Asset Health

Management Report
Reliabilityweb.com Insight Series
Asset Management White Paper Series
www.reliabilityweb.com www.cmmscity.com www.maintenance.org Copyright 2012 Reliabilityweb.com. All rights reserved.
July 2012
Price: $399.00

This independent research was conducted and the
report written without commercial sponsorship.
We are pleased to gain the endorsement of the
enlightened sponsors listed below whose support will allow
us to distribute this report without cost to the reader
and conduct more important research in the future.
www.reliabilityweb.com www.uptmemagazine.com
www.cmmscity.com
www.maintenance.org
Supporting Organizations
Sponsoring Organizations
www.projetech.com www.predictveservice.com
www.ivctechnologies.com
www.ivara.com
3
Table of
Contents
Section A Executive Summary ............................ 5
Section B Strategy and Policy ............................. 7
Section C Asset Health ...................................... 12
Section D Structure ............................................ 15
Section E Communication ................................. 17
Section F Document Management ................... 19
Section G Training .............................................. 21
Section H Software............................................. 22
Section I Legal Aspects .................................... 25
Section J Data Integrity .................................... 26
Section K Auditing ............................................. 30
Section L Asset Lifecycle .................................. 32
Section M Tools Used in the Asset Health
Management Process ....................... 34
Section N Work Applications ............................ 36
Section O Sensors .............................................. 38
Section P Conclusions ...................................... 39
About the Author ................................ 41
4
Charts
Chart 1 Percent of Respondents by Maintenance Organization Size ................................5
Chart 2 Percent of Respondents by Major Industry Types ................................................6
Chart 3 Count of Respondents by Major Industry Types ..................................................6
Chart 4 The Existence of an Asset Health Management Strategy or Policy ......................7
Chart 5 Level of Strategy/Policy Use by Respondent Count ............................................7
Chart 6 Degree Strategy Actually Followed by Industry ...................................................8
Chart 7 Degree Policy Actually Followed by Industry .......................................................8
Chart 8 By Size Those Organizations Without an Asset Health Management
Strategy or Policy ................................................................................................9
Chart 9 By Industry Those Organizations Without an Asset Health Management
Strategy or Policy ..............................................................................................10
Chart 10 Level of Understanding and Support of Asset Health Management ...................10
Chart 11 Health Ranking by Asset Type ...........................................................................12
Chart 12 Health Ranking by Asset Type by Maintenance Organization Size .....................13
Chart 13 Dedicated Asset Health Management Organization ...........................................15
Chart 14 Asset Health Management Assigned Responsibility ..........................................15
Chart 15 Effectively and Efciently Communicate Asset Health Management ..................17
Chart 16 Effectively and Efciently Communicate by Industry ...........................................17
Chart 17 Percent Respondents Utilizing a MOC Process (two parts) ..............................19
Chart 18 Level of Asset Health Management Training Provided .......................................21
Chart 19 Supporting Software (SW) ................................................................................22
Chart 20 Asset Health Management Software (SW) by Industry ......................................23
Chart 21 The Legal Department Is Up to Date and Assures Legal Compliance ................25
Chart 22 Data Quality by Asset Type ...............................................................................26
Chart 23 Data Quality by Industry by Asset Type (ve parts) ............................................27
Chart 24 Audit Frequency ................................................................................................30
Chart 25 What is Done with the Audit Results .................................................................30
Chart 26 Level of Attention Applied to Asset Health Management During Stages
of the Assets Lifecycle .....................................................................................32
Chart 27 Reliability Tool Use ............................................................................................34
Chart 28 Tool Usage (0 to 25%) Only by Type .................................................................35
Chart 29 Level of Application of Asset Health Management Strategies ...........................36
Chart 30 Percent of Corrective Work Resulting from Conducting PM/PdM Activities ......37
Chart 31 Sensor Use as Part of the Asset Health Management Strategy ........................38
5
Asset health management can be defned as the practce of administering
disciplines aimed at ensuring the functonality of plant systems, equipment
and components to optmize performance relatve to plant safety,
environmental impact, product quality, plant productvity, reliability and
operatng costs. The key aspect of this defniton is its focus on plant
assets, whose ultmate health will most certainly dictate the ability of any
business to produce and survive.
This survey is a compilaton of responses to twenty-seven (27) questons by
three hundred and sixty-six (366) individuals representng thirty-three (33)
industry types and sizes. The informaton obtained, therefore, brings to
light a signifcant amount of informaton and insight about this very critcal
subject. In several charts, an Other column has been provided to show
reported data that falls outside the criteria being measured. Where an
Other column has been omited, it was because data of this nature was
not relevant to the chart in queston.
Readers should fnd the results both revealing and possibly as a tool to
increase the level of interest and commitment to improving asset health
management within their own organizatons. Conversely, for those
organizatons who are treatng asset health management with the correct
degree of focus, this document should reinforce the value and the positon
they hold as industry leaders.
Chart 1 - Percent of Respondents by Maintenance Organizaton Size
13%
4%
6%
32%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 - 500 < 100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Maintenance Organization By Size
This chart depicts the range of responding maintenance organizatons, with
the vast majority being those with less than 500 employees. This range is
expected since plants with large maintenance organizatons are not the
norm.
Another aspect that will provide even more revealing informaton later in
this document is the respondent base by industry type. In the survey, there
A. Executive Summary
6
were thirty-three (33) industry types reported. Graphically representng
this large number did not reveal any signifcant trends due to the small
populaton within each type. However, many of the types were able to be
combined into larger, more general groupings. The results were nine (9)
major groups and one listed as Other a catch-all for those industries with
few representatves. Chart 2 indicates the populaton of the respondents
across the nine major categories and the Other category. It should be noted
that this categorizaton appears valid since the nine industry categories
represent approximately 70% of all the respondents.
Chart 2 - Percent of Respondents by Major Industry Types
4%
7%
5%
13%
17%
8%
5%
5%
3%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Consulting
Engr
Food
Beverage
Metals Mining Petro Chem Power
Gen
Pulp Paper Services Water
Wastewater
Other
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Maintenance Organization By Industry
Chart 3 - Count of Respondents by Major Industry Types
15
25
17
49
64
28
20
17
11
128
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Consulting
Engr
Food
Beverage
Metals Mining Petro Chem Power
Gen
Pulp Paper Services Water
Wastewater
Other
C
o
u
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Maintenance Organization By Industry
7
B. Strategy and Policy
Having a writen maintenance reliability asset health management strategy
and supportng policy are essental ingredients to success. Without this level
of guidance, there is litle hope that an aligned, consistent, well planned
and executed efort can truly be put into place. The charts that follow reveal
very interestng and somewhat eye-opening facts about the strategies and
policies of the respondents.
Chart 4 The Existence of an Asset Health Management Strategy or Policy
208
199
166
172
0
50
100
150
200
250
Strategy Policy
C
o
u
n
t
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Yes
No
The informaton presented in Chart 4 indicates a large percentage of
respondents that have neither a strategy nor a policy to address asset
health management related issues. For those frms that do not have
these elements in place, serious consideraton should be given to their
development; for without directon, success is virtually impossible.
Chart 5 Level of Strategy/Policy Use by Respondent Count
114
16
41
148
55
116
21
44
126
66
0 50 100 150 200 250
None Exists
Not Used
Infrequent Use
Partial Use
Continuous Use
Number of Respondents
Strategy
Policy
8
This chart drills down into those respondents who indicated that a strategy,
policy, or both were in place. It is one thing to have the elements, it is far
another to have them and use them to guide the asset health management
process. The informaton provided in Chart 5 is somewhat disturbing.
The number of respondents that have a strategy and policy but use it
infrequently or not at all, and those that do not have either of these
documents should raise a fag and energize organizatons to create and
utlize these tools.
Chart 6 - Degree Strategy Actually Followed by Industry
6. Strategy & Policy Non-Existence
Source Excel
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
47%
40%
41%
61%
52%
68%
55%
65%
45%
53%
60%
59%
39%
48%
32%
45%
35%
55%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ConsulEng
Engr
Food
Beverage
Metals Mining Petro Chem Power
GeneraEon
Pulp Paper Services Water
Wastewater
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

