FFS Forum: The Value of Knowing Why: Knowing How to Run the Software Isn’t Good Enough

Introduction

I’ve been teaching a short course on API 579 Fitness-for-Service for over 20 years. It’s a 3-day course and goes into some depth. My goal has always been to address several things:

1. Provide an understanding of the structure, organization, and philosophy of the document.
2. Explain the rules – that is, what are the steps to performing Level 1 or 2 assessment?
3. Provide a link to the underlying engineering principles so the user understands why the rules make sense.

Every now and then, as happened recently, someone approaches me to suggest that I convert this to software-based training where problems are presented and worked in one of the several API 579 software packages currently available on the market. The argument is:

“We all use software to solve these FFS problems. Wouldn’t it be best to teach us to effectively use the software?”

My answer is a resounding NO!

Why?

It’s not that I’m against software training. Many specialized engineering programs have a difficult user interface and aren’t particularly intuitive. These issues can be addressed by specialized training in the software itself. However, the larger part of the difficulty with the application of most engineering software packages is traceable to a lack of understanding of the underlying subject matter.

Knowing how to operate the software is necessary but not sufficient. It’s like when we were studying engineering. Our professors didn’t start us out with a beam bending equation. They started with a derivation of the beam bending equation. What are the assumptions and inputs, derive the formula – and then solve it. If you understand why it works, you can make judgments on what’s important and what’s not and maybe figure out how to accommodate variations from the basic assumptions.

The value to the plant (and your co-workers) of this broader understanding is immense. Analysis based on a weak understanding of the underlying principles is more likely to be incorrect, with adverse consequences to business performance, the environment, and the lives of ourselves and our co-workers.