2.9 Outsourcing

The City of Winnipeg faced challenges with the condition of their Return Activated Sludge (RAS) piping within the North End Sewage Treatment Plant. Non-destructive and destructive condition assessment techniques were used to determine that the critical process piping was life expired, and required replacement or rehabilitation to maintain process level of service until the plant is upgraded. Replacement of a RAS piping system is akin to major heart surgery on a sewage treatment plant. To manage the process risk, in situ structural renewal using an engineered Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) external wrap system to encapsulate the original carbon steel piping was chosen. Selection of the rehabilitation method reduced the schedule by two years compared to the replacement option and minimized operational risk, as process outages were reduced to a few short-term events. Offline testing of mock-ups and emphasis on environmental and quality control further managed the risks associated with CFRP installation. The project faced unique challenges due to the complex configuration of the RAS piping, which was located inside a congested plant gallery with surrounding equipment, piping, and electrical services in continuous operation. To effectively convey information during planning, design, tender, and construction, a digital 3D model was developed using laser scanning to capture the detailed configuration of the piping and surrounding physical constraints. The 3D model was embedded with data to define the rehabilitation scope, locations of existing pipe leaks requiring immediate repair, rework of pipe supports to accommodate the CFRP installation, and other aspects relevant to the work. This model was a highly effective tool used for collaborative review by all project team members throughout design and construction, leading to successful completion of the RAS piping rehabilitation.

As maintainers, we know there is a lot of value in what we do. Without our work, plant, and equipment will soon stop and our companies will then go out of business. What we do impacts safety, health, revenues, costs, and company reputation. A dirty little truth about maintenance is that it is only we who work in it, that really know the value of what we do – or do we? We do know our value in qualitative terms, but can we quantify it? Most maintenance can be improved and we know it. We can do things more efficiently, and we can keep things running more reliably. We often know how to do that, but when we want to make those improvements there is no money for them. Why? Most business people know very little about what we do and how it impacts their business. They see maintenance as a repair shop. We fix what breaks. And they know little, or nothing, more. They may know that maintenance represents a significant cost, and they may even know that they can’t get away with cutting it too much. But they do not know the full value of what maintenance can deliver, nor what it takes to deliver it. If you want to make improvements you need a decision-maker, someone with executive-level authority, to back you up. To get that, you will need to explain what value you can deliver, and in terms they can understand. You will need to show them the savings that are possible from doing things more efficiently, and the added revenues that can arise from investment in defining the right work. You will also need to show them how their support is needed to bring operators and the supply chain into the team with you to make those changes happen so that benefits are fully realized. Quantifying value and being simple in how you say it matters.

Do those that manage the performance, understand the measures?

This article will be discussing the issues and some causes of bad parts.

How well is your MRO Stores system integrated with your maintenance requirements to ensure effective support of your organization’s maintenance efforts?Most of MRO stores efforts are to provide parts and materials to both Operations and Maintenance. For this article, the focus will be upon MRO stores support of Maintenance.

Asset-intensive industries have changed radically because of regulatory and technological changes. This has allowed many new investors to enter existing markets and forced established companies to consider new markets for growth. Simultaneously, new technology has levelled the playing field as high efficiency changes economies of scale and market dynamics. To manage their risks and uncertainties associated with new technology, while still focusing on improving profits, many asset owners look to outsourcing part of the physical asset management responsibility to specialized operations and maintenance companies. The owners gain advantages through the transfer of non-core activities to the supplier to reduce costs or to reduce risk. Whatever the rationale for outsourcing, the owner requires a method to evaluate outsourcing options to determine which is right for it, given its own internal capacity and strategy. The decision process must be capable of selecting the right type of service level based on a number of tangible and intangible strategic criteria. This type of multi-faceted decision necessitates process based on a sound theoretical foundation that can compare different options against the critical criteria of lifecycle costs, revenue influences, quality, health and safety, and other key drivers. In this workshop, we’ll look at a case study model using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) as a tool capable of evaluating this type of diverse multi-levelled decision. AHP is simple and straightforward, and uses an easy-to-understand hierarchical structure to sort criteria based on their relative importance.  

In 2017, the LINK Automated People Mover (APM) at Toronto Pearson International Airport transported an average of 24,000 passengers per day — a 20% increase in passenger traffic from 2015, according to a 2017 report by the GTAA. To increase operational service levels, preventative maintenance optimization (PMO) initiatives were undertaken in 2015 and 2016 in co-ordination with the APM owner, manufacturer, and O&M service provider. The initiatives were designed to increase the overall day-to-day operational run-time of the LINK system while maintaining existing levels of safety and reliability. In this workshop, we’ll use the LINK APM system as a case study to discuss the requirements for successful PMO implementation, which include interorganizational communication and co-operation, RCM strategies, and due diligence as it relates to safety-related subsystems and processes. We’ll also offer a blueprint for similar optimization strategies.

With all the talk about big data and the IIoT, many are asking how can we use this in maintenance? The IIoT enables us to put sensors in any location where we might want to collect and analyze equipment condition and performance data. There are companies that offer predictive maintenance services, and some companies do this for themselves, in-house. Typically, it’s the larger companies that can afford this, but democratization has meant this has become available to a much broader market. But there are hurdles to taking advantage of this sort of continuous monitoring program, even for your most critical equipment. One, it’s expensive, whether you do it in-house or outsource. And two, there are data bottlenecks. Condition monitoring data comes is huge volumes and it’s all time-sensitive. Even if you can afford it, you need a data handling network with a lot of capacity. In this workshop, we’ll present a viable technical solution to the data bottleneck problem — based on a solution already proven in financial securities markets — that opens up these possibilities in the realm of plant continuous condition monitoring.