Preamble

This article is in continuation to the Part-1 published on 19.02.2018 that can be accessed from the link below.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/planning-scheduling-era-maintenance-40-part-1-n-p-cmrp-maima/

In Part-1 I’d discussed about a) the way Asset Maintenance Strategies are typically developed and implemented in the CMMS, b) the simplified Maintenance Strategy Management Cycle and c) the Potential Gap between the Intent (of Reliability) and Action (by Maintenance) at the field in the scenarios of Routine and Turnaround Maintenance Planning & Scheduling.

Now I share my thoughts on how this Intent-Action Gap could be closed or narrowed down…

Closing the Intent-Action Gap; Need for Integration between Risk-based Maintenance Strategies and Maintenance Plans:

Due to the potential gap between the Intent and the Action that could impact the Asset Performance (as explained in Part-1) there’s a need for effective communication between Reliability Function (Reliability Engineers) and Maintenance Function (Maintenance Planners) regarding Asset related Risk/s at all stages of Maintenance Strategy development, implementation and execution. This applies more so for Preventive and Predictive Maintenance Tasks that are intended to mitigate specific risks and reside mainly in CMMS as Maintenance Plans. The communication of Risks and the related information should, to a great extent, happen through the System (between Systems for Maintenance Strategy Development and Implementation e.g. APM and CMMS). We could find ways to pass on the Risk/s along with the Mitigation Action/s from Maintenance Strategy to Maintenance Plan and in turn to Maintenance Work Order.

Further in order to be effectively used by the Maintenance Planning/Condition Monitoring Functions (for correct Work Prioritization and Scheduling), the Risks could be additionally qualified by the Cost of the Action and the Cost Benefit (based on Cost of Action and the Financial aspect of the Risk-Financial Risk). These data will usually be available in APM or Maintenance Strategy Management Systems and could be fetched in to CMMS when creating Maintenance Plans.

Once the Risk and related data is available in Maintenance Plan the same (or selected data like Risk) could be flown to the PM Work Orders triggered from the Plan.

The above information would help the Maintenance Planner/Condition Monitoring Engineer to understand the importance of each Maintenance Work in relation to other and correctly prioritize the PM/Condition Monitoring Work at the Plant for Planning (where required) and scheduling. Also when the PM Work is considered for deferral the Planner would have an understanding of the Risks when the decision for deferral and rescheduling the Work is taken.

In case of Corrective Maintenance, the Risk needs to be determined by Reliability Function (based on Asset Health/Condition) in the Maintenance Notification/Work Order triggered from Condition Monitoring.

Maintenance Strategy Management in the age of Industry 4.0 / Maintenance 4.0

1. Planning in the era of Dynamic Maintenance Strategies:

The affordability of Process Technology, Asset Health/Condition Monitoring Systems (Online/Offline) and Early Warning Systems, along with their ease of integration with the Maintenance Strategy Management Solutions, have already made the Maintenance Strategies more dynamic in nature. Intelligence Maintenance Strategies are being discussed today. Schedules for many PM Work have become flexible, to quite an extent, influenced by Asset Condition/Health that reflect the current Risk/s and executed accordingly.

As we move towards a larger share of PdM/CBM in our Maintenance Strategy, through offline and online monitoring of a various Assets, it is important that whenever the PdM (Condition) related Corrective Maintenance Work is manually generated by Reliability or automatically triggered from Condition/Health Monitoring Systems (validated by Reliability Function), the Asset related Risks (with Financial Risks) are communicated on time to Planner to close the intent-action gap (right maintenance work at the right time) such that the Risks are not increased due to delayed action at the Plant. System-triggered Work Orders/Notifications for Corrective Maintenance Work need to be associated with their Risks (including Financial Risk), as determined based on Asset Condition. Unlike most PM Work, many Corrective Work from PdM need to be planned, scheduled and executed in a shorter timeframe (from Work Identification to Execution). Hence the need for visibility of Risks to Planner for correct Work Prioritization for further Planning, Scheduling and Execution.

