Detroit WWTP Asset Management Program Michigan Gov PDF

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
Wastewater Operations Group
Asset Management
Program
December 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ATTACHMENT II: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN ......................... II
ATTACHMENT III: PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN ......................... II
ATTACHMENT IV: ANNUAL SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PLAN

(SRP) UPDATE NOVEMBER 27, 2013 ....................................................... II
ATTACHMENT V: SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPORT

FOR CSO FACILITIES AND WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS ....... II
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 3
DWSD’s Asset Management Vision ................................................................................ 3
2. AM READINESS ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 4

2.1 Overview of Assessment Process ............................................................................. 4
2.2 Overall Findings ........................................................................................................ 5
3. AM PROGRAM FUNCTIONAL DESIGN ............................................. 9

3.1 Key AM Principles for DWSD .................................................................................... 9
3.2 Proposed AM Framework ....................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Decision Making (Line of Sight) ................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Monitoring and Review ................................................................................................. 13
3.2.3 Enablers ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 SOPs Guiding Processes in the AM Framework ..................................................... 15

3.4 Organizational Design to Support AM Framework .................................................. 16
3.5 Asset Level – Maintenance Decision Practices ....................................................... 17
4. AM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ROADMAP .................................. 17

4.1 Program Objectives ................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................ 19
APPENDIX A: DWSD WASTEWATER MDEQ DISCHARGE PERMIT
EXTRACT ...................................................................................................20
APPENDIX B: WWOG AM READINESS ASSESSMENT REPORT ........ 21
APPENDIX C: DWSD’S AM INITIATIVE SUMMARIES ............................ 22
ATTACHMENT II: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN
ATTACHMENT III: PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN
ATTACHMENT IV: ANNUAL SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PLAN

(SRP) UPDATE NOVEMBER 27, 2013
ATTACHMENT V: SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPORT

FOR CSO FACILITIES AND WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS
DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 ii

ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1. INTRODUCTION
This document incorporates the findings of Asset Management Readiness Assessments

conducted for DWSD. It provides a roadmap for implementing DWSD’s Asset
Management Program and to further develop the organization’s capabilities in line with
best practice.
In March 2013, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) issued a Permit
Number MI0022802 effective May 1, 2013 to Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD)
in accordance with NPDES requirements. Included in the permit specification was a requirement
that DWSD prepare and implement an ‘approvable Asset Management Program’ 1 (see Appendix
A). DWSD is required to prepare and submit an Asset Management (AM) Program to MDEQ for
review and approval by January 1, 2014. Upon approval, DWSD will proceed with a phased
implementation of its AM program. The following sections detail the process followed by DWSD
to design their AM program to meet the requirements stated in the MDEQ permit.
DWSD’s Asset Management Vision
At DWSD, asset management is the systemic integration of sustainable and information driven
management techniques to minimize asset lifecycle costs, optimize asset life, and provide quality
service to our customers. DWSD will achieve this by:
Table 1: Elements of DWSD’s AM Vision Statement
Vision Elements How will Asset Management Achieve it?
Sustainable and Implementing asset management business processes to improve

Information Driven efficiency and effectiveness throughout the organization.
Management Techniques
Collect data accurately and completely, and utilize it for asset
management decision making.
Provide Quality Service to Engage Customers in defining levels of service (reliability, quality,
Customers and associated costs), while providing levels of service exceeding
regulatory and industry standards.
1
Permit MI0022802, Part I, Section A, Paragraph 12.C.1 (Page 29)
DWSD Asset Management Program Plan Dec 2013

Minimize asset lifecycle Manage our assets by optimizing operations, maintenance and
costs and optimize asset capital investments to sustain asset performance and reduce
life business risks.
Use asset management information to better forecast capital needs

and costs (short and long term).
The AM program comprises a roadmap for improvement in DWSD’s current state of asset
management readiness, obtained by performing an organization-wide readiness assessment, to
meet best appropriate practice standards and achieve the asset management vision stated
above. Objectives of the AM program are to:
• Discuss highlights of the DWSD AM readiness assessment report(s);
• Lay out the key elements of the functional design of DWSD’s AM program; and
• Propose a phased AM program improvement roadmap.
2. AM READINESS ASSESSMENT
2.1 Overview of Assessment Process
In order to better understand the current situation at the DWSD with respect to asset
management and their related competencies, EMA performed an Asset Management Readiness
Assessment of the Wastewater Operations Group (WWOG) using the WERF Strategic Asset
Management (SAM) GAP assessment framework.
The SAM GAP assessment questions were posed to the DWSD Asset Management Team
members in a group setting. These questions concern the following areas of AM:
• Managing Demand Analysis
• Managing Knowledge of Assets
• Accounting and Costing Methods Current in Place
• Strategic Planning Process

• Capital Expenditure Evaluation Process
• Business Risk Assessment Management
• Asset Creation and Acquisition
• Asset Disposal and Policies
• Operations Management
• Maintenance Management
• Work and Resource Management
DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 4

• Continuous Improvement
The team was asked to ascertain the level of effort being performed currently in each of these
areas for a total of 75 questions. For instance, regarding historic records of customer and
stakeholder demands on the utility system, the team was asked: “How does the organization
determine what data, that reflects historical demand, to collect, how it is to be maintained, and
who should be responsible to maintain it?” The team was then to give the organization a ranking
from 1-5 on the level to which it is performed, 1 being innocence, and 5 being world-class, and
again rank the extent to which practices are performed ranging from “never done” to “systematic,
fully documented, always executed”. Finally the team was asked to give a score of 1-4 to how
important they felt each activity identified in the question was to the overall AM plan. Here, 1 is
most critical and 4 is not applicable. The first two scores were then added to show areas of
needed improvement; the top score for any assessment item would be 10 for comparison
purposes, and gaps/opportunities for improvement are illustrated by the differences between
actual scores and possible top scores. In addition, the importance ranking illustrated where
improvement efforts should be focused.
All questions were read aloud, discussed, clarified and responded to by the team members.
Scores and key notes were captured during the workshop. The assessment scores were
presented for each statement and all notes were also included.
The following section highlights key findings from the assessment. For details, refer to the stand-
alone assessment report submitted to DWSD (see Appendix B).
2.2 Overall Findings
EMA’s findings suggest that DWSD’s approach to asset management is inconsistent across the
organization. There is a need to establish and define clear leadership and set the strategic
direction for DWSD’s assets. Connection between the service outcome and necessary asset
delivery was not considered to be sufficiently robust to support asset management decision
making.
The absence of good cost information is universal across DWSD, which hinders the organization
from making effective whole life asset management decisions. The lack of AM plans is
considered to be one of the root causes for problems DWSD faces. An AM plan would
encourage a more connected approach to whole life asset management decisions. It would
identify information needs, including demonstrating why good cost information is so important,

and ultimately reinforce the ‘line of sight2’ from DWSD’s strategic framework through to asset
work plans which it is currently lacking.
To further support a consistent and quality approach to AM decision making it is recommended

that DWSD develop a management system for AM. This would set out how the various life cycle
decision processes link together, and would enable the introduction of improved risk
management processes across all functions. It was also recognized that to introduce more
efficient and effective AM training is essential for developing capability across the organization
and providing the necessary tools and techniques.
Based on specific findings from the assessment, multiple initiatives were framed by DWSD that
address areas of AM and contribute to the design of their AM program. Table 2 identifies the
subset of the initiatives that relate specifically to the Wastewater AM program elements as
specified in the MDEQ Permit. Current AM Elements that have been developed to date are
identified as well as future AM Initiatives that are planned. In the last column, a qualitative
“Assessment of Completeness” provides a visual indicator of progress to date for the
Wastewater Asset Management Program.
2
‘Line of Sight’ is a key concept according to PAS 55 which defines the requirements for an
integrated and cohesive AM system, providing a clear “line of sight” from organization direction and
goals down to individual, day-to-day activities.