ConUnuous / ParUally
Infrequent, Minimal or None Exists
Title Degree Strategy Actually Followed by Industry
6
Chart 7 - Degree Policy Actually Followed by Industry
7. Strategy & Policy Non-Existence
Source Excel
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
47%
46%
41%
67%
58%
61%
48%
71%
55%
53%
54%
59%
33%
42%
39%
52%
29%
45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ConsulEng
Engr
Food
Beverage
Metals Mining Petro Chem Power
GeneraEon
Pulp Paper Services Water
Wastewater
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

ConUnuous / ParUally
Infrequent, Minimal or None Exists
Title Degree Policy Actually Followed by Industry (ConEnuous / ParEal Use)
7
9
Contnuing with this very important aspect of asset health management,
Charts 6 and 7 display by industry the level of use or non-use of strategy
(Chart 6) and policy (Chart 7). The bars show: 1) contnuous or partal use,
and 2) infrequent, minimal or no use because the elements do not exist.
In the area of asset health management strategy, maintenance services in
mining, power generaton, and pulp and paper have the highest level of
use, while food and beverage, consultng, metals and water/wastewater
are on the low usage end. It is interestng to note that petrochemical, a
highly-regulated industry, shows the usage breakdown indicated.
In the area of policy use, the informaton is virtually the same by industry.
It is interestng to note those industries reportng low strategy use but
high policy use pulp and paper and water/wastewater. In these cases,
the strategy should be examined to make certain it aligns with the policy
to provide a consistent guidance and approach to the work.
Chart 8 By Size Those Organizatons Without an Asset Health
Management Strategy or Policy
55.8%
39.8%
43.5%
40.0%
33.3%
58.2%
38.7%
37.5%
26.7%
22.4%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
<100
100-500
500-750
750-1000
1000+
Percentage of Respondents
P
l
a
n
t
S
i
z
e
"No" Strategy
"No" Policy
Chart 8 looks at strategy and policy based on the size of the maintenance
organizaton. The informaton shown indicates that the smaller the
organizaton, the less likely they are to have an asset health management
strategy or policy in place. This presents an opportunity for small
organizatons that do not have these elements in place. Asset health
management is not a size issue. It is important for all plant sizes to have
asset health and the resultant benefts it provides.
10
Chart 9 By Industry Those Organizatons Without an Asset Health
Management Strategy or Policy
53%
54%
53%
40%
42%
50%
55%
41%
55%
53%
48%
59%
35%
42%
32%
55%
41%
64%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Consulting /
Engr
Food &
Beverage
Metals
Mining
Petro / Chem
Power
Generation
Pulp Paper
Services
Water /
Wastewater
Percentage of Respondents
"No" Strategy
"No" Policy
Chart 9 looks at those organizatons that do not have a strategy or policy in
place by industry. The informaton provided here is a clear indicaton that
an opportunity exists across all industry types to develop these elements in
support of asset health and the reliable operaton that asset health provides.
Chart 10 Level of Understanding and Support of Asset Health Management
10%
30%
25%
12%
10%
13%
13%
2%
13%
23%
35%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
No System in Place
No Support
Little Support
Awareness in Progress
Intermittent
Fully Support
Percent Respondents
Mgt Support
Hourly Support
Chart 10 looks across the entre respondent base at the level of
understanding and support of the asset health management system, both
by management and hourly workforce. Full support among either group is
very low. The management level of understanding and support between
fully support and awareness is encouraging. On the other hand, the low
level of understanding and support among the hourly workforce should
raise concern. Afer all, the hourly mechanics are the ones performing
maintenance on the equipment and for this reason, they should understand
and support the value obtained from asset health.
11
Insights
Charts 4 through 10 serve to raise a series of
issues that need to be addressed to improve the
foundatonal level of asset health management.
Where a strategy or policy does not exist,
one needs to be developed.
When developed, they need to be
deployed and communicated to the
organizaton in a manner that promotes
understanding and support.
Once deployed, they need to be followed. Training
will be required to accomplish this task.
Auditng needs to be in place to ensure the strategy
and policy are followed and, if not, correctve acton is
implemented to close any performance gaps that may exist.
12
C. Asset Health
Chart 11 Health Ranking by Asset Type
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Very Healthy Healthy Reasonable Sick Very Sick
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Asset Health Level
Stationary
Machinery
Instrument
Electrical
Infrastructure
Chart 11 answers the queston of asset health by major equipment type.
The respondents were asked to rate each major equipment type in one of
the fve categories shown on the x-axis of the chart. The major equipment
types were all rated healthy, which is a positve indicaton. Infrastructure
(ofce buildings, storage and staging areas, structural steel, roads, fencing,
sidewalks, etc.) was rated in the reasonable category, ofset from the
other major asset types. This is obviously a common experience for the
respondents since when budgets are cut, infrastructure sufers at the
expense of the operatng equipment.
While this approach is ofen commonplace, it isnt in the best interest of the
business since many of these problems, when lef to deteriorate, can cause
equipment-related problems as well as safety and environmental issues.
13
Charts 12 - Health Ranking by Asset Type by Maintenance Organizaton Size
12. Health Ranking by Asset Type
Source ST Excel le
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
Title Health Ranking by Asset Type by Size
59%
53%
75%
52%
48%
33%
40%
17%
37%
36%
9%
7% 8%
11%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

