The Queen City - Cincinnati, Ohio
GETTING STARTED
Reactive Maintenance Culture Transition From: Long, difficult road Proactive Maintenance Culture =
Asset Management Best Practices Seattle Public Utilities & MSD Collaboration September 2007
IWA WSAA 2008 & 2012 ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS BENCHMARKING PROJECTS The participant group spanned Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Hong Kong, UAE and Oman.
The Aquamark Framework is designed to examine whole of business process capability, documentation, and execution.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
We Developed an Asset-Centric Strategic Plan We collected the thoughts and ideas of employees throughout MSD GE CAP Sessions & Level of Service Workshop Asset Management Boot Camp Week We brought in local universities and nationally-recognized experts University of Cincinnati (Net Present Value) Miami (OH) University (financial sessions) Xavier (OH) University (CIP workflow) We collaborated with the local USEPA office. Goal Areas 1. Infrastructure 2. Workforce 3. Stakeholders and Sustainability 4. Communications 5. Financial 6. Continuous Improvement
Standardized Business Case Evaluation Process and Report Prospect Woods Pump Station Evaluation Business Case Evaluation 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 The Problem 3.0 Problem Objectives 4.0 Strategies 5.0 Alternatives 6.0 Execution Plan 7.0 MSD Review Signature Sheet 8.0 Cross Functional Core Team Meeting Summary 9.0 Major References Existing Prospect Woods PS Prepared by Jonathan Sharp 10280122.15 Final Revision 0 - CFCT Review July 31, 2012
Pass Knowledge Procurement Management Contracts MSD Maintenance Reliability Process Map Pass Knowledge Parts Ordering Defect Work Identified Pass Knowledge Storeroom Planning Root Cause Analysis Defect Elimination Parts Kitting Reactive Work Reactive Planned Work Preventive Maintenance Predictive Maintenance Follow-up Work Condition Monitoring Engineering RCM / ECM New Project Work Specs Proactive Planned Work Data Quality Break-in [4,5] Corrective [1,2,3] Scheduling Proactive Maint [1,2,3] Continuous Improvement Activities Work Execution Documentation & Feedback Data Analysis Finding Bad Actors Inventory Management Work Management Asset Reliability
The Asset Life Cycle Maintenance Strategy needs developed prior to start-up Asset cared for by operations and maintenance. Care of the Asset New Asset Commissioned Operate Maintain Modify Asset No Longer Useful Create Asset Dispose Design Evaluate Plan Strategy Best Asset Design And Creation Develop the Optimal Asset Mix Source: Sustainable Asset Management, Roopchan Lutchman
Business need for new process Key O&M documents delivered after construction Maintenance strategy not in place for months after start-up Some equipment failed early in its life Operations, maintenance, and engineering poorly coordinated Past Documents were paper copies. Did not receive until weeks or months after start-up Documents not tied to asset or location numbers Process not in place to convert O&M documents into executable maintenance strategy Lack of baseline testing Routine maintenance (PM, PDM) not in place at start-up Contract requirements inadequate Engineering did not understand needs Maintenance and Operations not prepared to take over assets.