Table 2: DWSD AM Initiatives that Fulfil MDEQ Permit AM Program Requirements
MDEQ Permit AM Program Current AM Elements Future DWSD AM Initiatives 3 Assessment of

Elements as of Dec 2013 Completeness
Comprehensive fixed asset • CMMS Inventory in EMPAC -- • 1.02.01.A – Define Asset Registers Structures
inventory that is See Attachment 1 for Asset and Asset Identification Protocols
maintained, managed, and Hierarchy and example entry • 3.0 – Collect Assets & MMIs 4 Data
updated within a CMMS
Comprehensive inventory • CMMS Inventory in EMPAC -- • 1.02.01.A – Define Asset Registers Structures
of collection system fixed See Attachment 1 for Asset and Asset Identification Protocols
assets and collection Hierarchy and example entry • 3.0 – Collect Assets & MMIs Data
system map
Preventive Maintenance • Preventive Maintenance Plan • 1.04.01.A – Develop Reliability Centered

Program that may include submitted July 31, 2012 – See Maintenance Asset Evaluation Program
predictive and reliability Attachment 2 • 1.04.01.B – Develop Preventive Maintenance
centered maintenance • Predictive Maintenance Plan – Optimization Program
See Attachment 3
Needs Assessment • Needs Assessment Program in • 1.12.02.C – Define Protocols for Using the
updated at least every 3 place Asset Renewal Valuation Tool
years – to include • 2013 Needs Assessment • 1.02.03 – Define Asset Condition, Performance,
condition assessment and submitted to DEQ on Sept 30, and Reliability Assessment Protocols
service level review 2013 • 1.01.04 – Define Minimum Required Level of
Service at the Asset Level
• 1.04.06 – Develop Processes for Producing
Annual Asset Management Plans
3
AM Initiative templates can be found in Appendix C. Initiatives are by section number from the readiness assessment instrument, e.g. 1.10.08.
4
MMI – Maintenance Managed Item
DWSD Asset Management Program Dec 2013 7
Criticality assessment and • Criticality Codes included in • 1.03.02 – Define Asset Effective and
risk management EMPAC CMMS – See Remaining Useful Lives
Attachment 1, Figure 4 • 1.03.06 – Define Asset Business Risk Exposure
Capital planning process • Capital Improvement Plan • 1.12.02.C – Define Protocols for Using the
submitted to DEQ Dec 20, Asset Renewal Valuation Tool
2011 • 1.12.02.B – Define Protocols for Conducting
Business Case Evaluations
Scheduled Replacement • SRP Update submitted Nov 27, • 1.12.02.C – Define Protocols for Using the
Program (SRP) for assets 2013 – See Attachment 4 Asset Renewal Valuation Tool
• SRP Report for CSO and • 1.04.06 – Develop Processes for Producing
Pump Stations - See Annual Asset Management Plans
Attachment 5
Monitoring and periodic • KPI Reports developed and • 1.02.03 – Define Asset Condition, Performance,
performance evaluation distributed monthly and Reliability Assessment Protocols
using KPIs • 1.01.04 – Define Minimum Required Level of
Service at the Asset Level
• 1.04.06 – Develop Processes for Producing
Annual Asset Management Plans
Management oversight of • Limited Management Oversight • 1.04.06 – Develop Processes for Producing
system performance Annual Asset Management Plans
• 1.12.02.A – Develop Asset Management
Process Diagrams and Procedure

3. AM PROGRAM FUNCTIONAL DESIGN
The functional design defines the target state for DWSD’s AM Program.
Based on the assessment, EMA recommends the introduction of an Asset Management

Framework for DWSD. The following sections set out a proposed framework that considers
DWSD’s functions, organizational design and the documentation of the framework. This is
defined as the functional design for asset management and is the target state for DWSD’s AM
Program. It is derived from and in line with current best practice and consistent with the AM
requirements of PAS-55:2008.
The functional design is not intended to provide a detailed manual for how DWSD should
operate, but rather the high level architectural blueprint that provides guidance and puts the
proposed AM program into context.
3.1 Key AM Principles for DWSD
An essential concept of good practice AM is ‘Line of Sight’. DWSD should apply this
concept throughout the organization.
Line of sight is the golden thread of rationale which ultimately justifies every asset related activity
DWSD undertakes. It enables the maintenance technician at the asset-face of the organization
to trace the rationale for what he or she is doing, upwards through a clear set of plans,
objectives, strategic statements and policies to DWSD’s topmost organizational strategic goals. It
explains the need for activity, cost and condition information to be captured at a lower level to
support asset management decision making. It provides the direct link between asset delivery
and service outcome, and enables decision makers and other stakeholders to have a clear view
of what is actually happening, the impact of their decisions, and the justification for resources.
To achieve this concept at DWSD, the following key AM principles 5 should be applied:
A. Service delivery needs are to guide asset practices and decisions. DWSD should
undertake asset management activities within an asset management framework that is
driven by the strategic goals of the organization and service delivery needs.
B. Asset planning and management is to integrate with corporate and business planning,
budgetary and reporting processes. Planning, budgeting for, and reporting on assets are
to be integrated with broader planning processes, across DWSD.
C. Asset management decisions should be based on the combined implications of
managing all aspects rather than a silo approach. This includes the combination of
5
The principles are based on similar guidance given to water/wastewater utilities, and are consistent
with guidance set out in PAS-55:2008 and ISO:55000 draft guidance.
DWSD Asset Management Program Dec 2013 9

different asset classes across DWSD’s Wastewater Operations, Drinking Water and
Field Services groups, including the functional interdependencies of assets within asset
systems, and the different asset lifecycle phases and corresponding activities.
D. Asset management decisions are to be based on evaluations of alternatives that take
into account full life cycle costs, benefits and risks of assets. Capital expenditure
decisions are to be based on rigorous and documented economic appraisals of options
that include financial as well as non-financial parameters. The economic appraisals
should be evaluated by a party other than the proponent of the project.
E. Ownership, control, accountability and reporting requirements for assets are to be
established, clearly communicated and implemented. Ownership and control of all assets
are to be fully defined. Accountability and reporting requirements for both ownership and
control are to be determined and clearly communicated.
F. Asset management activities are to be undertaken within an integrated DWSD wide
asset management framework. DWSD asset management is to be based on best
practice in government and industry.
G. Asset management decisions should be sustainable and demonstrate consideration of
long-term consequences of short term activities. DWSD asset management is to ensure
that adequate provision is made for future requirements and obligations, including
economic and environmental sustainability (recognizing the impact of the assets and the
operation on the environment and the impact of the environment on the assets), system
performance, societal responsibility and other longer term objectives.
3.2 Proposed AM Framework
The AM framework is the collection of products and processes that must be undertaken in order
to deliver services in the most efficient, effective and economical way. The framework provides
the management structure within which to enable the efficient delivery of water treatment,
transmission and distribution as well as wastewater collection, treatment and discharge services
to DWSD’s customers. It sets out the relationship between operations, maintenance, capital
planning and other core functions across DWSD, and defines the scope of AM information
systems and information requirements to support AM decision making. It demonstrates the
importance of the ‘line of sight’ concept by linking DWSD’s strategic goals through to its AM
policy, AM strategy and objectives, AM plan, and on to the lifecycle activities as part of the
implementation stage.
AM can only be described as good, successful or effective if there is a clear

understanding of what it is meant to achieve. This in turn requires an understanding of
the underlying objectives of the organization.
AM is an inherently integrated approach and cannot be successfully implemented by managing

individual assets or different life cycle stages (such as maintenance) in isolation. Therefore it is
important that DWSD develop an overall business model for all of its assets and ensure this
covers all life cycle stages and organization functions.

EMA has over the years established a best practice AM program philosophy that encompasses
business practices, technology and organizational issues across the entire utility. A successful
framework requires more than a set of business rules or a software tool – it requires that people
change the way in which they work and the way in which work is completed. The proposed AM
framework for DWSD in Figure 1 incorporates EMA’s Organization – Practices – Technology
philosophy and best practice frameworks from many of the world’s leading utilities.
Figure 1: Proposed DWSD’s Asset Management Framework
The asset management framework is divided into four main areas:

1. Decision Making (Line of Sight): There are four key levels to decision-making that
drives the organization to address the DWSD’s strategic objectives and ultimately ensure
that the service needs are delivered in the most efficient, effective and economical
manner.
2. Monitoring and Review: Monitoring provides the feedback loop between the asset
intervention and the condition and performance it delivers. A distinction should be made
between monitoring the performance of the assets (Performance Monitoring) and the
performance of the systems used to manage the assets (Management Systems). Both
are critical to assuring the successful outcome of the asset management decision
making process.

