This post is the third and last entry in a short series on interviewing candidates for knowledge and skills in reliability. See also Part 1: Root Cause Analysis and Part 2: Bearings. With these three tools, a fairly comprehensive picture of a candidate’s knowledge and skills can be gleaned in a short time.
Question:
Tell me about a time that you analyzed a system or piece of equipment for failures and then designed a reliability strategy.
Follow-up Questions:
- What process did you use?
- How did you get the recommendations implemented?
Comments:
- RCM is the flip side to RCA: it is a kind of “RCA in advance.” It is one of the most challenging task that a reliability professional will undertake. Not only do team RCM efforts tend by their very nature to constantly go off track, creating challenges for the facilitator, but the facilitator must direct the group to the correct level of detail: deep enough, but not too deep. Often, the facilitator has to overcome the perception that it is a waste of time. Finally, the recommendations generally span multiple departments and RCM facilitators have to “influence without authority.”
- The RCM process is surprisingly controversial in the reliability world. It has a reputation for “getting in the weeds” and not creating enough value to justify the expenditure of manpower, but that can be the result of inadequate facilitation, an improper team ordering, or inadequate preparation. My personal feeling is that RCM is a tool that is best applied once a general reliability program including lubrication, inspection, and condition monitoring has been established. Otherwise, for each piece of equipment there will be dozens of recommendations that could be addressed by general efforts at establishing the “basics” at a much lower cost in manpower.
Qualities of an Ideal Answer
- Before jumping straight to recommendations, the process should spend at least some time on system and equipment function, functional failure, and FMEA, addressing failure effects and consequences separately before deciding on tasks. Ideally the cost of periodic tasks, whether on the run or during shutdowns, should be weighed against operational consequences unless there is a safety or compliance aspect.
- It would be best to have an experienced and credible reliability engineer sit through this question. However, many of the comments regarding root cause analysis, above, also apply here, particularly those on driving organizational change.








