Vaughn Ward currently serving on Active Duty in Washington, DC.
Personal Background
Vaughn was born in Twin Falls, Idaho and raised in Twin Falls and Jerome, Idaho graduating from Jerome High School in 1987. He worked for U.S. Senator Dirk Kempthorne following graduation from Boise State University in 1992. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps on 17 March 1995. He also holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Maryland. He is married and has a daughter, Avé.
Early Life
Vaughn spent most of his formative years on his family's farm in Shoshone, Idaho. His grandfather, William Tews, ran a farming and ranching operation in Lincoln and Blaine Counties. While attending Jerome High School, Vaughn was a varsity football athlete and a 1987 McDonalds All-Star. In his senior year of high school, the Jerome Tiger football team won the Idaho State A-2 Football Championship. In the fall of 1988, Vaughn walked-on to the Boise State Broncos football team and played as a red-shirt freshman. He received a B.S. in Political Science from Boise State University.
U.S. Senate
Upon graduation from College in 1992, Vaughn volunteered for the U.S. Senate campaign of Dirk Kempthorne. After winning the seat, Senator-elect Kempthorne offered Vaughn a job as a Legislative Aide in Washington, DC. Vaughn worked on commerce, defense, energy, transportation and veteran issues for Idaho. On behalf of the Senator, he followed legislation through the committee and voting processes, wrote floor speeches, and met with government officials, business leaders and constituents from the State of Idaho. During his time in the Senate, Vaughn worked on a myriad of funding and legislative issues including: expanding the scope of the mission at the Department of Energy Lab in Idaho, Idaho National Laboratory (INL); the fight against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and in particular the establishment of the World Trade Organization; and he worked on the establishment of an environmentally efficacious training range in Owyhee County for use by the Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.
Military career
Vaughn entered the Marine Corps in January 1995 and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant on 17 March 1995. After completing a year of infantry training in Quantico, VA, Lieutenant Ward led Marines around the world to include Liberia, Africa in 1996 during Operation Assured Response, and in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during Operation Marathon and unit deployments to California, Japan and Korea. Lieutenant Ward was transferred to Capitol Hill in 1998 and served as a military Fellow in the United States Senate where he worked on variety of budgetary and national security policy issues related to the FY99 Defense Authorization Bill. From 1999-2000, Captain Ward worked for the Commandant of the Marine Corps coordinating and executing projects such as the semi-annual week long visit from the NATO Defense College (NDC), which was composed of over a hundred senior military officers from every NATO country. While working on his Masters in Business Administration, Vaughn re-entered active duty in late 2001 and served a year at Marine Barracks 8th & I in Washington, DC where he managed logistics and VIP protocol issues for the base. In September 2007, Major Ward re-entered active duty serving a short tour in the U.S. Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs where he worked in the Corps' offices in the U.S. Senate.
Central Intelligence Agency
Vaughn joined the CIA where he was trained as an Operations Officer. Vaughn worked in the Directorate of Operations and served in the Middle East, Africa, and Washington, DC. He worked closely with senior government officials from the U.S. and foreign countries conducting covert operations to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Vaughn resigned from the CIA in May 2007.
Operation Iraqi Freedom
In January 2006, Vaughn took a leave of absence from the CIA and volunteered to serve on active duty. Vaughn assumed command of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion 25th Marines. Major Ward led his men through a combat tour in Al-Fallujah, Al-Anbar Province, Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. For his actions, Major Ward was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat "V", the Global War on Terror Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, and the Combat Action Ribbon.
Personal Background
Vaughn was born in Twin Falls, Idaho and raised in Twin Falls and Jerome, Idaho graduating from Jerome High School in 1987. He worked for U.S. Senator Dirk Kempthorne following graduation from Boise State University in 1992. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps on 17 March 1995. He also holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Maryland. He is married and has a daughter, Avé.