3. Enablers: The effectiveness of the asset management decision making process is
dependent on the capability of DWSD’s most valuable resource - people, and the
practices that support data creation through information and technology tools to support
business processes.
3.2.1 Decision Making (Line of Sight)
In level one the focus is on setting the long-term Direction for asset delivery in respect of what
will be done to the physical assets within known constraints to meet stated service level
requirements. The objective of this level is to set out the overall framework that enables DWSD
to determine the direction and corresponding AM actions that best serve the aims it is obliged to
fulfil. In other words the outputs address the “The Why and the How” of AM.
While at this level activities are generally conducted by senior management led teams, it is
nonetheless critical to the overall success of the business model that engagement across and
through the business occurs. The outputs from this stage include the AM Policy and AM Strategy
and Objectives. AM is holistic and consequently the strategy should therefore consider the whole
picture rather than just an individual asset class’s contribution.
In level two the direction provided is laid out through designing the necessary business
processes and practices to achieve the desired state of the asset portfolio. In this level, it is
about the capability within DWSD to analyze asset capability and develop the necessary work
programs. It is not simply the programs themselves, which are the documented output from the
process. The output from this level is often in the form of a set of Asset Strategies setting out
what needs to done to each asset class to achieve the long-term desired state of the network.
This provides a further level of decomposition from DWSD wide AM Strategy to asset focused
Asset Strategy.
In level three the preparation of projects and work packages is undertaken, translating the work
programs into tangible work activities. It is important to consider the different types of assets
DWSD manages and how different failure patterns result in different approaches to maintenance
(this is discussed further in Section 3.5). Part of this capability is to present the output in the
necessary forms to enable DWSD to undertake and procure asset activities, including for
example: design material, work schedules, specifications and contract documents. The key
output from this level is the AM Plans which describe the implementation of DWSD’s AM
Strategy and Asset Strategies in terms of “The What, When and Where”. They present the work
programs for maintenance and renewal along with the cost tables.
In level four the focus is on the implementation of work plans to achieve the desired state of the
asset portfolio within budget and operational constraints. This is a capability to schedule and
deliver projects and work packages within the DWSD operational environment. This entails
translating the work plans into schedules for actual delivery. The outcome is not the work plans,
but the facility to implement them to achieve the required output.

The two-way linkage between these four levels is absolutely critical to ensuring decisions
deliver their intended benefits and where it does not, appropriate actions can be taken.
For example, the ‘Processes and Practices’ level has to have direction in terms of where it is
trying to steer the asset system, which is expressed in the strategy, but it also needs to be
informed by empirical evidence and extrapolated projections of what is actually happening in
terms of service and asset capacity. The linkage throughout the framework is necessary for
success. To further illustrate the holistic asset management perspective, the ‘Processes and
Practices’ level functions of strategic planning, etc. are dependent on lower level information
captured at the implementation stage, which is why cost codes need to be addressed and why
all forms of monitoring have to be more effectively integrated.
3.2.2 Monitoring and Review
Supporting the four levels of AM decision making described above there needs to be an
appropriate level of asset monitoring. DWSD should include a mix of condition and performance
assessment and analysis, which is driven by the asset characteristics and their failure
mechanisms, to ensure that intervention decisions are optimal from a cost, risk and performance
perspective.
A comprehensive suite of leading and lagging performance indicators should also be developed
to provide a measure of how effective each stage of DWSD’s AM decision making process is.
For example the use of monthly “AMP 6’s on a page” to review the delivery of work volumes
compared to the AMP and AM Strategy. It also should provide impacts of the implementation of
the AM system on the performance of the assets including condition, failures, capability, etc.
Outputs from the AM decision making processes are controlled by a set of guiding principles
which are subject to management review. These generally include:
• An AM Manual setting out the operating model and management procedures for DWSD. This
is commonly referred to as the ‘AM system’. It is noted that an AM system is not the EMPAC
or Oracle WAM (forthcoming at DWSD) information technology system used for managing
assets, although this is an important enabler.
• A Contracting Model for Strategy Plan delivery, which includes developing supply chain
contracts for stock and spares.
• A set of Delivery Manuals which establish standards for data management, work delivery etc.
• A set of Standard Operating Procedures for maintenance activities, etc.
6
AMP – Asset Management Plan

Effective AM will involve many parts of the DWSD organization and requires a disciplined
approach to provide best possible value for utility customers and other stakeholders. Separate
functional silos and uncoordinated contributions, as currently experienced does result in
conflicting priorities, wastage and ineffectiveness. An AM system is the means by which all the
contributions are harnessed and controlled towards a common purpose – the delivery of the
DWSD’s vision and strategic objectives.
A key part of the management review cycle is the identification and management of both
business and asset risks. Risk and risk review is a fundamental building block to sustainable AM
decision making and essential to enabling DWSD to maximize value. The purpose of risk
management is to inform the AM decision-making process, it provides the guiding principles of
DWSD’s tolerances to risk in terms of safety, environmental, financial, reputational, and
performance. Risk management has to occur within a disciplined framework in order to be
effective. Often organizations will develop risk registers and processes to support the life cycle
management of risks from identification through quantification, mitigation and closure.
Management of risks may happen at a more local level with escalation of high probability or high
consequence risks moving from an ‘asset level’ to ‘business level’.
3.2.3 Enablers
Successful sustained AM requires competent people and an organization that facilitates

implementation of the AM principles with clear direction and leadership, staff understanding,
competency, commitment and cross-functional coordination, including good change
management and effective relationships with key external resources and service providers.
Unless a clearly articulated organizational direction and set of priorities are provided, it is very
difficult to determine how best to manage the assets. As such for DWSD, it is critical that the
organizational structure is considered as part of the functional design (this is discussed further in
a Section 3.4).
A vital enabler to coordinated AM is the capture, availability and usage of adequate practices,
data and information, and knowledge of asset condition, performance, risks and costs, and the
interrelationships between these. Suitable systems and processes should aid understanding of
what information is needed, for what purpose, and how it should be acquired, managed and
used.
Enterprise AM systems provide the technology to support organizational changes to better plan
and manage work delivery. Through the use of systems such as DWSD’s EMPAC and Oracle
WAM (forthcoming), DWSD should gain better insight across all of their assets, enabling fault
analysis to improve reliability and reduce asset downtime through improved preventative
maintenance regimes, more efficient work delivery, and more efficient spares management.
While EMPAC is currently focused at the sharp end of DWSD’s maintenance delivery, any future
system should also provide support at the second (Processes and Practices) and third
(Management Plans) levels of the AM decision making process.

3.3 SOPs Guiding Processes in the AM Framework
The outcomes of the AM Framework are

guided, controlled and monitored by
documents developed as outputs from each
AM decision making stage. There is an
important distinction between undertaking
the work (such as the development of a
work program) and the application of a
structured process to prepare the work
program, which also establishes the basis
for control and assurance. The
documentation of the AM framework
therefore is part of the DWSD control and
assurance of the framework.
The AM Policy acts as the first stage of the

‘line of sight’ by describing how DWSD’s AM
framework will deliver the overall strategic
goals of the organization. Policy is a
statement of “What and Why”, and provides
a context for decision-making.
The AM Strategy acts as the second stage

of decomposition of the ‘line of sight’ and
should describe what DWSD intends to
achieve from its AM activities and by when.
Often the AM Strategy is split into two.
Strategy is a statement of “the Why and the
How” of AM”. It is typical in diverse AM
organizations like DWSD for the AM strategy
to be developed in two levels:
Figure 2: AM Framework
1. A generic strategy which applies across all asset groups, referred to as the Asset
Management Strategy (AMS), and

2. Asset group specific strategies, referred to as the Asset Group Strategies (AGS). The
AGS explain how the AMS is applied to a particular asset group and identify asset group
specific.
The AM Plan is the third level of decomposition of the ‘line of sight’. It is at this stage that
DWSD’s workforces are guided on the necessary activities in order to meet the strategic goals
and the AM policy. The AM Plan is a statement of “The What, When and Where”. They present
the work programs for maintenance and renewal along with the cost tables for each of the asset
classes. AM Plans are not always a singular document, and should be considered as a ‘living’
plan. They should contain both:
• Asset Work Plans – including routine maintenance, planned maintenance, renewal and
overhaul and assessment of risks driving reactive maintenance.
• Capital Projects – including service improvements and enhancements.
3.4 Organizational Design to Support AM Framework
One of the hardest elements of establishing an effective and efficient AM system is breaking
down departmental silos and conflicting functional contributions. Yet this is also one of the most
important features, yielding some of the biggest organizational performance benefits.
There are currently divisions of responsibility for different life cycle activities across DWSD, with
separate budgets and localized performance measures assigned. The AM system should
provide the means of collaboration across such functional divides.
The organization is to be led by a powerful champion for AM at operating board level. The
individual will lead an AM Division who will act as the asset advocate within the organization –
ensuring the management of the asset is optimized through its life cycle stages. Being separate
from operations, maintenance or capital, the Division will be able to ensure cost, risk and
performance is optimized and contributions are harnessed and controlled towards a common
purpose.
The AM Division will develop policy and strategy in consultation with the DWSD Board of
Commissioners, and other Stakeholders. They will also develop AM Plans for Wastewater
Operations, Drinking Water and Field Services. The policy and strategy effectively becomes the
Public Service Contract between the Board and the AM Division, while the AM Plans effectively
become the Service Level Agreements between the AM Division and the Asset Delivery teams.
Reliability Engineering Analysis team(s) are formed and merged into DWSD’s AM Division to
lead performance monitoring, support maintenance decision making and provide guidance on
revised maintenance practices. A Professional Head is appointed within the AM Division for each
of the asset classes to oversee the introduction of good practice maintenance management and
provide authority and assurance.
Monthly asset performance review meetings are to be held between AM (Chair), Maintenance,
and Capital Delivery to review delivery of work volumes as compared to the AMP and AM

