1.05 Asset Management Planning

This presentation will provide a detailed look at how Manitoba Hydro builds and applies whole-life cost models for the purpose of projecting performance, cost, and risk for an asset class. The application of predictive analytics, through the use of these models, will be discussed as it relates to a single asset class, to mature Manitoba Hydro’s asset management strategy.

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report 33% to 50% of their asset and process safety information is either missing, incomplete, inconsistent, or outdated?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.

If we were to do reliability analysis on certain assets, which assets are worth our effort and provide the greatest impact? To solve this, our team developed a focused methodology to help us identify which asset types need to be further analyzed in the coming years. Our goal is to identify the asset type that causes the highest generation of lost opportunity cost and the highest maintenance costs. Ideally, the generation of lost opportunity cost should be added to maintenance cost. Lost opportunity cost is calculated from existing operational performance data, which is collected and used for NERC GADS (North American Electric Reliability Corporation Generating Availability Data System) reporting. Maintenance cost is calculated from maintenance history in CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System). The operational performance and maintenance history data are illustrated using a Pareto chart. As a result, the asset type that causes the highest generation of lost opportunity cost can be identified from the chart. However, asset types with the highest maintenance costs may not indicate the asset type with the most issues. Besides, the NERC GADS codes may be related to one or more assets in CMMS and, therefore, need a relationship to be created if the costs are to be added.

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.

During the pandemic, mental health became a topic of conversation more than ever. The actions taken by our employers can have a direct impact on our mental health. Asset management (AM) is growing in impact, but are the two connected? The session will review how good AM can improve mental health and how bad processes can damage employees’ mental health.

Asset decommissioning is a large and fast-growing business. However the full comprehension of the program terms for both cost and the complexity of this execution phase in an assets lifecycle is regularly misunderstood. This presentation will discuss the ways to find the right model for asset decommissioning. As the world moves quickly on the path to carbon neutrality, replacing our aging assets with a clean-energy option is a critical step towards the reduction of large (GHG) greenhouse gas producing assets. As a part of our enterprise mission throughout the world in all industrial sectors, the immediate "turn on the switch" to carbon neutral will be met with increasing challenges of supply and demand and our new race to the green planet. Now, seen as a corporate responsibility rather than a burden, our mission bears greater challenges than just reducing carbon, and poses another layer of complexity when deciding what, when and how to decommission while balancing significant capital investments to remain sustainable. If our current practices for our assets life-cycle; from design through to operational phase are without standardization, we then introduce greater technical challenges, economic cost and psycho-social challenges that affect our workforce retention during the end of the assets life. While we collectively align to combat our climate crisis, we also enter deeper into a "Throwaway" Society. World-wide decommissioning has become a "hot topic" as we see many assets reaching their end of life, while at the same time climate change takes center stage. As the increased public eye adds another layer of scrutiny over asset decommissioning, we need to create an efficient and effective program that will accept "green" decommissioning, supporting a circular economy through recycling and waste reduction, while looking towards ways to reuse existing assets for renewable energy transformation.

Join us for an opportunity to learn about what we must consider for asset management with new constraints to the supply chain. We will delve into shipping restrictions, budget changes and planning considerations. We will also touch on opportunities that have risen out of the learns from the past two years and moving forward with the risks in mind. 

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.

The energy landscape is shifting with the rise in electrification of transit and the rise of renewable energy shaping a new energy era that is changing the way we think about infrastructure decision making. This presentation will articulate how electrification of transit and an increase in renewables will impact medium and long-term infrastructure planning by providing examples and a practical perspective (case study) to demonstrate how Asset Management decision-making played a vital role in a utility company’s response to this change. This utility company is a key contributor to several electrification initiatives. They recognized the challenge associated with these initiatives and the overall success of the first implementation phase with minimal disruption to current operations. They are also preparing for electrification of the government transit’s first all-electric bus garage to support future procurements of battery-electric buses (eBuses) and will be working on the design and implementation of charging systems infrastructure across the city(?). Over the past 20 years, more than 50 renewable energy systems have been installed on City buildings and properties. In 2020, the city developed recommendations for the utility to achieve greater outcomes for energy efficiency, demand management, and renewable energy. The city also mandated installation of renewable energy systems on all buildings, where feasible, by 2020. The rate of development in electrification and technology in the transit sector is faster than implementation of major infrastructure developments; changes in demand patterns impact everything from the transmission and distribution networks to generation, dispatch and peak-load system capacity design; so it is not possible to “wait and see” before committing to infrastructure investment decisions. This presentation will cover how the utility is dealing with these changes by ensuring an appropriate long-term decision-making framework is in place to assure business continuity and reduce the impact on climate because it poses a particular risk for asset owners and operators. AMCL will present best practices for long-term decision-making and how the impact of change should be taken into account during the development of long-term infrastructure planning processes, in the context of a public utility.

We’ve all heard time and time again the value that Planning and Scheduling brings to a Maintenance organization. But, is your organization fully realizing this value? If Planning and Scheduling is intended to be a “wrench time multiplier” of you Maintenance Technicians, have you looked at the “wrench time” of your Planners and Schedulers? What are the potential barriers preventing them from achieving the ultimate goals of their roles? Can one Maintenance Planner really bring the same effective value as 15-17 tradespersons in your organization? Likely not, and it isn’t the fault of your Planners and Schedulers. In this presentation we’ll review the planning and scheduling function, define what it really is, and more importantly what it is NOT. We’ll also take a close look at many of the “value vampires” common in Planning and Scheduling that detract from the intended value generation. We’ll compare what an ideal Day-in-the-life of a Maintenance Planner should be against the realities they so commonly face. The intent of this presentation is to help you understand Why Planning and Scheduling is likely less effective than it could be in your organization. More importantly, this will hopefully trigger changes that help the Planners and Schedulers in your teams do more of what they do best.