All Member Open Forum

 View Only
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

  • 1.  Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-08-2019 10:48 AM

    How does your organization define routine, corrective and reactive maintenance? Does your organization use alternative terms to routine, corrective and reactive?

    Lately, I've been restudying the design and decision logic to maintenance operations as it is underpinned by RCM. I found that my definitions were getting sloppy with time-to the point of feeling a bit embarrassed and hoping people have a short memory of some of my more recent commentary.

    The restudy has shown me that how we define routine, corrective and reactive maintenance would be an interesting thread.

    You can download the free pdf-book, Reliability-Centered Maintenance, by Nowlan & Heath, 1978 at https://coconetinc.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/reliability-centered-maintenance.pdf



    ------------------------------
    Richard Lamb
    Analytics4Strategy.com
    Houston TX
    832-710-0755
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 07:53 AM
    At the University of Minnesota

    Routine - any Work Order (WO) that is part of the Preventive Maintenance Program
    Corrective - any WO that is generated as a direct result of the performance of a PM WO (Routine)
    Reactive - any WO written as a result of a breakdown

    There is another type of WO that is not normally found in process/manufacturing/utilities - "Service", which is a WO written to complete a task that has little to nothing to do with the asset function, such as hanging a book shelf, repainting an office, etc.

    As with other organizations, we do have WOs that are for Capital Projects and Administrative task.

    ------------------------------
    David Christiansen
    Principal Mechanical Engineer
    University of Minnesota
    Minneapolis MN
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 08:12 AM
    David, does your definition of reactive--any WO written as a result of a breakdown--classify orders as those that must be immediately repaired or pass through the orderly process through first-in, first-out  planning, scheduling and conduct?





    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 08:43 AM
    The breakdown maintenance (Repair WO) is worked based on the asset priority, at this this is the designed approach.  The issue is how the WO priority is determined and by whom, it seems to always come down to a personal opinion, and the role of the individual tends to influence the outcome of the assigned priority.  The utility Repair WOs (breakdown) are worked based on priority, with an emergency WO worked NOW, and as the priority drops off, it goes through a sort of planning and scheduling process.

    ------------------------------
    David Christiansen
    Principal Mechanical Engineer
    University of Minnesota
    Minneapolis MN
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 04:52 PM
    David

    I agree with your definition of maintenance, however the routing maintenance is not always part of the preventive maintenaance program or planned maintenance, sometimes there could be a situation when you do pre-job inspection and an opportunity of failure is found, then action is taken.

    Thanks.

    ------------------------------
    Salvatore Colaiuda
    Business Engagement Manager
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 08:18 AM
    Richard, per SMRP Metric 5.4.1, "Reactive work is maintenance work that breaks the weekly schedule". Per metric 4.1, corrective work is "Work done to restore the function of an asset after failure or when failure is imminent". I don't believe the metrics have a definition of routine work. 
    Hope this helps.
    Bruce

    ------------------------------
    Bruce Hawkins
    Director, Technical Excellence
    Emerson
    Pendleton SC
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 08:28 AM
    Richard, thank you for raising this topic and for posting the link to the 1978 Nowlan & Heath book. 
    The three task type labels you state, routine, corrective and reactive, are very commonly found / used.  Looking at chapters 3 and 10 in the Nowlan and Heath​ RCM book there is a much more distinct classification presented with a solid basis for those classifications.  Working to determine "asset strategy" effectiveness as well as asset characteristics such as reliable life I find that we are forced to try to infer more from these limited common "work order type" labels than they are designed to represent.  More specific task types, if they could be broadly adopted would help.  However I believe that the real solution is to have at least three separate characteristics of an "event" defined.  One to indicate the intent of the task, one to indicate whether the asset was repaired or replaced in part or completely and one to reflect the work schedule impact related to the event.  To that point, Reactive clearly isn't a "task type".  There may be more factors that would be useful and this initial set does not even touch on the indication of failure mode, which goes beyond the nature of the task or event.

    As the global industrial businesses evolve along with the increasingly capable digital tools, clarity in classification will become ever more valuable.

    ------------------------------
    Roger Shaw
    Sr. Consultant
    GE Digital - Meridium
    Salem CTGE Digital - Meridium
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 09:31 AM
    Roger makes an important point that reactive is not a task type. His point is proven by the fact that there is no reactive in RCM--just like no crying in baseball. Therefore, should reactive be defined on some other basis such as case for:
    • An appropriate maintenance task has not been designed in recognition of the significance of the failure to safety, environment, operations or excessive cost if allowed to run to failure?
    • Failure to execute with the designed appropriate maintenance task.
    • Gaming the system as a means to put a repair at the beginning of the line--although not justified.