Strategy, review condition and performance, and discuss arising issues identified through trend
analysis. These meetings report into a Divisional AM Meeting which focuses on system wide
issues. The process ensures a holistic approach is taken to management of DWSD’s assets by
considering life cycle management of individual asset classes and the system wide management
of the asset base.
3.5 Asset Level – Maintenance Decision Practices
As stated earlier, it is important to consider the different types of assets DWSD manages and
how different failure patterns result in different maintenance regimes. The maintenance regime
can be defined in two distinct parts:
• Maintenance Specification – which sets out how the organization decides on intervention
options for each asset in order to meet a defined level of service
• Categorization – which applies the specification and along with a categorization of assets
(generally risk) establishes a maintenance framework for the asset to ensure service and
business objectives are met
The flow diagram in Figure 3 demonstrates the steps necessary to safely introduce new
maintenance practices within DWSD.
Figure 3: Introducing Maintenance Practices at DWSD
4. AM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ROADMAP
A readiness assessment is key to any change management strategic development process. The
assessment measures an organization’s current practices (‘As Is’) and relates this to the desired
future operations within a specific time period (the ‘To Be’). Priority improvements are generated
in relation to the size of the gap and the relative importance of that element to the success of the
business. The following program and implementation strategy result from the readiness

assessment conducted for DWSD and draws on EMAs experience in establishing similar
improvement programs for other asset intense businesses.
4.1 Program Objectives
Good AM is essential for the sustainable delivery of public utility assets. The principal objective
of this program is the implementation of best appropriate practice AM for all of DWSD’s assets.
The program is designed to develop the organization from its “Low Practice Level” maturity state
to a “Substantial Practice Level” state as described in the AM Functional Design described in
Section 3.
Priority areas for development should focus on achieving the AM principles set out in the
Functional Design. Table 3 sets out the AM principles and alignment against the recommended
actions from the readiness assessments.
Table 3: Priority Areas for Improvement
AM Principles Set Out in the DWSD Readiness Assessment Gaps

Functional Design (Recommended Initiatives)
A. Service delivery needs are to guide asset Need for an asset management policy,
practices and decisions. strategy and asset management objectives.
(Initiative: 1.01.04)
B. Asset planning and management is to Need for improved accounting processes and
integrate with corporate and business communication of DWSD conventions.
planning, budgetary and reporting
(Initiative: 1.04.04, 1.04.06, 1.12.02.C,
processes.
1.12.02.B)
C. AM decisions should be based on the Need for maintenance policies to be

combined implications of managing all established and the need for Asset
aspects rather than a silo approach. Management Plans.
(Initiative: 1.10.02, 1.10.08, 1.04.01.A,
1.04.01.B, 1.04.06, 1.12.02.A)
D. AM decisions are to be based on Risk based approaches need to be developed

evaluations of alternatives that take into for maintenance, and risk management
account full life cycle costs, benefits and procedures developed and implemented.
risks of assets.
(Initiative: 1.03.06, 1.06.01, 1.04.04)
E. Ownership, control, accountability and Need to establish clear leadership and an

reporting requirements for assets are to be organization to develop asset management
established, clearly communicated and capability.
implemented.
(Initiative: 1.04.06, 1.12.02.A)

F. AM activities are to be undertaken within Development of an AM ‘management system’
an integrated DWSD wide asset and related practices and procedures.
management framework.
(All Initiatives)
G. AM decisions should be sustainable and Need for a strategic planning process.

demonstrate consideration of long-term
(Initiative: 1.04.06)
consequences of short term activities.
4.3 Implementation Arrangements
The Asset Management Improvement Plan (AMIP) sets out a significant step-change to the way
DWSD will manage its asset portfolio in the future. Such a transition necessitates equipping
members of staff with new skills, tools and techniques that support an improved AM Framework.
Consequently there is an emphasis within the improvement program to improve DWSD’s people
as much as introducing new processes, technology and information.
To prepare for this, it is recommended that DWSD undertake a organization-wide Awareness

Training program to both brief staff on good practice asset management and the scope of the
AMIP.
The training needs to be delivered as part of an overall communication strategy to develop the
understanding, introduce best practice and engage the ‘hearts and minds’ of the business in a
new way of working. Typically, a handbook detailing the rationale and scope of the AMIP needs
to be developed and distributed widely across DWSD and its stakeholders to support buy-in and
encourage involvement.
It is important that adequate support is provided through delivery of the change program. As
such, it is recommended that AMT undertake training, mentoring and monitoring to maintain
engagement with the ‘hearts and minds’ of the business and ensure success.

A APPENDIX A
DWSD Wastewater MDEQ Discharge Permit Extract
DWSD Asset Management Program Plan EMA, INC. A - 1

B APPENDIX B
WWOG AM Readiness Assessment Report
DWSD Asset Management Program Plan EMA, INC. B - 1

DWSD: Asset Management Plan Development
Assessment Results -- WWOG
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In order to better understand the current situation at the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
(DWSD) Wastewater Operations Group (WWOG) with respect to Asset Management (AM) and the
related competencies, EMA performed an Asset Management Readiness Assessment using the
WERF Strategic Asset Management (SAM) GAP assessment framework.
The WWOG is responsible for 10 pump stations, six combined sewer overflow retention treatment
basins, and three screening and disinfection facilities, totaling some 7,500 assets in all.
The SAM GAP assessment questions were posed to the DWSD Asset Management team members
in a group setting. The questions relate to the following areas of asset management practices:
 Managing Demand Analysis

 Managing Knowledge of Assets
 Accounting and Costing Methods Current in Place
 Strategic Planning Process
 Capital Expenditure Evaluation Process
 Business Risk Assessment Management
 Asset Creation and Acquisition
 Asset Disposal and Policies
 Operations Management
 Maintenance Management
 Work and Resource Management
 Continuous Improvement
The team was asked to judge the level of effort currently being applied in each of these areas by
responding to a total of 75 questions. For instance, regarding a practice for “historic records of
customer and stakeholder demands on the utility system”, the team was asked: “How does the
organization determine what data that reflects historical demand to collect, how it is to be
maintained, and who should be responsible to maintain it?”. The team first ranked the organization
regarding the level to which the practices were developed using a scoring scale from 1-5, with 1
being “innocence” and 5 being “world-class”. Then, the team ranked the organization regarding the
extent to which the practices are performed using a scoring scale from 1-5, with 1 being “never
done” and 5 being “systematic, fully documented, always executed”. Finally the team ranked each
practice regarding how important the nature of the practices were to the overall AM program using a
scoring scale of 1-4, with 1 being “critical” and 4 being “not applicable”.
The first two scores were added to provide a composite score relative to each practice, and given
that the top possible score for any assessment item would be 10 for comparison, gaps/opportunities
for improvement are illustrated by the differences between actual scores and top possible scores. In
addition, the importance ranking illustrates where improvement efforts should be prioritized. These
are signified in Section 2 with a burning bar graph above the individual practice item numbers.
All questions were read aloud, discussed, clarified and responded to by the team. Scores and key
comments were captured during the workshop. The assessment scores for each practice statement,
including all comments, are presented in Section 2. At the end of each assessment sub-section, the
scores are tabulated in a graph format to illustrate gaps/opportunities for improvement.
FINAL DRAFT Page 1 of 46

2.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
1.01 Demand Analysis
1.01.01 For managing historic records of customer and stakeholder demands on the utility system.
(E.g. How does the organization determine what data that reflects historical demand to collect, how it
is to be maintained, and who should be responsible?)
Comment: Assets included in this evaluation are wastewater treatment plants and Combined Sewer
Overflow Basins. Primary "customers" considered are the regulatory agencies.
LEVEL EXTENT RANKING

0 = Innocence 0 = Never done 4 = Not applicable
1 = Aware but no practice 1 = Ad hoc process rarely executed 3 = Not important
2 = Low practice level 2 = Ad hoc process occasionally executed 2 = Important
3 = Modest practice level 3 = Mixture of ad hoc and systematic 1 = Critical
4 = Substantial practice level 4 = Mostly systematic process, pretty well documented
5 = World class practice level 5 = Systematic, fully documented, always executed
1.01.02 For breaking up customer demand for services into key drivers and understanding their
influences on future demand
Comment: Rate determinations done annually for the board; quarterly for internal purposes.