Early Life
Vaughn spent most of his formative years on his family's farm in Shoshone, Idaho. His grandfather, William Tews, ran a farming and ranching operation in Lincoln and Blaine Counties. While attending Jerome High School, Vaughn was a varsity football athlete and a 1987 McDonalds All-Star. In his senior year of high school, the Jerome Tiger football team won the Idaho State A-2 Football Championship. In the fall of 1988, Vaughn walked-on to the Boise State Broncos football team and played as a red-shirt freshman. He received a B.S. in Political Science from Boise State University.
U.S. Senate
Upon graduation from College in 1992, Vaughn volunteered for the U.S. Senate campaign of Dirk Kempthorne. After winning the seat, Senator-elect Kempthorne offered Vaughn a job as a Legislative Aide in Washington, DC. Vaughn worked on commerce, defense, energy, transportation and veteran issues for Idaho. On behalf of the Senator, he followed legislation through the committee and voting processes, wrote floor speeches, and met with government officials, business leaders and constituents from the State of Idaho. During his time in the Senate, Vaughn worked on a myriad of funding and legislative issues including: expanding the scope of the mission at the Department of Energy Lab in Idaho, Idaho National Laboratory (INL); the fight against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and in particular the establishment of the World Trade Organization; and he worked on the establishment of an environmentally efficacious training range in Owyhee County for use by the Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.
Military career
Vaughn entered the Marine Corps in January 1995 and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant on 17 March 1995. After completing a year of infantry training in Quantico, VA, Lieutenant Ward led Marines around the world to include Liberia, Africa in 1996 during Operation Assured Response, and in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during Operation Marathon and unit deployments to California, Japan and Korea. Lieutenant Ward was transferred to Capitol Hill in 1998 and served as a military Fellow in the United States Senate where he worked on variety of budgetary and national security policy issues related to the FY99 Defense Authorization Bill. From 1999-2000, Captain Ward worked for the Commandant of the Marine Corps coordinating and executing projects such as the semi-annual week long visit from the NATO Defense College (NDC), which was composed of over a hundred senior military officers from every NATO country. While working on his Masters in Business Administration, Vaughn re-entered active duty in late 2001 and served a year at Marine Barracks 8th & I in Washington, DC where he managed logistics and VIP protocol issues for the base. In September 2007, Major Ward re-entered active duty serving a short tour in the U.S. Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs where he worked in the Corps' offices in the U.S. Senate.
Central Intelligence Agency
Vaughn joined the CIA where he was trained as an Operations Officer. Vaughn worked in the Directorate of Operations and served in the Middle East, Africa, and Washington, DC. He worked closely with senior government officials from the U.S. and foreign countries conducting covert operations to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Vaughn resigned from the CIA in May 2007.
Operation Iraqi Freedom
In January 2006, Vaughn took a leave of absence from the CIA and volunteered to serve on active duty. Vaughn assumed command of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion 25th Marines. Major Ward led his men through a combat tour in Al-Fallujah, Al-Anbar Province, Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. For his actions, Major Ward was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat "V", the Global War on Terror Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, and the Combat Action Ribbon.
The Pocono Playhouse, nicknamed "Broadway in the Poconos", is located on Playhouse Lane in Mountainhome, Pennsylvania. The Playhouse's sister theatre is the Bucks County Playhouse in New Hope, Pennsylvania
The playhouse was constructed in 1946 and opened on July 7, 1947, with Dear Ruth starring Richard Kelly. Rowena Stevens was the producer. The 1947 season's shows were Skylark, The Butter and Egg Man, Ladies Retirement, Here Today, The Late Christopher Bean, Good-bye Again, Autumn Crocus, End of Summer and Made in Heaven.
The 1999 season performances included: Fiddler on the Roof, ', 42nd Street, Guys and Dolls, The King and I, State Fair and Sweet Charity.
The 2006 season performances included: Urinetown, Into the Woods, Seussical, The Graduate and The Full Monty.
