Already in the early s, the conventional propeller engine planes flying at 10, feet altitudes and miles per hour were being succeeded by jets at 30, feet and speeds of miles per hour. The accident rate was considered intolerable. Stanley Nowlan, on a team with Howard Heap, wasresearching the failure and accident causes on airflights. That research leadto reliability centered maintenance RCM in the airflight industry report.
|Published (Last):||26 June 2018|
|PDF File Size:||10.81 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Already in the early s, the conventional propeller engine planes flying at 10, feet altitudes and miles per hour were being succeeded by jets at 30, feet and speeds of miles per hour. The accident rate was considered intolerable. Stanley Nowlan, on a team with Howard Heap, wasresearching the failure and accident causes on airflights. That research leadto reliability centered maintenance RCM in the airflight industry report. This better understanding of the underlying failure established a new paradigm that led to a drastic reduction of failures and consequent airflight accidents.
In the s, with the ever growing mechanization and automation of industry, not only in aviation, but also in industry and facilities, downtime and the high costs of equipment and maintenance became a growing concern, with safety and environmental issues raising serious worries, too.
John Moubray realized the benefits of adapting by translating the airindustry RCM into a universally usable technique to establish reliable maintenance strategies wherever machines, equipment or, in fact, any physical asset is required RELIABLY. Thus, he structured RCM2! John not only restructured RCM into universal applicability, but most importantly, he set up the training needs to assure proper understanding of the underlying concepts and the possibility of real implementation on the floor.
In the s, John would personally run a dozen public RCM2 three-day training courses in different cities in the United Kingdom. But most of all, John took very good care in training the RCM2 practitioners who, in turn, would then spread the training to the day and three-day levels worldwide. Rapidly, the technique became international. It was later translated into several languages as RCM2 spread worldwide. The old-timers among us remember when we had to travel the world with huge suitcases to accommodate the slidemagazines for the projectors.
Plus, before the book was available, text and exercise manuals had to be collated into binders as the course progressed and brought along in our travels. Practitioners were personally trained by John. This would happen in his hometown of Lutterworth at the Greyhound Coaching Inn, where would-bepractitioners would reside for three weeks as in a boarding school.
Sessions were all day long, where much was learned, but it was good fun, with interruptions only for good meals and some hours to sleep, with only Sundays off. Figure 1: Have a glance at the RCM2 practitioner training room at the Greyhound Coaching Inn in the last decade of the last century The Greyhound was, and still is, an authentic 18th century coaching inn, refurbished into a hotel.
In the graveyard on the church grounds, you will find tombstones with 13th and 14th century dates! He would have 20 to 30 of us for assistance. It is sad destiny that John Moubray passed away prematurely and unexpectedly at age 54 on January 15, , while running an RCM2 practitioner course at the Greyhound Coaching Inn. We mark his 10 year passing this year. We also depend more and more on services, such as an uninterrupted supply of electricity or trains which run on time.
More than ever, these depend in turn on the continued integrity of physical assets. It is hard to fully value how much of his creativity and knowledge he transferred to us. His legacy to the world of maintenance reliability is to be highly valued. For over five decades, Henry has been a Management Consultant for companies in over twenty countries. But we never directly knew of each other until the s via our respective publication of RCM books.
We did, however, become acquainted over time and finally met for the first time at an SMRP meeting in Nashville. The fact is, we had more in common in our passion about RCM than differences, which were basically in some of the RCM details.
In particular, we both openly felt that some of the derivatives of the original RCM methodology e. John was, without a doubt, a creative person who made a lasting, positive impact on the maintenance community. We had great respect for each other, and our maintenance community lost a great friend when he suddenly passed away 10 years ago at a rather young age. We all miss him. His Engineering career spans some 55 years including 24 years with GE.
For the past 30 years, he has concentrated on providing RCM consulting and education services to more than 75 clients in the Fortune Mac retired in but continues to support and have a presence in the maintenance reliability industry.