1.01.03 For undertaking, analyzing and responding to customer and stakeholder surveys.
(E.g. are surveys conducted and information reported on for future demand forecasting analysis?)
Comment: Surveys are not done by WWOG - done by other groups.

1.01.04 For defining levels of service. (E.g. customer response time, permit compliance, odor levels,
etc. Are “Customer Charters or Contracts” developed and maintained? Are customer survey results
used to set levels of service?)
Comment: No specific comment


1.01.05 For predicting future trends in demand for services based on historic and external
influences. (E.g. Does the organization undertake demand predictions developing pessimistic and
optimistic scenarios?)

Demand Analysis
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.01.01 1.01.02 1.01.03 1.01.04 1.01.05

1.02 Knowledge of Assets
1.02.01 For defining the structure of the asset register and the level of detail of asset information that
is collected and managed down to the maintenance managed item (MMI). (E.g. is there a defined
hierarchical registry structure that is followed consistently? Is the structure and level of detail
regularly reviewed?).

1.02.02 For defining the collection and management of asset attribute information.
(E.g. is there a data standard defining this and how is the standard maintained? Is it clear what
information is required to be collected on assets?)
Comment: Last looked at in depth in 2004.


1.02.03 For defining what assets to collect condition data on, when these assessments, should be
undertaken, and for determining the potential remaining useful lives of the assets.
Comment: Condition assessments on CSO basins, sewage pumping stations and disinfection
equipment/facility are in progress and scheduled to complete in October 2013. Condition
assessment data is being captured using the modified version of a spreadsheet template developed
in 2004. Needs assessments (every 3 years) should consider condition, but may not always do so.
Dye penetrant testing is conducted on high lift pumps but frequency of testing is unknown.

1.02.04 For determining what assets to collect performance and reliability data on and for
undertaking the collection. (E.g. Does the organization know how well the asset is performing? How
reliable it is? Is there a data standard defining this? Is there a systematic review of performance and
reliability?)
Comment: Although production data is captured in SCADA and in the shift report, it is not analyzed
for performance/reliability purposes. Some assessments were done in 2004.


1.02.05 For determining what assets to collect utilization on and for undertaking the collection. (E.g.
How often or extensively is an asset used? Is there a data standard defining this? Is there a
systematic review of utilization?)
Comment: Utilization data (run times) are captured in SCADA, but are not analyzed for utilization.

Knowledge of Assets
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.02.01 1.02.02 1.02.03 1.02.04 1.02.05

1.03 Accounting and Costing
1.03.01 Processes for undertaking asset valuations. (E.g. are asset valuations undertaken and is the
method documented? Is there a method to assess the quality of that valuation?)
Comment: Finance conducts/tracks "fiscal" asset valuations. Significant asset rehab/replacement

may get capitalized.

1.03.02 Processes for determining the effective lives or remaining useful lives of all assets in the
register. (E.g. are effective lives determined for each asset? Are remaining useful lives calculated on
a periodic basis? Do these lives reflect the asset’s actual operating environment?)
Comment: The Scheduled Replacement Program (SRP) captures effective life and estimates
remaining life, but the SRP does not address all assets on a regular basis.


1.03.03 Processes for tracking and reporting operational costs. (E.g. are these costs capable of
being aggregated from a suitably low asset level up to a facility level and reported on?)
Comment: Operational costs are tracked at high level, but cannot readily be allocated to lower
levels of assets

1.03.04 Processes for tracking and reporting maintenance costs. (E.g. are these costs available at a
“maintenance managed item” (work-order) level? Are they capable of being rolled-up to a facility or
asset level and being reported on?)
Comment: Some maintenance costs are tracked at asset level through work orders but practice is
inconsistent. Costs can be rolled up using reports/database queries.

1.03.05 Processes for determining future renewal liabilities. (E.g. is the projected future expected
expenditure for renewal of assets calculated for at least the next 10 - 20 years?)
Comment: SRP program performs this function, but not for all assets (replacement costs, intervals,
etc.)


1.03.06 Processes for determining residual business risk exposure (E.g. is predicted operational risk
exposure that is due to the aging and consumption of assets calculated? Is it incorporated into the
organization’s budget process?)
Comment: SRP takes aging/remaining useful life into consideration, but it does not include all
assets. Likelihood of failure and BRE is not adjusted as part of the process.

1.03.07 Processes for determining what historical cost data should be collected on individual assets
and how should this be archived. (E.g. can all historic costs associated with a critical asset be
retrieved and reported?).
Comment: Operational costs are tracked at high level, but cannot readily be allocated to lower
levels of assets. Some maintenance costs tracked at asset level through work orders but practice is
inconsistent.


Accounting and Costing

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.03.01 1.03.02 1.03.03 1.03.04 1.03.05 1.03.06 1.03.07

1.04 Strategic Planning
1.04.01 Processes for predicting expected failure modes for all assets. (E.g. Does the organization
understand the likely failure modes – that is, how the asset is likely to fail - for individual assets?
Does it understand which of the major failure modes is most imminent? Does it link the imminent
failure mode with projecting remaining useful life?)

1.04.02 Processes for undertaking risk assessments of asset failure for inclusion within the planning
process. (E.g. what is the probability and consequence of a particular asset failing?).


1.04.03 Processes for making optimized asset renewal decisions by identifying the most economical
renewal (repair, refurbish, replace) solution and point in time to renew an asset. (E.g. Does the
process include all feasible options for life extension? Does it include life cycle cost analysis?)

1.04.04 Processes for assessing the life cycle cost of new assets. (E.g. are all capital, maintenance,
and operational costs that are associated with a specific asset systematically accounted for? Are
these costs archived in a readily retrievable manner?).
Comment: Capital costs for new assets may be provided and itemized by contractors, but the data
does not get entered into the CMMS. Operational costs are tracked at high level, but cannot readily
be allocated to lower levels of assets. Some maintenance costs are tracked at the asset level
through work orders, but the practice is inconsistent.


1.04.05 Processes to identify cost reduction or service level improvement opportunities. (E.g. Do the
budget and rate setting processes specifically and systematically consider the trade-offs among level
of service, cost of service, and business risk?).

1.04.06 Processes for producing Asset Management Plans from a strategic perspective (the quality
of these plans are dealt with elsewhere). (E.g. is the generation of a periodic enterprise asset
management plan a systematic and efficient process? For facility asset management plans?).


1.04.07 Processes for working with customers, regulators and other stakeholders during long term
strategic planning. (E.g. is there a systematic process for informing customers and stakeholders of
strategic asset issues and investment alternatives and for seeking and incorporating feedback from
them?)
Comment: Some issues may be reported to regulators. Symposiums related to de-watering and
incineration issues were organized by WWOG. A long term Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) (both
water & sewer) is published on the web and includes spending forecasts. The WWOG meets with
customers twice a year to talk about CIPs and to solicit feedback.

1.04.08 Processes for linking capital and O&M expenditure programs with overall business goals in
triple bottom line terms (social, economic and environment). (E.g. are there clear and demonstrable
links between the asset management program and organizational budgets? Between organizational
Levels of Service targets and their impact on the community, financial condition of the utility, and
environmental impact?)


1.04.09 Processes for budget rationalization (e.g. is the asset management plan with its forecasted
expenditures systematically matched with available financial resources? Does the Asset
Management Plan actually tie to the organization’s budget at the line item level?).

Strategic Planning
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.04.01 1.04.02 1.04.03 1.04.04 1.04.05 1.04.06 1.04.07 1.04.08 1.04.09

1.05 Capital Expenditure Evaluation
1.05.01 Policy for the evaluation of capital expenditure projects (CIP). (E.g. does an organization-
wide uniform policy and clear CIP process exist? Does it ensure a businesslike approach to capital
investment decision making? Does it define roles and responsibilities for key activities?).
Comment: CIP proposals are prepared by engineering (includes an alternatives analysis), and goes
to Capital Management Group (CMG) for evaluation and processing (likely does not include
business case evaluation).CMG has protocols for scoring CIP and prioritizing CIPs for
implementation.