StaEonary
65%
53%
79%
53%
50%
31%
47%
17%
36%
33%
4%
0%
4%
12%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Machinery
Instrument
56%
87%
54%
50%
52%
40%
7%
38%
36%
33%
4%
7%
8%
13%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

56%
60%
67%
46%
50%
38%
40%
21%
38%
29%
6%
0%
13%
16%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Electrical
Very Healthy to Healthy Reasonable Sick to Very Sick
Statonary
12. Health Ranking by Asset Type
Source ST Excel le
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
Title Health Ranking by Asset Type by Size
12
59%
53%
75%
52%
48%
33%
40%
17%
37%
36%
9%
7% 8%
11%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

StaEonary
65%
53%
79%
53%
50%
31%
47%
17%
36%
33%
4%
0%
4%
12%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Machinery
Instrument
56%
87%
54%
50%
52%
40%
7%
38%
36%
33%
4%
7%
8%
13%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

56%
60%
67%
46%
50%
38%
40%
21%
38%
29%
6%
0%
13%
16%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Electrical
31%
47%
42% 41%
34%
48%
53%
46%
37%
43%
21%
0%
13%
22%
23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Infrastructure
Very Healthy to Healthy
Reasonable
Sick to Very Sick
Electrical
Machinery
12. Health Ranking by Asset Type
Source ST Excel le
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
Title Health Ranking by Asset Type by Size
12
59%
53%
75%
52%
48%
33%
40%
17%
37%
36%
9%
7% 8%
11%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

StaEonary
65%
53%
79%
53%
50%
31%
47%
17%
36%
33%
4%
0%
4%
12%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Machinery
Instrument
56%
87%
54%
50%
52%
40%
7%
38%
36%
33%
4%
7%
8%
13%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

56%
60%
67%
46%
50%
38%
40%
21%
38%
29%
6%
0%
13%
16%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Electrical
31%
47%
42% 41%
34%
48%
53%
46%
37%
43%
21%
0%
13%
22%
23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Infrastructure
Very Healthy to Healthy
Reasonable
Sick to Very Sick
12. Health Ranking by Asset Type
Source ST Excel le
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
Title Health Ranking by Asset Type by Size
12
59%
53%
75%
52%
48%
33%
40%
17%
37%
36%
9%
7% 8%
11%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

StaEonary
65%
53%
79%
53%
50%
31%
47%
17%
36%
33%
4%
0%
4%
12%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Machinery
Instrument
56%
87%
54%
50%
52%
40%
7%
38%
36%
33%
4%
7%
8%
13%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

56%
60%
67%
46%
50%
38%
40%
21%
38%
29%
6%
0%
13%
16%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Electrical
31%
47%
42% 41%
34%
48%
53%
46%
37%
43%
21%
0%
13%
22%
23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Infrastructure
Very Healthy to Healthy
Reasonable
Sick to Very Sick
14
Infrastructure
Instrument





Chart 12 is a representaton of asset health by asset type and maintenance
organizaton size. There is litle diferentaton in asset health by asset type
by organizaton size except when one looks at the levels of sick and very sick
for plants with less than 100 maintenance employees. For every asset type,
the level of unhealthiness increases for this organizaton size. An opportunity
exists for these frms to understand and correct these phenomena.
12. Health Ranking by Asset Type
Source ST Excel le
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
Title Health Ranking by Asset Type by Size
12
59%
53%
75%
52%
48%
33%
40%
17%
37%
36%
9%
7% 8%
11%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

StaEonary
65%
53%
79%
53%
50%
31%
47%
17%
36%
33%
4%
0%
4%
12%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Machinery
Instrument
56%
87%
54%
50%
52%
40%
7%
38%
36%
33%
4%
7%
8%
13%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

56%
60%
67%
46%
50%
38%
40%
21%
38%
29%
6%
0%
13%
16%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Electrical
31%
47%
42% 41%
34%
48%
53%
46%
37%
43%
21%
0%
13%
22%
23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Infrastructure
Very Healthy to Healthy
Reasonable
Sick to Very Sick
12. Health Ranking by Asset Type
Source ST Excel le
Format axis 11B Calibri -> 0 to 50%
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
Title Health Ranking by Asset Type by Size
12
59%
53%
75%
52%
48%
33%
40%
17%
37%
36%
9%
7% 8%
11%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

StaEonary
65%
53%
79%
53%
50%
31%
47%
17%
36%
33%
4%
0%
4%
12%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Machinery
Instrument
56%
87%
54%
50%
52%
40%
7%
38%
36%
33%
4%
7%
8%
13%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

56%
60%
67%
46%
50%
38%
40%
21%
38%
29%
6%
0%
13%
16%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Electrical
31%
47%
42% 41%
34%
48%
53%
46%
37%
43%
21%
0%
13%
22%
23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1000+ 750-1000 500-750 100 -500 <100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Infrastructure
Very Healthy to Healthy
Reasonable
Sick to Very Sick
15
D. Structure
Chart 13 - Dedicated Asset Health Management Organizaton
73%
12%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Not Applicable
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Chart 14 - Asset Health Management Assigned Responsibility
5%
9%
12%
12%
16%
46%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Outside Maint. /
Engr
Engineering
Senior Leadership
Not Assigned
Divided
Inside Maint. /
Engr.
Percent Respondents
Charts 13 and 14 address themselves to the asset health management
structure. It is interestng to note that 73% of the respondents reported
a structure in place with responsibility for the health and reliability of
the plants assets. It is also interestng to note that almost 50% of the
respondents identfed the maintenance reliability organizaton as the ones
responsible for asset health.
16
Insights
There is a disconnect between the high
percentage of organizatons with a dedicated
asset health management structure and the
seemingly few with asset health management
strategies and policies in place.
Without additonal informaton, factual
conclusions derived from this data are not
possible. However, it is possible that there
is a great focus on reliability and health of
individual assets as indicated in Charts 11 and
12, but without the overriding strategy and policy. This
possibility bears some examinaton. If this is the case, then
there is work being conducted without standardizaton and
broad oversight. While keeping assets healthy in this manner
is commendable, it doesnt promote standardizaton and long-
term sustainability.
17
E. Communication
Chart 15 Efectvely and Efciently Communicate Asset Health
Management
34%
49%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Not Applicable
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Chart 16 - Efectvely and Efciently Communicate By Industry
13%
8%
18%
17%
13%
14%
19%
12%
27%
40%
56%
53%
58%
59%
57%
29%
53%
45%
47%
36%
29%
25%
28%
29%
52%
35%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Consulting / Engr
Food & Beverage
Metals
Mining
Petro / Chem
Power Generation
Pulp Paper
Services
Water / Wastewater
Percent Respondents
Yes
No
NA
Charts 15 and 16 address communicaton of the asset health management
process. Clearly, a much larger percentage of respondents do not do an
adequate job of communicatng this vital topic, or they simply dont have
the process in place to communicate efectvely. The only industries that are
an excepton to this are pulp and paper, and consultng.
18
Insights
Communicaton is a vital component of the
asset health management efort. Without
delivery of informaton about the process -
why it is important and how each individual
can contribute - there will be a lack of
understanding and ultmate misdirecton
or process failure. Clearly, there is an
opportunity for organizatons: 1) to
improve communicaton about this subject,
or 2) if they do not have an asset health
management process, to create one and
communicate that informaton to the organizaton.
19
F. Document Management
(Management of Change - MOC)
Chart 17 (two parts) Percent Respondents Utlizing a MOC Process
53%
47%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
30%
55%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Consistent Use Inconsistent Use Not Used
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
The two-part Chart 17 indicates the lack of a management of change (MOC)
process, as reported by the majority of the respondents. In fact, only 53% or
195, reported having a process in place, and of that number, only 30% or 60,
reported using it in a consistent manner. An MOC process is a foundatonal
element of any successful asset health management efort.
A.
B.
20
Insights
From the inital installaton of an asset into
the manufacturing process to the day it is
decommissioned, many changes take place.
How the asset is applied to the process,
what predictve or preventve strategies
are employed, how it is maintained, what
parts are used for its repair and many
other aspects are changed that ultmately
afect the asset and its performance.
For this reason, a management of change
process (MOC) is required. This process includes a
review before the change is made, documentaton of what
changes are made, training of the organizaton so the changes
are included in the work process, and addressing the changes
in the operaton and maintenance of the asset. Failure to
have this documentaton in place can lead to safety, reliability,
environmental and producton problems, all of which we want
to avoid. There is a huge opportunity for improvement in this
area.
21
G. Training
Chart 18 Level of Asset Health Management Training Provided
5%
30%
35%
14%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Extensive
Periodic
Limited
None
No System
Percent Respondents
Chart 18 addresses the subject of training. Only 35% of the respondents
conducted periodic to extensive training on the topic of asset health
management. The remainder only conducted limited training (35%) or none
(29%), since they either do not do it or do not have a program in place.
Insights
Periodic training can have a measurable impact
on asset health management performance and
botom line proft.
Ongoing periodic training benefts include:
Staf retenton;
Improved productvity;
Lower maintenance costs;
Increased safety;
Increased compettveness.
People enter and leave the workforce, as well as change jobs.
In additon, a topic such as asset health management should
have a periodic refresher so its importance is part of everyones
reliability awareness. Therefore, periodic training should be
the norm, not the excepton. This lack of training among the
majority of the respondents certainly has an impact on their
understanding and support of the efort (reference Chart 10).
22
H. Software (SW) Supporting
the Analysis of Asset
Health Management Data
Chart 19 Supportng Sofware (SW)
