For decades, our "industry" has been bringing in innovations to improve maintenance and reliability (M&R) processes. The list goes on and on: preventive maintenance (PM), computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS), planning and scheduling, various predictive/condition-based maintenance methods (PdM/CBM), reliability- centered maintenance (RCM), total productive maintenance (TPM), autonomous maintenance, life-cycle cost (LCC) decisionmaking and more.

We also have learned, as many manufacturers, facilities and utilities have, that "programs of- the-month" come and go in regular cycles- each one promising to be the "silver bullet" that will outdate all other practices. Unfortunately, as common as these programs are, they seldom work and are rarely sustainable unless they intentionally focus on compelling business results and provide a tangible return on investment (ROI) to the bottom line.

Sure, these programs typically promise an ROI based on proven, logical strategies.What many don't address, however, are the requisite work culture changes to not only embrace the new methods, but to sustain and then improve on them. Stay tuned.

Current and future workplace demographics suggest a challenging work culture at best. Consider the growing discussion about "maintenance skills shortages" and the

need to train more maintenance and reliability technicians and professionals. We DO need to train more-and use new and proven maintenance methods leading to lower-cost operations with more reliable equipment.

We also need to fundamentally rethink our M&R strategies as we approach this "perfect storm" of increasing retirements, growing labor shortages, lack of vocational/technical training programs and the "college-educated workforce" promoted by our social/academic community. Business decision-makers who perpetuate the myth that "maintenance" is little more than an overhead cost will increasingly struggle to remain competitive. This is (and will continue to be) especially true in equipment-intensive, capital-intensive businesses.

Where to start our rethinking
First. . .In most cases maintenance is not an "industry," nor should it be expected to improve its performance to grow business, profits or customers, or to prevent lost revenues. Yes, maintenance does produce capacity for the operation to generate revenues at lowest possible cost, but it can't do that alone. Yet, to view "maintenance-as-an-industry" sets the stage for a blocking assumption-we can operate fairly autonomously to improve our performance.

Many, if not most, of the reasons equipment does not do what it is supposed to do are outside the direct control and responsibility of the maintenance organization. For example, we have all seen very effective PM programs die on the vine because of no access to the equipment at the right time for the right duration with the proper spare parts.

Second. . .We must admit that we actually are "partners" or "joint owners" of asset reliability because (again) "maintenance" cannot do that alone. The maintenance group is generally part of a larger business organization-not an autonomous, stand-alone business.

For a manufacturing-, utility-, transportation- or facility-type of business to be successful (market-responsive, agile, low-cost and profitable) its assets (equipment and facilities) must perform as intended first-time,...(Read whole article)