1.05.02 Processes for categorizing the strategic drivers of capital expenditure. (E.g. are capital
expenditure categorized into growth, renewal, regulations / levels of service and business efficiency
investment categories?).


1.05.03 Processes for linking the sophistication and extent of the evaluation processes for a specific
project to the level of expenditure and the risk it represents to the organization. (E.g. are more
extensive evaluation techniques used for larger investments and higher risks to the business?)
Comment: CMG has protocols for scoring CIP and prioritizing CIPs for implementation.
Thresholds are defined within those protocols to drive the levels/rigor of evaluation that may be
needed.

1.05.04 Processes for linking service demand with the level of expenditure necessary to achieve
long term sustainability. (E.g. Has the organization developed a funding model that allows each
project to be reported in terms of its impact on the business in terms of meeting service demand and
generating income on a long term sustainable basis?).


1.05.05 Processes for evaluating supply or program delivery options. (E.g. are various methods of
delivery - such as Internal or external resources, private / public partnerships, design and construct -
considered and evaluated for each project?).
Comment: These processes are included in the CIP proposal development process.

1.05.06 Processes to ensure the appropriate quality of operation and maintenance expenditure cost
estimates (budgets) used in capital expenditure evaluation. (E.g. are maintenance and operation
costs related to a specific CIP project forecast over the expected life of the asset?)
Comment: These processes are included in the CIP proposal preparation phase.


1.05.07 Processes for investigating and recording alternative options to the lowest life cycle cost
option for capital expenditure projects for use in budget rationalization activities. (E.g. Are “out of the
box” solutions such as “do nothing”, project deferral, “manage the risk”, and “non-asset” solutions
and the like considered and recorded as options?)
Comment: Alternatives analysis actions are documented.

1.05.08 Processes for economic evaluation of all capital and recurrent investment projects, including
a clear policy by which each project should be evaluated. (E.g. Are Internal Rate of Return, Benefit
Cost Ratios, and the like in present value terms considered for all projects?)


Capital Expenditure Evaluation
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.05.01 1.05.02 1.05.03 1.05.04 1.05.05 1.05.06 1.05.07 1.05.08

1.06 Business Risk Management
1.06.01 Policy for the evaluation of all business risk exposure on an organization wide basis. (E.g.
Does a corporate wide business risk management policy exist? Does it clearly define roles and
responsibilities for the key risk areas of strategy, finance, and operations?)

1.06.02 Processes for risk identification relevant to each business unit or for the entire organization.
(E.g. Do the risks considered include at a minimum strategic, financial, information technology,
engineering, and operational?)


1.06.03 Processes for quantifying probability and consequences of failure. (E.g. is this a simple point
score or are full economic costs considered?)
Comment: Criticality scale 1 to 5 represents consequence of failure, but does not consider
probability of failure.

1.06.04 Processes for analyzing risks, including the understanding of its makeup and the ranking of
the risks. (E.g. Which part of the business represents the greatest risk? What is the greatest risk?)

1.06.05 Processes for managing risk reduction, including the assessment of mitigation options. (E.g.
Are identified risks linked to specific mitigation strategies and responsibilities? Are the risks and
associated mitigation strategies tracked and reported?)


Business Risk Management
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.06.01 1.06.02 1.06.03 1.06.04 1.06.05

1.07 Creation and Acquisition
1.07.01 Processes for the successful program management of the asset creation or acquisition
program. (E.g. are projects systematically tracked from the strategic planning stage (project
identification) through to the final service delivery including commissioning and handover?)
Comment: When CIP projects near the end of their construction phase, assets that are created
through the CIP projects get entered into EMPAC. Asset replacements made by O&M as part of
preventive maintenance or corrective maintenance are not consistently updated.

1.07.02 Processes for Contract Administration. (E.g. are processes in place for managing all the
contractors necessary for the projects and their interface with the asset owner?)
Comment: Process related to CIP work is well established. Non-CIP contracts are not managed
consistently (e.g. maintenance, rehab services).


1.07.03 Processes for Project Management. (E.g. are systematic processes in place for the financial
cost control and timely delivery of a project and the mitigation of risks involved)
Comment: Processes are well implemented for CIP projects. However, guidelines are not followed
consistently for internal projects.

1.07.04 Processes for Value Engineering. (E.g. Does the organization systematically incorporates
“value engineering”? How is the optimum design assessed and adopted?)
Comment: Sometimes opportunities for design/redesign options are restricted due to physical space
restrictions where assets are/or will be located. Value Engineering is sometimes performed, but it is
not a routine practice that is consistently applied.


1.07.05 Processes that ensure the optimum maintainability / operability of new assets is achieved.
(E.g. are design reviews systematically and thoroughly undertaken by the operations and
maintenance staff prior to final design. Are these reviews carefully assessed and appropriately
incorporated?)
Comment: O&M reviews are sometimes delayed due to resource availability, but O&M review is a
routine practice.

1.07.06 Processes for ensuring appropriate construction standards and quality control is achieved in
all asset creation and acquisition work. (E.g. are contractor audits and other quality control
mechanisms used?)
Comment: Construction inspections are carried out during construction.


1.07.07 Processes for asset commissioning and handover. (E.g. Is all required operational and
maintenance information collected at time of commissioning, including as-constructed drawings,
operations/maintenance procedures and manuals, and maintenance programs? Is the initial “burn-
in” performance of the asset reviewed and recorded?)
Comment: Asset data for updating CMMS is manually input into EMPAC by DWSD resources.

Creation and Acquisition
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.07.01 1.07.02 1.07.03 1.07.04 1.07.05 1.07.06 1.07.07

1.08 Rationalization and Disposal
1.08.01 Processes for rationalizing the existing asset portfolio and disposal of unwanted assets.
(E.g. are assets periodically and systematically reviewed to identify assets for disposal, mothballing,
or transfer to improve business effectiveness, to reduce risk and cost, and to release funds for other
purposes?)

1.08.02 Processes for disposing of assets. The processes for good governance and ethical behavior
in the release of assets. (E.g. are these assets removed from the asset register and on other asset
systems, - e.g. financial records, CMMS, GIS - in a timely manner?)


Rationalization and
Disposal
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.08.01 1.08.02

1.09 Operations
1.09.01 Processes for developing and maintaining operating procedures. (E.g. are operating
procedures periodically reviewed with respect to lowest life cycle cost at a target level of
service/performance and risk?). Are new assets automatically added to the review?)
Comment: Need processes for updating O&M manuals.

1.09.02 Processes for the successful operation of all assets during normal and emergency
operations. (E.g. Do such procedures exist, and do they cover all areas and assets down to the
maintenance managed item level?)
Comment: Processes exist at major asset level (e.g. belt press), but not for maintenance managed
level assets. Operations manuals are available on internal SharePoint.


1.09.03 Processes for developing and maintaining operation manuals. (E.g. are new assets
automatically included; are they periodically updated and purged?)
Comment: Manuals for new assets are provided under CIP processes. Process is not in place for
assets replaced by O&M.

1.09.04 Processes to assure the quality of Operating Manuals and Standards. (E.g. are all manuals
clear, complete, graphically effective, current, and relevant? Are updates timely?)


1.09.05 Processes for handling customer and stakeholder complaints. (E.g. are these tracked
through the business from receipt to resolution? Is the customer kept informed of the progress of the
complaint?)
Comment: Not all customer complaints are routed through customer service.

1.09.06 Processes for the development and maintenance of Emergency Response Plans, including
for what events and against what level and criticality of asset the plans are to be completed. (E.g.
are new assets automatically included? How often are the Plans reviewed? Are “triggers” for the
need for upgrades identified?)
Comment: Emergency Response Plans are on SharePoint. Review process is not triggered - done
on an ad hoc basis.


1.09.07 Processes to assure quality of the actual Emergency Response Plans. (E.g. do such quality
assurance processes exist and cover all asset services? Are they to the appropriate level of detail?
Are they quickly available to relevant staff? Is staff trained in the Plans?)

Operations
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.09.01 1.09.02 1.09.03 1.09.04 1.09.05 1.09.06 1.09.07

1.10 Maintenance
1.10.01 Processes for setting a strategic level maintenance framework (such as Reliability Centered
Maintenance, Zero Breakdown Maintenance, Six Sigma, etc.) that defines how the organization
undertakes maintenance of its assets. (E.g. Does such a corporate wide policy exists and is it tied to
business goals and cost analysis?)

1.10.02 Processes for maintenance planning. (E.g. is there a process for defining how each asset /
asset type will be maintained? Is the basis for determining the maintenance procedure or activity for
a single asset clear? Does this process cover all assets?)


