How was controlled the progress of the program? Which were the real costs of implementing it? The oil monitoring and analyses and lubrication, were integrated with other technical outposts of mantencin? Who and in what intensity they were trained for the program? Which was the reaction of those affected by the changes that the program caused? Which was the paper of the direction superior, to initiate and to support the changes that the program demanded? How were justified the costs of the program? What would do in different form if they had to initiate the program again? Which are the plans for the continuous improvement of the program? Of the accumulation of experiences and the answers to this series of questions, one has been that the successful ones exhibit common characteristics and factors, that they are due to consider. II. WE CAN IMPROVE THE PRACTICES. In modern approach of mantencin, the best form to retire the tool is finishing with the culture of the repair handled by the tool. One is due to return the productive equipment in " Confiables" , this is available the greater amount of possible time, but not only reliable, but reliable to the smaller possible cost, than it is translated in obtaining the highest availability of the equipment to the smaller cost. From this approach, the trustworthiness is optimized not maximized.
This drift in a discriminatory strategy, between the maximization of the availability versus. nvestors usually is spot on. the costs of obtaining it and on the other hand the yield of the business versus. risk of the nonavailability. This strategy has become serious in many companies of the countries developed by means of the use of the tactics of " Reliability Centered Maintenance: (RCM) " or what we will call the Mantencin Centered in the Availability: (MCD) To cover the total is the central strategic roll of the oil monitoring.