3%
14%
17%
16%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Other
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
SW Insufficient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
Chart 19 indicates that only 33% of the respondents felt they had the
required sofware to support the analysis of the asset health management
data provided. An important aspect of any asset health management system
is the data acquired, the analysis undertaken and the correctve acton
applied to assets that are becoming less than healthy.
23
Chart 20 Asset Health Management Sofware (SW) by Industry
20 Sojware by Industry Source Terry
Format axis 8B Calibri
Labels 8 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
12%
12%
20%
12%
44%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
12%
6%
35%
18%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
11%
18%
18%
11%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
9%
27%
20%
20%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
22%
11%
26%
11%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
19%
14%
0%
10%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
Food and Beverage
Metals
Mining
Petro-Chemical
Power GeneraEon
Pulp and Paper
13%
7%
13%
20%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
9%
9%
18%
9%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
ConsulEng / Engineering
Water / Wastewater
21
20 Sojware by Industry Source Terry
Format axis 8B Calibri
Labels 8 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
12%
12%
20%
12%
44%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
12%
6%
35%
18%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
11%
18%
18%
11%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
9%
27%
20%
20%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
22%
11%
26%
11%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
19%
14%
0%
10%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
Food and Beverage
Metals
Mining
Petro-Chemical
Power GeneraEon
Pulp and Paper
13%
7%
13%
20%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
9%
9%
18%
9%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
ConsulEng / Engineering
Water / Wastewater
21
20 Sojware by Industry Source Terry
Format axis 8B Calibri
Labels 8 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
12%
12%
20%
12%
44%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
12%
6%
35%
18%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
11%
18%
18%
11%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
9%
27%
20%
20%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
22%
11%
26%
11%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
19%
14%
0%
10%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
Food and Beverage
Metals
Mining
Petro-Chemical
Power GeneraEon
Pulp and Paper
13%
7%
13%
20%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
9%
9%
18%
9%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No SW for Need
SW Lacking
Acquiring
SW Insucient
Needed
SW Exists
Percent Respondents
ConsulEng / Engineering
Water / Wastewater
21
24
Chart 20 drills down with further detail as to which industries felt they
did or did not have the requisite sofware to support their asset health
management eforts. Thirty percent (30%) or less of the respondents in the
petrochemical, metals and power generaton areas reported having the
needed sofware. In all of the other industries, under 60% of the respondents
reported having the required sofware in place. The low percentage of
respondents in all areas points to the need for improvement because, in
most cases, asset health management supportng sofware is a critcal part of
the overall process.
Insights
Without analysis and resultant correctve acton,
assets can easily move from the inital signs of
health problems to those of catastrophic failure
with all of the corresponding consequences.
Computerized maintenance management
systems (CMMSs) are typically designed
with work management functons as their
primary component, however many now
on the market go beyond that and have the
capability of doing asset health management
analysis. Use of these tools should be applied to this
process. Furthermore, if the CMMS does not provide
these capabilites, the organizaton should consider acquiring
sofware that does provide this level of support. Afer all, what
is the value of having the data if it cant be converted into useful
informaton?
The queston that was not asked in the survey was: Is the
sofware efectvely and efciently used? This is a queston that
everyone should ask themselves. If the answer is no, then there
is an opportunity to make beter use of the existng tools and
hence, an improvement in asset health and its related decision-
making process.
25
I. Legal Aspects
Chart 21 The Legal Department Is Up to Date and Assures Legal Compliance
28%
46%
26%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Yes No No System
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
This chart indicates that the majority of respondents felt their legal
organizatons were not up to date (46%) or a system did not exist (26%) to
support the asset health management efort. An interestng perspectve that
was not acquired was the opinion of the legal organizatons. Having both
would be interestng, however, the perspectve of those needing this support
and not believing that it is available is telling.
Insights
Asset failure has the potental for a multtude of
adverse organizatonal impacts, such as safety,
reliability, environmental, reputaton and
producton. Diferent industries ofen have
diferent regulatons, but nevertheless, the
legal aspects ofen drive and support the
development of asset health management
systems that possibly would not be funded
otherwise. Therefore, it is very important that
those with legal responsibilites within an organizaton
be cognizant of the regulatons, as well as how they are
applied in the feld. Gaps between legal requirements and
feld applicatons need to be identfed and closed to prevent
future problems. Chart 21 shows that there are opportunites
for improvement in this area.
One additonal item of importance is that gaps in this area
can also have a signifcant impact on insurance coverage and
the related rates since they will be examined closely by the
insurance carriers.
26
J. Data Integrity
(The Quality of the Data)
Chart 22 - Data Quality by Asset Type
38%
50%
41%
42%
25%
31%
22%
32%
28%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Stationary Machinery Instrument Electrical Infrastructure
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Excellent - Good
Poor - Very Poor
Chart 22, a composite view of all respondents, along with the fve-part Chart
23 which shows data quality by industry by asset type, show the two ends of
the data quality spectrum excellent and good versus poor and very poor.
The middle set of data the average data quality statstc which in most cases
was about 30% has been omited. While the average statstc is important,
the quality at the opposing ends of the data quality spectrum is of greater
importance.
Chart 22 shows that the quality of asset data has room for improvement.
