Why Asset Integrity Implementation Often Fails

Abstract

Management Compare the approaches of the top 10 operating companies around the world to tackling the asset integrity challenge and you will find many similarities. Whether in the models used to identify risks or the approaches used to manage them, the industry thinking has evolved to a point at which most agree on the fundamental elements of how to approach integrity management. Look closer and you might find some more commonalities. The reasons asset integrity management strategies often fail to achieve the expected results are also often the same from operator to operator. So what are these reasons, and how can you ensure you are building them into your implementation strategy to ensure that you do not repeat them? There are 10 reasons why integrity management implementations often fail. Trying to tackle integrity in isolation. Perhaps the most common reason asset integrity strategies fail is integrity specialists trying to achieve integrity in isolation. Integrity is not a subject that thrives in a silo—it requires the entire business to be aware, on board, and supporting of a unified effort. Staffers need to know how integrity affects their daily job, and they need to be encouraged, cajoled, instructed, and motivated to ensure that they are working together. Different groups have different goals, but not caring about others’ goals and complaining about having to do others’ work demonstrates a silo mentality. If that type of silo mentality exists, there will be problems in implementing integrity management. Losing sight of process, people, and plant. It may seem obvious, but an asset integrity plan is an extremely complex undertaking with many moving parts and even more stakeholders involved in its successful execution. Recognizing that there are many reasons why asset integrity implementations do not achieve the results expected of them is an important starting point. Problems are not confined to one particular area of an integrity implementation and can just as easily emerge in either the process, the people, or the plant components that make up an integrated integrity management program. Focus too narrowly on one area and you can be sure problems will emerge elsewhere. The key to implementation is the effective working together of these three components and ensuring that checks and balances exist at every stage.

Asset integrity management: offshore installations challenges

“…In the petroleum industry, the emergence of AIM studies has been encouraged by the demand of a safer and more sustainable workplace (Kusumawardhani et al, 2016). Organisations has shifted their attention from isolated approach into holistic approach of the asset, where different disciplines are working together towards the same goal (Ciaraldi, 2012). As a holistic approach, AIM touches the entire aspects of the organisations, which made AIM a multi-discipline field.…”

“…This phenomenon is one of the factors that affect the (AIM) practices in the petroleum industry, especially on offshore installations that have a higher breakeven value than their onshore counterparts. Therefore it will be advantageous to clearly define and document AIM potentials in a strategic plan such as in AIM strategy (Ciaraldi, 2012). The AIM strategy should focus on the integrity of the installation and maintaining a safe working environment, as well as maximising the return on investment (ROI).…”

Development of strategic asset management planning in the petroleum industry

“…Moreover, often AIM strategies fail due to the lack of both integration and unified effort from different groups in the organization (Ciaraldi, 2012;Parida et al, 2015). Thus, different groups in the organization need to be led towards the same goal, and to align different groups the organization needs to develop a strategy and a plan to implement it (Steiner, 1979).…”