the increased maintenance even made things
worse!
The Value of RCM in
Business Today
Summary
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) is the
world’s dominant proactive method for
determining maintenance requirements for
physical assets. It is a thorough methodology
that produces well documented and fully
justified decisions on asset management
strategies. It has been highly successful at
improving reliability and safety while reducing
overall maintenance costs and increasing
capacity for increased revenue generation. RCM
had its beginnings in the commercial airline
sector and has spread to virtually every other
capital intensive industry. In many cases, it has
a substantial payback on its initial investment in
addition to several benefits that are not as easily
quantified: safety, environmental compliance and
product quality. RCM provides great benefit and
is worthy of consideration if reliability is truly
important to your business.
The Value of RCM in Business
Today
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) is the
world’s dominant proactive method for
determining the maintenance requirements for
physical assets. It is of particular value to capital
intensive industries where business success
depends heavily on the use of its assets operating
reliably and safely.
RCM was developed in the commercial airline
sector in the 1970’s. At the time, the commercial
aircraft industry was experiencing some 60
crashes per million take-offs. Roughly 40 of
those were attributed to equipment failure. The
industry was in the early stages of design of its
jumbo jets – the Boeing 747, McDonald Douglas
DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011. It feared that if
airliners continued to crash at the same rate it
would not attract many customers, ultimately
failing to reach its growth potential. They
attempted to cure the problem by increasing the
amount of maintenance they were doing – after
all, many failures were equipment related. To
their dismay, they discovered that in many cases
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
Stan Nowlan and Howard Heap1 studied aircraft
failures looking for correlations between those
failures and the maintenance that was being
performed. They recognized that maintenance
was a contributing factor to many of the failures
but in some other cases maintenance was able to
improve the situation. They looked for patterns
and found them. There were actually six patterns
of Conditional Probability of Failure2.
A 4%
Conditional Probability of Failure
B 2%
C 5%
D 7%
E 14%
F 68%
Operating Age
• Pattern A is the well-known bathtub curve.
It begins with a high incidence of failure
(known as in infant mortality) followed by a
constant or gradually increasing conditional
probability of failure, then a wear-out zone.
This pattern appears in biological systems
(like us) and in simple systems that have
only a few dominant failure modes.
• Pattern B – classic wear out, shows constant
or slowly increasing conditional probability
of failure, ending in a wear-out zone. Prior
1
Nowlan, F. Stanley, and Howard F. Heap,
“Reliability-Centered Maintenance,” Department
of Defense, Washington, DC, 1978. Report
number AD-A066579.
2
Conditional Probability of Failure is the
probability of failure of an asset at any instant in
time given the condition that it has survived to
that point in time.
james@consciousasset.com 1
 to the Nowlan and Heap study, this was the
dominant view of equipment failure. It
occurs in assets that are in contact with
product, process fluids and slurry’s and
drive components.
• Pattern C – gradual aging, shows slowly
increasing conditional probability of failure,
but there is no identifiable wear-out age.
This occurs where there is erosion, corrosion
or fatigue.
• Pattern D – best new, shows low conditional
probability of failure when the item is new
or just out of the shop, then a rapid increase
to a constant level. This occurs in systems,
usually complex, that are maintained and put
into service by highly qualified technicians
before being turned over to less qualified
operators. Examples are hydraulic, fluid
power and pneumatic systems.
• Pattern E – totally random, shows a constant
conditional probability of failure at all ages.
This pattern appears in many systems or
components that are, on their own, not
typically subject to maintenance work.
Rolling element bearings and incandescent
light bulbs are examples of this type of
failure.
• Pattern F – starts with high infant mortality,
dropping to a constant or slowly decreasing
conditional probability of failure. This is
common in complex systems that are subject
to start up and shut down cycles, frequent
overhaul type maintenance work and
product cycle fluctuations.
Nowlan and Heap’s study on civil aircraft
showed that 4% of the items conformed to
pattern A, 2% to B, 5% to C, 7% to D, 14% to E
and no fewer than 68% to pattern F. The number
of times these patterns occur in aircraft is not
necessarily the same as in industry. But there is
no doubt that as assets become more complex,
we see more and more of patterns E and F. Later
studies3 have shown the same patterns with
somewhat different (but similar) distributions.