Machinery is the highest and that would be expected due to the large
emphasis placed on the reliability of this equipment.
From what was learned in several prior charts, the level of infrastructure
data quality is extremely low. This is possibly due to the fact that not as
much atenton is placed here when compared to the equipment driving
the manufacturing process. Another less obvious reason may be that many
computerized maintenance management systems do not have the ability to
easily track plant infrastructure assets.
27
Chart 23 - Data Quality by Industry by Asset Type (fve parts)
23A - Statonary
23. Data Quallity StaEonary (VG/G vs. P/VP)
Source Terry
Format axis 11B Calibri
Labels 11 not bold
Bar gap = 100
Axis color black size 1.5
Grid mid gray /dashed
42%
35%
30%
18%
29%
20%
48%
24%
36%
21%
28%
35%
36%
37%
40%
41%
53%
54%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Pulp Paper
ConsulEng / Engr
Petro / Chem
Water /
Wastewater
Mining
Food & Beverage
Metals
Services
Power GeneraEon
Percent Respondents
Excellent - Good
Poor - Very Poor
24
23B - Machinery
22%
12%
21%
35%
20%
30%
25%
12%
18%
43%
48%
48%
50%
50%
53%
57%
59%
64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Petro / Chem
Food & Beverage
Mining
Consulting / Engr
Pulp Paper
Metals
Power Generation
Services
Water /
Wastewater
Percent Respondents
Excellent - Good
Poor - Very Poor
28
23C - Instrument
32%
28%
36%
40%
38%
29%
30%
35%
32%
24%
30%
33%
40%
44%
47%
47%
50%
64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Food & Beverage
Petro / Chem
Mining
Pulp Paper
Metals
Power Generation
Services
Consulting / Engr
Water /
Wastewater
Percent Respondents
Excellent - Good
Poor - Very Poor
23D - Electrical
20%
30%
30%
29%
30%
18%
36%
36%
18%
24%
35%
39%
44%
45%
45%
50%
53%
59%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Food & Beverage
Petro / Chem
Mining
Power Generation
Pulp Paper
Water /
Wastewater
Consulting / Engr
Metals
Services
Percent Respondents
Excellent - Good
Poor - Very Poor
29
23E - Infrastructure
50%
28%
60%
49%
36%
43%
24%
46%
50%
17%
20%
20%
24%
27%
29%
29%
36%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Mining
Food & Beverage
Pulp Paper
Petro / Chem
Water /
Wastewater
Consulting / Engr
Services
Power Generation
Metals
Percent Respondents
Excellent - Good
Poor - Very Poor
Each of the above fve charts shows by industry where asset data integrity is
in good shape or not so good shape. Clearly, there is room for improvement,
especially in the area of the infrastructure data.
Insights
Each respondents organizaton should use this
informaton to make a case for improving the
accuracy and completeness of their asset
data. While average data health is not
included in the charts, average is not good
enough and needs to be addressed along
with the data rated poor or very poor.
Actvites that should be considered as part of the
data cleansing/upgrade process include:
Detailed review and data update by asset;
Connectng the management of change process to the data
integrity efort;
Providing work processes that maintain data accuracy;
Developing communicaton and awareness eforts;
Upgrading access to the informaton in support of tmely
business decisions.
The important point to remember is that this data becomes
the informaton that is used by the organizaton to drive
the reliability decision-making process. Bad data yields bad
informaton which, in turn, yields fawed decisions that can be
costly in many shapes and forms.
30
K. Auditing
Chart 24 - Audit Frequency
21%
24%
8%
24%
24%
0% 20% 40%
No System
None
Planned (Future)
Irregular
Periodic
Percent Respondents
Chart 25 - What Is Done with the Audit Results
13%
26%
27%
34%
0% 20% 40%
No Action
Identified - Not
Always Acted Upon
Action Taken - Not Priority
Immediate Action
Percent Respondents
Auditng and the correctve acton taken to correct performance gaps are
critcal aspects of an asset health management system. Clearly, Charts 24 and
25 demonstrate that this process is lacking to some degree in 75% of those
responding to this survey. Performing an asset health management audit
does not require a great deal of efort, but it is an essental ingredient.
31
Insights
It is commendable for an organizaton
to develop and deploy an asset health
management system. However, as with any
change, close monitoring is required if one is
to be assured that what was implemented
is in fact working as an integral part of
the maintenance reliability process. This is
where auditng is required. By conductng
audits of the asset health management system,
areas where conformance to the plan and correctve acton is
necessary can be identfed.
However, auditng is only half of the efort. Timely correctve
acton to rectfy performance gaps is also required. By taking
tmely correctve acton, the organizaton can immediately
correct problems before they get worse. In additon, and
of even greater importance, is that auditng and correctve
acton clearly demonstrate to the organizaton the
importance placed on this work by the leadership team and
others involved.
32
L. Asset Lifecycle
Chart 26 Level of Atenton Applied to Asset Health Management During
Stages of the Assets Lifecycle
Chart 26 (in tabular format) describes the level of atenton or inatenton
paid to asset health management at the various stages of an assets lifecycle.
They have been categorized as follows:
Green Border High level of atenton placed on this stage of an assets
lifecycle.
Orange Border Average level of atenton.
Red Border Level of atenton indicates an opportunity for improvement.
As expected, the area of Operate/Maintain received a high (average to
excellent/good) level of atenton 84% of the respondents.
What is very interestng are the low levels of asset health management
atenton reported during the Design/Specify and Purchasing stages. This
may be because engineering does not typically include the maintenance
organizaton in this phase of the work; an oversight that can potentally cause
problems during the operate/maintain phase.
The other stage of inatenton, Decommissioning, is another opportunity
area. Many organizatons may not realize they have legal responsibility for
assets even afer decommissioning. Increased atenton at this stage may
help eliminate problems at a later date.
Design
Specify
Purchasing Install Commission
Operate
Maintain
Modify
Upgrade
Decommission
Excellent
Good
31% 20% 36% 35% 46% 36% 12%
Average 32% 36% 40% 39% 38% 36% 31%
Poor
Very Poor
31% 37% 21% 21% 12% 25% 37%
N/A 6% 7% 5% 5% 4% 4% 20%
33
Insights
It is essental that asset health management be
an integral part of each phase of the assets
lifecycle. Omitng this very important
component at any stage has the potental
for causing difcultes later on in the life of
the asset.
It is typical in many organizatons for
maintenance to play a limited role in the
design/specifcaton efort and subsequently when the
asset is purchased. All too ofen, maintainability items are
overlooked due to this lack of involvement. Organizatons
with good to excellent asset health and resultant reliability
include maintenance and garner valuable design insight