    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 01:25 PM
    Dear Richard,
    In our organisation, we have three widely used classifications for the work orders:
    1) Routine: Work orders that get generated from the scheduling system. These are notifications that arise from defects lists, site rounds during the shifts, etc. In these cases, the equipment is still running(for example: a valve having a minor passing). The notifications are raised and planning is done for their execution.
    2) Breakdown: These are work orders that get generated when the equipment or process experiences a breakdown and is not able to perform its function. In case of equipment with a hot standby, then the incident is not treated as a breakdown, but as a reactive maintenance order; as the equipment is still able to perform its function, though the redundancy is not present. 
    3) Preventive: These are PM orders that are generated through the scheduling system as per the PM strategy that has been uploaded. If the PM exceeds the planned duration, then the excess duration is logged as breakdown. 

    The actions that are taken from the CBM inspections are taken in a seperate notification type. When the findings of the CBM allow sufficient time margin for the notification to be scheduled in the system, it is taken as routine maintenance. If the CBM finding indicates that the equipment needs to be stopped without further delay, the action is performed under the breakdown category.
    For calculation of availability, however, the routine, breakdown and preventive types of orders are taken into consideration.


    ------------------------------
    Srihari R ramasubramanian.srihari@gmail.com
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 01:57 PM
    Srihari, can you explain this scenario further? 

    "In case of equipment with a hot standby, then the incident is not treated as a breakdown, but as a reactive maintenance order; as the equipment is still able to perform its function, though the redundancy is not present."

    Is there a difference between reactive here as a protective strategy against a multiple failure as compared to raw fire fighting that many plants seem to think of as reactive?



    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-09-2019 02:13 PM
    Dear Richard,
    Let us take a case of a boiler feed pump (BFP) scheme for a power plant which has two BFPs in the system in a hot standby condition. Both have identical specifications and any one of the pumps is able to cater to the plant's requirement. Let us say, BFP-A is running and it experiences a failure. Automatically BFP B will take over, leaving the plant unhampered. The process is not affected,but any further deterioration on the BFP B will cause a process shutdown. In this case, the maintenance team has some buffer time to get the BFP A up and ready as the output is not affected. In such cases, the WO can be scheduled through a planned process. In this case,since the BFP actually failed in spite of the PM strategy and the CBM program, the rectification that will be done is termed as reactive in nature. RCA will need to be done on the cause of the failure.Since the plant output, PLF in this case is not affected, it is not taken as breakdown.

    ------------------------------
    Srihari R ramasubramanian.srihari@gmail.com
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-10-2019 11:53 AM
    ​Hello Richard,

    Great discussion from all I've read! This topic and ensuing posts are nothing new in the realm of definitions and how folks justify their positions. I am no different. In our organization routine is used to define work that can be and is scheduled at the end of our 7 week scheduling horizon, meaning that it is not an burning issue that needs attention yesterday. Routine is one of three priorities we use. Emergent = 1, Urgent = 2 and Routine = 3...these are the values that are assigned to Work Orders. By default all PM Work Orders are routine, why - because we see them coming many weeks out before they are due, even regulatory compliance inspections. Corrective Work can be routine and can be scheduled many weeks out and does not necessarily need to be done now.

    What helps in determining the levels of priority is the result of FMECA studies. The criticality analysis sheds light on what matters by the severity of a breakdown down or failure from getting in the way of the plant achieving its mission. Equipment ranking comes in handy when scheduling work combined with operating at work center full capacity (max wrench time) w/o breaking the schedule. If it is not critical, push it out past the known scheduling horizon until work center capacity opens up some. 

    We treat corrective and reactive synonymously because both entail restoring equipment integrity to new or like new status. Maybe we should explore various degrees of corrective maintenance depending on where on the P-F curve continuum the failure occurs. Does it becomes the loudest squeaking wheel in short order? Is the CM addressing a simple functional failure or is it addressing a catastrophic failure determined to be a priority 1?  A priority 1 Work Order is scoped/planned/scheduled as it is being addressed, any parts are issued to the work sight bypassing Stores, paperwork to follow after the dust settles.