3
Broberg (1973) also studied aircraft and two
studies were performed on submarine failures
(MSP in 1982 and SUBMEPP in 2001). All
show similar patterns with somewhat different
percentage distributions. In the submarine
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
These findings contradicted the then-current
belief that there was a connection between
reliability and operating age. This belief led to
the idea that the more often an item is over-
hauled, the less likely it would be to fail.
Nowadays, this is seldom true. Unless there is a
dominant age-related failure mode, age limits do
little or nothing to improve the reliability of
complex items. In fact scheduled overhauls often
increase overall failure rates by introducing
infant mortality into otherwise stable systems.
To make practical use of this information,
Nowlan and Heap developed the RCM process
and their findings were published by the US
Department of Defense (1978). Various military
standards4 (in the US and UK) and an aerospace
industry standard5 (international) were then
published. Two other excellent reference books
on RCM soon followed for commercial
application. John Moubray published the first
edition of his book6 in 1991, followed by
Anthony M. Smith7 in 1993. Smith focused
primarily on the electric generation industry
while Moubray’s work was more general in
nature and has broader application. Throughout
the 1990’s a proliferation of various maintenance
program development methods arose, all of them
claiming to be RCM. For reasons of improved
economy, the US military then decided to
eliminate the requirement for use of its stringent
MIL-STDs if suitable commercial alternative
studies there were far fewer pattern F failures but
more of patterns E and B. This is attributed to
maintenance programs that include “run in” of
assets after they are maintained in order to
eliminate infant mortality once the asset is put
into service.
4
US DOD: MIL-STD 2173(AS), NAVAIR 00-
25-403, S9081-AB-GIB-010/MAINT (The
USN’s RCM Handbook) and UK MOD: NES
45.
5
MSG-3, “Maintenance Program Development
Document”, Air Transport Association,
Washington, DC
6
Moubray, John, “Reliability-centred
Maintenance II”, 1991, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, UK (now in 2005, it is in its 2nd edition).
7
Smith, Anthony M., “Reliability-Centered
Maintenance”, 1993, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY
james@consciousasset.com 2
were available. To clear the confusion that
existed in the commercial market, and at the
encouragement of the US DOD, the SAE
developed its standard, JA10118. The remainder
of this paper discusses RCM as described in the
SAE standard.
RCM has proven to be highly successful. In
commercial airlines it has reduced the crashes
from 60 per million to only 2 per million, a 30-
fold improvement and reduced the proportion of
equipment related causes from 40 per million to
0.3 per million. Commercial air travel today is
extremely safe with an average of one
commercial airliner crashing per month. That
may seem high, but relative to the industry’s
performance in the 1960’s and 70’s it is a vast
improvement. Your chances of being hit by
lightning are 5 times greater!
The RCM process requires the answering of 7
questions in sequence:
1. What are the functions and associated
desired standards of performance of the
asset in its present operating context
(functions)?
2. In what ways can it fail to fulfill its
functions (functional failures)?
3. What causes each functional failure
(failure modes)?
4. What happens when each failure occurs
(failure effects)?
5. In what ways does each failure matter
(failure consequences)?
6. What should be done to predict or
prevent each failure (proactive tasks and
task intervals)?
7. What should be done if a suitable
proactive task cannot be found (default
actions)?
These seem simple enough, but answering these
questions satisfactorily requires a deep
understanding of RCM that goes beyond the
scope of this paper.
The results of RCM analyses are documented on
Information Worksheets and Decision Logic
Worksheets. Many companies opt for
8 all deal with the failures after the fact. With the
SAE JA1011, “Evaluation Criteria for
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM)
Processes”, Aug 1999.
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
computerized data base systems to track their
analyses, but print the worksheets for review
purposes.
Successful RCM analysis requires a detailed
knowledge of the physical assets, what they are
intended to do for the company along with
performance standards, how the fail, what
happens when they fail, how to repair them and
of a variety of maintenance approaches that can
be used. RCM requires a team effort. Teams are
typically comprised of 3 to 4 operators and
maintainers plus a facilitator. The knowledge
required to do RCM analysis is found in
operators and maintainers of the assets.
Periodically they are supported by engineers and
other specialists in the design, construction, use
and maintenance of the assets. The teams are
facilitated by an analyst who is trained to a great
depth in RCM and in how to facilitate the
analysis.
RCM analyses are conducted in small projects.
Each project deals with a system or piece of
equipment. The projects are chosen so that they
can be completed in no more than 15 three-hour
meetings by the analysis team. Analysis of all
the assets at a particular facility can take several
months to a few years depending on the size and
complexity of the facility and its systems.
