Asset Strategy Performance Management (ASPM) took its first step with 1711 release and since then it has taken many steps forward. Being part of the ASPM development team I have seen its features enhancement with every release since 1711. ASPM is part of IAM portfolio -
In my blog series, I would like to share the step wise details of creating different kinds of assessment in ASPM. The details will be based on 2005 release.
Series 1: Brief Overview of ASPM and Master data setup
There are multiple blogs available on ASPM product and its features, hence in this blog series I will be focusing on the activities which the reliability engineer and maintenance planner would do using ASPM.
On a high level, ASPM provides a well-integrated solution where in, as a reliability engineer you can perform set of assessments on the asset to recommend a maintenance strategy. With its integration with other Intelligent Asset Management (IAM) products and SAP PM, reliability engineer gets a complete 360* view of the asset which helps in taking an informed decision on what kind of maintenance strategy would be appropriate for the asset. For the maintenance planner, ASPM provides a complete information on all the recommendation which are provided by the reliability engineer. The maintenance planner can further enhance the maintenance strategy and execute them.
Based on the technical breakdown of assets (example: Equipment) users can first perform a Risk & Criticality assessment of all the assets. In a matrix, they can rate probability and consequence of failure in various categories. Out of this exercise, assets are classified in different criticality and the reliability engineer can decide what should be the next actions like RCM/FMEA assessments. In case of assets with a lower criticality, the decision might result in a run-to-failure approach or following the manufacturer’s instructions set, which is being provided through SAP Asset Intelligence Network. For medium-critical assets, a review of the existing maintenance plans and task lists is recommended. New maintenance intervals can be calculated based on historic failure data. For the assets with a criticality above a certain threshold, the solution provides capabilities for performing an FMEA and RCM. With its ERP integration, user can view the maintenance plans and task list created in ERP and further enhance it by providing recommendations. A general term for continuous cycle of improvement is PDCA.
Plan - establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the specifications
Do - Asses the asset to complete the analysis
Check - monitor and evaluate the processes and results against objectives and specifications and report the outcome
Act - apply actions to the outcome for necessary improvement. This means reviewing all previous steps and modifying the process to improve it before its next implementation
The PDCA can be completely mapped with IAM portfolio as mentioned below -
Plan step is where the ASPM supports with different kinds of assessment - RCM / FMEA / Checklists
Do step is where planned maintenance gets involved via MP, Tasklists, Notifications and WO
Check step is where different kinds of analysis can be done via PdMS and SAC
Act step is again where ASPM comes in in forms of re-assessment and RCA processes(planned scope)
The ASPM solution overview is defined with six steps. The Define to Verify cycle can also be mapped to the PDCA cycle -
Define & Identify - This is the "plan" phase in which asset information is defined and criticality assessment is done on the asset which gives the strategy on how to further asses the asset if there are critical
Analyse &Recommend - This is the "do" phase in which detailed assessment are done to arrive at a set of recommendation
Implement - This is the "act" phase in which the previously identified recommendation are implemented.
Verify - An finally the entire process is monitored to ensure the process is helping in continuously improving the asset.
I will start with the step 1 of defining the asset information.
The below master will be considered for the assessment:
Model Template – “Centrifugal Pump Template” with subclass as “Centrifugal”
Model: “Centrifugal Pump” created from model template “Centrifugal Pump Template”
Equipment Template: “Fire Fighting Equipment Template” containing local indicators
Equipment Template: “Dewatering Equipment Template” containing asset indicators which gets updated after risk & criticality assessment and FMEA assessment
Equipment: “Fire Fighting Pump” created from “Fire Fighting Equipment Template “ and “Centrifugal Pump” model.
The below information is created in the respective master data(Functions/Functional Failure/Failure Mode/Cause/Effect) which will be used during our assessment to create the below hierarchy for the equipment:
Equipment: “Dewatering Pump” created from “Dewatering Equipment Template” and ““Centrifugal Pump” model.
The below information is created in the respective master data(Functions/Functional Failure/Failure Mode/Cause/Effect) which will be used during our assessment to create the below hierarchy for the equipment: In the next blog I will provide details on performing risk and criticality assessment on the equipment created namely “Dewatering Pump” & “Fire Fighting Pump”.