Hello everyone, our group is currently engaged in a debate about criticality ratings. Initially, we evaluated equipment and gave them a rating ranging from L1 (least critical) to L4 (most critical) based on various criteria such as mission/financial impact, operational redundancy, safety/environmental/regulatory factors, among others. What are your opinions on the relationship between equipment criticality and maintenance criticality? If an asset is considered critical, does that automatically mean that maintenance is also critical – are they inherently connected? Is it possible or advisable for the asset and maintenance to have different critical ratings? We appreciate any input or comments on this ongoing discussion. Thank you.
It appears that BP prioritized its Mission over Safety and the Environment. Shouldn't criticality categories be determined by company leadership rather than the reliability group? Ultimately, the top of the company is accountable for deciding and prioritizing criticality categories. - Walt.
When evaluating the importance of a maintenance task, it is crucial to consider the level of failure mode associated with it. Each maintenance task should target specific failure modes, each having its own potential consequences if left unaddressed. The criticality of a maintenance task is determined by the severity of these consequences. While a particular asset may have maintenance tasks with varying levels of criticality, the asset itself is typically assigned the highest criticality ranking based on the worst-case scenario failure mode. Various formal processes like FMEA, FMECA, and RCM can be used to assess these criticalities. In essence, an asset may have maintenance tasks with different criticality rankings, but most often they align with the asset's overall criticality level.
When it comes to high-risk ventures such as undersea drilling, where a single mistake can drain years of profits in just a month, it is crucial for top management to be actively involved. However, for most other aspects of the business, it is up to senior leadership to establish the company culture by clearly defining goals, priorities, and key business drivers. This way, employees at all levels can align their decisions with the overall objectives of the company, such as meeting production targets, ensuring safety, and preventing spills. It is our responsibility as employees to operate in accordance with these objectives. External auditors and insurers can then be brought in to ensure that everything is being done correctly. It's unlikely that the BP board willingly exposed the entire company to risk for the sake of a small financial gain from each well.
cbyrnes, let's take a closer look at your question. What is the importance of criticality in maintenance decisions? While criticality can be useful in determining the necessary corrective maintenance, it may not be the best factor to prioritize preventive maintenance tasks. Preventive maintenance should be performed consistently and on schedule, regardless of criticality, in order to foster a culture of proactive maintenance practices.
When allocating maintenance resources, your goal should align with the overall Company Objectives. In my perspective, effective management involves managing risks. In the broader context, society prioritizes HSE (Health, Safety, Environment) risks, followed by Asset and Profitability loss. Elements like Redundancy and operability play crucial roles in mitigating these risks, along with Leadership, Motivation, and Competency. Research shows that a significant percentage, possibly over 90%, of all unwanted events stem from human error. While equipment is important, solely focusing on it may not be the most effective approach. Therefore, assigning criticality is essential for optimal resource management and achieving the highest possible return on investment. Addressing both technical and organizational issues simultaneously is key to preventing any mishaps.
In my perspective, while equipment and maintenance criticality are closely tied, they don't always mirror each other. A high-priority asset might need critical maintenance but consider an L4-rated asset designed with exceptional robustness and redundancy. Despite its critical role, it might not necessitate an L4 maintenance rating. Conversely, an L1 asset, if vulnerable to frequent breakdowns, could require a higher maintenance rating. Balancing both these aspects could lead to resource optimization and greater overall efficiency.
In my experience, the criticality of an asset and its maintenance are indeed inherently connected, but may not always translate to identical ratings. Just because an asset is of high criticality does not necessarily mean its maintenance will also be high. Factors such as reliability, resilience, redundancy, or built-in safety margins could allow for lower maintenance criticality for a high criticality asset. Conversely, a low criticality asset may require critical maintenance if it's prone to failure or has high wear and tear. An ideal criticality rating system would separately assess asset and maintenance to ensure all factors are optimally considered and managed. Maintenance priority should be driven not only by the criticality of the equipment but also the criticality of the potential failure.
Great question! I think there’s definitely a nuanced relationship between equipment criticality and maintenance criticality. While an asset deemed critical often suggests that its maintenance should also be prioritized to minimize downtime and risk, the two aren’t always aligned. For example, a piece of equipment might be crucial for operations but can be maintained with a less intensive schedule due to its reliability or redundancy in the system. Conversely, a non-critical asset might require more intensive maintenance if it poses safety risks or could cause significant disruptions if it fails unexpectedly. So, it can be beneficial to evaluate them separately to ensure that resources are allocated effectively where they’re most needed.
Great question! I think there's definitely a relationship between equipment criticality and maintenance criticality, but they don't always have to align perfectly. For instance, an asset might be rated L4 due to its high mission impact, but if it has a well-established redundancy and maintenance strategy, the maintenance itself could be rated lower—perhaps L2—because it's not as time-sensitive or complicated. It’s crucial to evaluate the context and the actual risks involved. Different critical ratings can help prioritize resources more effectively, as long as there’s a clear understanding of how maintenance impacts overall reliability and safety. What do others think?
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - While equipment criticality and maintenance criticality are often interconnected, they are not always directly proportional. The criticality of maintenance can depend on factors such as the complexity of maintenance tasks, availability of spare parts, and the skill level required for maintenance activities.
Answer: - Not necessarily. While critical assets often require critical maintenance to ensure their reliability and performance, there are cases where maintenance activities can be optimized to reduce downtime and costs without compromising the asset's criticality.
Answer: - Yes, it is possible for the asset and maintenance to have different critical ratings. This can occur when maintenance strategies are implemented to mitigate risks associated with critical assets, or when maintenance activities are outsourced to specialized service providers. However, aligning the criticality ratings of assets and maintenance can help in prioritizing resources effectively.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.