    Preventive Maintenance Work Orders will always be routine work and any additional work found as a result of the PM which goes outside its scope, becomes follow-on Corrective Maintenance pointing to the original PM WO. PM WO's sustain equipment integrity and intercept any functional failures before those failures materialize. PdM work comes under the PM umbrella since it is planned and scheduled on a known interval. What results from PdM work will either be nothing or a spot on the P-F curve. This can become even more complicated when equipment condition assessments come into play. This facet of M&R cannot be ignored if you want to run a tight ship.

    Where we struggle are those Work Orders which are sourced from the OEM in the form of a service bulletin or technical information letter to change something because other customers have experienced a premature failure or diminished performance - although, the actual failure has not happened....yet. It is a one-off and not recurring. Is this WO considered CM or PM? Which work type attributes does this align with the most? Or how are "upgrades" to system functions considered? CM or PM and why?  Upgrades are optional but there is much evidence to support implementing them because benefits outweigh costs in many cases. I am closing with questions and muddying up the original questions even more. Sorry for that.

    ------------------------------
    Ed Espinosa, CMRP, CRL
    Sr. Performance Analyst
    Puget Sound Energy
    Bellingham WA
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-10-2019 02:42 PM
    Ed, 
    Your definition and information was really helpful for me! When you refer to PdM is this preventative maintenance or predictive?
    Thank you!!
    Christine ​

    ------------------------------
    Christine Witte
    VP of Sales
    waxhaw NC
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-10-2019 03:08 PM

    Thank you, Srihari, Edward and David, for your time to write out the detail of your definitions. A question occurred to me as I was working through them. Are we having the wrong discussion? Instead, should the discussion be how our maintenance operations match the universal baseline structure of maintenance activity as rigorously defined in RCM literature?

    Without the tight specificity of RCM, I notice that definitions at many plants tend to blur and overlap the lines between the baseline activities-making a maintenance operation difficult to run because we are no longer breaking its activities down by its logical parts.



    ------------------------------
    Richard Lamb
    Analytics4Strategy.com
    Houston TX
    832-710-0755
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 15.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-10-2019 05:06 PM
    HI Richard, 
    Great point and insightful considering the variance in terminology and definitions across the industry. I'm challenged with understanding the meaning behind metrics/terms, because I'm finding that these are often subjective based on the user or organization, and their vocabulary. 
    I'd love to have our group come together and create a governence model that can be a resource industry wide.  
    What do you think?

    ------------------------------
    Christine Witte
    VP of Sales
    waxhaw NC
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 16.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-10-2019 03:27 PM
    Good Afternoon Christine,

    PdM is Predictive Maintenance which is synonymous with CBM, Condition Based Maintenance. This is really the preferred way of maintaining equipment if they lend themselves to real-time monitoring via permanently installed instrumentation or portable units. Maintenance is performed based on real need to do so, not just what the calendar says...Not all operating equipment can be subject to PdM. PdM will also suggest not to do maintenance if it is not warranted to do so, on the flip side. We postponed doing a generator re-wind by a number of years because the data did not support/justify doing so. That is a big win.  ​

    PdM takes into account operating environment and how much it degrades performance and how fast this happens. Imagine a P-F curve with varying steepness from left to right. PdM can and does find the P-F window allowing intervention before it is too late. If the equipment rates as a single-point failure, PdM becomes that much more important.

    Different PdM technologies can be combined to either confirm the findings of the first go-around or challenge those results. It is difficult not to go off on so many tangents.

    Thanks for asking

    ------------------------------
    Ed Espinosa, CMRP, CRL
    Sr. Performance Analyst
    Puget Sound Energy
    Bellingham WA
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 17.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 07:34 AM

    There are four techniques to on-condition maintenance of which condition-based (AKA PdM) is one. The others are inspection based on human senses, primary effects monitoring based on gauges and process monitoring systems, and monitoring product quality.

    So once again, setting a plant's definitions must distinguish between on-condition and condition-based. Consequently, it may be most helpful to use the PdM term over condition-based because the distinction does not get lost in slightly different wording.

    Some people get mad at the term PdM because of the term "predictive." They say we cannot predict a failure. That is true, but I've noticed that people who take that position are trying to avoid stepping into the new era of data-driven maintenance (https://analytics4strategy.com/train-frststpdtdrvnops ).

    We are not predicting when there will be a failure. PdM is based on using statistical (predictive) models to determine if the hazard curve shows a wear-out zone and the shape of the curve (https://analytics4strategy.com/trn-modelinsigh and https://analytics4strategy.com/tmismnyqstns ). The models can be Cox and Weibull, both based on life-data.

