2.00 Asset Management Decision Making General

The keynote will look at engagement in the topic of Asset Management with leaders within Manitoba Hydro, describe how at Manitoba Hydro we are continuing and expanding the conversation on Asset Management, and some feedback received on Manitoba Hydro’s Asset Management. It will also touch on an Asset Management system approach.

Asset management maximizes the value of physical assets while balancing cost, quality (levels of service), and risk. It is a complex and interdisciplinary task that requires strong leadership, multidisciplinary knowledge, and effective use of technology and resources. Asset management is especially challenging for public organizations that own a wide range of assets, such as roads, water, sanitary, stormwater infrastructure, facilities, parks, public art, information technology, and fleet. Furthermore, asset management is not merely a technical or a leadership role but a marrying of the whole organization. Hence, asset managers must have a holistic understanding of how their assets support the organization’s long-term goals and how to engage with various stakeholders. The presentation will explore skills, techniques and methodologies to help asset managers achieve better outcomes and meet their objectives. The approaches range from traditional methods to the latest techniques in industry and elsewhere. These include engineering, finance, project management, maintenance management, supply chain, process improvement, public engagement, design thinking, and journalism.

You are an asset owner. What confidence should you have that those operating and maintaining your assets are capable and “doing a good job”? With organizations more and more commonly outsourcing their maintenance and operations, and even the management of assets, there must be assurance activities in place, assurance to provide confidence that third parties will deliver what is asked and that their approach is sustainable in the long term. A three-lines-of-assurance approach provides asset owners, operators, and maintainers with layers of audit to assess the effectiveness of risk and control functions. The third line assessment is aligned to the audit and risk function and is for executive or board committees. This presentation will explore case studies where an organization may have benefited or has benefited from third line assurance. The three lines of assurance can be characterized as follows: First Line—how operational managers own and manage their asset risk and maintain effective internal controls; Second Line—how management establishes compliance functions that facilitate and monitor operational practices; and Third Line—expected to provide executive management, audit and risk committees, and governing boards with a means of addressing their responsibilities and accountabilities for meeting their corporate objectives or regulatory requirements. The third line is expected to provide high-level independent assurance on organizational effectiveness. Assurance is a fundamental of asset management; it should provide confidence that assets will fulfil their required purpose. It is hypothesized that, as an industry, we would do well to focus on assurance (giving and receiving) and, more importantly, capability building. Public asset owners in particular should be investing in their organizational capability, and industry should be focused on providing enduring uplift in knowledge and management system improvement. Asset owners cannot separate themselves from their assets and the realization of organizational outcomes. Independent review and advice at the third line should provide the assurance required to give confidence that those operating and maintaining your assets are capable and are “doing a good job.”

According to GFMAM Landscape, the performance of asset-intensive organizations is dependent on the quality and availability of asset data and information. So why does research indicate that 70% of plant operators report 33% to 50% of their asset and process safety information is either missing, incomplete, inconsistent, or outdated? Common complaints from maintenance planners, reliability engineers, facility engineering, process safety and compliance managers include the following: “We can’t find it,” “It’s not complete,” and “We don’t trust it.” As a result, personnel continually make safety, engineering, financial, capital, maintenance, and operational decisions without full access to complete, consistent, and up-to-date information. Such decisions are suboptimal and can cause significant loss. We call this value leakage. Have you ever wondered how much value leakage is costing your organization? Why do the underlying causes of value leakage persist, and what can you do about it? In this presentation, we examine the root causes of value leakage—from incomplete project information handover, to a lack of standards and processes. We then explore a successful framework to improve AIM, including building the business case and return on investment (ROI). Attendees of this presentation will learn how to identify value leakage and the underlying causes; how to calculate the ROI (qualitative and quantitative) of improving asset information management to reduce value leakage; and quick wins and long-term strategies for improving asset information management.

Cameco Corp. has recently deployed approximately 1,500 wireless asset condition monitoring sensors across four of its operations. This presentation will explore all aspects of this project, from initial identification of business pain, all the way through to deployment and management of the system. Condition-based monitoring of rotating assets typically involves a route that is executed at a fixed interval to collect asset condition data. This data can include vibration, temperature, acoustic emissions, and others. This data is then downloaded into software and analyzed for faults and trends. This method has many shortcomings that can be solved with remote sensing technology. This presentation will take you through Cameco’s journey of identifying the limitations of traditional data collection and why an alternative was investigated. Some of the key topics will include problems and inefficiencies with the current system, methodology used to determine which sensor company to partner with, potential cost savings and benefits, deployment strategy and execution, and some screen captures of actual asset detections. Finally, we will conclude with lessons learned and benefits realized from deploying a sensor solution.

