Читать книгу Cover Your A$$ets - John L. Ross - Страница 10
ОглавлениеThe Asset Management Standards
“ ...Standardized work was never intended by Toyota to be a management tool to be imposed coercively on the workforce. On the contrary, rather than enforcing rigid standards that can make jobs routine and degrading, standardized work is the basis for empowering workers and innovation in the work place.” —Jeffrey Liker, The Toyota Way (p. 145)
We’ve arrived at the heart of the matter. As laid out in Chapter 1, our focus on asset management will be on capital assets going forward. Therefore, we are going to take a comprehensive look at what the standard refers to as physical assets. Physical assets, in the ISO 55000 series of standards, refer to many different categories, but it is the equipment that we will be focused on in this chapter, and in this book. To be absolutely clear, the ISO 55000 series of standards refers to many types of assets (e.g., financial, human, etc.), but we are going to concentrate on the physical, or capital, assets. This is essentially what I call “the stuff that makes the stuff.”
If you are not familiar with the ISO 55000 series, there are actually three standards to consider:
1. ISO 55000 Asset management—Overview, principles, and terminology
2. ISO 550001 Asset management—Management systems and requirements
3. ISO 55002 Asset management—Management systems and guidelines for the application of ISO 55001
This chapter will undoubtedly be the most heavily sourced and technical chapter of this book. We will lay out the foundation of ISO 55000 and all supporting standard documentation to provide a feel for what is expected. Will you be an expert after reading this chapter? Probably not, but with the information added in the following chapters you will be able to form a very successful asset management plan around physical assets. Again, this particular chapter is just a short synopsis of the ISO 55000 series of standards. More detail will be unpacked in the following chapters.
If you are in a company that is heavily invested in Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), do not lose heart. Asset management and these series of standards do not supersede the TPM methodology. If anything, ISO 55000 enhances TPM and provides the catalyst you might need to drive forward with your strategy.
Let’s get started.
As mentioned, there are three standards that make up the ISO 55000 series of standards. The foundational standard is ISO 55000. Although this particular standard is understandably vague, it provides the necessary underlying context to start building your asset management program.
The purpose of putting such a standard together in the first place is explained in the opening text. Reading into the ‘official’ language of this international product, it is clear that the global community of standards entities felt it necessary to institutionalize the knowledge that the world possesses on such things. In its introductory segment, ISO 55000 speaks to the international cooperation between countries and the ‘standards’ organizations within those countries as the authority for compiling this list of mandated practices. ISO 55000 and the subsequent and compatible standards are very broad in scope. This is on purpose to provide some flexibility for the organizations that are adopting and seeking certification for asset management.
My faith in this approach was greatly enhanced when I noted that some of the sources for these books were standard reading for any reliability and maintenance professional. Source documents for ISO 55000, 55001, and 55002 include works from Ron Moore, Terry Wireman, and Ramesh Gulati. I specified this so that you, the reader, will appreciate that nothing mentioned and required in these standards should be unknown to us. It is literally the conversation we’ve been having for decades about how to best care for our equipment. Now the word is out to the masses.
Target Audience
If we fail in the implementation of asset management, I believe it will be because of this particular section right at the beginning of the standard. ISO 55000 lists the primary targets for the creation and deployment of such a far-reaching directive. Specifically:
■ All those engaged in determining how to improve the returned value for their companies from their asset base (this means all assets, but we are focused on physical assets)
■ All those who create, execute, maintain, and improve an asset management system
■ All those who plan, design, implement, and review the activities involved with asset management
Why my concern? Read that bullet list again and ask yourself if that sounds like the responsibility of the maintenance department. If we are not careful, as an operating plant, a facility, or an organization, we are very likely to make asset management a maintenance program. Read further into the standards and you will understand why everyone needs to be engaged in managing the company assets. This is not a maintenance program!
Benefits of the Standards
To be certain, this is an international product. I mentioned at the start of this book that I was deeply concerned. I said that I was writing this book under duress. This section on the benefits was the root of my angst. I even sarcastically stated that all we needed to do to get the attention of upper management in regards to caring for the plant equipment was to write an international standard.
All kidding aside, there are tangible benefits for everyone from getting them on board and identifying their specific roles and responsibilities as they relate to developing a standard approach and training to conform to the stated practices. ISO 55000 states that the importance of an asset management system is that it is sustainable. In order to be sustainable, there has to be some assurances that the objectives of the organization are being met both effectively and efficiently. Isn’t that what most of us have been pleading for over the decades? This is our chance to do great things together as a plant, a company, and an organization.