    In fact, the predictive models, especially Cox, are used to determine the six patterns of failure we are all familiar with. This is important because all maintenance type decisions are predicated on the patterns.

    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 18.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 09:03 AM
    Good morning, all!

    Look no further than the SMRP Best Practices (5th edition) to define each of the maintenance types and metrics. One of the purposes of a community of practice is to establish and enforce standards and we centralize those functions when we agree to support a central body (normally non-profit), a professional organization. SMRP satisfies this need and provides standardization through their Best Practices document which can be downloaded by members.

    For those unfamiliar with the Best Practices, each of the maintenance types and metrics are clearly defined.

    I apologize if this has already been offered up in a previous response, I hope my quick read of responses was sufficient!

    ------------------------------
    Lucas Marino, D.Eng., PMP, CMRP
    Senior Reliability & Asset Performance Program Manager
    BMT
    lmarino@dandp.com
    VA
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 19.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 09:57 AM
    Lucas, yes there are the SMRP definitions, but I always go to the baseline source rather than intermediate sources that may be distorted or renamed baseline. I've never inspected the SMRP definitions, because of my reliance on the baseline.

    The earlier provided SMRP definition "Reactive work is maintenance work that breaks the weekly schedule" is not actually a baseline maintenance type but an operational issue.

    Furthermore, we now have to be careful of  definitions that do not recognize the role of data analytics in maintenance operations.



    Original Message


  • 20.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 10:41 AM
    You and I will have to disagree on this one. SMRP are not a random intermediate source (e.g., unassociated content creator, indepent author), they are a professional body that defines industry standards on consensus of industry SMEs. Take it as you will, but their contribution should not be so easily discarded if it fails to fit in a particular, specialized box. Their definitions suit multiple applications in diverse industries.

    Identifying a baseline can prove difficult if it is expected that the only acceptable baseline must align with a predetermined end. You can reference Moubray, Department of Defense, SMRP, Department of Homeland Security, not to be named for-profit entities, Gulati, and any other publisher of RCM thought...pick your poison. Your call. However, I would caution discounting any of their definitions based on a maliable input such as time measurement. As you know, data is often sourced in scalable "chunks", seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, quarters, years...the point of SMRPs definition is that it is an interruption of scheduled work. That work may be corrective, unplanned, planned but not properly so (didn't land on the schedule, resourced poorly, whatever) but it is interruption just the same. The heart of reactive maintenance is its interruptive nature. How it's measured, addressed in strategy, or applied to analysis is a separate discussion.

    ------------------------------
    Lucas Marino, D.Eng., PMP, CMRP
    Senior Reliability & Asset Performance Program Manager
    BMT
    lmarino@dandp.com
    VA
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 21.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 11:29 AM

    Lucas, we agree in principle. However, I did not use the word, "random," with respect to intermediate sources. As a management consultant, I begin with baseline rather than intermediate sources. In the intermediate sources, I then look for helpful restatements of the baseline. I approach Moubray as intermediate to N&H.

    We also seem to agree that reactive is corrective work but is an event that causes interruption and drama because of weaknesses in the maintenance operation design and function. We should speak to the operational problem rather than classify its symptoms as a work type that does not actually exist in nature. That is why there is no "reactive" task type in the DoD and Nowlan & Heap logic upon which the SMRP no doubt built its definitions. Roger Shaw's post agrees with that point.




    Original Message


  • 22.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 05:37 PM
    Hi every one, interesting discussion.

    For me the classification of WO depends on the situation that trigger the event.
    For example, let assume that you have a piece of equipment that is requested for operation, before you deliver the equipment you normally do an inspection that is called pre job inspection (Routine Inspection) if there is an opportunity then a WO is created an classified as Routine maintenance or repair just you tag the repair as result of a that routine inspection a routine repair should not impact on equipment utilization unless if something mayor is found and the asset cannot be deploy.
    For the other two categories I agree with the forum.



    ------------------------------
    Salvatore Colaiuda
    Business Engagement Manager
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 23.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 05:44 PM

    Salvatore, what type of assets are you dealing with?

