Leveraging Performance Standards to Reduce Risk - Houston SMRP MaRS 2013

585 views
318 views

Published on

Mike Poland will present a methodology to create a risk-based asset management strategy for safety-critical equipment of offshore oil rigs. He will cite case study examples from LCE client Atwood Oceanics, Inc. This methodology is also appropriate for other industries that require managing the asset integrity of safety and environmental management systems.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
585
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
21
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Leveraging Performance Standards to Reduce Risk - Houston SMRP MaRS 2013

  1. 1. 1MaRS 2013 Leveraging Performance  Standards to Reduce Risk Michael E. Poland, CMRP, CCMP Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
  2. 2. Key items • Asset Management Overview • Risk‐Based Asset Management Methodology • Creating the Infrastructure for Continuous  Improvement • Risk and Failure Analysis • Performance Standards • Condition‐Based Maintenance
  3. 3. Asset Management Concept Design Procure Commission Qualification Validation OperateConstruct Maintain De – commission Asset Support Asset Operation Asset Utilization  & Performance Asset  Improvement Physical Asset Portfolio Business Objectives Strategic Plan
  4. 4. Maturity IBM
  5. 5. •Learning to See Process Flow Diagram Value Stream Mapping Relationship Models Equipment Criticality Failure Analysis Risk Analysis Risk Ranking Standard Work Operating Procedures Preventive Predictive Condition Monitoring Remote Monitoring Operator Care Critical Spares OEE TCO Asset Utilization MTBF MTTR OPERATIONAL STABILITY MeasureControlAnalyzeClassify © 2013 Life Cycle Engineering Continuous Improvement Plan Do Check Act
  6. 6. Value Creation
  7. 7. Taxonomy 7 Taxonomy per ISO 14224:2006 (1) Business Category (2) Installation/ Business Unit (3) Cost Center/ Op Unit (4) Function (5) System (6) Sub system/Asset (7) Component/Maintainable Item (8) Part/ BOM Use/LocationDataEquipmentSubdivision
  8. 8. Guidelines from ISO 14224
  9. 9. Criticality Analysis
  10. 10. Determine Functions Functional Failures Failure Modes Consequences Causes Determine Action Proactive Default IEC 60812 Failure Analysis
  11. 11. Current State In general, the following apply to the current maintenance procedures:  • Most of the procedures are generic.  • Data is rarely recorded.  • There is no evidence that any data is trended.  • There are a number of very general requirements, such as “check  coupling alignment”, with no acceptance criteria defined, nor are there  instructions to accomplish.  • OEM manuals are not referenced.  • Material types and quantities are not specified. (e.g. “grease bearings”).  • Warnings/cautions/safety requirements and notes are not used.  • There doesn’t seem to be written correlation between finding  discrepancies and corrective actions. 
  12. 12. Future State
  13. 13. Leveraging RigMax (Maximo) DISPATCHING/ EXECUTING
  14. 14. Performance Standard
  15. 15. Safety Case Identify Safety Critical Systems Develop Performance Standards Identify Trendable Data and Thresholds Create Maintenance Tasks Outcome
  16. 16. Path Forward
  17. 17. 17MaRS 2013 Speaker’s Contact Information Michael E. Poland, CMRP, CCMP Life Cycle Engineering, Inc. 2500 CityWest Blvd Office: 713.267.2387 Mobile: 757.771.8155 mpoland@LCE.com www.LCE.com

×