Common RCM Implementation Mistakes (And How to Avoid Them)

Introduction

RCM is a powerful methodology. When properly implemented, it delivers significant improvements in reliability, safety, and maintenance costs. Yet many organisations struggle to realise these benefits. Their RCM programmes stall, produce disappointing results, or quietly fade away.

Why? Usually, it's not the methodology that fails—it's the implementation. After observing numerous RCM programmes succeed and fail, clear patterns emerge. In this article, we'll examine the ten most common mistakes and how to avoid them.

Mistake #1: Analysing Everything

The Problem:

Enthusiastic teams decide to "do RCM" on their entire plant. They start with Area 1, then move to Area 2, with plans to eventually cover everything. Three years later, they're still analysing and have implemented almost nothing.

RCM analysis is thorough, which means it's time-consuming. A complex system can take 2-4 days to analyse properly. A typical plant might have hundreds of systems. The maths doesn't work. The Solution:

Prioritise ruthlessly. Use criticality analysis to identify your most important assets—typically 10-20% of equipment that drives 80% of risk and cost. Apply full RCM only to these critical systems. Use lighter-touch methods (PM Optimisation, equipment-type templates) for the rest.

Rule of thumb: If you haven't completed analysis and started implementing within 6 months, your programme is probably too ambitious.

---

Mistake #2: Analysis Without Implementation

The Problem:

The team conducts excellent analysis sessions, producing detailed FMEA worksheets with hundreds of recommended tasks. These documents are filed carefully... and nothing changes. The maintenance programme continues as before.

Analysis without implementation is just an expensive exercise in documentation. The Solution: Plan for implementation from the start. For every analysis session, schedule follow-up time to:

• •Review and approve recommended tasks
• •Create or modify work orders in your CMMS
• •Update PM schedules
• •Train technicians on new tasks
• •Remove or modify existing tasks that have been superseded

A good target: tasks from an analysis should be in your CMMS within 30 days.

---

Mistake #3: Poor Team Composition

The Problem: RCM analysis requires input from multiple perspectives:

• •Operations knowledge (how the equipment is used)
• •Maintenance knowledge (how it fails, what's practical)
• •Technical/engineering knowledge (design intent, failure physics)

Some organisations run analysis sessions with only engineers, or only maintenance personnel. The results are incomplete or impractical. The Solution: Every analysis team should include:

• •An experienced operator for that equipment
• •A skilled maintainer who works on it
• •An engineer who understands the technical aspects
• •A trained facilitator to guide the process

Don't compromise on team composition. If key people aren't available, reschedule the session.

---

Mistake #4: Untrained Facilitators

The Problem: Facilitation looks easy until you try it. An untrained facilitator struggles to:

• •Keep the session on track
• •Maintain the right level of detail
• •Challenge assumptions constructively
• •Document properly while guiding discussion
• •Handle dominant personalities

Poor facilitation produces poor analysis—or exhausted teams who don't want to participate again. The Solution: Invest in facilitator training. This should include:

• •Deep understanding of RCM principles
• •Practical facilitation skills
• •Hands-on practice with feedback
• •Understanding of your industry and equipment

Many organisations certify internal facilitators; others bring in external experts for critical systems while developing internal capability.

---

Mistake #5: Wrong Level of Detail

The Problem:

There are two common failures here:

Too much detail: Teams spend hours debating whether to list "motor winding fails due to overheating" and "motor winding fails due to moisture ingress" separately. The analysis bogs down in minutiae. Too little detail: Everything is listed as "pump fails," "motor fails," "valve fails." There's not enough specificity to select appropriate maintenance. The Solution: Failure modes should be at a level where:

• •The failure mode can occur independently (not requiring other failures)
• •Different maintenance tasks would address different failure modes
• •The team can reasonably estimate likelihood and consequences

A useful test: If two failure modes would be addressed by the same maintenance task, they probably don't need to be listed separately.

---

Mistake #6: Ignoring Operating Context

The Problem: RCM is context-specific. The same pump in two different applications may need entirely different maintenance strategies. Teams sometimes develop "generic" analyses that ignore:

• •Duty cycle (continuous vs intermittent)
• •Environment (corrosive, hot, dusty, etc.)
• •Criticality (with backup vs single point of failure)
• •Performance requirements (minimum acceptable output)

The Solution: Always start by documenting operating context:

• •What does this equipment need to do?
• •Under what conditions?
• •What's the consequence if it can't?
• •What redundancy exists?