Process Development Team Based Approach Utilized Involved maintenance, engineering, and legal. Peer reviews External expert review Internal and external education Senior management Middle management Consultants
Barriers Eliminated Improved Standard Construction Project Specifications Improved Timelines Electronic Format Document Control library External Support Contracts put into place Funding Source put into place Process aligned with Organizational Strategic Plan
Business Objective, Goal and Strategies Business Objective Process Goal Ensure systems function properly throughout their life A Maintenance Strategy is in Place Prior to Start-up Strategies Asset Record Creation Detailed condition monitoring from commissioning to end of life Defined Work Management Task (PM) Align contractual documents with asset records Defined Spare Parts Requirements
Remote Pump Station Monitoring Current process Pump Station Analog alarms Database Call Center Limited to a few alarms Poor communication reliability Data not time stamped or synchronized Call center dispatches crew based on limited information (no power, high well level, etc.) Pilot process Pump Station Field Data Pump Station System Data Master Capital Planning Asset Replacement Planning CMMS Operations Reporting Tools Database Business Intelligence Tool Call Center Field Data Collect field data to address specific failure modes Improved communication reliability Data time stamped and synchronized Real time asset condition available Call Center Call center dispatches crew based on a particular issue (pump is clogged with rags). Make business decisions with the data Future
Development of the Risk Model for Gravity Sewers Pipe attributes size, # of connections. Location proximity to structures, roadways, waterways and CSO/SSOs. Capacity DWF & WWF Physical PACP Quick Structural Score Maintenance PACP Quick Maint. Score Maintenance History
Criticality Matrix
Structural Probability Matrix PACP Condition Assessment Does PACP TV exist? PACP Structural Rating MSD Sewer TV Jobs 0 1 2 3 4 5 Yes Points 1 1 2 3 4 5 No N/A VHS Condition Assessment Does VHS TV exist? VHS Structural Rating S = 0 S = 1 S = 2 S = 3 S = 4 WWC TV Jobs Yes Points 1 2 3 4 5 No N/A Weighting Criteria Cagis Theme Scoring Matrix Factors Depth D >12 8' < D 12' 4' < D 8' 0' D 4' Sewer Manholes 3 Points 25 50 75 100 DS proximity to a Force Main Discharge (Distance from discharge manhole) Attribute of Sewers If NOT PVC, HDPE, VCP, Plastic, Lined and > 800' 601' - 800' 401' - 600' 201' - 400' 200' Points 10 30 50 70 100 Landslide Potential Low Moderate M.High High Very High LandSlide Potential Points 0 25 50 75 100 7 5 Remaining Useful Life Pipe Material PVC, HDPE, DIP, PCCP, VCP, Stone, Brick, Plastic Concrete Cast Iron Lined, Unk, Blank CMP Steel Expected Useful Life (EUL) years Attribute of Sewers 100 80 75 50 30 20 8 Remaining Useful Life (RUL) years = EUL- Age 20 < RUL 15 < RUL 20 10 < RUL 15 5 < RUL 10 RUL 5 Points 0 25 50 75 100 River & Stream Crossing No Yes Rivers & Streams Points 0 100 5 Weighted Structural Score Prob. Score 145-676 1 677-1207 2 1208-1738 3 1739-2269 4 2270-2800 5
Maintenance Probability Matrix Maintenance History Condition Assessment Maintenance History WWC Maintenance Jobs 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10 Points Flush Vac 1 2 3 4 5 Does History exist? Maintenance History WWC Maintenance Jobs 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No Points Root Cut 1 2 3 4 5 Maintenance History WWC Maintenance Jobs 1 2 3 4 5 Points Deposit Cut 1 2 3 4 5 PACP Condition Assessment 0 or 1 2 3 4 5 Does PACP TV exist? PACP Maintenance Rating MSD Sewer TV Jobs Yes Points 1 2 3 4 5 No VHS Condition Assessment Does VHS TV exist? VHS Maintenance Rating S = 0 S = 1 S = 2 S = 3 S = 4 WWC TV Jobs Yes Points 1 2 3 4 5 No Criteria Cagis Theme Scoring Matrix Weighting Factors Depth Sewer Manholes D >12 8' < D 12' 4' < D 8' 0' < D 4' Points 25 50 75 100 3 Sewers Actual Pipe Slope Std. Slope Actual Pipe Slope < Std.Slope 8 X" Size Pipe Slope Points 0 100 Rivers & Streams No Yes River & Stream Crossing Points 0 100 3
