2. One of our clients sought our help to
understand why it has been difficult to
unlock the true value of a predictive
maintenance approach.
3. 1. Our new facility started up in December 2016 and as such is a modern platform that is
enabled for condition monitoring in many systems. The platform is permanently manned,
however, the overall ambition is to move the operation of the platform to shore (there is an
onshore control room) and reduce Personnel on-board (POB) requirements. We are starting a
process to rationalise the planned maintenance activities as I understand that this is already
a burden, even when the facility is fully manned. The introduction of predictive maintenance
into this regime is obviously going to be an enabler to the overall ambition.
2. A development project is based on a normally unmanned installation (NUI) concept (with
helideck and emergency accommodation) tied back to the field centre, however, there is an
ambition to reduce the visit frequency significantly below the levels that are seen for the
existing NUIs. The new processing platform at the field centre (installed 2013) has been
equipped with condition monitoring technology already but it is not utilised effectively. The
same technology can be installed on the new NUI, however, a change in operational mind-
set is needed to effectively use this and reduce the visit frequency. Our operations people
recognise this problem but change is difficult.
someone@wellknownoperator.com
09 September 2017 00:56
RE: We’ve got issues – could you help?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. 3. Our concepts for another development include minimal facility platforms where the target is to
visit just once a year during summer season – similar to the approach other operators are
taking. This is not going to be achievable if we adopt the same old planned maintenance
approach e.g. due to crane planned maintenance routines. If possible, we also need to monitor
equipment so that we can take action to reduce likelihood of failures occurring during winter
months.
someone@wellknownoperator.com
09 September 2017 00:56
RE: We’ve got issues – could you help?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Addressing these concerns involves going back to
first principles
The true nature
of failure
The underlying
logic of
predictive
maintenance
The “Resnikoff
Conundrum”
How most
users have
deployed
predictive
maintenance –
and why much
of its potential
value is never
realised
Confronting
custom,
practice and
traditional
organisation
design
1 2 3 4 5 6
A way forward?
7. The US civil aviation industry revealed the truth
about reliability in 1978
COMPLEX EQUIPMENT
electronics
hydraulics
pneumatics
bearings
SIMPLE EQUIPMENT
IN DIRECT CONTACT
wear
fatigue
corrosion
B
D
E
F
A B C
A
C
D E F
Infant: 68%
Bathtub: 4%
Life: 2%
Random: 14%
Increasing: 5%
Honeymoon: 7%
8. There are several fundamental implications from this
research
The predominant
pattern of failure is
“infant mortality” as
opposed to “wear-
out”
Traditional planned
maintenance that occurs
after a fixed time (or
usage) will only be
effective if directed at a
dominant, age-related
failure mode
Whilst “planned
maintenance” is normally
seen as a “good thing”, in
actual fact, it must be
deployed with a high
degree of caution
Since planned
maintenance is so limited,
what can fill the gap?
Obviously a blanket policy
of “no scheduled
maintenance” cannot be
tolerated…
The curves apply at a
failure mode level
(NOT equipment
level)
1
2
3
4
5
10. Thankfully, almost every failure mode will give some
sort of warning that failure is beginning….
The condition-deterioration curve
Failure
initiated
Healthy
Detectable warning sign
(potential failure “P”)
Functional failure “F”
Condition
Lead time failure
Time, cycles…
12. The Resnikoff Conundrum
It is named after a mathematician (H L Resnikoff) who wrote a
paper entitled “Mathematical Aspects of Reliability Centred
Maintenance” in 1978.
He argued that the maintenance policy designer is always
dealing with uncertainty
This is true whether you are surmising a probability distribution
curve like Pattern B (to mandate when an intervention should
happen) or a condition-deterioration curve (to set the
monitoring frequency).
Unfortunately, Asset Managers (and the public at large) detest
uncertainty – especially when it pertains to something that
could hurt or kill, or something that could cost a large amount
of money or result in an extended cessation of operation
This has led to a sort of “Conspiracy of Silence” that seeks to
remain wilfully ignorant yet offers a sort of “plausible
deniability”.
13. The truth about most maintenance policies….
Conditional
probability of failure
1 2 3
The burn-in zone
Some organisations accept
this as the “price to be
paid” for performing a
large maintenance
intervention. Good
example from UK Paper
Mill.
1
The random zone
Most organisations have
picked up on the suitability of
predictive techniques to
deliver “warnings of otherwise
unanticipated incipient failure”
and deploy them here.
The wear-out zone
No matter what the
telemetry says, most
organisations will go ahead
and shut down for planned
maintenance anyway
“because that’s what it says
in the manual”.
2 3
14. How most users have
deployed predictive
maintenance – and why
much of its potential value
is never realised
15. Some things never change….
In 1993, we helped a North Sea operator perform a RCM Reliability Centred
Maintenance (RCM) on a Ruston gas turbine fleet installed in the UK sector.