Review context at the start of every analysis. If context changes significantly (new process, increased production, environment change), the analysis should be reviewed.

---

Mistake #7: Copying Manufacturer Recommendations Uncritically

The Problem:

"The manufacturer says change the oil every 500 hours, so that's what we do."

Manufacturer recommendations are starting points, not gospel. They're typically developed for:

• •Average conditions
• •Worst-case liability protection
• •Sometimes, selling spare parts

They may be far too frequent for your actual conditions—or occasionally, not frequent enough. The Solution: Use manufacturer recommendations as input, not as output. During RCM analysis:

• •Understand why the recommendation exists (what failure mode does it address?)
• •Evaluate whether that failure mode is significant in your context
• •Consider whether a different task might be more effective
• •Use operating experience and failure data to adjust intervals

Many organisations find 30-50% of manufacturer-recommended tasks can be safely eliminated or extended.

---

Mistake #8: Not Documenting Properly

The Problem:

Analysis sessions produce lots of discussion and decisions. If not captured properly, that knowledge is lost. Six months later, no one remembers why a particular task was specified or why another approach was rejected.

Poor documentation also prevents effective review and improvement. The Solution: Document every analysis using proper worksheets. Record:

• •Functions and performance standards
• •Functional failures
• •Failure modes (at appropriate detail)
• •Failure effects (including evidence, consequences, corrective action)
• •Consequence category
• •Selected tasks with justification
• •Items deferred for redesign or further investigation

Store documentation where it's accessible and searchable. Link it to your CMMS where possible.

---

Mistake #9: Treating RCM as a One-Time Event

The Problem:

Some organisations treat RCM analysis as a project with a completion date. Once "done," they move on and never look back. But operating context changes, equipment ages, and new failure modes emerge.

The Solution: Build in living system reviews:

• •After incidents: Any unexpected failure should trigger review of the relevant analysis
• •After modifications: Equipment or process changes require analysis update
• •Periodic review: Even without specific triggers, review analyses every 3-5 years
• •Continuous improvement: Track maintenance outcomes and adjust tasks based on evidence

RCM analysis is a living document, not a historical record.

---

Mistake #10: Expecting Instant Results

The Problem:

RCM takes time—to analyse, implement, and see results. Organisations sometimes pull the plug after 6-12 months, declaring the programme unsuccessful before it's had time to deliver.

Or they expect dramatic cost reductions immediately, when the real benefits may take 2-3 years to fully materialise. The Solution: Set realistic expectations:

• •Year 1: Analysis of critical systems, initial implementation, learning
• •Year 2: Expanded implementation, process refinement, early indicators of improvement
• •Year 3+: Measurable reliability improvements, cost reductions, culture change

Track leading indicators, not just lagging outcomes:

• •Number of systems analysed and implemented
• •PM task changes (eliminations, additions, interval changes)
• •Failure mode documentation coverage
• •Team capability development

Communicate progress and celebrate small wins while building toward larger benefits.

---

Bonus: The Cultural Challenge

Beyond these ten specific mistakes, there's an overarching challenge: culture.

RCM represents a different way of thinking about maintenance. It challenges assumptions. It asks "why?" repeatedly. It sometimes recommends running equipment to failure, which feels wrong to people conditioned to "maintain everything." Successful RCM implementation requires:

• •Leadership support: Visible commitment from management
• •Patience with learning: Teams will make mistakes initially
• •Willingness to change: The whole point is to do things differently
• •Evidence-based decisions: Let data guide adjustments, not opinions

Technical methodology is the easy part. Changing how people think about maintenance is harder—and more important.

---

Key Takeaways

---

Getting It Right

RCM works. The methodology is sound, and thousands of organisations have achieved significant benefits. The key is implementing it properly—avoiding these common mistakes and maintaining focus on the ultimate goal: doing the right maintenance for the right reasons.

Start small, learn as you go, document everything, and implement what you analyse. The results will come.

---

Ready to implement RCM the right way? Our RCM Starter Bundle includes implementation guides and facilitator checklists to help you avoid these common mistakes. Or start with our guide to what RCM is to build foundational understanding.