Below article courtesy of Bently Nevada, a BakerHughes company
In our business, there’s a tendency to designate some equipment as “essential” or “critical” and others “non-essential.” But using such a dichotomy confuses our thinking around equipment maintenance and how best to achieve reliability, safety and efficiency.
An analogy can help explain what I mean.
With a car, we’d all agree that the engine or transmission is “critical.” But what about the battery, alternator belt or tires? If any of these are broken, the car won’t run … or won’t for long.
The same applies to our plants.
Sure, there is equipment and technology that is core to the facility’s output, but the “balance of plant” is equally necessary – just try to drive with flat tires or a busted fuel pump!
What this means is that when it comes to plant maintenance, we need to treat ancillary and support equipment like we treat the assets at the heart of our plant, and that means providing similar levels of condition monitoring.
The traditional approach that focuses on online monitoring for certain key equipment and time-based or run-to-fail maintenance approaches for many other machines results in blind spots and incomplete information on other machines, such as pumps, motors, blowers and fans.
Too often, this approach results in unplanned outages and diminished performance, and even when ancillary monitoring occurs, the results offer only a piecemeal view, with information siloed and incomplete.
Holistic approach
What’s required is a holistic plant-wide condition monitoring program that performs two primary tasks: 1) monitor both core and ancillary machines and 2) aggregate and analyze the data produced by this monitoring to deliver a holistic picture of plant-wide operations.
Bently Nevada’s System 1† condition monitoring platform provides just such this solution. The platform integrates data from all monitored machines to deliver full plant visibility, along with digital insights for improved operations. Reliability managers can assess the health of nearly all plant machinery and make intelligent maintenance decisions based on real-time data.
The S1 platform deployment is flexible solution and can be on a customer premise, or as part of a Bently Nevada hosted solution. We can also offer our customers the diagnostics capability of S1 through remote monitoring & diagnostics with reliability experts to provide out customer insights to minimize downtime, and improve plant availability. This has proved to be very effective in the most recent pandemic.
The result is a transformative shift from time-based, preventive maintenance to predictive and proactive maintenance based on the actual condition of assets. By identifying issues across both core and ancillary equipment, potential problems can be addressed long before significant damage occurs, or failure happens. This means increased plant uptime, fewer unplanned outages, more efficient management of spares, and more optimal maintenance planning.
Bently Nevada brochure and fact sheet shows predictive maintenance can reduce machinery breakdowns by 70%, downtime by 40% and maintenance costs by 50%, while productivity can rise by 25%.
With more than 50 years of experience developing condition monitoring equipment for the most demanding applications, Bently Nevada offers a full range of monitoring hardware for all types of machines in all types of environments – from wired (e.g., Bently Nevada 2300 and vbOnline Pro) to wireless (e.g., Bently Nevada Ranger Pro) to portable (e.g., Bently Nevada SCOUT200). All integrate seamlessly with System 1.
I’ll illustrate this with an example from Brazil. Eldorado Brasil Celulose, the largest single-line kraft pulp operation in the world, installed our Ranger Pro Wireless sensors on equipment not previously monitored. This monitoring, in conjunction with the System 1 software platform, identified a bearing failure in a pump motor. The plant was able to track the evolution of the failure and take operational steps to mitigate the effect of the failure until maintenance could be scheduled. Emergency maintenance was avoided, saving the company more than USD 1.8 million.
Beyond maintenance and repairs, System 1 supported by plantwide monitoring delivers other benefits. With data available in a unified view, plant managers gain a single source of truth. Data silos are eliminated, helping managers identify opportunities for plant-wide efficiency gains. Root cause analysis and better fault detection are aided because of the data collected leading up to the failure. Learn more: Optimizing Your Plant Condition Monitoring Journey Can be More Effective with a Single Vendor for All Your Needs.
What’s so exciting is there’s even more we can do with plantwide condition monitoring. The next version of System 1 – System 1 Evo – further empowers operators by integrating process and control system data for even greater operational visibility. High-speed data storage capabilities allow the historizing of all data at rates up to once-per-second and then its replication for sharing across the business network. Combined with next-generation wireless and portable monitoring hardware, the opportunities to respond and optimize plant performance will continue to grow. See: Plant-Wide Monitoring with Clarity and Context.
As we adjust to the COVID-19 economic reality and prepare for what comes next in our industries, we can’t afford to rely on a conventional “critical” asset monitoring approach.
Thriving in today’s world requires fresh thinking and a new approach, and that means adopting a holistic plant-wide condition monitoring solution.
Asset Management
-
escveritas
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:40 am
- Location: Singapore
- Contact:
-
escveritas
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:40 am
- Location: Singapore
- Contact:
Re: Asset Management
5 Common Pitfalls of Traditional Asset Performance Management (APM)
With ARMS Reliability now part of the Baker Hughes group of companies, we’ve joined forces with Bently Nevada to better tackle some of the pain points faced by asset-intensive organizations. Several of those pain points relate to Asset Performance Management (APM) and traditional approaches which often fail to deliver the expected results.
Here, we examine five common pitfalls associated with traditional APM and share the benefits of a new integrated approach.
1. Putting technology before process
When an organization embarks on a digital transformation, the first thing they typically do is look for a technology solution that will deliver their targeted outcomes. It’s the same with traditional APM.
APM is often thought of as a technology as opposed to a function or objective to be achieved. As such, most organizations approach APM as a technology project. They gather all the experts and decision makers together to identify the functional and technical requirements for an APM solution and then go to market with an RFP. This thinking is compounded by providers who market APM technical solutions based on functional requirement thinking rather than process, perhaps because it matches their offerings.
