Hi Caleb,
Here is how I have done it in the past, and what I now advise most of our clients to do:
(1) keep the approach to reliability simple, for the vast majority of organisations, focussing on a few essential processes will deliver the most value (industry makes reliability much more complicated than it needs to be). In our framework we focus on three core work processes:
- planning & scheduling to drive productivity and create a stable working environment that enables teams to become more proactive. Unless this process works well, you simply struggle to get the team to focus on longer term improvements (like PM improvement, completing RCAs and eliminating defects)
- preventive maintenance (incl. CBM/PDM) which ensures you are techs are only doing value-adding work, no key failure modes are missed etc. Most PM programs are pretty ineffective and inefficient, and unfortunately most (reliability) engineers have NOT been taught how to build effective and efficient PM programs. Train the team so they understand the principles of RCM and can apply them without always having to do full-blown RCM for everything.
- root cause analysis and defect elimination, start with doing RCAs and actually implementing all the corrective actions. Then as you get better control of your bad actors, there comes a time that it makes sense to tackle many more, smaller issues and that's when you engage the front line through Defect Elimination.
Support that with the right leadership and culture. Leadership to drive the change, culture to sustain it.
Why do I mention all this? Well if you want your reliability engineers to truly understand what needs doing, why and how - then they should be trained in three of the core processes (PS / PM / DE). If you pigeon hole reliability engineers too much they can't effectively build bridges with the execution team which is key to their success.
Understanding these core processes is in my view way more important that specific technical training, that comes afterward. Once you have a solid understanding of what your PM program should look like, and where most of your repeat failures come from that is when you want to potentially invest in specific precision maintenance training, specific CDM/PDM methods etc.
(2) Building a simple competency framework / matrix which flags core competencies by role (as Niall mentioned) is really good advice as it drives alignment and consistency. Get people to do self-assessments, but review and check them. And make sure your framework actually defines what different knowledge levels for different elements looks like (a simple tick in the box is not enough as everybody interprets that differently). If you want a copy of something you can start with, drop me a message.
(3) And Geraldo's point of linking the training to real improvement programs is key as well. No point in doing lots of PMO/RCM related training but then never really improving many of your PMs.
(4) I am a big fan of learning online over a longer period of time as the knowledge retention is just way better than with the traditional 3-day or 5-day training events. Ideally you combine it in a blended learning program: spend 8-10 weeks training online and then wrap up with a 2-3 day workshop that is focussed on application / implementation. And then go straight into a focussed period of practical application, and here the concept of someone (preferably internally) to coach the team really helps with embedding and sustaining.
(5) Don't underestimate the importance of your own processes / documentation - if those are ineffective or flawed then no amount of training can fix that, unless you fix your work processes. Work processes are not very exicting to many peple, but they are a highly undervalued part of building an effective reliability culture.
Feel free to reach out, always happy to have a chat and share my thoughts.
------------------------------
Erik Hupje