1.10.03 Processes for maintenance scheduling. (E.g. Does the organization have a clear process to
determine maintenance schedules or intervals for the prescribed maintenance activity for each
asset?)
Comment: Rely predominantly on manufacturer recommendations for PMs.

1.10.04 Processes for monitoring and controlling the maintenance program. (E.g. is there adequate
reporting and feedback from field staff and information systems to enable the complete
understanding of what is happening to the assets?)
Comment: Feedback is inconsistently provided.


1.10.05 Processes for recording and reporting maintenance costs down to the maintenance
managed item level. (E.g. are asset costs reported and accessible? Is there a clear methodology on
what is required?)
Comment: Labor and parts/materials costs can be linked to work orders. Labor costs are
consistently captured, but parts/materials is less consistent.

1.10.06 Processes for developing and maintaining contents of maintenance manuals and
instructions. (E.g. are new assets automatically included and how often are they reviewed? What is
the process by which the responsible staff can update them? Is the format specified?)


1.10.07 Processes for assuring the quality of maintenance manuals and instructions. (E.g. Do these
exist and cover all business units/divisions and assets types?)

1.10.08 Processes for reviewing and analyzing maintenance programs.

(E.g. Have key maintenance performance indictors been adopted and reported? Are maintenance
trigger points understood by all? Are maintenance strategies matched to condition and stage in the
life cycle? Are “problem assets” periodically identified and associated failure modes assessed? Are
failure codes relevant to the class of asset incorporated in the work order process? Is the condition
and other asset attributes data updated as work orders are executed and closed? Is the “return on
maintenance investment” regularly calculated and reported?)


1.10.09 Processes for developing maintenance strategies that incorporate the overall business
drivers for maintenance, capital investment, and system performance. (E.g. do strategic Levels of
Service link directly to required asset performance levels and subsequently to maintenance planning
and scheduling?)

Maintenance
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.10.01 1.10.02 1.10.03 1.10.04 1.10.05 1.10.06 1.10.07 1.10.08 1.10.09

1.11 Work and Resource Management
1.11.01 Processes for matching skills to the demand for services / activities and allocating resources
across the organization. (E.g. is resource demand for designated maintenance skills matched with
available supply? Is it across the organization?)

1.11.02 Processes for prioritizing work orders. (E.g. are work orders allocated based on a criticality
score that measures the probability and consequence of failure?)


1.11.03 Processes for managing larger projects that involve multiple tasks and tracking of those
costs. (E.g. are work orders recorded in a timely manner? Can cost tracking be assigned to a project
in a manner accessible by users?)

1.11.04 Processes for controlling inventory or stock. (E.g. are work orders linked to the required
spare parts? Are these spare parts ordered in advance of completing the work order?)


1.11.05 Processes for planning future work load and required resources. (E.g. Does the organization
predict and balance future work load for different skills and numbers of staff for all life cycle
functions?)

Work and Resource Management
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.11.01 1.11.02 1.11.03 1.11.04 1.11.05

1.12 Continuous Improvement
1.12.01 A knowledge management system that contains all the processes and practice materials
described previously that is available to practitioners (e.g. Does such a knowledge base exist – in
paper or digital form? Does it cover all life cycle Asset Management functions and best practices? Is
it periodically updated?)

1.12.02 Asset Management Process Diagrams and Flowcharts (e.g. are internal Asset Management
processes mapped? Do they cover all Asset Management functions? Are they readily available to
staff?)


1.12.03 Processes for internal quality assurance. (E.g. Are Internal review processes that ensure the
best appropriate practices adopted by the business are followed across all business units in place?)

1.12.04 Processes for externally reviewing and benchmarking Asset Management practices for both
input (process) and output (cost activity) benchmarking. (E.g. Does the organization undertakes
external input and output benchmarking for asset management best practices?)


1.12.05 Processes followed for identifying cost reduction opportunities (e.g. is this a random or
systematic process? Does the organization have a process by which new ideas and suggestions are
reviewed?)

1.12.06 Processes for implementing and reporting on the progress achieved with approved Asset
Management improvement programs. (E.g. does the organization measure and track the progress of
these programs?)


Continuous Improvement
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.12.01 1.12.02 1.12.03 1.12.04 1.12.05 1.12.06

C APPENDIX C
DWSD’s AM Initiatives
Number Title
1.01.04* Define Minimum Required Level of Service at the Asset Level
1.02.01.A* Define Asset Registers Structures and Asset Identification Protocols
1.02.01.B Link Preventive Maintenance Rules & Activities to MMIs
1.02.02 Define Attribute Information to be Collected for Assets & MMIs
1.02.03* Define Asset Condition, Performance, and Reliability Assessment Protocols
1.03.02* Define Asset Effective and Remaining Useful Lives
1.03.06* Define Asset Business Risk Exposure
1.04.01.A* Develop Reliability Centered Maintenance Asset Evaluation Program
1.04.01.B* Develop Preventive Maintenance Optimization Program
1.04.04 Develop Asset Life Cycle Costs Management Processes
1.04.06* Develop Processes for Producing Annual Asset Management Plans
1.06.01 Develop Policy for Organization-wide Business Risk Management
1.07.01.A Define Protocols for Asset Acquisition, Commissioning, and Turnover
1.07.01.B Refine and Re-implement Records Management Policy
1.09.01 Define Protocols for Developing and Maintaining Operating Procedures
1.10.02 Define Protocols for Maintenance Planning and Scheduling, and Monitoring and
Controlling Maintenance Program Activities
1.10.08 Define Processes for Evaluating Return on Maintenance Investments
1.12.02.A* Develop Asset Management Process Diagrams and Procedure
1.12.02.B* Define Protocols for Conducting Business Case Evaluations
1.12.02.C* Define Protocols for Using the Asset Renewal Valuation Tool
2.0 Asset Management Program Rollout
3.0* Collect Assets & MMIs Data
* = Initiative that relates specifically to the AM program elements as specified in the MDEQ Permit
DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 .C-1

INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.01.04: Define Minimum Required Level of Service at the Asset Level
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define an asset minimum required level of service scoring scale (e.g. customer
response time, permit compliance, odor levels, service reliability, etc.), and define protocols for
evaluating and scoring assets to assign minimum required level of service ratings at the asset level.
EXISTING INITIATIVES AND INVESTMENTS:
 Initiatives are currently underway in the Wastewater Operating Group for noise and odor
control
 DWSD has historically performed an overall outreach to the public via advertising, online
surveys, and public forum meetings
 DWSD has sought to maintain the aesthetics of its properties
 A current goal is to keep customer response times below an hour
 A recent undertaking placed stickers on vehicles giving DWSD contact information and a
promise to give a response within 24 hours (511 for emergency/311 otherwise)
 Online surveys are available on the DWSD website soliciting customer feedback
 A customer satisfaction survey from 10/17/2013 includes feedback from wholesale
customers on the level of service (LOS), and feedback shows that the LOS is at a high or
acceptable level
PRIORITY: High TIMING: To Be Determined
COST RANGE: $X – Y K + internal staff time
DURATION:
 To develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): ~ 2 to 4 weeks

 To conduct data collection: included in estimates for Initiative 3.0
TEAM MEMBER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
 To develop SOP: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, .25-FTE AMT Reviewer

Note: 1-FTE = the full time equivalent of one person versus only one person full time
DESCRIPTION:
This initiative will be tasked to do the following:
 Develop an SOP defining a scoring scale for assigning the minimum required level of service
(MRLoS) ratings for assets (this includes enhancing definitions provided in the Asset Renewal
Evaluation Tool as needed for different asset groups, classes, types, etc.)
 Within the SOP, define protocols for determining MRLoS ratings for assets (including protocol
variations as needed for different asset groups, classes, types, etc.)
1.01.04 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Within the SOP, define protocols for conducting quality control reviews (e.g. how done and
documented), as applicable
 Develop templates as needed to support data collection
 Evaluate and score assets to assign MRLoS ratings
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined asset MRLoS scoring scale

 MRLoS ratings assigned for assets
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Initiative 3.0 Collect Assets & MMIs Data
OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS:
Focusing on MRLoS at the asset level will aid in aligning future asset management activities with goals
for delivering quality and reliable service to customers
AM READINESS ASSESSMENT CROSS REFERENCES: 1.01.04
1.01.04 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.02.01.A: Define Asset Registers Structures and Asset Identification Protocols
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define the structures of the asset registers for various asset groups (e.g. plants,
pump/booster stations, basins, linear assets, etc.); including the level of detail or granularity
necessary to represent lowest level maintenance managed items within the registers. In addition,
standardized identification protocols will be defined.
 Asset registers (hierarchies) are currently captured in existing information systems, but do
not reflect associated lower level maintenance managed items (MMIs) as unique entities
 Numbering conventions have been followed for asset identification, but they are not
captured in one comprehensive guideline for uniform use throughout DWSD
DURATION:
 To update existing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): ~ 2 to 4 weeks