    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 24.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-11-2019 06:12 PM
    Richard
    These are Oil field assets, and transportation


    ------------------------------
    Salvatore Colaiuda
    Business Engagement Manager
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 25.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-12-2019 07:23 AM

    Salvatore, it seems that the problem of definitions is that we define by name rather than purpose. The RCM logic is the baseline to classifying by purpose. Accordingly, why I earlier suggested we define by purpose and only then give it our name. Of course, I like to stick to the baseline naming given by RCM.

    I find that as I read the different definitions by name, I can't be perfectly clear what is the logic of the task.

    Without definition by purpose, we can't know exactly what a pre-job inspection entails-to what degree it does not fall within the realm of an RCM task (see page 73 of Nowlan and Heap).

    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 26.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-14-2019 09:10 AM

    Richard, Luke,
    Nowlan and Heap state in 1-4 AN OVERVIEW OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY "Our present concern is with preventive maintenance, the program of scheduled tasks necessary to ensure safe and reliable operation of the equipment."  Therefor I rationalize that their intent is to prevent/mitigate the effects of failures via scheduled maintenance.

    N&H discuss unanticipated failures numerous times in their work, these failures, by their very nature, become unscheduled repairs, unanticipated replacements and unanticipated work noted frequently in N&H's work. These unanticipated failures become corrective work which is defined in SMRP Best Practices,  and from my experience unanticipated corrective work becomes reactive, unplanned/unscheduled work. That is unless the failure is on a redundant system and corrective maintenance can be deferred then planned/scheduled at a later time.  Unanticipated work breaks the schedule and it is clear Nowlan and Heap wanted to have scheduled tasks to "ensure safe and reliable operation".  N&H did not define unanticipated failures but they are something we did not account for in design or maintenance analysis, so I'm OK with reactive work being in our vocabulary. Also, reactive work could be "weaknesses in the maintenance operation design and function", but it could also be an inherent design problem.  Unanticipated failures should lead us down the RCA road which is another discussion topic. 

    N&H is one of the references in my tool box, but I use other references just like N&H did. SMRP Best Practices is a compilation of what I consider proponents of Nowlan and Heap, Moubray, Mitchell and others RCM principles in a variety of industries with knowledge gained through practical application, so it is one of my go to references.

    Just as N&H  recommend using information from unanticipated failures to improve the maintenance  program these ongoing discussions should improve our RCM knowledge and hopefully our maintenance and consulting practices. 



    ------------------------------
    Hank Kocevar,CMRP
    Consultant
    Guardian Technical Services
    hkocevar@guardiantech.org
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 27.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-14-2019 10:18 AM

    Henry, N&H did not imply unanticipated work as reactive work because when they speak of scheduled work and anticipated corrective work, in section 1-4 they are speaking to "in order to accomplish the anticipated corrective and scheduled maintenance, an operating organization must establish an overall support plan which includes the designation of maintenance stations, staffing with trained mechanics, provision of specialized testing equipment and parts inventories, and so on." A large part of the field of integrated logistic support is directed at that determination and its implementation (see Availability Engineering and Management for Manufacturing Plant Performance for the detailed process to design the support).

    N&H see there to be a call for immediate action if a failure occurs that relates back to safety, environmental, operational or expensive repair risks. Such a case would emerge if originally overlooked in the maintenance program. However, following the event, the plant must determine the appropriate maintenance strategy for the case and others like it-there can be no repeats. Anything else as a justification for breaking the schedule is a case of non-compliance, gaming and weaknesses of the maintenance process. We should not mix the two types of problems-the money is always in the distinctions. These would be "finds" to an operational auditor.

    Richard G. Lamb, PE, CPA
    Email: rchrd.lamb@gmail.com
    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 28.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-14-2019 10:49 AM
    Richard, 

    I believe you are failing to understand Hank's point. It is a bit ironic that you mention ILS because Hank and I have amassed roughly 60 years of experience in ILS working from the deckplates to the senior level of the chain. Hank's last position in the CG was oversight for planned and unplanned depot maintenance programming where he ate, slept, and breathed this stuff for entire fleets of ships. In fact, we are leading all LSA for the design of a new fleet of ships as I type this. We fully understand the implications of unplanned work on operational availability and we fully understand the effort it takes to support a maintenance philosophy that considers classification of maintenance types. In the military, we never really cared who defined our terms as long as they were prescribed my policy and applicable to our work (one reason the military is notorious for creating its own content in matters such as these). As a practitioner, you experience that not all reactive maintenance is created equal, not all corrective maintenance is reactive, and that flexibility and adaptation keep your operational commitments met in many cases. 