Having worked with John for quite a few years as a member of the Aladon Network of practitioners, I remember the moment when I finally got a grip on hidden failures and how to manage them. In nearly all cases, there must be a multiple failure in order for a hidden loss of function to reveal itself.
A fire sprinkler system for when there is a fire and a high temperature interlock to shut down equipment if temperature increases to a defined value are both classic examples. John took a pragmatic approach to managing risk and, in particular, where safety or the environment could be negatively impacted by a failure.
In a world of ever increasing complexity where we rely more and more on protective devices, John provided a logical method to manage these hidden failures through the relationship between the mean time between failure of the hidden loss of function and how often we need it to work. It was while working in this capacity that he became heavily involved with RCM - an involvement that has continued for more than 20 years.
The company specializes in RCM training, facilitation services and project support. When we started Reliabilityweb. John had just written a paper that was recommending use of rigorous forms of RCM analysis to avoid going to jail, which was a shocking concept to many of us. In essence, the paper pointed out that if you had used some method other than a rigorous RCM analysis process like RCM2 or Classical RCM and your organization suffered a catastrophic failure that resulted in a death, the liability would reach past the corporate shield and place the people who created the maintenance strategy in jail for criminal negligence.
No other maintenance strategy development method would stand up to cross examination, however, John assured everyone that RCM2 would withstand even the most intense grilling from even the best attorneys. At the time, there were dozens of derivative and short form RCM analysis methods being used, but understanding the differences was much lower than it is today. The people practicing these methods were upset, to put it mildly. The presentation room was filled with grumbling conversations and rumpled brows when John walked in a few moments before his talk was scheduled to begin.
Without looking up at the room, he removed his computer, plugged in the projectors and immediately launched into his presentations with no introduction or pause of any type. Slowly, as he made his argument, the wrinkled brows turned to interested listening and nodding heads signaling agreement.
I was amazed to see this man move the feeling in the room by degrees as much with the power and force of his strong personality as with the well delivered logic from his presentation. I was lucky to enjoy a bottle of wine and some awful karaoke with John that evening and I will always recall learning the power of combining a strong, confident delivery with a well-thought-out defensible argument. When we tell stories and process them using reflective dialogue, we create the possibility for changes in others and ourselves.
To me, this statement sums up the late John Moubray and his contributions to developing and refining the reliability centered maintenance philosophy around the world. He had the capacity to express himself like no other person I know, through all his RCM training courses he developed, specifically his RCM practitioner training and the associated papers he wrote.
His influence not only enabled us to rethinkour approach to modern day maintenance strategy development, but also allowed us to recognize the versatility of RCM. He taught us to become responsible custodians when transferring the RCM philosophy to various organizations around the world, especially when it comes to individuals or organizations that more often than not raise alternative views or stimulated sometimes heated dialogue in terms of streamlined approaches.
I was very fortunate to have known and worked for John in the late seventies as a management consultant. From that day forward, he has had a major influence on my understanding of asset management and my career as a reliability practitioner. Together, we set up the first maintenance conference ever to be held in South Africa in One of the presenters at that conference was none other than Stanley Nowlan,who wrote the report entitled Reliability Centered Maintenance with Howard Heap.
This was his beginning. His extensive knowledge of best reliability practices has been applied to his numerous roles as project manager and training instructor, through which he has trained numerous people at various levels from management to reliability practitioners to facilitators and review group members.
Download EBOOK Reliability-Centred Maintenance PDF for free
Context[ edit ] It is generally used to achieve improvements in fields such as the establishment of safe minimum levels of maintenance, changes to operating procedures and strategies and the establishment of capital maintenance regimes and plans. Successful implementation of RCM will lead to increase in cost effectiveness, machine uptime, and a greater understanding of the level of risk that the organization is managing. John Moubray characterized RCM as a process to establish the safe minimum levels of maintenance. This starts with the seven questions below, worked through in the order that they are listed: 1. What is the item supposed to do and its associated performance standards? In what ways can it fail to provide the required functions? What are the events that cause each failure?
We Remember John Moubray, Originator of RCM2 – Reliability Centered Maintenance