Toronto Hydro, the electric distribution utility
for Canada’s largest city, did approximately 100
projects covering most of their assets within a 2
year period. GE Plastics in the Netherlands
analyzed critical assets in some 32 projects over
2 ½ years. The Canadian Navy analyzed all
systems (nearly 250) on its then new ships (in
the late 1980’s) in a four year period.
RCM is a proactive analysis process. It is used
to determine what will happen when failures
occur and to decide on appropriate measures to
mitigate the consequences BEFORE they
happen. The alternative to RCM is to allow the
failures to happen, to suffer the consequences
and then to decide on what to do to avoid them
in the future. There are a variety of approaches
that are used: Root Cause Failure Analysis,
Preventive Maintenance Optimization and
various engineering statistical analysis methods
exception of PMO, they require statistical data
that can only be collected for your facility after
james@consciousasset.com 3
you have experienced the failures. These
methods all work very well and they are, in the
opinion of the author, excellent as enhancements
to any existing maintenance program, but they
are not a replacement for proactively avoiding
the problems in the first place. Only RCM
attempts and succeeds at doing that
economically, yet even RCM has its weakness.
RCM cannot detect multiple-independent failure
events that, when combined, lead to undesirable
(often catastrophic) consequences. Fault-tree
analysis deals with this successfully but it is very
complicated and expensive to perform. Fault-
tree analysis is usually reserved only for highly
critical systems such as nuclear power plants,
avionics systems, high-tech weapons, potentially
hazardous chemical and biological processes.
One company shared its lessons from applying
RCM publicly in a conference in late 2002.
Toronto Hydro acknowledged that RCM was
tougher to perform than they originally
anticipated:
• Dealing with hidden failures proved
challenging for many analysts not
familiar with the concept.
• They found that their data collection
wasn’t sufficient to support many of the
calculations they had to make. A recent
benchmarking study in the US9 revealed
that over 50% of the 800 participants
did not trust their data systems enough
to perform reliability calculations.
Although RCM doesn’t require accurate
statistical data it helps improve to
improve the results.
• The use of untrained analysts slowed
progress substantially on a few of their
projects.
• Careful planning is critical to success.
Analysts needed the training. It was
important to make sure the people with
the greatest knowledge of specific
assets were trained in time for their
scheduled projects.
• They found it challenging for
equipment specialists to begin looking
at systems from a systems’ perspective.
Engineers and technicians used to
9 Toronto Hydro saw an average of 22% cost
Terry Wireman, Genesis Solutions, presented at
MARTS, 2005.
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
dealing with minute details tended to
get bogged down in details. This
problem proved to be temporary –
eventually they became very good
system analysts.
• They found that they didn’t know their
own systems as well as they thought. A
great deal of time was spent discovering
how some of their assets, particularly
the older ones, really worked.
• Potential cost savings mean reductions
in labor and materials use. As they
were seeing many opportunities to save,
they realized that it could mean loss of
jobs. This led to increased resistance to
implementing the results of the
analyses. Eventually they got past this
problem.
• RCM looks like a lot of work but the
use of “templates” can substantially
reduce the effort for fleets or “classes”
of assets.
• Getting some analysts to participate
proved problematic due to the time
commitment it required. The analysis
time competed with their other job
responsibilities. Management
intervention was sometimes needed to
resolve the conflicting priorities.
• Project estimations were initially low
and time commitments for individuals
were greater than expected. Some
schedule delays occurred as a result.
Over time the experience gained
through doing analyses helps in
estimating new projects.
• For hidden failures RCM uses “risk-
based” decision criteria. For an electric
utility where there is a great deal of
redundancy there are many hidden
failures with purely operational
consequences. Electrical equipment
and systems are often designed to “fail
safe” so the risk-based approach was
confusing. Additional operational
criteria were developed for use in these
unique, but plentiful circumstances.
For all the effort and the learning curve there is a
substantial payback. The commercial airline
industry saw huge gains in reliability and safety.
reductions over their two years of analysis work.
james@consciousasset.com 4
Initially they experienced 34% from their 10
pilot projects – of course they had picked “high
value” targets in order to really test the value of
RCM. The Canadian Navy, using an earlier
military-version of RCM experienced substantial
gains in ship availability from 60% to 70%,
maintenance cost reductions estimated by the
author to be on the order of CAD 200 million
and the avoidance of CAD 2 billion in capital
costs. They replaced 14 ships with only 12 due
to the increase in ship availability that RCM
delivered. GE Plastics in the Netherlands saw
MTBF on their critical manufacturing systems
increase from 8 hours to 80 days, 50% cost
reductions and a 30% staff reduction in
maintenance (they were clearly over-
maintaining).