that would otherwise be missed.
The installaton and commissioning phases have slightly
more maintenance involvement than do the two prior stages.
This involvement adds value because alteratons stll can
be accomplished during this phase to improve the ultmate
health of the assets being installed. The problem is that
installaton and commissioning eforts are usually on a tght
tme frame and any major problems uncovered may not be
remedied in the tme available.
The Operate/Maintain stage has 84% of the respondents
statng their atenton in this area is good to excellent. This
response is expected since this stage is where the equipment
is actually operated and maintained. The problem is that this
area of the lifecycle is strongly afected by the prior stages.
If proper atenton is not placed on the prior stages, there is
likelihood that the Operate/Maintain stage may be fraught
with problems.
The Modify/Upgrade stage of the lifecycle also has a high
degree of atenton placed on asset health. This is very
important because without this focus, changes and/or
modifcatons could be made that, while on the surface are
improvements, in actuality may not serve the best interests
of the producton environment of which the asset is a part.
Questons that should be asked and answered by those who
ranked their involvement in this stage as high are, Do they
have a fully functonal MOC process and, if not, how can they
expect to provide adequate atenton to modifcatons and
upgrades?
Also of note is the low level of atenton in the
decommissioning stage. Ofen, assets that are taken out of
service are abandoned in place or sold as used equipment.
Each of these carries with it certain organizatonal and legal
responsibilites to ensure that if they are reused, internally or
externally, the assets are not in an unhealthy conditon that
could cause the new users serious problems.
34
Chart 27 - Reliability Tool Use
14%
32%
54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
FMEA
27. Use of Tools CompliaEon
Source Excel
24%
31%
45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Asset Health Report
38% 38%
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Std Op Plans
22%
43%
35%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
PM OpUmum
30%
44%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Pre-Plans
21%
35%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
RCFA
22%
29%
49%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Risk Analysis
32
The above charts fall into two distnct
categories, those associated with asset
predictve and preventve maintenance
eforts PM optmizaton, FMEA, RCFA,
Risk Analysis and Asset Health Reportng,
and those that are related to the actual
maintenance actvites performed on the
assets Pre-Plans and Standard Operatng
Plans.
M. Tools Used in the Asset
Health Management
Process
14%
32%
54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
FMEA
27. Use of Tools CompliaEon
Source Excel
24%
31%
45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Asset Health Report
38% 38%
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Std Op Plans
22%
43%
35%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
PM OpUmum
30%
44%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Pre-Plans
21%
35%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
RCFA
22%
29%
49%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Risk Analysis
32
14%
32%
54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
FMEA
27. Use of Tools CompliaEon
Source Excel
24%
31%
45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Asset Health Report
38% 38%
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Std Op Plans
22%
43%
35%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
PM OpUmum
30%
44%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Pre-Plans
21%
35%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
RCFA
22%
29%
49%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
75 to 100% 25 to 75% 0 to 25%
Risk Analysis
32
35
Chart 28 Tool Usage (0 to 25 %) Only by Type
54%
49%
45%
44%
35%
27%
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FMEA Risk
Analysis
Asset Health
Reporting
RCFA PM
Optimization
Pre-Plans Std
Operating
Plans
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
0 to 25% Tool Focus
Chart 28 points out a very interestng fact about the low usage levels of the
diferent types of asset health management tools. Clearly, the two identfed
as maintenance-related appear to have a higher usage level than the others,
yet approximately 25% of the responding organizatons dont use these tools,
which are usually an integral part of their CMMS.
The other tools also have associated sofware, but they are more ofen
stand-alone, requiring separate purchase, training and deployment.
Nevertheless, the low level of use points to the major opportunity for
improvement of the asset health management system if these tools were
adopted as an integral part of the maintenance reliability efort.
Insights
There is a low level of use in the 75% to
100% range across all tool types, with the
maintenance types being slightly higher.
One could conclude from Charts 27 and 28
that there is opportunity in all the asset
health management tool areas. It would be
expected that as a strategy and policy were
developed and followed, improved use of
these tools would follow.
36
N. Work Applications
Chart 29 Level of Applicaton of Asset Health Management Strategies
71%
18%
7%
3%
2%
32%
39%
19%
9%
1%
43%
27%
18%
10%
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Percent Time
PdM
PM
Reactive
Chart 29 shows three asset health management profles predictve
maintenance (PdM), preventve maintenance (PM) and reactve maintenance
by the percent that each is a part of the respondents work strategy. This
chart paints a picture that, when considered in detail, shows the strategies of
those responding have room for improvement.
The PdM profle in blue shows a low level of PdM strategies applied to the
maintenance work efort, indicated by the fact that 89% of those responding
employ this strategy less than 40% of the tme. Organizatons with a
signifcant asset health management focus would be expected to apply a
higher percentage to this approach.
The PM profle, shown in brown, shows 71% with PM strategies less than
40% of the maintenance work efort. This is similar to PdM, but more skewed
to the 21% to 40% range. This range is not out of line with what would be
expected of a functoning PM program.
The Reactve Maintenance profle, shown in green, shows 70% of the
respondents with this strategy in place less than 40% of the tme. This
amount of tme in this range for reactve maintenance is satsfactory, but it
should increase with a greater asset health management focus.
37
Chart 30 Percent of Correctve Work
Resultng from Conductng PM/PdM Actvites
72%
68%
70%
60%
65%
28%
32%
30%
40%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Infrastructure
Electrical
Instrument
Machinery
Stationary
Number of Respondents
Greater Than 50%
Less Than 50%
The express value of preventve (PM) and predictve (PdM) work are the
