG-1A), and three hydraulic power supplies (T-5, T-7, and 55/E). RCM analyses have been performed with overwhelming positive results. The following two sections detail the results.

The economic savings identified via the RCM analyses are staggering.

• On average, scheduled maintenance is reduced by 75 percent per year.
• On average, consumable usage is decreased 88 percent per year.
• The disposal of hazardous material (HAZMAT) is decreased 84 percent per year.

With reductions of 75 percent annually in scheduled maintenance, it is important to note the following. First, it has been established that CSE was over-maintained so the opportunity to significantly reduce maintenance exists. Second, such large reductions raised a question to the RCM Review Groups as to how much of the published maintenance was actually being performed in the Fleet. They reported that approximately 70 percent of the maintenance was performed, which reflects a real-world reduction in maintenance of approximately 50 percent.

Finally, note that there are no dollar values associated with the reduction of maintenance man-hours. There are two reasons for this. First, because only approximately 6000 units out of more than 700,000 pieces of CSE have been analyzed at this early stage of the RCM effort, considering a reduction in work force simply does not make sense. But most importantly, CSE maintenance activities are currently understaffed. RCM analyses offer a way to do business better because they relieve the burden of performing unnecessary maintenance and allow the Fleet to concentrate on what matters most.

It follows that if maintenance is reduced 75 percent on average, the quantity of consumables (filters, lubricant, rags, etc.) required would be lessened. Scheduled maintenance consumable usage per year is reduced by an average of 88 percent, Fleet-wide. The HAZMAT disposal of hazardous material is decreased 84 percent per year.

Maintenance before RCM
The drastic differences in the current maintenance plans and the plans established using RCM prompted the question "What is wrong with the old maintenance schedules?" to RCM Review Groups. The following factors were identified:

• The maintenance plans were typically prepared by the equipment manufacturer or based heavily on the equipment manufacturer’s recommendations. The motive for such extensive maintenance plans may be challenged in that the manufacturer is also the vendor of consumable materials.
• The equipment manufacturer generally did not understand how the equipment would be used, how severe the operating environment would be, or how often the equipment would be operated.
• As a result, most maintenance plans are out of date. With the emergence of improved consumables (filters, lubricants, etc.), the periodicities of current maintenance tasks could be extended. However, a process to review such issues was not previously in place.
• The maintenance plan process is static. Rarely are maintenance regimes reviewed once they have been established.
• Many maintenance plans were developed when it was believed that "more is better." It follows that CSE and RAST, in many cases, are over-maintained.
• In some cases, maintenance schedules for new equipment were simply copied from existing schedules of the same type of equipment. For example, when a fleet of new tow tractors was procured, the maintenance schedule for the new model was prepared based on a model that is 20 years old.

RAST RCM analyses
RAST RCM Review Groups are comprised of East and West Coast RAST technicians, a depot overhaul technician, an aeronautical shipboard installation representative (ASIR) (civilian equipment expert), and the in-service engineer.

Maintenance requirement cards (MRCs) are currently being updated as a result of RCM analyses. However, preliminary results boast a 35 percent reduction in scheduled maintenance. Similar reductions in consumable materials and HAZMAT disposal are expected.

There are a number of nonquantifiable achievements from performing RCM analyses. As mentioned previously, the economic savings as a result of RCM analyses performed on CSE and RAST are impressive.

However, the most prodigious achievement of RCM is the relationship that has been fostered with the Fleet.

RCM is quickly bridging the gap between the Fleet, NAVAIR, and NAWCADLKE. RCM has established a direct line of communication between management and maintenance personnel. Participants function as a true team. Hesitation from the maintainer level to contact the equipment’s governing agency is quickly becoming extinct because the roles of all team members are now better understood and respected. A common goal has been established.

The Navy is making the move from conducting maintenance in a reactive mode to a proactive one. As more equipment is analyzed, funds previously spent on consumables and maintenance man-hours that have been eliminated through RCM may be redirected to perform corrective actions. Additionally, discussion of the depot rework for CSE revealed the notion that a substantial portion of units are in need of rework because the Fleet simply does not have adequate manpower and resources to address some issues, such as chipped paint, that don’t affect a unit’s ability to perform its primary function. Much of the Fleet’s time is consumed performing maintenance it instinctively knows is unnecessary but is a requirement. As a result, common failures that do not "down" equipment often get deferred to the point that, over time, the equipment degrades, which eventually leads to a depot rework that otherwise may have been avoided.

Several redesigns have been recommended that, when incorporated, improve equipment safety and increase the availability of the end item. For example, it was identified during the RCM analysis of the mobile air conditioning unit that if there is a leak of Freon in the pre-cooler or after-cooler, personnel working in the cooled spaces could be severely injured due to the contaminated environment.

The RCM team recommended the installation of a Freon monitor and this redesign is currently being considered. Further, due to the reduction in scheduled maintenance, units spend less time being maintained and are, therefore, available more. Additionally, fewer failures are induced as a result of unnecessary intrusive maintenance.

Also, if units are down for maintenance 50 percent less, it is logical to assume that equipment availability is increased. The details of this are currently being investigated.

During RCM analyses, deficiencies in technical publications are discovered and noted for update. In the case of an electrical schematic, the correction of an error may significantly reduce troubleshooting time.

The RCM process has been received with overwhelming positive support from the Fleet. It can be described as an ownership process. Buy-in to the new maintenance plans has been achieved for two reasons. First, equipment experts carry out the RCM analyses, and secondly, the Fleet knows that the revised maintenance schedules are technically justified.

Information obtained during the RCM analysis is recorded in a database. The information is legally defensible and serves as an audit trail for all decisions.

Especially in the case of RAST, performing RCM analyses not only updated the maintenance schedules, but the exercise of updating the MRCs revealed many steps for maintenance tasks that were unnecessary or outdated. As a result, the MRCs are clearer and succinct.

RCM offers a cogent, technically sound process through which a maintenance regime may be developed. During an interview with a RAST engineer, he commented that because of the way the new maintenance schedules were revised, he now has a higher confidence that maintenance planning is "done right." He further noted that this is the way business should have been done 10 years ago.

Most of the problems that are noted during an RCM analysis are not new. In several cases, the Fleet has known about them for some time. However, RCM offers a structured process for information to be extracted from the Fleet so that proactive action may be taken.

Future plans
The troubleshooting guides for most end items of CSE need to be updated. The documented equipment discrepancies and corresponding symptoms are unrealistic and, in many cases, do not effectively aid the CSE technician in isolating equipment failures. As a result, excessive troubleshooting time is expended on equipment failures.

Answers to questions two, three, and four of the RCM process describe, in great detail, the equipment failure, the cause, the symptoms, and corresponding effects. For end items that have already been subject to RCM analysis, this information has been recorded in the RCM database. Using this data, a detailed troubleshooting guide can be created to assist CSE technicians in isolating equipment failures.

An updated troubleshooting guide will allow the CSE technician to quickly identify equipment malfunctions. Distinct benefits include:

• Expedited troubleshooting time
• Decreased equipment turnaround time
• Decreased unscheduled maintenance man-hours
• Increased equipment availability

CSE RCM analyses are Affordable Readiness in action. RCM makes it possible to focus on problem areas and address issues costing the Navy extraneous funds. Most importantly, RCM analyses allow positive impacts to be manifested throughout the Fleet, with the Fleet. This is a new way of thinking and has been lauded by senior enlisted personnel as exactly what the Fleet needs as the work force is downsized and maintenance funds and resources are reduced. MT

At the time of writing, Nancy Regan was the RCM Team Leader and a certified RCM2 Practitioner at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, NJ.