Note that staff reductions don’t necessarily mean
layoffs and job losses. In the author’s
experience, employees are usually re-assigned to
other valuable work that was not being done due
to the pressures to keep the formerly unreliable
assets running. In North America the ability of
RCM to reduce the amount of work required is
part of the solution to an increasingly serious
problem with demographics. The pending
retirement of much of its aging work force will
leave many companies scrambling for talent that
is increasingly unavailable and poorly qualified
for the available jobs. There are fewer people in
the younger generations and they have largely
opted out of careers in the trades.
RCM takes time. A large facility such as a fossil
fuel power plant (e.g.: Castle Peak in Hong
Kong) required 18 months to analyze all of its
systems in a concerted effort. Toronto Hydro
has taken 2 years for most of its assets, GE
Plastics took 2.5 years, the Canadian Naval
project was almost 4 years but it ran in parallel
with the design effort. Fortunately, the benefits
and payback begin to materialize early. As
Toronto Hydro discovered, it is common for
companies to discover a great deal about their
physical assets that they didn’t already know.
This can lead to substantial savings and other
benefits.
The author worked with one paper making
company in the southern USA on a paper towel
converting line. They discovered that the
function of a large guard was to protect the
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
equipment from water drips. The guard had
been installed early in the life of the plant when
the air conditioning system used chilled water
and un-insulated pipes. Condensate drips were a
problem in those early days. The air
conditioning system had been replaced some 10
years prior to the analysis and the drips
eliminated. Unfortunately they didn’t eliminate
the guard at the same time! No one had
questioned its function. For 10 years, they
continued removing and replacing it in order to
do maintenance work on the towel line. That
added 8 hours of downtime to each repair and it
happened about once every two weeks. Over 10
years that amounted to roughly 2,080 hours of
downtime on an otherwise very profitable
production line. There were also several other
towel lines with the same sort of guard. They
removed all the guards after their first RCM
team meeting and never replaced them! There
are other examples like this. Nearly everyone
the author has met who has done RCM analysis
work, has had a similar experience from learning
more about their installed assets.
RCM is not cheap. Training is provided to
analysts and facilitators. The pilot projects must
be planned carefully. The analysts’ time must be
scheduled and in some cases replacements for
those analysts must be found – at least part of the
time. Facilitators can work on RCM full time
but then their replacements are required on a full
time basis, at least for the time when the analysis
projects are in progress. Once the facilitators are
trained they require mentoring. Most facilitators
are not comfortable in their new roles until they
have done one or two full analyses backed up by
an experienced mentor who trained them. The
training, planning support and mentoring are all
provided by consultants, highly trained
specialists who are in demand and don’t come
cheaply. And then there is the cost of the time
required to do the analysis work. For example, a
large facility with over 100 system projects, each
requiring 10 to 15 meetings (average 12.5) of 3
hours each and a team of 4 people requires
15,000 man hours (about 8 man years) of effort.
Toronto Hydro paid approximately CAD
272,000 for the external support, training and
their analysts’ time. Their payback was large –
they had an internal rate of return on that
investment of 180% over 10 years. The costs
james@consciousasset.com 5
were covered in a few months and the benefits
are returned over many years.
The most obvious benefit or value to business is
generated by the increased reliability and
availability of the physical assets that are
analyzed. Assets running longer and with fewer
breakdowns produce more. If you can sell
everything you can make, then you generate
more revenue. If you are market constrained,
then you can’t sell any more produce (or
service). You can still benefit from reducing the
total capacity of physical assets required to
deliver what you can sell. In the case of several
mining companies it has been possible to “park”
haul trucks that were no longer needed because
the remaining fleet availability provided the
needed hauling capacity. This saved them both
operating and maintenance costs and brought in
revenue from the resale of their excess fleet. In a
plant environment where it is practical to shut
down for one or more shifts, it may be possible
to increase shift production and reduce the
number of required shifts.
RCM reduces the overall maintenance effort. If
you are over-maintaining, as utilities and others
with a strong reliability culture often do, then
you can reduce your Preventive Maintenance
program budget. If you are under-maintaining,
then you are probably doing more repairs than
you need to. By determining the right amount of
proactive maintenance you can eliminate failures
and the repair costs associated with them. For
example, elimination of overhaul work where
failure pattern F is present will eliminate
premature failures. Doing more condition
monitoring where random failures are most
common (patterns D, E and F) will catch failures
that have begun, but not yet progressed to the
fully functional failed state. This will eliminate
costly breakdown repairs. The discovery of
hidden failures through regular testing will
eliminate situations where the backup or safety
system fails to operate. This invariably means a
less expensive repair and avoidance of the cost
of downtime when the primary device eventually
fails.
RCM also reduces other, less quantifiable
business risks. Product quality and continuity of
service is often highly dependent on the smooth
running of your physical assets. RCM keeps
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
those assets running well and within product
quality standards and limits. Those limits on
say, control systems and tolerances, are used as
desired standards of performance when defining
system functions. Failure to meet those
standards, no matter how minor, is treated as a
functional failure and proactive steps are taken to
avoid the consequences. Where product quality
problems can lead to product liability issues
RCM helps avoid them. Pharmaceutical and
food companies use highly automated processes
to maintain stringent product quality tolerances.
Keeping to tolerances on packaging lines means
that you won’t deliver less than you are stating
on the packaging and it keeps the over-fill to an
absolute minimum. That keeps you from giving
away product for free. Keeping product within
its spec limits means less scrap, less waste and
less risk of product that is out of spec (and
potentially dangerous) from making its way into
the market place. This can also help to reduce
product risk liability and insurance premiums.
Utilities delivering electricity, gas and water to
customers strive keep their product within
tolerances on voltage, cycles and pressure.
Imagine the insurance payout if a water utility
over-pressurized water mains in a large city or
failed to deliver water in the event of a major
fire. What if a gas utility over-pressurized its
mains? Electrical voltage spikes can also
damage a great deal of equipment. Keeping
within these various tolerances is important –
RCM helps.
A business operating reliably is able to forecast
its revenues more accurately. The financial
industry appreciates this consistency and
predictability. Banks will provide more
favorable loan conditions to reliable businesses.
The author knows one Canadian bank that
already makes these offers if RCM is used.
Stock market analysts treat reliable businesses
more favorably making it easier to raise capital
in the investment markets. Insurance companies
will see the reduced claims potential and reduce
premiums. The author knows of at least two
major global insurers who have done this for
major global clients. In one case the premium
reduction for a global mining company was $US
2 million per year on their business loss
insurance. And in some other cases, previously
uninsurable risks can become insurable.
james@consciousasset.com 6

Warranties are another area of benefit to
business. Manufacturers usually offer a warranty
on materials and workmanship for new assets
and the cost of that is built into their products.
They also offer, for an additional cost, an
extended warranty that covers a wider range of
potential problems. Those warranties can cost
on the order of 2 – 3 % of the capital outlay for
the asset. If RCM is used to develop your
maintenance program, then the asset is far less
likely to fail and therefore it is far less likely you
will have an opportunity to make a warranty
claim. If you don’t mind accepting the risk, you
can negotiate you’re your suppliers and save
your company 2 – 3 % on the capital costs of
new asset acquisitions. That’s usually enough to
pay for the RCM analysis effort for a Greenfield
application and the risks are largely eliminated.
In other cases, you might choose to pay the
warranty costs and negotiate with the
manufacturer to allow you to use your
maintenance program rather than the one they
recommend while they still honor the warranty if
you make any claims. One coal mining
company did this and the manufacturer was
happy to comply with their request. The mining
company used their RCM maintenance program
and they never made a claim!
Safety is where RCM got started and it is an area
where RCM excels. Safety is built into the RCM
decision logic criteria and the “run-to-failure”
option is not available if safety is in jeopardy.
Most industrial accidents happen during
maintenance or due to failures of physical assets.
Failures resulting in safety hazards are dealt with
proactively. The overall reduction of
maintenance work that is required and the
emphasis that RCM gives to condition
monitoring techniques (which are usually non-
intrusive) means less exposure to risk for
maintainers. The reductions in failures mean
fewer repairs and again, less exposure to risk.
Safety performance is enhanced over time
following the implementation of programs
developed using RCM. The experience of the
airline industry is perhaps the most graphic
example of the safety benefits of RCM. The
benefits to safety do not go un-noticed.
Improved safety performance over time will also
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
result in reductions in insurance premiums for
workers’ compensation coverage.
