Is Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) making a comeback and if so will it prove to be a worthwhile investment?

There are a number of financial and non-financial drivers for optimising asset reliability. These are linked, preferably overtly, to the business strategy, at the heart of which should have some form of reference to safety and environmental impact. There is often a tension between reducing asset cost of ownership and increasing asset reliability and, most importantly in hazardous environments, safety. Some organisations already employ a form of Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM), or are managing and maintaining their assets in such a way that would not make an investment in RCM worthwhile. Where this is not the case, technical teams are often maintaining assets for what they are, rather than what they do. This means that regardless of business and safety criticality an asset gets the "manufacturer\´s recommended maintenance routine". Is RCM starting to make a comeback and if so will it prove to be a worthwhile investment? How can you increase reliability whilst reducing the cost of asset ownership? Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) is an approach that can help achieve this. It is, however, an investment in itself in terms of organisational learning and opportunity costs for those involved in the analysis and implementation. Prior to full scale implementation it is important to conduct a pilot project to assess the costs and benefits of full scale implementation. One benefit is the potential to reduce the working capital required, as the spare parts inventory is reduced through better understanding of the mean time to failure. Such data is often poorly represented in existing information systems. A tailored maintenance management system can be put in place to address failure modes, which will not only increase asset reliability, but should make a demonstrable improvement to understanding and managing risks to saf