Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Bryan Christiansen Leave a Comment

Mistakes To Avoid When Implementing And Using FRACAS

Mistakes To Avoid When Implementing And Using FRACAS

A failure reporting, analysis, and corrective action system (FRACAS) is an important part of a reliability program. It is used to solve reliability and maintenance issues throughout a plant’s lifecycle. It uses a strict closed-end loop and iterative root causes analysis process. Properly executed, it can add considerable value to a business. However, there are some implementation traps to avoid and best practice tips that optimize results; here are six common issues to consider.

Differentiate isolated failures from systemic impacts

When using FRACAS to eradicate problems, it’s important to understand whether the failure you seek to resolve stems from an isolated event with the component or sub-system, or is a result of wider systemic effects. If it’s the latter, and you treat it as an isolated event. You will spend time and money on a component or piece of equipment without resolving the root cause, risking further failures and disruption in other parts of your plant. 

Such understanding requires broadening your thinking beyond the immediate operational failure to question the wider business processes, flows, and inputs to understand the contribution they might be making to the problem.

Consequential effects of corrective actions

A system is a set of connected components and equipment that operate together for a particular purpose. Make a fundamental change in how one piece of equipment works, and you can expect the change to have a flow-on effect throughout the rest of the system. Some will be subtle, others less so. Therefore, before implementing changes arising from your FRACAS implementation, have your FRACAS team analyze the impacts on all business processes. This way, you can understand its effect beyond simply stopping the failure from reoccurring. Don’t forget the impacts on crucial business roles like inventory, finance, or material handling.

Overusing FRACAS 

FRACAS is not a panacea to all system faults. It is simply a tool. All root cause analysis processes are costly and time-consuming; therefore, they are best for:

  • Chronic failures whose regular occurrence impacts organizational efficiency
  • Failures with a widespread impact due to the number of affected components deployed within the business
  • Failures that impose significant financial, safety, regulatory, or quality impacts on a business.

Overusing the FRACAS process will slow reliability processes through onerous administration, create inefficiency and inflate costs while the backlog of problems awaiting analysis grows.

Being hijacked by cure rather than prevention

With FRACAS being a problem-solving methodology, it’s understandable your team tends to focus solely on failures, yet there are times when turning your thinking upside down helps. If you have other similar equipment with decent reliability, why are they not failing? What differences in operating factors or business processes might influence component reliability? 

If the failures of a unique piece of equipment are random, what was the difference in business process during the times the component ran well and showed good uptime?  It is easier to prevent equipment failure by focusing on and simulating the conditions that produce good equipment uptime.

Using unreliable data

For a FRACAS to be effective, it requires reliable data. This implies that the data collection process has been rigorous and thorough, allowing traceability and follow-up during the analysis. Manual paper-based maintenance systems make implementing a FRACAS arduous while introducing the possibility of human error and data loss.

Modern cloud-based computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS) support electronic data collection and collation, providing a centralized database for query and analysis. Each entry is time and date stamped, identifying technicians or operators involved in interventions and actions. Using a CMMS speeds up the FRACAS cycle, eliminating manual analysis techniques and providing database mining, scenario modeling, and statistical analysis. All are crucial tools to reliably inform the FRACAS process, providing efficient and effective outcomes.

Not addressing all contributory factors

The danger with all root cause analysis methods lies in not considering all system inputs sufficiently. The component you are analyzing does not exist in isolation, and there are usually multiple contributing factors to a failure. Ensure original equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and even designers are involved in the analysis team. Providing a broad cross-section of expertise offsets the possibility of confirmation bias in technicians and engineers who may be too close to an operational issue or business process, holding half-formed thoughts on the cause. 

Conclusion

Common denominators linking these tips are the need for distance, perspective, and an understanding of the interrelatedness of systems. Those involved in using the FRACAS system must move beyond purely operational thinking, cultivating tactical and strategic awareness that encompasses the business as an interconnected system. 

Maintaining objectivity maintains an open mind for solutions while measuring the impact of each beyond simply solving the original problem. You can improve your chances of achieving optimal reliability if you approach your next FRACAS from a broad-based and three-dimensional perspective.

Filed Under: Articles, CMMS and Reliability, on Maintenance Reliability Tagged With: FRACAS, reliability

« System Engineers Rule Robotic Design
Lithium Battery Fires: How To Decide If You Should Recall? »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Bryan Christiansen
in the CMMS and Reliability series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Posts

  • Risk And Safety
  • Risk Prioritization in FMEA – a Summary
  • What Are Best Practices for Facilitating Qualitative Assessments?
  • So, What’s Still Wrong with Maintenance
  • Foundation of Great Project Outcomes – Structures

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.