Environmental non-compliance can result in
fines, partial or total shut down of operations. In
some extreme cases the license to operate can be
revoked. RCM helps to avoid these fines and
shutdown related losses and to keep you in
business. Like safety, environmental
consequences are dealt with proactively and
strictly – run-to-failure is not an option. It is no
accident that the nuclear power industry uses
RCM extensively!
Regulatory agencies enforce rules that are meant
to ensure compliance to minimum standards.
They are society’s way of telling us what it will
tolerate before taking punitive action against
your company. Regulations are most commonly
applied where safety and the environment are
concerned. Even product safety considerations,
as in the pharmaceuticals and food, give rise to
extensive regulations. For example, in those
industries calibration programs are mandated and
strictly enforced. Typically, the regulations
require you to meet a certain minimum standard
but fall short of specifying what to do to and how
to do it. Those choices are left up to you.
Inspectors for the regulatory agencies, like those
for insurance companies and safety agencies,
have a great deal of discretion in judging how
well you are complying with the regulations.
RCM is a very solid methodology for
determining how to meet regulatory
requirements. Those requirements are treated as
functions of the asset and any failure to comply
is handled in the analysis quite easily. RCM
produces extensive documentation that can be
used to back up your maintenance program. It
enables you to show deliberate proactive effort to
comply backed up with a bullet-proof logic for
the choices you make. Regulators seldom have
the knowledge to disagree with your program.
In the unlikely and unfortunate event that
something does go wrong, you can also use the
documentation as evidence that you did
everything you could to avoid the problem. Of
course you must also show that you complied
with the maintenance program requirements you
developed using RCM for this to work!
james@consciousasset.com 7
In summary, RCM is a well proven methodology
to deliver a great deal of value to business in a
wide range of areas:
• Increased output
• Reduced maintenance costs
• Reduction of production loss
(opportunity costs)
• Improved product quality and service
level compliance
• More predictable business performance
• Favorable treatment by lending
institutions – better loan terms
• Favorable treatment by insurers –
reduce premiums
• Favorable treatment by manufacturers –
reduce or eliminate extended warranty
costs
• Improved safety performance
• Improved environmental compliance
• Defensible and auditable maintenance
program to satisfy regulators
RCM delivers. The reader is encouraged to
explore the topic further and to consider RCM as
a key strategic initiative for any company that
relies on physical assets in carrying out its
business.
About the Author
James V. Reyes-Picknell, P.Eng.
James V. Reyes-Picknell is founder and
President of Conscious Asset Management of
Toronto, Canada. He provides consulting in the
field of physical asset / maintenance
management. His services span strategy,
operations, process improvement and executive
development. James is a licensed professional
engineer, an Aladon certified RCM II
practitioner, honors graduate of the University of
Toronto in Mechanical engineering (1977). He
has studied at the Royal Navy Engineering
College, Technical University of Nova Scotia
and Dalhousie University. His career in
operations and maintenance spans 28 years, 10
of those in physical asset and maintenance
management consulting.
James’ experience includes plant, fleet and
facility maintenance, strategy development and
implementation, reliability management and
engineering, spares and operating supplies, life
© 2006, Conscious Asset Management
+1-705-431-6598 www.consciousasset.com
cycle management and analysis, diagnostic
assessments, benchmarking for best practices,
business process design and enterprise asset
management systems. James has been published
in several books as a co-author, a contributing
author and is the author of numerous articles
published in several periodicals. He is presently
authoring the 2nd edition of the popular book on
maintenance management, “Uptime, Strategies
for Excellence in Maintenance Management”.
Prior to founding his company, James was leader
of the global Enterprise Asset Management
practice of IBM Business Consulting Services
(formerly known as PwC Consulting,
PricewaterhouseCoopers and Coopers &
Lybrand). He has worked as a Marine Engineer
in the Canadian Navy, a specialist machinery
engineer with Exxon Chemicals in Canada, the
Maintenance and Support Planning Manager for
a large warship design and construction project
and Logistics Support Manager for both
Helicopter and Microwave Landing Systems
projects. His industry experience includes:
aerospace, automotive, brewing, computers,
consumer goods manufacturing, defense, electric
power utility (generation, transmission,
distribution), facilities management, forest
products, gas processing and transmission, health
care, higher education, marine, metals, mining,
oil & gas (upstream, refining), petrochemical,
pharmaceutical and postal services and water /
waste water utilities.
james@consciousasset.com 8