In 2010, we helped another operator examine the shutdown cycle for his General
Electric LM2500 gas turbines.
“I have a $1 million
control system that
nobody believes...”
Aside from the overall dramatic
reduction in maintenance that
was discovered, one small
piece of the lube system
perfectly encapsulated the
flawed thinking in maintenance
policy design…..
Though
technology had
moved on – critical
thinking hadn’t!
17. So how do we improve this situation?
Your original
equipment
manufacturers
(OEMs)
Your senior
managers
Your
maintenance
planners
Your
regulator
18. Change the way you interact with your original
equipment manufacturers
Stop mandating that they supply you with an ironclad
project management and spares policy as a condition
of contract – they suffer from Resnikoff too, and it’s
made worse by the fact that they are not the
operators (so they assume the worst of yours).
Furthermore, work with them to derive maintenance
policy together as this will allow them to re-examine
their own control philosophy and modify sensitivity.
Your OEMs
19. Change what your maintenance planners do
Do they really plan maintenance, or do they simply
schedule work? Adopting a condition-based or
predictive approach means that they will have to
deal with a much less certain workload and be
able to plan its execution.
Your
maintenance
planners
Your regulator
20. Educate your senior managers
Are they ready to accept the reality and move away
from the comfort blanket of “we were only doing
what the manual required”? Are they ready to
understand that “No scheduled maintenance” can be
the right answer?Your senior
managers
21. Collaborate with your regulators
Are you ready to sit down and demonstrate to them
why you will be adopting a radically different
approach and why it will be better than what has
been in place before?
Your regulator
22. Maintenance management has a set of core
elements that must be in place for success
PEOPLE
• Leadership
• Maintenance organisation
• Competencies
• Teamwork
• Communication
STRATEGIC
• Asset management strategy
• Contracting strategy
• Lifecycle costing
• Performance improvement
CORE
• Asset register & criticality
• Equipment maintenance
strategies
• Work management
• Shutdown management
• Reliability improvement process
INTERFACING
• Procurement
• Materials management
• Integrated activity planning
• Production excellence
• Management of change
• Information management
CORE
People
Strategic
Interfacing
23. After
Before
1,800
15,000
IOC 1 (inst Man-hours)
-88%
Element 1 – Asset Register and Criticality Ranking
Structured instrument criticality reclassification led to
an 88% reduction in maintenance man-hours required
The Challenge
• Instrument planned maintenance costs were too high
• ISO 9000 accreditation had made the planned maintenance
programme very expensive
• Any changes would need to satisfy the UK offshore regulators
prior to any implementation
What we did
• A thorough examination of the instrumentation with a view to:
• their criticality
• their dominant failure modes
• their target availability
• Developed a completely new programme with the asset team
• Managed the process with the HSE offshore safety branch to
ensure regulatory compliance and acceptance
• Implemented the changes offshore
Benefits
• Reduced the instrumentation planned maintenance programme
from 15,000 man-hours a year to just 1,800 man-hours a year
• Reduction in personnel on board (POB)
• A marked reduction in the number of spurious trips
24. International OEM 1 (inst Man-hours)
After
Before
432
984
-56%
Element 2 – Equipment Maintenance Strategies
Most maintenance programmes are built from OEM
OEM manuals – now they too are discovering their flaws
The Challenge
• Their business model for industrial turbine packages has been
redefined by the move to long term service agreements (LTSAs)
where they now pay for the cost of maintenance
What we did
• The client asked Advisian to assist in reviewing and re-defining the
work programmes to ensure that each task was sensible,
defensible and occurred at the appropriate interval.
• The analysis also examined possibilities to make design changes
to facilitate better maintenance.
• In all, the engagement delivered a valuable reduction in the
maintenance programme, coupled with a new approach to control
and protection philosophy, allowing the client to de-tune overly
sensitive instrumentation to provide the end-user with alarms as
opposed to trips.
