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.

1. 1MaRS 2013
Leveraging Performance
Standards to Reduce Risk
Michael E. Poland, CMRP, CCMP
Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.

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. 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. Maturity
IBM

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. Value Creation

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. Guidelines from ISO 14224

9. Criticality Analysis

10. Determine Functions
Functional Failures
Failure Modes
Consequences
Causes
Determine Action
Proactive Default
IEC 60812
Failure Analysis

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. Future State

13. Leveraging RigMax (Maximo)
DISPATCHING/
EXECUTING

14. Performance Standard

15. Safety Case Identify Safety
Critical Systems
Develop Performance
Standards
Identify Trendable
Data and Thresholds
Create Maintenance
Tasks
Outcome

16. Path Forward

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