Influencing Factors
There are a number of influencing factors regarding the organization’s operating environment, budget, and expectations from the stakeholders. All these are taken into consideration when we set up an asset management system and execute the required activities. We also monitor and take into account the environs of our particular situation by maintaining the system and being engaged in a process of continuous improvement to address risk and capture opportunities.
The governing idea behind the asset management standard is that the asset plan that is created by this structured and well-vetted approach essentially will translate the company’s goals and objectives into decisions, plans, and executable actions. This must be accomplished using a risk-based approach.
That last line should be a dog whistle to each of us to adopt a risk-based approach to asset decision making. It has been my experience that very few organizations actually have such a technique being utilized in their facilities. Keep in mind that:
Risk = Probability x Consequence
Risk is reduced by reducing probability (frequency) and/or consequence (severity). Figure 2-1 is an example of a risk matrix. Let this, or something similar, be a guiding element in all your decision making.
In clearer appreciation for this risk-based approach, ISO 55000 states that it is through the management of the risk, and the capture of opportunities that an organization can realize value in their assets and have a desired balance of cost-to-risk-to-performance.
Figure 2-1 A risk matrix
Adapted with permission by Marshall Institute, Inc.
The directive from this initial standard’s overview is that top management, employees, and stakeholders are enlisted into the effective management of the assets. Again, we are speaking of physical assets, but the standard is applicable to all forms of assets, as the company identifies them. The individuals and groups just mentioned are responsible for establishing and executing control activities, monitoring those activities and working to minimize risks against the asset losing value, and again, capitalizing on those opportunities that would increase the value. Such control activities include, but are not limited to processes and policies.
Let’s pause here and give this some deeper thought. “Top management” is required to implement planning control activities, monitor those activities, and reduce risks to an acceptable level. The standard purposefully keeps the definition of “top management” vague. It can mean the upper echelon of a plant staff or the C-suite executives of a corporation. The standard identifies top management as the highest person or people who has or have authority to direct and control the resources of the organization.
On the few lines that follow, list the ways your top management implements planning control activities to reduce risks:
What comes to mind is an executive leadership body that insists on reliability upgrades and maintenance enhancing preventive and corrective maintenance. They (the top brass) effectively manifest this insistence by requiring that production stop for maintenance activities and participate in all forms of operator care, or autonomous maintenance. This is not often the case. For implementation of the ISO 55000 standards, the top leadership often needs to change their view of the priorities.
The standard lays this requirement on everyone, even the employees. Repeat this exercise again. In the space provided, list the ways that the production supervisor might implement planning control activities to reduce risks:
In this example, I’m reminded of the production supervisor who insists that maintenance PMs be performed on time. Also, this would be a supervisor who diligently requires that operators keep their equipment clean and run their machinery properly. This supervisor is someone who is engaged in the process.
Here is a final thought for this section. The standard’s language quoted in an earlier paragraph mentioned that these actions are necessary to bring risks down to an “acceptable level.” When a standard calls out such a subjective phrase, it is contingent upon the leadership to define (in writing) what the acceptable level is. In this case, there is a need for a documented interpretation for “acceptable level.” We touched on this phrase in the previous chapter. At your location, what do you understand the phrase acceptable level of risk to mean? Record your thoughts here:
Fundamentals
To be effective, any standard, policy, or process has to have fundamental elements. Those elements must be present (meaning they exist, in writing), must be consistently deployed or executed, and must lead to a positive result. I have shared with many of my classes that: average x average x average does not equal world class. Neither, I say, does: average x world class x average. Fundamentals are foundational. A professional baseball player who cannot catch (a fundamental), will not be a very successful teammate nor have a long career in the majors.
The fundamentals as outlined in ISO 55000 include:
■ Value
■ Alignment
■ Leadership
■ Assurance
Further defining these fundamentals first requires an introduction to some key terms and phrases that are used throughout all three standards:
■ Organizational objectives
■ Life cycle management
■ Decision-making process
■ Stakeholders
■ Risk-based
■ Asset management system
Let’s look deeper into those four fundamentals.
VALUE
Assets, physical or otherwise, are the source of income for the company. Any asset should provide value to the company and associated stakeholders. It is important to make this distinction early; the focus of asset management is not the asset, but rather the value of the asset to the organization. Figure 1-7 is reprinted here to drive this last point home.
Figure 1-7 The result is profit (reprinted)
To make the asset-to-value connection, participants in ISO 55000 are required to present a clear statement aligning the organizational objectives with the asset management objectives. What are your organizational objectives? Have they been communicated to you? This will become a significantly important phrase. List your organizational objectives here:
Additionally, a life cycle management approach must be used to identify when and to what degree the assets will demonstrate the value that is anticipated. Remember, the life cycle of an asset doesn’t end when it is no longer useful to your organization. The asset may have life and value at another facility. The term used to describe the asset’s time of use in your facility is its asset life.
In terms of life cycle, or stages of its life cycle, ISO 55000 makes it clear that the organization must be conscious of the need for the asset, and the performance of the asset over the different levels (read that as ‘evolutions’) of its time in the organization. Furthermore, there has to be some analytical study of its performance and status during those stages of its life cycle. In other words, your organization has to have the metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in place to determine if the asset performance is returning value.
Can you list three asset performance metrics used at your company that demonstrate value-to-performance? List those here:
| 1. |
| 2. |
| 3. |
I can think of a few that might be helpful to consider:
■ Cost of goods sold
■ Conversion costs
■ Maintenance as a percentage of total Replacement Asset Value (RAV)
■ Total Effective Equipment Performance (TEEP)
The formula for TEEP is:
Utilization Time % x Availability % x Performance Efficiency % x Quality Rate %
It is essentially Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) with the Utilization value added.
The description of the ‘value’ term concludes with a notice of the requirement to establish the decision-making criteria to be used. This decision-making process must reflect the stakeholder’s needs and define the value of the decision being made. It will be interesting to note in the follow-on standards that ‘stakeholder’ refers to: customers, government regulatory agencies, and others who have a concern for the proper function of your organization’s assets. This includes the employees of an organization. It is not overly common in the United States to ask the customer what they think of your asset management plan. Their input is not generally sought, but customers always seem to be the victim of whatever asset strategy the company comes up with.
The phrase or idea of a decision-making criteria is a new one to most folks; certainly it may be to your hourly employees. Has it ever been your experience that a decision is made at the top of an organization and those left to enact the decision are left to wonder why (or how) that decision was possibly made? In the few lines provided, explain how physical asset-related decisions are made at your location. What is the decision-making criteria?
ALIGNMENT
If you’ve taken any of my classes, you have no doubt heard me say that the maintenance and reliability objectives, and now asset management objectives, should not be tangential, perpendicular, or parallel to the organizations’ objectives. They have to be congruent and right on top of the organizational objectives. Anything different leads to competing priorities.
Alignment is an interesting concept and if you play out the thought, you’d most likely conclude that from time to time, things need to be brought back into ‘alignment.’ How that is done is the real question. The asset management standards suggest that any decision on how to align and how much to align is based on data (or information), risk assessments, and what is called a decision-making process or criteria. What is key here is that the alignment is made towards what the standards call the organizational objectives. This is perhaps the most referenced phrase in all three standards. Burn this idea into your brain because it’s that important: organizational objectives.
Presumably this effort to align the asset management objectives with organizational objectives is supported by a locally designed and implemented supporting asset management system. The specification for such a support system should work to ensure that all the activities for asset management are in line with where the company is heading.
LEADERSHIP
It is not only leadership that is required to make asset management a part of the culture of the organization, but commitment. It is the commitment from the organizational leaders that is essential to improving asset management within the organization.
This fundamental section lays out the necessity of clearly defined roles and responsibilities along with a mandate that employees be competent and empowered. Once again, the term ‘stakeholders’ is mentioned in conjunction with employees, spelling out a need to consult with them regarding asset management.
Consider again the subjective terms competent and empowered. How exactly would you prove that your employees are competent and empowered? In the space provided, list several ways your organization ensures that its associates are competent and in what ways the company works to empower them:
ASSURANCE
ISO 55000 has an honorable intent, which is simply that the asset will do what it was purposed to do. If you will excuse the forced comparison, this definition is very close to Ramesh Gulati’s textbook definition of reliability: “The probability that an asset will perform its intended functions for a specific period of time under stated conditions.” (p. 53)
Asset Management vs. Asset Management System
Asset management has within its sphere the asset management system. The Venn diagram in Figure 2-2 shows this relationship.
Fortunately (yet vaguely), ISO 55000 gives us some insight into their definition of what asset management might be: generally, that all agencies of an organization will work to capture the value of an asset. Now, that’s paraphrasing the standard, but in essence, the value that assets bring to a company is a result of all the work accomplished by all the people in the company. As a result, everyone ought to be pulling in the direction of ensuring that the asset will perform according to the plan, and that the value will be recognized, just as planned. This is a purposefully broad definition and gives companies an opportunity to establish the details for themselves. I believe it is helpful to think of asset management as “how do we intend to use this machine throughout its life here to get the value from it that we hope to get here.” The word ‘here’ is italicized to make a connecting distinction to an early point regarding asset life and that an asset can provide value to another organization after your company is done with it.
Figure 2-2 Relationship of asset management and asset management system
