Water Journal : Water Journal November 2013
WATER NOVEMBER 2013 36 Feature Article An asset's condition into the future can also be predicted using deterioration curves. This gives the asset owner a forecast of future asset replacement and refurbishment requirements for both activities and costs. TRILITY also uses a 1-5 scoring system for asset condition. OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING ASSET SERVICE LEVELS When asset condition has been assessed, consider other factors that affect the level of service that the asset provides. These include reliability, water quality, contract compliance, environment, safety and variance to operating and maintenance budgets. • Reliability Is the asset achieving the expected uptime? This can be measured using mean time between failure, preventative to corrective work order ratio, or overall equipment effectiveness. If this information is not being collected or available from the CMMS, then worst-performing assets can be highlighted by counting corrective work orders or money spent. • Water quality and contract compliance Is the asset performing at a level to assist Operations to meet the contracted levels of service? For example, a chemical dosing system may be reliable and in good condition, but does not have suf cient capacity to dose at high plant ows, which incurs abatements on the contract. • Environment and safety If the asset is the subject of an environmental or safety noti cation or non-conformance, consider using that risk score in lieu of the asset risk score. For example, a walkway could be in good condition, but the hatch in the walkway that accesses a con ned space creates a high hazard when open for operators accessing the rest of the plant. The source of funding could be the replacement and refurbishment budget. • Variance to budget Compare the asset's budgeted operating costs to the actual costs, for example power usage or maintenance costs. There may be a business case for the early refurbishment or replacement of the asset. ANALYSIS A full analysis can be undertaken using service, costs, policies, strategies, asset performance and local issues. An explanation of the full process is beyond the scope of this paper. As the analysis process is bedded down, it can be enhanced to include determining the tipping point between maintaining an old asset versus replacing it, or to identify other key drivers in the business. The key to an effective analysis is more about having a balance of inputs as opposed to the sheer number of inputs. Operations should give feedback on operability issues, as well as compliance issues, including abatements. Reliability issues recorded via work order history and worst-performing assets should also be noted to ensure that there is a payback for any funds invested. It is strongly recommended that the output of the analysis uses a consistent scoring system, such as risk, to facilitate easier and less subjective planning. KEEP THE DATA CURRENT Review asset condition regularly. Be time-savvy by only reviewing those assets with a poor score each year, and remember that some assets may have been replaced in the last year as an unplanned job. If this is the case, update the condition score and check if the asset details are correct. Assets in fair condition should be reviewed approximately every two years. If an asset has a very short service or design life, it will need to be assessed more frequently, while the opposite applies for assets with long service lives. ASSET RISK SCORE At TRILITY, asset risk is de ned as the product of asset criticality and asset condition. It is determined that a critical asset in poor condition receives a higher asset risk score than a non-critical asset in good condition. The asset risk score is used to prioritise the list of replacement and refurbishment projects. A prioritised list will help direct funding to the right areas at the right time. This is particularly effective where one pool of funds covers multiple facilities, so a single prioritised list will ensure the correct distribution of funds across these facilities. PLANNING Planning is about determining the tactical actions to mitigate risk to an acceptable level. Typically this involves the determination of maintenance plans and asset replacement and refurbishment plans. These plans will include timing of activities, priorities and resources required. Ideally costs should be included at an activity level to input to the annual business planning process. ASSET REPLACEMENT & REFURBISHMENT PLANS An activity-based approach is recommended for building up the asset replacement and refurbishment plans. This approach increases the level of transparency in requests for funding and facilitates regular updating. The required replacement and refurbishment activities for each asset are recorded, including estimated or known costs. These activities tend to be repetitive over the longer term, so a frequency can also be included. The installed date and design life information is required to enable these tasks to be correctly scheduled. These activities are ltered by year and sorted by asset risk from highest to lowest. The business' appetite for risk will determine the cut-off point. This becomes the input to the annual budgeting process and an insight into future costs for inclusion in business plans. RESULTS -- WHOLE OF LIFE PLANS We build our replacement and refurbishment plans from the bottom up, i.e. from the activity level, including a cost for each activity. Replacement and refurbishment activities tend to be repetitive over the longer term -- i.e. a pump needs to be refurbished every 10 years and replaced at 25 years. We enter costs in today's dollar amounts and use our business planning process to index these costs. We will enter these replacement and refurbishment plans into our CMMS as maintenance plans, in the same system as their monthly, six-monthly and annual servicing requirements. We can then use the CMMS to simulate these planned costs into the future. A warning: don't create all the work orders, as they will build up in the system. Get the system to simulate the costs without creating the work orders. Great performance comes from a different way of thinking about assets.
Water Journal September 2013
Water Journal December 2013