The playhouse was constructed in 1946 and opened on July 7, 1947, with Dear Ruth starring Richard Kelly. Rowena Stevens was the producer. The 1947 season's shows were Skylark, The Butter and Egg Man, Ladies Retirement, Here Today, The Late Christopher Bean, Good-bye Again, Autumn Crocus, End of Summer and Made in Heaven.
The 1999 season performances included: Fiddler on the Roof, ', 42nd Street, Guys and Dolls, The King and I, State Fair and Sweet Charity.
The 2006 season performances included: Urinetown, Into the Woods, Seussical, The Graduate and The Full Monty.
Introduction
Planned Maintenance Optimization (sometimes referred to as Preventative Maintenance Optimization, PM Optimization or PMO) is a methodology which focuses on improving maintenance effectiveness and efficiency by review or rationalization of an existing maintenance program (formal or informal) and in most cases adding maintenance tasks to account for failure modes not addressed by the existing program.
The aim of PMO is to provide a comprehensive maintenance program for a physical asset. PMO starts from an existing maintenance program which could have been provided by an equipment supplier, developed by the user or used on similar equipment operating elsewhere.
Historical Background
The PMO ideology or process is not new. It probably originated when maintenance began. Until recently there was no name for the process.
In the early 1990’s, the process of PMO was used extensively by the Kewaunee Nuclear Power plant in Wisconsin USA. The term used to describe the process was Planned Maintenance Optimization.
This work received credit from the North American Nuclear Regulatory Commission in their systematic assessment of Licensee performance (SALP) report in March 1995. This report had the effect of legitimizing PMO. The PMO process has become increasingly popular as a maintenance analysis method since the SALP report.
Currently there are several different PMO systems in use. Some of these systems only rationalize the maintenance tasks that exist and do not add tasks that are missing. For this reason, users should consider what outcomes they require before choosing which PMO process to use. Unlike the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) process, there is no published standard for PMO.
The most widely used PMO process which does add missing tasks is PMO2000™.
Generic Features
The PMO process is generally divided into three distinct phases
Phase 1; Data Collection,
Phase 2; Data Analysis, Review and Grouping, and
Phase 3, Approval and implementation.
Typically PMO is not seen as a single, one time process so after Phase 3, most organizations use PMO as a living program or process of continuous improvement.
The precise workflow contained in each of the stages varies between approaches and organizational needs.
PMO2000™
The PMO2000TM process has nine steps. These are described below and shown as phases.
Phase 1 Data Collection
Step 1: Task Compilation: PM Optimization starts by collecting or documenting the existing maintenance program (formal or informal). At this stage it is also useful to collect and prepare failure history and availability data for use during the analysis and review stages (Steps 2 & 3).
Phase 2 Data Analysis, Review and Grouping
Phase 2 is usually done in teams as on most occasions; no individual has the breadth of knowledge to complete the analysis properly.
When a team approach is taken, it is usual that prior to the analysis, there is a review of the data, a clarification of system boundaries and the operating context and discussion about a host of other important considerations which impact on the analysis.
Step 2: Failure Mode Analysis (FMA): FMA is the process of identifying what failure mode(s) each maintenance task (or inspection) is meant to address.
Step 3: Rationalization and FMA Review: This step is the process of grouping or sorting the failure modes for each component so that task duplication can be easily identified and eliminated. Failure modes that should be addressed, but are missing, can be found and added to the list. The list of missing failures is generated through an analysis of failure history, technical documentation (usually P&IDs) or experience.
Step 4: Functional Analysis (Optional): The functions lost due to each failure mode can be established in this step. This task is optional, and may be justified for analyses on highly critical or very complex equipment items, or for functions that are hidden. For less critical items, or simple systems, identifying all of the functions of an equipment item adds cost and time, but yields no benefits. This is partly because consequence by definition is loss of function so when Step 5 is completed, the function is determined and partly because most of the functions and operating context matters were discussed at the start of the workshop.
