When I began studying and reviewing reliability best practices, I believed that simply spreading the word about evidence for reliability would narrow the gap between evidence and best practice. I read reliability books, examined other companies’ best practices, and sought new ideas and technology. However, the more I studied, the clearer it became that some books and technologies are flawed, limited, or biased. More troubling were major shifts in policy and practices resulting from flawed research. Simply reporting on new studies wouldn’t equip reliability engineers/leaders with the skills to communicate effectively, train others, and combat ineffective practices.

Advocating for evidence-based reliability practice involves more than knowing new studies have been published. We must understand the new study, determine if the methods and assumptions are valid, the results reliable, and the conclusions applicable. Reliability deconstruction is the critical process of questioning the validity of your program. It involves scrutinizing your reliability program, core principles, and practices to identify what works and what doesn’t.

Deconstruction doesn’t mean demolition; it means breaking something down into manageable processes or analyzing it to understand the process. Deconstruction is about questioning the validity of your reliability program. Reliability is concerned with the consistency or dependability of assets. Perfect reliability is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Repeating the same unreliable process or practice has little to no useful purpose.

Where to Start Deconstruction of Your Reliability Program:

• Bookend Your Program: Reliability and dependability are the two parameters that support a robust reliability program.
• Focus on Fundamentals: Document best practices required for a particular asset.
• Embrace Complexity: Accept that you will miss some things if you oversimplify complex issues.
• Analyze Current Programs and Training: Understand what brings value and what doesn’t.
• Knowledge Over Confirmation: Deconstruction is about gaining knowledge, not confirming expected results. Knowing something is false or doesn’t work is valuable knowledge.

For reliability engineers and practitioners, the concepts of validity and reliability are familiar. When applied to a program, they take on new meaning. Validity is the basic idea of soundness, and reliability is a framework to ensure that industrial plant assets can reliably progress toward continuous improvement, regardless of current maintenance practices or leadership changes.

Navigating the reliability culture today means being bombarded with messages about improvement. Experts speak to our desire for improvement through books, websites, articles, blogs, and more. We feel optimistic and excited when we hear that the right mantra, process, condition-based monitoring, and determination will lead to a better reliability program. We all want our programs to flourish and succeed. So, do we keep jumping from one reliability program to another, or do we take a hard look at what we are doing? Can we separate good reliability practices from bad ones?

Maximizing Effectiveness of Your Reliability Program:

• Clearly Defined Goals and Objectives: This provides a solid foundation and helps your team focus on future-oriented practices rather than firefighting bad practices.

Deconstruction Process:

• Objective: Define your goals.
• Deconstruction: Break your reliability program down into basic components and analyze each process.
• Data/Research: Identify what has worked and world-class practices.
• Reconstruction: Build back your program with proven tools and knowledge to achieve world-class standards.

In conclusion, the practice of reliability is an ongoing process. New information and technology will always emerge. Applying what you learn through deconstruction will allow your team and program to succeed and help you achieve world-class maintenance.