Change in Maintenance = Change Management

Here's a stat that surprised me until I saw it: What if half your PM program isn't delivering the reliability you expect? It may even be making things worse.

It's a tough pill to swallow, but often the culprit isn't the quality of the work or even the skill of your team. It's change management.

If you're running a PM program and leveraging PdM/CBM data do any of these sound like your reality?

• 'It saves time to just copy-paste that PM to similar assets, even if their operating context isn't quite the same.'

• 'Our PM tasks? They don't need to be overly detailed. We've always done it this way, and the team knows what "check" really means.'

• 'Our condition monitoring flags a fault, and we interpret that as: "Great, now we know we can push this asset closer to failure before intervening."'

• 'After a failure, we identified the mode and created a new PM. Layering this with our existing CBM will surely prevent it next time, right?'

• 'We have a solid condition monitoring program in place... and also a recurring time-based overhaul for the same potential failures, just in case.'

If you're nodding along, you're not alone. The challenge is often less about what to do, and more about evolving how we do it. Let’s AMp up our work management batteries…. #AssetManagement #ReliabilityforAll