An Intelligent machine can sense its environment, take a decision and apply an action or give a recommendation. How this can transform maintenance? With every Industrial Revolution, Maintenance tools and strategies grow to provide the needed service for this industrial era. Now what shall we do with the Augmented reality and other technologies that Industry 4.0 introduces in the production environment??! It is important to understand what AI -Artificial Intelligence in details is because it is currently part of our work and life even if we do not realize this. When we understand how AI works, we can use it as our ally. Otherwise, we shall resist its existence specially when it starts to give recommendations and report of what went good and what went bad. AI is a title frequently applied to the project of developing systems with the intellectual similar to those of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience. The human maintenance team applies its intellectual process at every situation it encounters. This intellectual process includes the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from experience. How AI does this? It is all based on software and Algorithms. There are two (2) ways for the software to yield intelligent advices or actions. You either add to it all the possible solutions of a problem and the software searches through all possibilities to find a one matching to this situation, then returns the stored actions for this possibility. Alternatively, the other way is to let the algorithms of the intelligent software infer some reasoning based on the inputs then solve the problem. . Let us relate this to maintenance

The Regional Municipality of Durham is a community that makes up the east end of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), which comprises multiple cities and townships. The region provides a multitude of services to approximately 745,000 residents and maintains $17.85 billion in assets and infrastructure. The region was using several disconnected applications and business processes to manage these services, many of which had limited functionality, reporting, and analytics, as well as a lack of integrations to other systems. In an effort to standardize and streamline these services, the region amalgamated all of the tracking of regional assets, maintenance management, and business technology processes. The region began the process of requirements gathering in 2013; at this time, a steering committee was created to govern the project, and project leads and business subject matter experts were engaged to ensure the product selected met business requirements. In 2015, the region began the procurement process: request for proposal, evaluation, vendor presentation, and negotiations. Maximo was the selected enterprise maintenance management system. Durham used a multi-phased implementation plan—including Planning, Design, Execution, and Closing—which consisted of three go-live dates. This multi-phased approach would span over the course of three years. The initial phase of the project included detailed design, organizational impact analysis, future business process design, future role modifications and development, and multiple-tiered information sessions. The organization identified current operational gaps and business process changes were required. It followed Use Case business processes with some adaptation for operational responsiveness and consistency within the To-Be roles. The business was able to retain current operational practices as much as possible but built in a structured and disciplined approach to maintaining assets. This will influence and impact the quality of analytics and reporting. Through its approach, the region was able to implement a centralized maintenance management system across multiple divisions. This implementation impacted 800 end users across 13 divisions and multiple third-party system integrations. It also performed a readiness assessment of departments, divisions, and areas and organizational, process, and technology criteria. It created a go-live and system support strategy, and monitored system, sustainability, and performance throughout the implementation process.

What if diversity and inclusion were more than what we can physically identify? What if the key to true results from diversity and inclusion initiatives wasn’t ticking boxes to ensure you have met the letter of the law? Lastly, what if diversity applied not just to affirmative action but to how your people and departments work together and the results of that collaboration (or lack thereof)? This presentation will answer these questions and discuss a framework for building a culture that not only is diverse, inclusive, equitable, and inviting but also enables synergy and productivity within your facility. We will discuss the BRIDGE principles and then apply them in a way that enables engineering, asset management, and maintenance to become productive and healthy cultures for all. Lastly, we will provide tools and strategies for empowering employees to speak up and share their ideas. This is not your typical diversity and inclusion discussion that’s generally limited to HR. This is a tool to enable diversity and inclusion from within. Whether you’re a manager or team member, or just starting out in your career, this presentation will provide you with the knowledge and skills necessary to build a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable workplace.

Within the mining industry, the library of KPIs has not kept up with data that has become increasingly available through digitization, therefore leading to an overuse of lagging performance indicators. Additionally, due to the fact that strategic corporate goals are oftentimes built on the basis of soft or perceptual measures from stakeholders, which are subjective in nature, organizations struggle with the process of linking strategic level goals to KPIs on the shop floor. Therefore, creating a communication gap between technical teams and senior management. As a consequence, maintenance leaders have a difficult time demonstrating the added value that maintenance activities create with an organization, leading to challenges in securing the resources required for things such as continuous improvement projects. Considering that the implementation of a robust KPI framework is an alignment of three key areas: people, process, and technology, the first portion of this presentation will be investigating a holistic approach to developing maintenance KPIs that are integrated into corporate strategic goals. Therefore, outlining the steps required for organizational leaders to begin standardizing data gathering procedures and creating a trustworthy system that can be leveraged for decision making. Aside from the previously discussed administrative challenges associated with data gathering within organizations, it must also be highlighted that KPIs are collected on a monthly or quarterly basis, meaning that training sets for forecasting models are extremely limited. Therefore, in order to address the reliance on lagging performance indicators within maintenance departments, a variety of time series models capable of achieving high accuracy on small datasets will be discussed along with direct business applications. Through achieving these goals, the intended outcome is to create a more contemporary data driven methodology for selecting organizational KPIs, as well as directly demonstrating the added value that the various business units create within the organization.

Traditional asset management historically prioritized infrastructure over the natural environment. This approach has led to many conflicts between the natural and built environment (e.g., flooding, pipeline exposures, property loss, etc.). As we respond to these conflicts and experience new weather patterns related to climate change, the design approaches of the past are transitioning to techniques that re-frame water and natural systems as valuable assets. Natural systems provide value to communities through the provision of ecosystem services. The realm of ecosystem services is diverse and includes flood mitigation, mental well-being, wildlife habitat, and pollution control. Understanding these services and systems allows proponents to manage and maximize the value of their natural assets. This presentation will describe two types of approach for managing natural systems as assets. The natural system type used for this discussion will be surface water drainage systems (creeks, channels, rivers, or ditches). The first approach to management is using proactive planning around natural systems to prevent conflicts between watercourses and infrastructure from occurring in the future. The second approach is used to manage existing conflicts in and around watercourses when built infrastructure cannot be relocated according to the recommended planning measures. In this case, existing conflicts can be resolved through applying knowledge of natural system function and design. Examples will be used to explore how these approaches benefit communities and project proponents alike.