Step 5: Consequence Evaluation: The consequence of each failure mode is analyzed to determine whether or not the failure is hidden or evident. For evident failures a further determination is made as to whether the consequence of the failure mode would be a hazard or would only have economic consequences. For hidden failures, consequences are said to be conditional on one failure occurring when a second failure mode (usually in a protective device) is in a failed state already.
Step 6: Maintenance Policy Determination: In this step, each failure mode is analyzed to determine what maintenance, if any, can be directed at the task such that the task is effective either from the perspective of reducing the risks to a tolerable level or from the perspective of economics, when the cost of doing the task is less than the cost of not doing the task. This step establishes new or revised maintenance policies. During this step the following become evident:
• The elements of the current maintenance program that are cost effective, and those that are not (and need to be eliminated),
• What tasks would be more effective and less costly if they were condition based rather than overhaul based or vice versa,
• What tasks serve no purpose and need to be removed from the program,
• What tasks would be more effective if they were done at different frequencies,
• What failures would be better managed by using simpler or more advanced technology,
• What data should be collected to be able to predict equipment life more accurately, and
• What defects should be eliminated by root cause analysis.
Step 7: Review and Grouping: Once task analysis has been completed, the most efficient and effective method for executing or managing the maintenance task is developed. This step involves sequencing the tasks and balancing the resources as well as considering production needs.
Phase 3 Approval and Implementation
Step 8: Approval and Implementation: The analysis is communicated to stakeholders for review and comment. Following approval, the most important aspect of PMO2000™ then commences with implementation. Implementation is the step that is most time consuming and most likely to face difficulties. Strong leadership and attention to detail are required to be successful in this step.
Step 9: Living Program: Through Steps 1 to 9, the PM Optimization process has established a framework of rational and cost effective PM. In the "Living Program", the PM program is consolidated and the plant is brought under control. This occurs as reactive maintenance is replaced by planned maintenance. From this point improvement can be easily accelerated as resources are freed to focus on plant design defects or inherent operational limitations.
During this step, several vital processes for the efficient management of assets can be devised or fine tuned as the rate of improvement accelerates.
These processes include the following:
 Production / maintenance strategy,
 Performance measurement,
 Failure history reporting and defect elimination,
 Planning and scheduling,
 Spares assessing, and
 Workshop and maintenance practices.
In this step it is the intention to create an organization that constantly seeks to improve its methods by continued appraisal of every task it undertakes, and every unplanned failure that occurs. To achieve this requires a program where the workforce is adequately trained in analysis techniques and is encouraged to change practices to improve their own job satisfaction and to reduce the unit cost of production.
Applications of PMO
PMO is suited to new or existing assets.
Specific applications of the process have been successful in the following phases of an asset’s life cycle:
• Reviewing the manufacturer’s recommendations,
• Reviewing the current maintenance program of existing assets,
• Developing the maintenance requirements of assets when the operating context changes.
• Ensuring that maintenance does not overspend when assets are to be retired.
What are the alternatives to PMO
Some of the most common methods used to define an initial maintenance strategy or improve an existing program include:
• RCM: Nowlan and Heap (1978)2 coined the term Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and published the original RCM method. RCM is a zero based analysis technique that starts with functions. RCM was developed for use in the design phase of the asset’s life cycle and was not designed for use with “in service” assets or for assets which are improved models. In the absence of other legitimate methods RCM has become the standard for deriving the maintenance requirements of physical assets. In over 20 years since its derivation, RCM has failed to become a day to day activity performed by most organizations. Few organizations have applied RCM to anything other than their most critical assets which indicates there are serious difficulties associated with applying RCM in organizations with mature plant. By comparison, many PMO programs create the same maintenance program as RCM but do this on average, six times faster and with one sixth of the resources.
• Streamlined RCM: Due to the perception that RCM is a very time consuming and labour intensive activity, a number of shortened versions of RCM have been devised. Such programs attempt to speed up the analysis or increase the overall value of the time committed to analysis. Many of these methods have used the acronym RCM to describe the process but do not conform to the works of Nowlan and Heap (1978)2 or the SAE Standard for RCM. These streamlined approaches are known as streamlined RCM techniques.
• Experience, trial and error. In many cases, capital acquisition programs fail to recognize the need to define the maintenance program prior to the “Operation” stage of the equipment life cycle. Often, the plant is installed and operated without a formal maintenance program. Over time, the operations and maintenance staff begin to conduct inspections and perform various maintenance activities largely at their own initiative. Failures occur and the maintenance program has tasks added to it. In some organizations, the work is formalized by generating electronic or paper based maintenance schedules. In other organizations, the work continues to be done in a completely informal manner. Even though some managers may believe that there is no preventive maintenance done within their plant, this situation is highly unlikely. The confusion is often that the preventive maintenance is not appreciated, as there is no documentation.
Functional Differences between RCM and PMO
RCM and PMO are completely different methodologies with the same aim; to define the maintenance requirements of physical assets. Asset managers should be aware, however, that they have been designed for use in completely different situations. RCM was designed to develop the initial maintenance program during the design stages of the asset’s life cycle whereas PMO has been designed for use where the asset is in use.
As a result, PMO is a method of review whereas RCM is a process of establishment. Whilst arriving at the same maintenance program, PMO is far more efficient and flexible in analysis than RCM where there is a reasonably good maintenance program in place and where there is some experience with the plant operation and failure characteristics.
Planned Maintenance Optimization (sometimes referred to as Preventative Maintenance Optimization, PM Optimization or PMO) is a methodology which focuses on improving maintenance effectiveness and efficiency by review or rationalization of an existing maintenance program (formal or informal) and in most cases adding maintenance tasks to account for failure modes not addressed by the existing program.
The aim of PMO is to provide a comprehensive maintenance program for a physical asset. PMO starts from an existing maintenance program which could have been provided by an equipment supplier, developed by the user or used on similar equipment operating elsewhere.
Historical Background
The PMO ideology or process is not new. It probably originated when maintenance began. Until recently there was no name for the process.
In the early 1990’s, the process of PMO was used extensively by the Kewaunee Nuclear Power plant in Wisconsin USA. The term used to describe the process was Planned Maintenance Optimization.
This work received credit from the North American Nuclear Regulatory Commission in their systematic assessment of Licensee performance (SALP) report in March 1995. This report had the effect of legitimizing PMO. The PMO process has become increasingly popular as a maintenance analysis method since the SALP report.
Currently there are several different PMO systems in use. Some of these systems only rationalize the maintenance tasks that exist and do not add tasks that are missing. For this reason, users should consider what outcomes they require before choosing which PMO process to use. Unlike the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) process, there is no published standard for PMO.
The most widely used PMO process which does add missing tasks is PMO2000™.
Generic Features
The PMO process is generally divided into three distinct phases
Phase 1; Data Collection,
Phase 2; Data Analysis, Review and Grouping, and
Phase 3, Approval and implementation.
Typically PMO is not seen as a single, one time process so after Phase 3, most organizations use PMO as a living program or process of continuous improvement.
The precise workflow contained in each of the stages varies between approaches and organizational needs.
PMO2000™
The PMO2000TM process has nine steps. These are described below and shown as phases.
Phase 1 Data Collection
Step 1: Task Compilation: PM Optimization starts by collecting or documenting the existing maintenance program (formal or informal). At this stage it is also useful to collect and prepare failure history and availability data for use during the analysis and review stages (Steps 2 & 3).
Phase 2 Data Analysis, Review and Grouping
Phase 2 is usually done in teams as on most occasions; no individual has the breadth of knowledge to complete the analysis properly.
When a team approach is taken, it is usual that prior to the analysis, there is a review of the data, a clarification of system boundaries and the operating context and discussion about a host of other important considerations which impact on the analysis.
Step 2: Failure Mode Analysis (FMA): FMA is the process of identifying what failure mode(s) each maintenance task (or inspection) is meant to address.
Step 3: Rationalization and FMA Review: This step is the process of grouping or sorting the failure modes for each component so that task duplication can be easily identified and eliminated. Failure modes that should be addressed, but are missing, can be found and added to the list. The list of missing failures is generated through an analysis of failure history, technical documentation (usually P&IDs) or experience.
Step 4: Functional Analysis (Optional): The functions lost due to each failure mode can be established in this step. This task is optional, and may be justified for analyses on highly critical or very complex equipment items, or for functions that are hidden. For less critical items, or simple systems, identifying all of the functions of an equipment item adds cost and time, but yields no benefits. This is partly because consequence by definition is loss of function so when Step 5 is completed, the function is determined and partly because most of the functions and operating context matters were discussed at the start of the workshop.
Step 5: Consequence Evaluation: The consequence of each failure mode is analyzed to determine whether or not the failure is hidden or evident. For evident failures a further determination is made as to whether the consequence of the failure mode would be a hazard or would only have economic consequences. For hidden failures, consequences are said to be conditional on one failure occurring when a second failure mode (usually in a protective device) is in a failed state already.
Step 6: Maintenance Policy Determination: In this step, each failure mode is analyzed to determine what maintenance, if any, can be directed at the task such that the task is effective either from the perspective of reducing the risks to a tolerable level or from the perspective of economics, when the cost of doing the task is less than the cost of not doing the task. This step establishes new or revised maintenance policies. During this step the following become evident:
• The elements of the current maintenance program that are cost effective, and those that are not (and need to be eliminated),
• What tasks would be more effective and less costly if they were condition based rather than overhaul based or vice versa,
• What tasks serve no purpose and need to be removed from the program,
• What tasks would be more effective if they were done at different frequencies,
• What failures would be better managed by using simpler or more advanced technology,
• What data should be collected to be able to predict equipment life more accurately, and
• What defects should be eliminated by root cause analysis.
Step 7: Review and Grouping: Once task analysis has been completed, the most efficient and effective method for executing or managing the maintenance task is developed. This step involves sequencing the tasks and balancing the resources as well as considering production needs.
Phase 3 Approval and Implementation
Step 8: Approval and Implementation: The analysis is communicated to stakeholders for review and comment. Following approval, the most important aspect of PMO2000™ then commences with implementation. Implementation is the step that is most time consuming and most likely to face difficulties. Strong leadership and attention to detail are required to be successful in this step.
Step 9: Living Program: Through Steps 1 to 9, the PM Optimization process has established a framework of rational and cost effective PM. In the "Living Program", the PM program is consolidated and the plant is brought under control. This occurs as reactive maintenance is replaced by planned maintenance. From this point improvement can be easily accelerated as resources are freed to focus on plant design defects or inherent operational limitations.
During this step, several vital processes for the efficient management of assets can be devised or fine tuned as the rate of improvement accelerates.
These processes include the following:
 Production / maintenance strategy,
 Performance measurement,
 Failure history reporting and defect elimination,
 Planning and scheduling,
 Spares assessing, and
 Workshop and maintenance practices.
In this step it is the intention to create an organization that constantly seeks to improve its methods by continued appraisal of every task it undertakes, and every unplanned failure that occurs. To achieve this requires a program where the workforce is adequately trained in analysis techniques and is encouraged to change practices to improve their own job satisfaction and to reduce the unit cost of production.
Applications of PMO
PMO is suited to new or existing assets.
Specific applications of the process have been successful in the following phases of an asset’s life cycle:
• Reviewing the manufacturer’s recommendations,
• Reviewing the current maintenance program of existing assets,
• Developing the maintenance requirements of assets when the operating context changes.
• Ensuring that maintenance does not overspend when assets are to be retired.