Benefits
• 56% reduction in maintenance labour costs for 8,000 running hour
interventions
• Availability improvements of at least 1.5 days per year per gas
turbine from planned maintenance alone
• A reduction in control and instrumentation engineer resource
requirement of around 60%
25. Sometimes a “compliance culture” hides true levels of risk
The Challenge
• Following the Buncefield disaster, operators rushed to implement large
PM Programmes
• Our client felt his system was clogged up by tasks of little or no value
• A reliability centred maintenance (RCM) revealed the opportunity to
remove 88% of tasks on part of his site
• Six months after the RCM, nothing had changed
What we did
• Revealed to the client how the link between work orders issued,
planning, executing and reporting had broken down
• Built a new process for planning, reporting and measuring achievement
• Implemented the new system at the largest of their seven sites
Benefits
• Plan attainment grew from less than 30% to more than 70% within six
weeks
• Corporate risk profile lowered due to the audit trail now existing
between jobs issued and jobs done
Element 3 – Work Management
26. 0 10 20 30 40 50
After
Before
Days Down
-77%
44
10
Element 4 – Shutdown Management
Shutdown programmes have often grown from a
historical perspective with little scrutiny or challenge
The Challenge
• This client operates a vast onshore oilfield via a network of
gathering centres
• Each gathering centre had a planned shutdown programme that
sacrificed 44 days of production in every four year cycle
What we did
• We led an RCM review of the equipment which was the rate
determining step behind each shutdown intervention
• We examined how some simple design changes would have an
impact on shutdown duration
• Revealed that the initial programme emerged from equipment
manuals written in the 1960s and that subsequent technological
improvements had not been taken into account
• Built a programme to change the shutdown content planning
Benefits
• 44 days per four years reduced to just ten days per four years –
an improvement of 77%
• Planned flaring reduced by 65%
• Project awarded Chairman’s Prize for HSE
27. 0 2 4 6 8 10
After
Before
# of trips
8
2
-75%
95
96
97
98
99
100
Compressor 1 Compressor 2 Compressor 3
Before After
target
% Availability
Element 5 – Reliability Improvement Process
Reliability problems are rarely just maintenance
problems and require a multi-disciplinary approach
The Challenge
• This client had a 3x50% fleet of gas export booster compressors
whose reliability was unacceptably low
• The machines were “identical” yet their performance appeared
markedly different
• Previous attempts to improve performance had not worked
What we did
• We led an RCM review with a user group drawn from operations,
maintenance and process engineering functions
• Conducted a detailed analysis of the production, maintenance and
condition monitoring data coupled with interviews in the field
• Revealed commissioning errors, start-up procedure problems,
inappropriate maintenance and incorrect system knowledge.
• Built a programme to tackle performance
Benefits
• Trips reduced by 75%
• Unscheduled downtime eliminated
• Fleet availability now exceeding delivery target
• Awarded “Project of the year” by gas director
29. People
• Tailored org. structure
• Clear roles and resp.
• Capability development
• Performance mgmt.
Business processes
• Best practices (e.g. RCM)
• Integrated value chain
• High capability
• Fast & cost effective
Management system
• KPIs and score cards
• Linked to strategy
• Decisions and actions
• Accountabilities
Performance culture
• Learning organisation
• Always testing the current
• Continuous improvement
Behaviours
• Fact based dialogue
• Team based vs. individual
• Embedded & ingrained
Results
• Delivered and sustained
• Owned by organisation
• Achieved by organisation
Technology
• Capitaldevelopment strategy
• Technology integration
• Operational readiness&delivery
• Assetoptimisation &decomm
Developing a performance culture requires
improving processes, management
systems, organisational alignment, and
technology deployment
You only achieve improved results if you change the
way your people work……
30. This has to be done carefully, so we help you ensure
that each step is thought through and tested
Establish
sustainable
performance
improvement
Assess operational & business
issues and quantify
improvement opportunities
Technical audit & gap analysis
Quantification and
prioritisation of options
Preliminary recommendations
Mobilisation of organisation
Define and
agree scope
Identify
business &
technical
issues
Align
accountable
business
leaders
Implement planned improvements through organisational,
management and technical levers
Implementation of technical solutions & recommendations
Strategic alignment of capital investments to improve ROI
Deliver financial, operational and technical
results
1 week 4-8 weeks 6-12 months
ImplementationScoping
Agree
hypotheses,
analysis
objective and
Structure
Qualify operational issues
and quantify
improvement
opportunities
Deliver financial and operational
results
Analysis
31. Contact details for our key people
Tony Geraghty
Senior Vice President, Reliability SME
E: anthony.geraghty@advisian.com
P: + 44 (0) 771 734 6660
Gavin Hall
Global Head, Operational Excellence
E: gavin.hall@advisian.com
P: + 44 (0) 778 755 0521
32.
33. DISCLAIMER
This presentation has been prepared by a representative of Advisian.
The presentation contains the professional and personal opinions of the presenter, which are given in good faith. As such, opinions presented herein may not always necessarily reflect the position of
Advisian as a whole, its officers or executive.
Any forward-looking statements included in this presentation will involve subjective judgment and analysis and are subject to uncertainties, risks and contingencies—many of which are outside the
control of, and may be unknown to, Advisian.
Advisian and all associated entities and representatives make no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of information in this document and do not take responsibility
for updating any information or correcting any error or omission that may become apparent after this document has been issued.
To the extent permitted by law, Advisian and its officers, employees, related bodies and agents disclaim all liability—direct, indirect or consequential (and whether or not arising out of the negligence,
default or lack of care of Advisian and/or any of its agents)—for any loss or damage suffered by a recipient or other persons arising out of, or in connection with, any use or reliance on this presentation or
information.
