Preventing financial, environmental and safety related business losses caused by critical assets is undoubtedly the central role of reliability engineers, maintenance practitioners and the discipline of physical asset management.
I have been on Twitter now for about a year or so. At first I didn't get it, and it was actually pretty annoying. But, much to my surprise, today I really enjoy it. I check through my tweets pretty regularly and use it to keep in touch with...
Sooner or later, most companies that are serious about asset performance end up looking at the option of building a reliability department. My personal view is that ultimately, reliability should be like safety. It is everyone's job, it is threaded throughout the business, and there should be no need...
I have ranted and raved about the curse of criticality here several times in the past. While criticality is very good for separating clients and their money, it's use for implementing reliability is somewhere between severly limiting and a fatal flaw..depending on the urgency your company has.
The continual debates and semantical posturing over the difference between maintenance and reliability engineering is one of the most astoundingly ridiculous debates to emerge in physical asset management in the last 10 years.
For an industry that routinely generates large volumes of documentation, it is shocking to see just how bad many of them are. A lot of it is pseudo-intellectual garbage that is often written by ivory tower engineers.
John Moubray's article speaking out against streamlined RCM approaches was a watershed article. For the first time, Moubray spoke about the coming age of accountability for those charged with managing assets, and the need for defensibility in decision-making.