Consequence of Failure Managing the Risk. Structural Risk Matrix 5 10 15 20 25 4 8 12 16 20 No RRR Needed 3 6 9 12 15 Long-Term (20yr) 2 4 6 8 10 Mid-Term (10 yr) 1 2 3 4 5 Short-Term (5 yr) Structural Likelihood of Failure Plan RRR - Urgent 1, 2 No RRR Needed: After baseline expires, score will resort to theoretical LOF which will escalate monitoring of asset. 3(LOF=3) No RRR Needed: After baseline expires, score will resort to theoretical LOF which will escalate monitoring of asset. 4(LOF=2) No RRR Needed: After baseline expires, score will resort to theoretical LOF which will escalate monitoring of asset. 3(COF=3) Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 4(LOF=4) Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 6 Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 8(LOF=4) Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 4(COF=4) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 5 Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 8(COF=4) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 9 Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 10(LOF=5) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 10(COF=5) Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 12 Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 15 Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 16 Plan R/R/R: Schedule on short-term basis 20 Plan R/R/R: Schedule on short-term basis 25 Plan R/R/R: Schedule on short-term basis
Consequence of Failure Managing the Risk. Maintenance Risk Matrix 5 10 15 20 25 4 8 12 16 20 No Action Necessary 3 6 9 12 15 Long-Term (20yr) 2 4 6 8 10 Mid-Term (10 yr) 1 2 3 4 5 Short-Term (5 yr) Maintenance Likelihood of Failure Immediate Action Needed Supports WWC Target of 0 Preventable Overflows. 1,2(COF=2) No Action Necessary: After baseline expires, score will resort to theoretical LOF which will escalate monitoring of asset. 2(LOF=2) Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 3(COF=3) Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 4(LOF=2) Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 6(COF=3) Monitor Long-Term: Inspect on 20 year sched. (from last date inspected) 3(LOF=3) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 4(COF=4) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 5(COF=5) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 6(LOF=3) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 8(COF=4) Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 9 Monitor Mid-Term: Inspect on 10 year sched. (from last date inspected) 4(LOF=4) Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 8(LOF=4) Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 10(COF=5) Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 12 Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 15(COF=5) Monitor Short-Term: Inspect on 5 year sched. (from last date inspected) AND REVIEW FOR LINING 5(LOF=5) Immediate Action Needed 10(LOF=5) Immediate Action Needed 15(lLOF=5) Immediate Action Needed 16 Immediate Action Needed 20 Immediate Action Needed 25 Immediate Action Needed
Current Projects.. Wastewater Collection Division CMMS
Making Better Decisions.
Making Better Decisions. Recommendation Hierarchy 1. Structural Review Required 2. Point Repair + Full Lining 3. Point Repair + Partial Lining 4. Point Repair 5. Full LIning 6. Partial Lining 7. Rootcut 8. Heavy Cleaning 9. Cleaning 10. CCTV 11. No Action Draft Rehab. Hierarchy 1. Point Repair 2. Lining 3. Rootcut 4. Heavy Cleaning 5. Cleaning 6. N/A ROOTCUT ROOTCUT 1 START HAS CCTV? POINT REPAIR 1 LINING 1 PIPE DIAMETER 5 FEET (60 IN.) TOTAL LENGTH OF POINT REPAIRS < 50% OF PIPE TOTAL LENGTH CCTV SONAR CCTV STRUCTURAL REVIEW REQUIRED HEAVY CLEANING HEAVY CLEANING 1 STRUCTURAL REVIEW REQUIRED PIPE DIAMETER 3.5 FEET (42 IN.) LINING 1 POINT REPAIR CLEANING CLEANING 1 FULL LINING TOTAL LENGTH OF LINING 12% OF PIPE TOTAL LENGTH PIPE DIAMETER 3.5 FEET (42 IN.) STRUCTURAL REVIEW REQUIRED NO ACTION PARTIAL LINING POINT REPAIR + FULL LINING < 80% OF REPLACEMENT COST STRUCTURAL REVIEW REQUIRED POINT REPAIR + FULL LINING
Putting it all to use
Lessons Learned Define what you are trying to accomplish. Understand what you are going to use the tool for. Have the end result in mind. You may need to adapt existing workflows to align with new strategies. Prioritize the effort based on organizational need.
Lessons Learned (contd.) Communicate, communicate, communicate o Develop a communication strategy and keep at it o Revise strategy as needed o Involve as many as possible Get the right people in the right roles as soon as possible Plan for initial and follow-up training Do not get discouraged when people push back
Next Steps 1. Develop Master Capital Plans with desired levels of service per watershed. 2. SAMPs for high risk asset classes 3. Leverage data and tools to make better business decisions. 4. Goes without saying Continuous Improvement!
We would be happy to share anything we have with other utilities. Just let us know! Questions? cheryl.braun@cincinnati-oh.gov scott.maring@cincinnati-oh.gov eric.saylor@cincinnati-oh.gov