Why your maintenance strategies fail: The importance of implementation over analysis
Why is it in the maintenance and reliability world that we constantly find ourselves facing the same challenges repeatedly? It seems the refrain of “We never have the time to do it right, but always seem to have the time to do it over” applies.
In reality, many plants invest significant time and resources into identifying problems, analyzing failures, and developing robust solutions to improve asset reliability. Yet, despite all the efforts, getting the expected business results remains elusive. Why? Often, I find the answer is not in the problem-solving approach but in the implementation – or rather, the lack thereof.
From million-dollar FMEA exercises to gearbox debacles
A utility pays consulting groups upwards of a million dollars to do asset-specific Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) every few years. Despite the detailed efforts, the same failures occur, and maintenance costs continue to rise. While the analyses were thorough, the implementation was poor. Sometimes, the findings and suggested actions sat on a shelf, collecting dust. And there was little ownership from the maintenance personnel.
Another refining group performed a more extensive FMEA exercise that amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Yet, you could walk around the site and see many instances where the maintenance approaches contributed to self-induced failures, i.e., excessive lubrication on motors.
Considering another recent event – a planner developed a comprehensive job plan to repair a large gearbox in a large facility. The plan specified everything: the correct location, the necessary tools, the right parts, and the steps to follow. However, the technicians decided that they knew better. They tossed the job plan in the trash and set about their work. However, they changed the wrong gearbox and damaged its motor. To make matters worse, no critical spares were available for the repair, resulting in two process lines being idled. And no, you can’t make this stuff up; it was real. The best-laid plans are useless if they aren’t followed or there’s a lack of ownership over the process.
RCA and RCM analysis without implementation is a missed opportunity
Our team recently visited a plant to facilitate a Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) analysis on a troublesome asset. While there, the site complained about failures on another two assets. It turns out that the RCM analyses of those assets were completed a few years prior. In the CMMS, it was evident that nothing from the analysis was ever implemented. The plant had invested in the analysis but, without follow-through, they gained nothing from their investment.
In a different organization, multiple RCM analyses were conducted across three plants, using internal and external facilitators on several assets. Two years later, almost none of the actions had been implemented.
In another instance, a manufacturing company implemented a structured Root Cause Analysis (RCA) process across all its sites globally. It was a massive undertaking involving years of effort. When we visited one of their sites, we discovered that while they had completed numerous RCA events, few findings had been implemented. The U.S. corporate group measured the number of completed RCA events as a key performance indicator. The corporate focus on counting events rather than implementing actions and business results meant that the real issues continued to fester.
Empower technicians and operators to drive results
Sadly, these stories are real and too familiar. I suspect that you can reflect on similar events in your world. Organizations spend substantial resources and time on analyses yet fail to reap the benefits because the critical implementation step is often neglected. And then, it’s common to hear that tools like RCA and RCM consume resources and don’t deliver results.
So, how do we bridge this gap between analysis and action? The key lies in ownership and accountability. Realize that plant managers aren’t just looking for results two years down the line – they need to see improvements this quarter or the next that impact the bottom line. Focus on implementing actions that deliver short-term wins while setting the stage for long-term gains.
One practical approach we leverage is investing in your operators and technicians, not just with tools but with the responsibility for outcomes. Train these people using RCM concepts for Preventive Maintenance Optimization (PMO) and Operator Driven Reliability. Couple that individual coaching to build their competency on specific equipment. Ensure that management holds these individuals accountable for updating the PM/PdM programs. By doing so, the people execute the plans and own them. This ownership ensures the work is done correctly, focusing on achieving the desired results.
The call to action
The takeaway is that implementation action is key. With the hard work of identifying the problems and developing solutions, it’s time to ensure that those solutions are implemented. Encourage your teams to take ownership of the process, and don’t let the findings from your RCAs, RCMs, and other analyses fall through the cracks.
When your team takes ownership of the entire process – from analysis to implementation – the results will follow, and the investment in your personnel will pay off in reduced failures, lower costs, and improved asset performance. It’s time to break the cycle. It’s time to implement for real business results.
