TABLE OF CONTENTS When some companies build or acquire facilities and maintain a laissez-faire approach to facility maintenance, it's because they discovered they can run them much longer than vendor-specified intervals with no apparent loss. Ultraconservative vendor intervals partly explain "ho-hum" approaches to TBM.
Imagine, on the other hand, that missed PM intervals had (relatively) immediate and severe consequences. Time-based monitoring programs and vendors would gain credibility! I believe this would happen if manufacturers discarded the volumes of trivial, over-conservative information they provide with much of their new equipment. What's needed is a "Cliff's Notes" of PM.
The truth is, few truly grasp vendor-recommended strategies for maintenance. Vendor manuals (like company prospectus reports) are under-rated and under-read. Their technical writing styles, required skill levels, and even their basic information varies in quality and accuracy even from the same vendor! Variation is even greater between vendors. Some fail to disclose service life information. Others don't provide service manuals. Many don't offer in-service aging and performance information. Yet, in my opinion, the more product life cycle information a vendor offers, the more competitive they become.
They may not offer product failure information because it's assumed that disclosure of this information is unwise competitively and carries legal disadvantages particularly when the vendor recommendations aren't conservative and lawyers become involved. Vendors promote the virtues and longevity of their products in sales literature while their service manuals are conservative. Development of an O&M strategy rests heavily on the user, as a result. Vendors supply...
