Monday, February 1, 2016

Asset Performance Management 2.0: Stakeholders Rule

By Mike K Williams, MESA APM Working Group member

Asset Performance Management (APM) is a well-used term with varied meaning based on whom you ask.  It can span the spectrum of solution space from device monitoring and diagnostics, to equipment reliability and condition-based maintenance, to overall equipment effectiveness reporting, to IS0 55000 management systems.  All of which address different stakeholders with different objectives and scorecards.  


This confusion on definition, scope, and ultimately value contribution has degraded the credibility of APM solutions in the eyes of the end users.

Interviews with APM clients have revealed a skepticism in the value proposition of APM solutions after initial implementations have been completed.  The lingering questions remain:

  1. “Has APM value been oversold?” 
  2. “Have the APM solutions been improperly installed?” “
  3. “Can I generate more value through enhancing my APM solution?”
The MESA APM 2.0 team is addressing the conflicts. The team has identified the need to revitalize and redefine the mission of asset performance management as a key enabler of improving return on assets in highly capital-intensive manufacturing industries. 

But, to reposition APM, one must first address the application of these solutions from the eyes of the asset stakeholders.  


ASSET STAKEHOLDER NEEDS


Stakeholders require different pieces of asset information at different stages of the asset lifecycle.  In many cases the ownership of asset information changes with time thus requiring various forms of interaction between the responsible functions.


It is believed that future APM 2.0 solutions require a higher degree of both horizontal and vertical integration of shop floor and enterprise asset information. However, this information originates and is stored in a variety of different sources and formats with different time horizons depending on the end user need.


To solve this rather complex integration issue practitioners should analyze the type of information, the frequency of access, and the format required by each asset stakeholder.  Then, capture and report asset information in the appropriate context such that it can be conveniently queried and analyzed to make timely decisions on the disposition of the assets.


APM 2.0


It is proposed that revised APM 2.0 solutions follow a stage-wise, asset lifecycle management workflow as a guiding theme for asset information interactions and systems integration. These revised solutions should facilitate functional collaboration and data-based decisions on both tactical and strategic utilization of capital assets.


The MESA APM 2.0 working team intends to explore and publish revised models and guidelines to improve and extract more business value from existing and future APM implementations.


If you would like to learn more about APM, check out these resources: https://services.mesa.org/ResourceLibrary/ViewCategory/34624085-75e9-4dad-9dc5-3fdb66f528b8 

https://services.mesa.org/ResourceLibrary/ShowResource/4a6faf36-29ef-4c39-b551-ae35a9e74b65 

To join or speak to the APM 2.0 working group, visit: http://www.mesa.org/en/modelstrategicinitiatives/APM.asp?_mid_=34361 


About the Author: 















Mike K Williams is a member of the Asset Performance Management (APM 2.) working team which is addressing the issues surrounding the revitalization and repositioning of asset performance management as an enhanced value creating solution for capital intensive manufacturing industries.  He is an independent consultant on the topics of process control and Manufacturing Operations Management systems as the sole proprietor of Modern Automation Consulting Services, LLC.  Mike previously worked for 39 years as an internal manufacturing IT project manager and business consultant for The Dow Chemical Company.


Post a Comment