Organizations also often look for a solution that simply helps them do things more efficiently, rather than choosing to redesign their process and therein lies one of their biggest mistakes. When adopting APM, it’s important to think about the process first and how to connect all of the activities that will drive the desired performance from assets, with the least cost and risk.
2. Inability to scale
When implementing new solutions for APM, it’s common practice to conduct a pilot and test one or two technologies before deploying them across sites. These pilots are generally limited to a small number of assets or even a single asset type and while they may be successful, pilots can sometimes offer false confidence. The challenge is that the technology or approach deployed may be difficult to scale across tens of thousands of assets and/or fail to deliver the expected results.
3. Lack of content
With traditional APM, it can be difficult to generate the quality content needed to drive improvement to asset strategies and care plans. Generic content can be used to supplement and validate data but traditional library structures are not effective. Organizations need an effective process to deploy generic content in a way that supports customization for operational context and to leverage that content across like assets. Otherwise, the task of creating content can be overwhelming and create an inability to scale.
4. Siloed approach
APM comprises three key functions: Asset Strategy Management (ASM), Asset Condition Monitoring (ACM), and work execution management supported by an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system. The challenge with traditional APM is that these activities and the tools used to manage them are disconnected from one another, making it difficult for organizations to get a true, overarching visualization of asset health and risk. The siloed approach also impacts efficiency and makes it difficult to prioritize and optimize resources.
5. Corporate driven
APM initiatives are often driven by head office with little input from each site on their requirements. This can lead to solutions that are not fit for purpose and poor engagement from the people carrying out the work. In many cases APM technical solution implementations are executed by large system integrators who take a one size fits all approach, creating constraints and concessions through a lack of flexibility to suit local site needs. Additionally, if solutions cannot be configured to suit local requirements, people are likely to resort to workarounds which can impact compliance and risk.
Why Integrated-APM is different
With Bently Nevada, we have evolved traditional APM into Integrated APM. This approach digitally connects the siloed functions of asset management and creates an integrated program which helps organizations demonstrate compliance, reduce risk, manage costs, and deliver predictable performance.
Integrated APM also supports continuous improvement of asset care and reliability. For example, any operating context or asset changes can be reflected in asset strategies and monitoring applications in real-time. Connection to the EAM application and work management process drives any changes through to work execution in the field.
The result is a dynamic and agile approach to equipment maintenance and reliability which when compared to traditional approaches is more efficient, effective and scalable.
With ARMS Reliability now part of the Baker Hughes group of companies, we’ve joined forces with Bently Nevada to better tackle some of the pain points faced by asset-intensive organizations. Several of those pain points relate to Asset Performance Management (APM) and traditional approaches which often fail to deliver the expected results.
Here, we examine five common pitfalls associated with traditional APM and share the benefits of a new integrated approach.
1. Putting technology before process
When an organization embarks on a digital transformation, the first thing they typically do is look for a technology solution that will deliver their targeted outcomes. It’s the same with traditional APM.
APM is often thought of as a technology as opposed to a function or objective to be achieved. As such, most organizations approach APM as a technology project. They gather all the experts and decision makers together to identify the functional and technical requirements for an APM solution and then go to market with an RFP. This thinking is compounded by providers who market APM technical solutions based on functional requirement thinking rather than process, perhaps because it matches their offerings.
Organizations also often look for a solution that simply helps them do things more efficiently, rather than choosing to redesign their process and therein lies one of their biggest mistakes. When adopting APM, it’s important to think about the process first and how to connect all of the activities that will drive the desired performance from assets, with the least cost and risk.
2. Inability to scale
When implementing new solutions for APM, it’s common practice to conduct a pilot and test one or two technologies before deploying them across sites. These pilots are generally limited to a small number of assets or even a single asset type and while they may be successful, pilots can sometimes offer false confidence. The challenge is that the technology or approach deployed may be difficult to scale across tens of thousands of assets and/or fail to deliver the expected results.
3. Lack of content
With traditional APM, it can be difficult to generate the quality content needed to drive improvement to asset strategies and care plans. Generic content can be used to supplement and validate data but traditional library structures are not effective. Organizations need an effective process to deploy generic content in a way that supports customization for operational context and to leverage that content across like assets. Otherwise, the task of creating content can be overwhelming and create an inability to scale.
4. Siloed approach
APM comprises three key functions: Asset Strategy Management (ASM), Asset Condition Monitoring (ACM), and work execution management supported by an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system. The challenge with traditional APM is that these activities and the tools used to manage them are disconnected from one another, making it difficult for organizations to get a true, overarching visualization of asset health and risk. The siloed approach also impacts efficiency and makes it difficult to prioritize and optimize resources.
5. Corporate driven
APM initiatives are often driven by head office with little input from each site on their requirements. This can lead to solutions that are not fit for purpose and poor engagement from the people carrying out the work. In many cases APM technical solution implementations are executed by large system integrators who take a one size fits all approach, creating constraints and concessions through a lack of flexibility to suit local site needs. Additionally, if solutions cannot be configured to suit local requirements, people are likely to resort to workarounds which can impact compliance and risk.
Why Integrated-APM is different
With Bently Nevada, we have evolved traditional APM into Integrated APM. This approach digitally connects the siloed functions of asset management and creates an integrated program which helps organizations demonstrate compliance, reduce risk, manage costs, and deliver predictable performance.
Integrated APM also supports continuous improvement of asset care and reliability. For example, any operating context or asset changes can be reflected in asset strategies and monitoring applications in real-time. Connection to the EAM application and work management process drives any changes through to work execution in the field.
The result is a dynamic and agile approach to equipment maintenance and reliability which when compared to traditional approaches is more efficient, effective and scalable.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest