Inspectioneering
Inspectioneering Journal

Staying on Track in a Complex Environment

Equipment Reliability and Life Cycle Cost Minimization

By Greg Alvarado at Inspectioneering Journal. This article appears in the July/August 2004 issue of Inspectioneering Journal

Introduction

The “low hanging fruit” has been harvested in most places. Now comes the challenge of gathering the most bountiful harvest, that which is amongst the leaves and branches, without harming the tree. This will require practical expertise. This will require computational models that narrow the scatter band and are more accurate that are asking the right questions (which requires practical knowledge, technical knowledge and experience = expertise). In this editorial, I will point out some of the pitfalls I see in the inspection and reliability arenas and present some insight and solutions that will help “IJ” readers stay on track and emerge more successful as a result.

There are times when using a model that is very coarse (what I call flying at the 50,000' level) is appropriate and may serve as a screening method to justify further analysis of the higher risk equipment. Usually the coarser models are used because they take less time. Although I have seen, with the creative use of computing technology coupled with practical experience, more quantitative models, that are more accurate, achieve much better results in comparable timeframes, at no additional cost/time and less subjectivity.

I really want to stress the importance of good analytical models in this editorial. There are basic considerations that you would do well to think about, seriously,

1) We often abandon tools with great computational models for a software tool that is “all things to all people” with weaker, more quantitative models, and losing metrics in the process. Here someone is looking for synergies of stored data and creating relationships that lead to the one grand master program and queriable reporting capabilities. It is a noble goal that does not need to suffer losing the effective computational models. Here are some proposed solutions:

  • Keep the original computational program/s, that makes more accurate predictions, and feed the output to an overall notification and scheduling platform that is mainly concerned with a unique equipment ID and a date with a description of the recommended course of action. You may have a multitude of such analysis programs, e.g. for fixed equipment, for rotating equipment, for instrumentation and controls, etc. whose inputs would be managed by the overall-scheduling platform. Some of these exist in CMMS programs and independently. Since most companies still have budget/cost centers for these different areas the output from the overall scheduling program would tag each item according to type.

This content is available to registered users and subscribers

Register today to unlock this article for free.

Create your free account and get access to:

  • Unlock one premium article of your choosing per month
  • Exclusive online content, videos, and downloads
  • Insightful and actionable webinars
GET STARTED
Interested in unlimited access? VIEW OUR SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS

Current subscribers and registered users can log in now.


Comments and Discussion

There are no comments yet.

Add a Comment

Please log in or register to participate in comments and discussions.


Inspectioneering Journal

Explore over 20 years of articles written by our team of subject matter experts.

Company Directory

Find relevant products, services, and technologies.

Job Postings

Discover job opportunities that match your skillset.

Event Calendar

Find upcoming conferences, training sessions, online events, and more.

Industry News

Stay up-to-date with the latest inspection and asset integrity management news.

Blog

Read short articles and insights authored by industry experts.

Asset Intelligence Reports

Download brief primers on various asset integrity management topics.

Videos

Watch educational and informative videos directly related to your profession.