UMS Group Europe

Office: +31 20 561 70 33
info@umsgroup.com

UMS Group Blog

Why the “silver bullet” in Strategic Asset Management Solutions doesn’t exist!?! 


There are two mainstream approaches in the Strategic Asset Management Planning (SAMP) solution in the market; Top-Down and Bottom-Up.

Top-Down approach:
In this type of application the portfolio of projects is evaluated with a strategic decision making framework that is derived from stakeholder needs. The strategic elements or objectives driving the investment selection process are also weighted in terms of relative priority.

This approach functions best in companies that have to deal with many constraints (e.g. budget, resources, productivity etc.) and where, due to external drivers, the asset base is growing or shrinking significantly. The stakeholder approach will help to select the best project within the constraints. The downside is that smaller projects often can’t compete with larger projects during optimisation and adjustments and calibration need to be applied to compensate. A good example of a potential user of this approach would be an airport faced with significant growth and, as such, a large number of CAPEX expansion projects.

Bottom-Up approach:
In this type of application the asset is the starting point. Methods applied are similar to RCM and FMECA analyses. An initial assessment approach often includes an inventory of functional failures, impact of failure and best estimate of frequency.
This approach is not as effective when you have to deal with rapid external changes like new or amended laws or large scale expansion. However, it fits very well to production locations that are relatively stable in configuration and need to be managed within given constraint. A good example would be a coal fired plant where a life extension decision has been made resulting in 10 more operating years before decommissioning.

In the decision making process the asset class and the location play an important role.

Some companies (e.g. gas transmission company) have implemented a method where early in the process the criticality of locations from a risk perspective is the main optimisation parameter. They first select the most critical location and after that develop a maintenance or replacement solution that is most efficient for that particular location. The optimisation is location focused and independent from asset class.
Other companies have implemented a method considering assets and asset classes. At the end of the process, they collectively optimize all planned maintenance and replacement projects in one bucket and apply algorithms to maximise value or minimise risks.

Both optimisation approaches can work. The optimum approach for optimisation depends on the context of the organisation. There are currently no EAM solutions that have equally incorporated both approaches, so there is no true “silver bullet” to effective decision making that covers all.

So be wise ask for advice!

See more Point of View – Enterprise Asset Management Solutions

 

More UMS Group blogs

                                                                                                                                                                      

The ‘Wormhole” in Enterprise Asset Management Systems
Versnellen van de energietransitie hoe dan!
“From Risk to Resilience…”
All for one ITAMS community, one ITAMS community for all?!