    We can debate implied interpretations of N&H, SMRP, Moubray ad nauseum but it is an exercise in ineffectiveness and inefficiency when a consideration of the multivariate nature of unplanned failures and their responses are ignored. Not all failures are the result of oversights in maintenance programming and not all failures impact operational availability of the plant in the same manner. Equal response to all failure is not justified by such a simple linear response. Your target audience understands this. To your point, analytics can help that same audience manage these pesky failures in a powerful way. No one will (should) disagree with you on that point.

    I'll ask again, if you won't consider any of the previously listed sources as a dependable source of definition, why argue with the logical definition that SMRP provides for reactive maintenance and its impact (interruption)? And if unhappy with it, why not create a better definition based on new logic and make a case to move the discipline forward based on the revelation?

    ------------------------------
    Lucas Marino, D.Eng., PMP, CMRP
    Senior Reliability & Asset Performance Program Manager
    BMT
    lmarino@dandp.com
    VA
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 29.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-14-2019 11:22 AM

    Lucas, I'm so glad you have brought up the field of "integrated logistic support" (ILS) because the rigor is absent in manufacturing plants-although alive and well in your world. I first explained the field for manufacturing in the book titled, Availability Engineering and Management for Manufacturing Plant Performance . I was at KBR at the time and clients were asking for ways to make their plants more valuable as an asset.

    I learned the field from Dr. Benjamin Ostrofsky, a ground floor practitioner. He also reviewed each chapter of the book as I wrote it. The book was awarded the Society of Logistics Engineers, 1995 Armitage Medal for outstanding contributions to logistics literature.

    The reason I'm now trying to kickoff data-driven maintenance and reliability operations is because the long-standing ILS-origin ideals of M&R functioning are finally easily possible. My mentor, Ben, is probably turning over in his grave with envy of what we youngsters (I'm only 72) can do that he and his peers could not.

    Someday I will tell you why I call it availability engineering and management instead of ILS. The source is an old Bob Newhart show.

    Richard G. Lamb, PE, CPA
    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 30.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-14-2019 01:07 PM
    Luke,

    Thanks!  You stated it more eloquently than I would or could have.  
    Yes we can cherry and nit pick references ad-nauseum, I don't know what Nowlan and Heap were speaking to, I can only interpret the words and try to use their guidance effectively.

    "If an unanticipated failure has serious implications for safety, the first occurrence sets in motion an immediate cycle of maintenance and design changes. In other cases waiting until several failures have occurred allows a better assessment of their frequency to determine the economic benefits of preventive tasks, or possibly redesign. Very often waiting until enough failures have occurred to permit an evaluation of age-reliability relationships provides the information necessary to modify the initial maintenance decisions."  Chapter 5 Evolution of an RCM Program, N&H.

    I'm done. Lunch break is over on to more productive things.

    Hank Out

    ------------------------------
    Hank Kocevar,CMRP
    Consultant
    Guardian Technical Services
    hkocevar@guardiantech.org
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 31.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-14-2019 01:44 PM

    Hank, Chapter 5 of N&H you mention is a good one to read. It gives a sense of how to transition out of the current state of our maintenance programs to a desired state.

    Any profession must be scholarly in its principles and practices. The developers of ILS and RCM set the scholarly baseline. Have we have drifted from maintaining and protecting the baseline?

    Richard G. Lamb, PE, CPA
    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 32.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-15-2019 01:19 PM

    In our definitions of maintenance types there is the issue of whether reactive maintenance is a maintenance type. RCM makes no reference to reactive maintenance. In RCM, all unscheduled maintenance is corrective maintenance. The sources for corrective maintenance are scheduled maintenance and cases for run to failure.

    Reactive maintenance is not a type, but high-priority corrective work for failures for which there are serious implications for safety, environment or economics. Have these two dimensions become confused as one?




    Original Message


  • 33.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-15-2019 07:38 PM
    Edited by Salvatore Colaiuda 10-15-2019 07:41 PM

     

     

     

     

     




    Original Message


  • 34.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-16-2019 08:28 AM

    The diagram is a summary of the RCM framework using the exact words of Nowlan and Heap. Do you agree that is correctly depicts N&H's framework? As I prepared it, I noticed that the framework is largely is without definition. Instead, it expresses the types of work as action-by whatever we want to call it.