2. Planning in the era of Flexible Maintenance Strategies:

With the arrival of Maintenance 4.0, the approach for development and execution of Maintenance Strategies is bound to undergo a sea change. Organizations are embracing Technologies like IIoT, Big Data, AI, Machine Learning, Deep Learning and formulating their Digital Strategy (for Asset Management). As several of the Assets will likely be continuously monitored and their performance/health analyzed, any Corrective Maintenance Action triggered from these Advanced Systems will need to be executed quickly and on time. The gradual adoption of Continuous Condition Monitoring and Prescriptive Maintenance will likely result in the Maintenance Strategies becoming very flexible with the ultimate goal of carrying out Maintenance only on demand (as and when required, based on real time/closer to real time Risk/s).

Hence the need to further close the Intent-Action Gap is crucial for deriving maximum Value from the Assets at all times of their Operation and Maintenance Phases. Reliability and Maintenance Functions will need to be more responsive and proactive to the needs of the Assets and Planning has to be very agile keeping the focus on the current Asset Risks and their Mitigation Actions all the time, toward the objective of Doing the Right Job at the Right Time, Every Time.

Need for integration of Reliability and Maintenance Functions

In the above scenario, to achieve the Strategic Asset Management Objectives of the Organization, there is a greater need for convergence of Reliability and Maintenance Functions in Maintenance Strategy Management, right from Strategy Development to Execution and Feedback.

The arrival of Industry 4.0 has only accelerated the need for this convergence, with the right level of integration between Reliability and Maintenance Functions, their Management Systems, Business Processes and the numerous Software Solutions/New Technologies that support them, to timely understand, manage and act on the various Risks related to the Assets and derive value from the assets.

Smart Maintenance Planning and Scheduling

Planning Function will need to have a pivotal role in this integration, and play a more dynamic and proactive role in smartly, effectively and quickly translating the intent of Dynamic/Flexible Maintenance Strategies into maximized Asset Performance and Business Value. Risk-Based Work Selection & Prioritization along with their timely execution and feedback at all times is the need of the hour. Ways need to be found to have the Risk/s (HSEF and Financial), Cost of Actions and Cost Benefit linked to Maintenance (Mitigation) Actions for Preventive/Predictive Maintenance Work (in PM Plans and PM Work) with visibility to Planning and Maintenance at the right time.

Similarly, for Corrective Maintenance Work (Manually or Automatically triggered from various Online/Offline Asset Health/Performance Monitoring Systems), the Risks (HSEF and Financial) would need to be linked to the Maintenance Notifications/Orders or communicated otherwise.

Some of the Approaches toward this objective could be:

• Pass on Risk, Cost of Actions and Benefits along with Task from Maintenance Strategies to Plan and then to Work Order
• Integrate various Online/Offline Asset Health/Condition Monitoring Data in to Maintenance Strategy Management Systems for visibility of real-time to near-real-time asset health/performance.
• Also where feasible, integrate Asset Condition/Health Monitoring Systems with CMMS for triggering Actions directly in to CMMS.
• Some basic planning (Risk Assessment, Priority derived from same, Basic Task Planning) by reliability engineer in Notifications/Orders triggered from Asset Performance/Health Monitoring Systems (online and offline)
• Proactive Monitoring and understanding of asset performance/health by Planner when (Planned/Corrective Work is proposed to be deferred and rescheduled. Also for Weekly Scheduling of Preventive/Corrective Work at the Plants.
• Timely/Realtime feedback to Reliability/Condition Monitoring Engineer once the Maintenance Work is executed in CMMS.

Conclusion:

Effective Risk Management for Reliability & Maintenance Excellence requires that Asset related Risks and their Mitigation Actions be visible and known to all stakeholders at all stages of Maintenance Strategy Management, right from Work Identification to Work Execution & Feedback. As we transition from a mix of PM/PdM to more and more of PdM/Prescriptive Maintenance (on the lines of Continuous Condition Monitoring) adopting Industry 4.0, the cycle time for Work Management (from Work Identification to Work Execution & Feedback) needs to be shorter and shorter with a focus on maximizing Value, at all times, from Assets.

Though the basics of Reliability and Maintenance Planning/Scheduling would remain the same, Reliability, Planning and Maintenance Functions need to speak the same language of Risk and Actions (including Priority of Work), from their Assets and more importantly work as One Team. They also need to find innovative ways in making the entire Maintenance Strategy Management agile, toward the goal of Doing Right Maintenance Work at the Right Time, and all the Time, on their Assets.