ReliabilityWeb, an organization that publishes online magazines on Asset Management, had this article posted on the IBM website. The company, along with IBM, Bentley Systems, CH2M-Hill, MRG, Copperleaf Technologies, and Nexus Global, collaborated on producing this report. Of the various industries that supplied data, the dominant was a miscellaneous category, then oil and gas, transportation, and water/wastewater. Others included government/public sector, electric/power generation, and other manufacturing. All other categories fell below 5 percent. Over 97 percent of respondents had leading roles in asset management or contributed to or supported asset management. The largest percentage, 33 percent, worked in organizations that ranged from 1,000 to 9,999 in size and resided in the United States (20%) or the United Kingdom (14%). Those that classified themselves as multi-national or global consisted of 16%.
In the introduction to the article, the authors mentioned the implementation of ISO55000, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) criteria for asset management. In response to this ISO effort and the ISO31000, the authors stated, "As we explore the value of this work and its impact on the effectiveness of delivering the triple bottom line of people, plant and profits, we get more enthusiastic about the potential of asset management enabled through reliability" (p. 3). Within the context of the ISO standards, the authors addressed the topics of practices, investments, and challenges.
The authors began with a discussion of risk. Most respondents knew of the ISO55000 Asset Management standards. Of the ISO31000, the Risk Management Standard, only a small percentage, 14%, had in-depth knowledge of the standard; 32% had no knowledge at all even though ISO55000 references ISO31000. For a full understanding of asset management, the author stressed the importance of covering both standards. Additionally, incorporating these asset management standards into the ISO business process framework facilitated the acceptance of ISO as it pertains to asset management. Of the companies surveyed, 50% had ISO certifications and 50% did not.
With this background on the level of sophistication to establish corporate criteria, the authors queried their asset management population on their long and short-range plans. Asset management reliability improvements, asset management training, and asset performance measures and metrics topped the list for the 2015 to 2019 period. The authors attributed the similarity of these goals to the goals in 2014-2015 to the lack of capital during the recession in 2007/2008 to engage in improvements. Furthermore, a majority of respondents claimed that they would seek ISO55000 certification within the next five years. In addition to obtaining certification, 57% had or will conduct asset management benchmarking within 5 years.
The article stated, "Many organizations equate an asset information management system with their computerized maintenance management system" (p. 14). Only approximately 20% felt that their asset management systems supported their maintenance efforts. Specifically, 7% responded, "I am not sure what asset information management is"; 11% responded, "Does not support any of our asset management strategies and plans"; 63% responded, "It supports some aspects of asset management but has gaps for other aspects; and 19% responded, "It fully supports effective asset management" (p. 14). That most respondents attributed organizational culture as the dominant obstacle to improvement asset management, the authors emphasized the benefits of "lifecycle cost reductions, identifying and managing risk" (p. 17). With these cost saving benefits, asset management organizations could argue for corporate support in developing more robust asset management programs.
With permission from Reliability Web at http://www.reliabilityweb.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment