top of page
Search
Kleber Siqueira

The Reliability Dilemma

Updated: Oct 27


Why Maintenance Alone Can’t Drive Asset Reliability


In industries like oil & gas, petrochemicals, chemicals, and manufacturing, asset reliability and operational efficiency are critical. Yet, despite the widespread adoption of Reliability-centered Maintenance (RCM), many organizations struggle to achieve the level of reliability they need. Why? Because they’re confusing maintenance with reliability, leading to inadequate strategies and increased operational risks.


The Role of Maintenance: More Complex Than It Seems


At its core, maintenance is about ensuring that all tasks necessary to keep assets running smoothly are identified and executed. This includes everything from routine checks and preventative actions to repairs and corrective tasks. Maintenance teams are tasked with the crucial responsibility of reducing downtime, which directly impacts the bottom line.


However, here's where things get tricky: Maintenance alone cannot—and should not—be responsible for reliability. The complexity of maintaining assets day-to-day, particularly in high-risk industries, is immense. Maintenance is reactive by nature, addressing failures when they occur and keeping the operational wheels turning. But the goal of reliability is different—it’s about proactively preventing failures and mitigating risks before they manifest.


The Problem with Streamlined RCM Approaches


Over time, we’ve seen a rise in 'streamlined' or simplified RCM approaches. While they promise efficiency and quicker implementation, they often bypass the thorough analysis required by SAE standards, leaving gaps in failure mode identification and mitigation. These shortcuts lead to the creation of maintenance plans that fail to address the underlying causes of asset failure.


It’s important to note that maintenance plans are not reliability plans. Maintenance focuses on day-to-day operations, while reliability aims to extend asset life, ensure operational safety, and avoid downtime. By conflating the two, organizations risk leaving themselves vulnerable to higher failure rates, increased operating risks, and costly downtime—all of which can be disastrous in high-consequence industries.


Maintenance vs. Reliability: Bridging the Gap


To bridge the gap between maintenance and reliability, it’s critical to understand that a reliability plan should be the output of a well-established process—one that integrates the efforts of engineering, operations, and maintenance. This is where the full scope of Reliability-centered Maintenance (RCM) comes into play.

When executed according to SAE standards, RCM provides a comprehensive framework for identifying potential failure modes, understanding their consequences, and developing strategies to mitigate or eliminate them. This process brings together:


  • Engineering insights, which focus on the technical aspects of asset performance and define the inherent reliability of the system. Engineering is responsible for setting performance standards that align with the corporation’s short, mid, and long-term strategic plans. These responsibilities are key reasons for the existence of the Chief Asset Management Officer (CAMO), as engineering's strategic decisions directly affect asset reliability.

  • Operational input, ensuring that reliability plans are grounded in day-to-day realities, aligning with uptime and safety performance targets.

  • Maintenance data, providing insights to tailor tasks to the specific needs of each asset, optimizing performance within the expected operational range.


Importantly, when developing a reliability plan, it’s crucial to avoid detailed proposals for redesigns. Such decisions should be made at the C-level, where the CAMO can provide a strategic voice. This point is particularly significant because many methodologies—especially those originating in Japan—promote continuous improvement without a strategic filter. While continuous improvement is valuable, strategic oversight is essential to ensure that redesigns align with long-term corporate goals.


Why Asset Management Needs to Move to the C-Suite


In industries with high-consequence risks, such as oil & gas and petrochemicals, asset management cannot remain an isolated operational function—it must become a strategic priority. To fully embed reliability into an organization’s DNA, asset management must have a voice at the highest level of leadership.


This is where the concept of a Chief Asset Management Officer (CAMO) becomes essential. The CAMO would oversee the alignment of asset management with business goals, ensuring that reliability strategies are integrated into the organization’s broader vision. More importantly, the CAMO would provide the critical oversight necessary to ensure compliance with standards like SAE RCM and ISO 55001.


The CAMO's Role in Driving Organizational Success


The Chief Asset Management Officer (CAMO) would:

  • Audit reliability compliance across global and multi-site operations, ensuring that reliability plans are both implemented and effective.

  • Align asset management strategies with overall business goals, making sure that reliability is not just a technical concern but a key driver of operational success.

  • Bridge the gap between maintenance execution and reliability planning, ensuring that both functions work in harmony to deliver the best possible asset performance.


In complex organizations, the CAMO’s role could be supported by Vice Presidents overseeing specific sites or portfolios. This would ensure that asset management is fully integrated into the organization’s strategic decision-making processes at every level, rather than being treated as a siloed operational concern.


ISO 55001: The Blueprint for a New Organizational Framework


As organizations elevate asset management to the C-suite, they need a structured framework to guide their efforts. ISO 55001, the international standard for asset management, provides just that. It lays out a clear path for creating an organizational environment where asset management functions are fully integrated with business objectives, ensuring that people, processes, and technology are aligned.

By adopting ISO 55001, organizations can create a culture where reliability and asset management are embedded into every aspect of the business, from strategy to execution. This standard offers a blueprint for driving asset performance, improving operational efficiency, and reducing risks, ultimately leading to long-term business success.


The Way Forward: Elevate Asset Management, Embed Reliability


In today’s competitive landscape, organizations cannot afford to treat maintenance and reliability as interchangeable terms. Maintenance plays a critical role in reducing downtime, but reliability is about looking ahead and preventing failures before they occur. To achieve true operational success, both functions must work together—but they must also be recognized as distinct.


By adopting a comprehensive RCM approach, guided by SAE standards, and elevating asset management to the C-suite with the support of a CAMO, organizations can drive a step-change in reliability performance. ISO 55001 provides the framework, ensuring that asset management becomes a strategic pillar of the organization, fully aligned with its long-term objectives.


The future of asset management lies not in short-term fixes or streamlined processes but in a fully integrated approach that combines engineering, operations, and maintenance under a strategic vision. The organizations that embrace this shift will be the ones best positioned to manage high-consequence risks, optimize asset performance, and drive long-term success.

 
Kleber Siqueira | NAVITAS Consulting




















39 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page