correctve tasks that result from identfying potental problems and being
able to fx them before they become serious threats to the assets health.
Chart 30 shows the percent of respondents who identfed correctve
work greater than 50% (blue) and those less than 50% (gray). Tying this
to Chart 29, which indicates low PM/PdM eforts, there is opportunity for
improvement in not only conductng the PM/PdM tasks, but performing
correctve acton as a result.
38
O. Sensors
Chart 31 Sensor Use as Part of the Asset Health Management Strategy
8%
33%
41%
43%
53%
54%
59%
64%
72%
73%
78%
79%
84%
86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
PI
DCS
Motor Analysis
NTD Inspection
Ultrasound
Flow
Pressure
Operator Rounds
Infrared
Temperature
Oil / Fluid Analysis
Vibration
Visual
Percent Respondents
Chart 31 indicates considerable use of the various means of detectng
potental asset problems. These results seem to be both a beneft to those
organizatons that use these monitoring methods and an opportunity to do
more with them.
On its own, this chart would seem to indicate a high level of atenton paid
towards protectng the health of the plants assets. Unfortunately, many of
the other charts presented in this survey point to a far diferent conclusion
about respondents atenton to asset health.
Insights
It is clear that those who responded to this
survey have many of the tools in place (Chart
31), yet the level of atenton to asset health
management is not as robust as it could
be if the strategies and related tools were
applied.
39
P. Conclusions
The 2012 Asset Health Management Survey provided here indicates that
in every industry, regardless of size, there is a very real opportunity for
improvement in this vitally important aspect of maintenance reliability work.
Where strategies and policies do not exist, they need to be developed as
the foundaton of a viable asset health management system.
When developed and deployed, strategies and policies need to be
contnuously used to provide guidance to the organizaton, as well as
demonstrate managements commitment to the process.
Even afer development and deployment, management needs to make
certain that there is a sound understanding of the concept of asset health
management and how it directly impacts the survivability of the business.
To this end, efectve and efcient communicaton and training are
essental.
The plant infrastructure, while stll reported in reasonable health, needs
atenton equal to that provided for other major asset types.
While the majority of respondents indicated an organizaton exists to
address asset health management, responses indicated in other charts
seem to suggest a more focused set of initatves and related actvites are
needed.
Where a management of change process does not exist, one needs to be
created and rigidly enforced. The lack of this process has the potental to
cause serious problems.
Sofware needs to be acquired beyond the computerized maintenance
management system sofware to support the asset health management
efort. Lack of funding should not be an issue when compared to the
negatve consequences of not having the sofware to analyze data and
identfy potental problems before they become serious.
The legal organizaton needs to beter understand and support
maintenance in the asset health management arena, assuring them that
all legal and regulatory issues related to asset health are in compliance.
Data quality for all asset types needs to be reviewed and where issues
are identfed, correctve processes are put in place. The data that exists
within our systems creates informaton upon which reliability-based
decisions are made.
As part of any asset health management process, auditng is required. Not
only should there be periodic audits of the process, but tmely correctve
acton is also necessary. Both of these are areas for process improvement.
Additonal atenton to asset health needs to be applied to all phases of
the assets lifecycle. If reliability and maintenance are not included during
design, specifcaton and purchasing, this needs to be corrected. The
decisions made during these stages are critcal to long-term asset health.
Increased use of asset health management tools once the process is
developed will provide the informaton needed to both avoid problems
and improve availability and uptme.
40
Organizatons need to review the percentage of tme that maintenance
is applying to predictve, preventve and reactve maintenance and set
goals, initatves and related actvites to alter these percentages to favor
predictve maintenance. Guidelines for world-class levels for each of these
maintenance reliability types are available.
As the survey has indicated, improvement in the area of asset health
management can provide a signifcant beneft to any organizaton putng
this process in place. However, ataining this goal is not easy. Typically, asset
health management is an efort conducted in functonal silos by asset-specifc
experts, but not applied as a unifed process.
What is needed to support this efort at an organizatonal level is a standard
of performance. This standard and the associated guidelines will provide the
fundamental concepts and guidance needed to deliver a unifed asset health
management process. This documentaton is actvely being developed by the
Associaton of Asset Management Professionals, an organizaton that is part
of Reliabilityweb.com, and should be available to the user community in the
later part of 2012.
41
Steve Thomas has 40 years of experience working
in the petrochemical industry. During this tme, through
personal involvement in all levels of the maintenance and
reliability work process, he has gained vast experience in
all phases of the business. Coupled with a B.S. in Electrical
Engineering from Drexel University and M.S. degrees in
both Systems Engineering and Organizatonal Dynamics
from the University of Pennsylvania, this experience has enabled him to
add signifcant value to the many projects on which he has worked. In
additon, he has published six books on this and other subjects through
Industrial Press, Inc., and Reliabilityweb.com, the most recent being Asset
Data Integrity is Serious Business and Measuring Maintenance Workforce
Productvity Made Simple, both of which were published in October 2010.
Authors
This report was writen by Steve Thomas,
with additonal insights by Terrence OHanlon, CMRP
Terrence OHanlon is the Publisher of
Reliabilityweb.com and Uptme magazine. He is a
Certfed Maintenance & Reliability Professional (CMRP)
and is the actng Executve Director of the Associaton
for Maintenance Professionals (AMP). Mr. OHanlon is
also a member of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, The Associaton of Facilites Engineers, Society
of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals and the Society of Tribologists
and Lubricaton Engineers. Created in 1999, Reliabilityweb.com is an
online community of over 55,000 maintenance and reliability professionals
worldwide. A free weekly e-mail newsleter with tutorials, artcles, tps and
more is available online at: htp://www.reliabilityweb.com.