In: Operations Management
Please type answer
Let me explain as follows:
• The
approach for distinguishing failure modes tends to be less
rigorous. As a result, low frequency (but probably high
consequence) failure modes will probably be unnoticed. this might
be a very important issue once analyzing extremely essential
instrumentation.
• In
addition, low frequency failure modes, even once low consequence,
will typically be unnoticed once victimization the PMO method.
Failure history in CMMS from events larger than concerning 3-5
years past usually doesn't exist (as these systems area unit
usually updated at this frequency), And as a result failure with an
MTBF > concerning five years may be unnoticed. If the present PM
program doesn't address these less frequent failure modes, then a
PMO review can also miss these.
• Because
the start line for many failure modes is that the existing
Preventive Maintenance program, there will typically be a bias to
take care of the establishment (i.e. retain the prevailing PM
routines, or at the best solely vary them slightly), even once
simpler tasks exist. this could be overcome through effective
facilitation; however, it will need larger vigilance and energy on
a part of the assistant to challenge this bias.
Each can offer improvements to a
maintenance program because both are similar in many ways, am
noting them as
below.
• Both
processes aim to provide AN optimum PM program.
• Both use
the identification of underlying Failure Modes (causes) because the
start line for the choice creating method.
• Both
processes use ancient RCM call logic. The last half of each
processes is basically identical, victimization a similar call
framework and RCM principles.
• Both
approaches specialize in the business consequences of apparatus
failure, still because the technical characteristics of these
failures