    Where do the various definitions of this thread plug into framework? Can we think of any maintenance types that are not explicit or implicit to the framework? Are there notes you would add to it?

    image.png

    Richard G. Lamb, PE, CPA
    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 35.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-16-2019 07:51 AM
    Richard, I normally teach that the distinction between reactive and corrective maintenance is whether the task will interrupt operations and availability. You are correct, reactive maintenance is not found in the original RCM literature (at least not that I am aware). However, in practice, many organizations realize that not all corrective maintenance is equal. Some interrupt operations and some do not. Plant reliability through redundancy is one design tactic used to build this protection into critical systems. 

    To further pile on, I see the term reactive maintenance commonly confused for the result of too much corrective maintenance, which creates a reactive culture. A reactive culture soon makes all corrective maintenance reactive by choosing to interrupt operations, even when potentially unnecessary. Every failure becomes high priority, every failure must be immediately corrected, and every failure diverts resources in a reactive culture. Soon, little investment is made in prevention. This has become the maintenance environment/concept/philosophy for some organizations. To further distort the topic, some folks actually justify this approach by further confusing the concept of a reactive maintenance culture with that of very successful production methods focused on correcting defects immediately upon discovery so as not to build defect into the product or process and reduced post-production rework. This can be very disappointing....we must not put all work types in the same model.

    Every maintenance and operations manager should ask themselves if the corrective maintenance item is immediately necessary in order to restore valuable function. This is the essence of the "C" (Criticality) and "E" (Effect) in FMECA. It is also the final criteria in most structured Reliability Analysis...did we cross a line in the "criteria" sand that causes operations to be critically interrupted without correction? Does the ship need to turn around? Does the production line have to stop? Does the plane need to land? Or can we schedule the corrective action during planned equipment downtime?

    Lucas

    ------------------------------
    Lucas Marino, D.Eng., PMP, CMRP
    Senior Reliability & Asset Performance Program Manager
    BMT
    lmarino@dandp.com
    VA
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 36.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-16-2019 08:25 AM

    Lucas, we agree on every point you make. We are recognizing the difference of cases calling for corrective maintenance, but with different priority for action with respect to any serious consequence of the failure-if any. We also recognize the absolute importance that maintenance operations understand and make their decision on the distinction.

    Thank you for your point, "I see the term reactive maintenance commonly confused for the result of too much corrective maintenance, which creates a reactive culture." Worse is that so many times I see the perception, "corrective" maintenance bad, scheduled maintenance good.

    Richard G. Lamb, PE, CPA
    Tel: 832-710-0755; Email: rchrd.lamb@gmail.com
    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


  • 37.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-17-2019 08:55 AM
    ​In short, reactive maintenance is just an adjective tacked on the different types of maintenance.  Most of the time I see reactive applied to unscheduled maintenance.  I also see a strong tie to run to failure maintenance (which is unscheduled by nature).

    However, reactive could be used to describe any type maintenance strategy or decision when proper maintenance or equipment fundamentals is not applied in executing maintenance.  For example, the reactive PM.  After a sudden failure, a reactive decision by the operations manager says he wants a PM to inspect the widget gizmo every outage.  That is reactive maintenance in a planned/scheduled form.  No thought is even given to the failure mode, PM inspection task, failure rate, etc.  I see this reactive management all the time.

    I think most maintenance professionals understand the basic types of maintenance but companies put too many that don't in charge of maintenance which leads to a reactive maintenance culture.

    ------------------------------
    Randy Riddell, CMRP, PSAP, CLS
    Reliability Manager
    Essity
    Cherokee AL
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 38.  RE: Definitions of routine, corrective and reactive maintenance

    Posted 10-17-2019 10:10 AM

    Randy says it well. Reactive is an adjective tacked on to different types of maintenance. The skeletal framework below to RCM using the exact words of Nowlan and Heap indicates that the adjective would be only tacked on to corrective maintenance.

    Can we agree that if the maintenance program is well planned and complied with, there are only two legitimate cases of reactive corrective work? They are:

    ·       Revelation: The case has not been previously recognized and solved by assigned maintenance task or item redesign to block the occurrence.

    ·       Rare-event: The random failures that are statistically always possible to occur with scheduled maintenance.

    There are only two cases because the principle is that scheduled work is only applied to cases for which there are substantial negative consequences of failure (safety, environment or economic). Accordingly, there can only be revelation and rare events because, once a case is discovered it should not be allowed to repeat because of its importance.

    image.png

    Richard G. Lamb, PE, CPA

    Educational website: https://analytics4strategy.com




    Original Message


Related Content