What are the alternatives to PMO
Some of the most common methods used to define an initial maintenance strategy or improve an existing program include:
• RCM: Nowlan and Heap (1978)2 coined the term Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and published the original RCM method. RCM is a zero based analysis technique that starts with functions. RCM was developed for use in the design phase of the asset’s life cycle and was not designed for use with “in service” assets or for assets which are improved models. In the absence of other legitimate methods RCM has become the standard for deriving the maintenance requirements of physical assets. In over 20 years since its derivation, RCM has failed to become a day to day activity performed by most organizations. Few organizations have applied RCM to anything other than their most critical assets which indicates there are serious difficulties associated with applying RCM in organizations with mature plant. By comparison, many PMO programs create the same maintenance program as RCM but do this on average, six times faster and with one sixth of the resources.
• Streamlined RCM: Due to the perception that RCM is a very time consuming and labour intensive activity, a number of shortened versions of RCM have been devised. Such programs attempt to speed up the analysis or increase the overall value of the time committed to analysis. Many of these methods have used the acronym RCM to describe the process but do not conform to the works of Nowlan and Heap (1978)2 or the SAE Standard for RCM. These streamlined approaches are known as streamlined RCM techniques.
• Experience, trial and error. In many cases, capital acquisition programs fail to recognize the need to define the maintenance program prior to the “Operation” stage of the equipment life cycle. Often, the plant is installed and operated without a formal maintenance program. Over time, the operations and maintenance staff begin to conduct inspections and perform various maintenance activities largely at their own initiative. Failures occur and the maintenance program has tasks added to it. In some organizations, the work is formalized by generating electronic or paper based maintenance schedules. In other organizations, the work continues to be done in a completely informal manner. Even though some managers may believe that there is no preventive maintenance done within their plant, this situation is highly unlikely. The confusion is often that the preventive maintenance is not appreciated, as there is no documentation.
Functional Differences between RCM and PMO
RCM and PMO are completely different methodologies with the same aim; to define the maintenance requirements of physical assets. Asset managers should be aware, however, that they have been designed for use in completely different situations. RCM was designed to develop the initial maintenance program during the design stages of the asset’s life cycle whereas PMO has been designed for use where the asset is in use.
As a result, PMO is a method of review whereas RCM is a process of establishment. Whilst arriving at the same maintenance program, PMO is far more efficient and flexible in analysis than RCM where there is a reasonably good maintenance program in place and where there is some experience with the plant operation and failure characteristics.
Badonkadonk (sometimes pronounced "badunkadunk") is a slang term for a woman's buttocks that are voluptuously large and firm.
Origin
Originally, the word was hip hop slang. It first appeared in mass media in 2001 in a line by rapper Keith Murray in the song "Fatty Girl": "You got a badonkadonk, girl, don't hurt nobody!" The term gained a wider audience in the fall of 2002 through Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott's #2 hit "Work It" which includes the lyric "keep your eyes on my ba-bump-ba-bump-bump, and see if you can handle this ba-donk-a-donk-donk" .
Throughout the 2002 season of Crank Yankers, badonkadonk was a catchword of the character Spoonie Luv voiced by comedian Tracy Morgan. Morgan explained the term during his August 16, 2003 appearance on Late Night With Conan O'Brien as "one cheek goes up, badonkadonk; the other goes down, badonkadonk". The term was also featured as an example of black slang in "I Know Black People", a quiz show skit from the second season of Chappelle's Show.
Origin
Originally, the word was hip hop slang. It first appeared in mass media in 2001 in a line by rapper Keith Murray in the song "Fatty Girl": "You got a badonkadonk, girl, don't hurt nobody!" The term gained a wider audience in the fall of 2002 through Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott's #2 hit "Work It" which includes the lyric "keep your eyes on my ba-bump-ba-bump-bump, and see if you can handle this ba-donk-a-donk-donk" .
Throughout the 2002 season of Crank Yankers, badonkadonk was a catchword of the character Spoonie Luv voiced by comedian Tracy Morgan. Morgan explained the term during his August 16, 2003 appearance on Late Night With Conan O'Brien as "one cheek goes up, badonkadonk; the other goes down, badonkadonk". The term was also featured as an example of black slang in "I Know Black People", a quiz show skit from the second season of Chappelle's Show.