High-impact assets need a team approach

Collaborative efforts can bridge maintenance and design in the asset design stage.
By Prasanna Kulkarni, Comparesoft April 13, 2018
Photo by Helloquence on UnsplashEven in the age of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), sensors, and Big Data, engineering, maintenance, and design teams work on different performance indicators. Design and engineering often interact, but maintenance teams quite often are not consulted fully during the asset design stage. 
Considering that asset maintenance costs can be 3.5% of the total asset costs—for example, for an asset worth $10 million, the annual maintenance costs could be as high as $350,000—it is surprising that maintenance teams are not deeply involved during the design stage. 
There are multiple maintenance-related decisions that are taken at the asset-design stage. For example, made-to-measure components are almost always better from a design perspective but need significant planning from a maintenance perspective. 
Another big maintenance decision is where the maintenance will take place—at the point of use (first line maintenance), near the use (second line maintenance), or at the manufacturer (third line maintenance). While each type of maintenance has pros and cons, consulting the maintenance team will provide a better situational context. 
Details like fastening technique, component materials, orientation, alternative components, and testing a component have a direct impact on maintenance frameworks. 
Lifecycle of high-impact assets
High-impact assets typically go through four stages of lifecycle: 
1. Conceptual feasibility of asset design: This is a sketch phase of the assets to get a very initial (abstract-level) technical and commercial idea of the parameters under which an asset will operate. However, the principles of an asset design remain the same. The level of asset feasibility undertaken depends on the type and nature of an asset. In some cases, multiple operating parameters are studied to identify optimum technical and commercial design. 
2. Front end engineering design (basic engineering): Once the economic, technical, and commercial parameters are identified for optimum asset operations, the focus shifts to details of the asset’s design and in particular how the asset is going to be built up—engineering design, components, material, fluid conditions, operating conditions, and life expectancy of an asset are evaluated in detail in order to come up with an asset-execution blueprint. Asset prototypes and/or fabrication are finalized at this stage. 
3. Asset build-up and start-up: At this stage, the asset is built up (custom built, in batch, or in volume) and the emphasis is to start and operate the asset as close as possible to its design conditions established in the previous step. Safe start-up and operating conditions take highest priority, followed by commercial targets.
4. Asset disposal or decommissioning: Safe, sustainable, and compliant removal from service of assets is the key focus at this stage. 
Conceptual, feasibility, and front-end engineering designs focus on asset (or plant) productivity—typical parameters that take precedence are economic feasibility, asset efficiency or asset utilization rate, production efficiency, and plant/asset start-up. Elements like cost estimate and equipment sizing continue to be a key focus. Asset maintenance in most cases is considered only in Step 2 or Step 3. 
Collaborative approach to asset design
Prasanna Kulkarni, Courtesy: ComparesoftThe core reason for the misalignment is that team structures and asset engineering tools in most cases are not aligned to appreciate the total lifecycle processes of an asset. 
Typically, teams and tools are built around the four stages (conceptual feasibility, front end engineering design, asset start-up, and decommissioning) of asset design. 
Particularly, the engineering data surrounding asset design is not used fully nor deployed across all asset stages. The approach to asset design is quite often siloed and focused on individual stages. 
Overall asset efficiency and asset information can be improved significantly by creating an overarching team—an Asset Lifecycle Team. This team can be a cross-functional team made up of design engineers, process engineers, mechanical engineers, cost engineers, and project and operations managers. Taking a holistic asset lifecycle approach opens information flow between various teams and enables a better performing asset. 
The indirect advantage of forming cross-functional teams is that the overall knowledge and skillset of your project teams will be enhanced. This is mainly due to your team’s appreciation of the different stages of asset design and asset operations. 
Asset maintenance perhaps should take more precedence in the early stages of asset design, which will hopefully have a positive effect on overall asset uptime. 
Prasanna Kulkarni is founder and product architect of Comparesoft.