 To update asset registers (determine the MMIs needed & update CMMS):
o WW Plant ~ .25hr/asset x 4000 assets = ~ 1000hrs
o CSO Basins ~ .25hr/asset x 1300 assets total = ~ 325hrs total
o Water Plants ~ .25hr/asset x 600 assets/plant = ~ 150hrs/plant
o Pump/Booster Stations ~ .25hr/asset x 50 to 75 assets/station = ~ 12.5hrs to
18.75hrs/station
o Facilities assets – most facilities are included in estimates for plants, basins and stations.
However, there are 14 additional facilities ~ .25hr/asset x 500 assets total = ~ 125hrs
o Control Structures and Equipment – (assets inputs needed)
o Fleet assets ~ .25hr/asset x 500 to 700 fleet vehicles = ~ 125hrs to 175hrs
o GIS represented assets – NOTE: linear assets & a GIS interface are not part of the first
phase of the WAM implementation, so updating related to linear assets may need to be
addressed in a second phase of this initiative
 To update existing SOP: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, .25-FTE AMT Reviewer

 To update asset registers: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, 1-FTE CMMS Subject Matter Expert
1.02.01.A 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
DESCRIPTION:
 Update an existing SOP to define MMI, what will be considered to be MMIs ( e.g. lowest
maintainable unit vs. materials/spare parts used in performing m aintenance activities), and
levels of granularity expected to identify MMIs within asset registers
 Determine whether MMIs will be identified as “assets” or “components”
 Within the SOP, capture alphanumeric asset identification conventions previously used and
that are intended to be carried forward
 Within the SOP, define new alphanumeric asset identification conventions as appropriate
for other asset groups (possibly some linear assets). NOTE: it may not be feasible to apply
an alphanumeric numbering scheme for the wastewater plant, since one was never used
and all work history is tied to existing asset numbering
 Review current asset hierarchies to identify improvements or modifications to create asset
management-centric hierarchies, and retrofit existing asset registers based on the new
MMIs identification standards
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined standards for asset register structures and MMIs representation
 Defined asset identification conventions
 Updated asset registers incorporating the new MMIs identification standards
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Ongoing adherence to SOP
 Promotes uniform asset representation and identification

 Promotes better granularity of work history for more refined asset management decision
evaluations and analyses
1.02.01.A 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.02.01.B: Link Preventative Maintenance Rules & Activities to MMIs
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will link preventive maintenance rules and future work history to the maintenance
managed items identified within asset registers (as appropriate).

Preventive maintenance (PM) rules are currently captured in existing information systems, but are
not associated directly with lower level maintenance managed items (MMIs) .
DURATION:
 WW Plant ~ .50hr/asset x 4000 assets = ~ 2000hrs

 CSO Basins ~ .50hr/asset x 1300 assets total = ~ 650hrs
 Water Plants ~ .50hr/asset x 600 assets/plant = ~ 300hrs/plant
 Pump/Booster Stations ~ .50hr/asset x 50 to 75 assets/stations = ~ 25hrs to 37.5hrs/station
 Facilities assets – most facilities are included in estimates for plants, basins and stations.
However, there are 14 additional facilities ~ .50hr/asset x 500 assets total = ~ 250hrs
 Control Structures and Equipment – (assets inputs needed)
 Fleet assets ~ .50hr/asset x 500 to 700 fleet vehicles = ~ 250hrs to 350hrs
 GIS represented assets – NOTE: linear assets & a GIS interface are not part of the first phase
of the WAM implementation, so asset register updating under Initiative 1.02.01.A and linking
PM rules to MMIs may need to be addressed in a second phase of this initiative

1-FTE AMT Coordinator, 1-FTE CMMS Subject Matter Expert
DESCRIPTION:
 Confirm that PM rules and work orders can be linked to and scheduled from components
rather assets in WAM
 Make considerations for when PM rules linkage and scheduling at the asset vs. MMI level is
still appropriate (e.g. if the PM is not related to a specific MMI)
 Investigate being able to suppress PMs that trigger at the same time for the same
asset/MMI (e.g. monthly and quarterly for the same asset/MMI)
 Review and modify PM rules linkages from current assets to new MMIs as appropriate
1.02.01.B 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
DEPENDENCIES:
 Initiative 1.02.01.A Define Asset Registers Structures and Asset Identification Protocols
 If MMIs are to be identified as components within Oracle WAM, implementation of WAM is
necessary, since PM rules cannot be linked to components within the current CMMS
KEY DELIVERABLES:
PMs linked to MMIs rather assets (as appropriate)
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: None
Promotes better granularity of work history for more refined asset management decision evaluations
and analyses
1.02.01.B 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.02.02: Define Attribute Information to be Collected for Assets & MMIs
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define the standards for attribute information to be collected for assets a nd
maintenance managed items identified in asset registers.
 Attribute standards for many asset classes are represented by nameplate data templates
within the current computerized maintenance management system (CMMS), and/or by GIS
data standards for the various asset feature classes
 Asset data exists to some extent within the current information systems
DURATION:


DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining standards and templates for attribute data to be collected for
individual classes/types of assets and MMIs
 Within the SOP, define protocols for collecting and continuously updating attribute data
 Redesign existing nameplate data templates to align with new MMIs standards (attributes
for “components” are currently compiled within asset based templates)
 Review and modify existing nameplate data templates as needed to capture additional
attribute information, and create new templates as needed for other asset types
 Determine what data exists in current systems and what needs to be modified
 Coordinate data collection and information systems updating to r etrofit the new data
collection standards and data to the updated asset registers
DEPENDENCIES: None
1.02.02 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined standards for asset/MMI attribution

 Updated/new nameplate data templates
 Promotes consistent collection of quality and accurate asset/MMI attribute data

 Nameplate data templates support uniform collection of attribute data
 Improved confidence in CMMS asset attribute data
1.02.02 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.02.03: Define Asset Condition, Performance, and Reliability Assessment Protocols
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define scoring scales for asset condition, performance, and reliability, and define
protocols for conducting assessments and scoring assets to assign condition, performance, and
reliability ratings for assets/maintenance managed items.
 A version of a condition assessment data collection template is currently used for CSO basins
and sewage pumping stations under the Scheduled Replacement Program
 A CCTV inspection program for sewers is in place that uses Pipeline Assessment Condition
Protocol (PACP) coding to rate condition of sewers
 Advanced condition assessment techniques such as vibration analysis, oil analysis,
thermography, and electrical testing are conducted at the wastewater plant
DURATION:


DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the scoring scales for assigning condition, performance, and
reliability ratings for assets (this includes enhancing definitions provided in the Asset Renewal
 Within the SOP, define assessment protocols for determining condition, performance, and
reliability ratings for assets (including protocol variations as needed for different asset
groups, classes, types, etc.)
 Within the SOP, define methods for prioritizing which assets are subject to assessment (e.g.
based on risk), and frequencies for when assets are subject to re-assessment
 Develop templates as needed to support conducting assessments and data collection
1.02.03 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Assess and score assets to assign condition, performance, and reliability ratings
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 Clearly defined asset condition, performance, and reliability scoring scales

 Condition, performance, and reliability ratings assigned for assets
 Promotes consistent collection of quality and accurate asset condition, performance, and
reliability ratings
 Provides data for more accurately forecasting asset renewal/replacement needs, and
supporting CIP planning and annual budgeting processes
AM READINESS ASSESSMENT CROSS REFERENCES: 1.02.03, 1.02.04
1.02.03 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.03.02: Define Asset Effective and Remaining Useful Lives
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define typical asset effective life for broad high level asset classes, and how
remaining asset useful life is determined to support renewal/replacement forecasting.
EXISTING INITIATIVES AND INVESTMENTS: None
DURATION:


DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the typical effective life for assets based on broad classifications
of assets (this includes enhancing asset class definitions provided in the Asset Renewal
 Within the SOP, define protocols for making adjustments to effective life and remaining
useful life (calculated within the Asset Renewal Evaluation Tool), including how adjustment
assumptions are to be documented
 Within the SOP, define frequencies for when effective and remaining useful lives are
reevaluated (e.g. based on risk)
 Assign assets effective lives
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined typical effective asset lives based on asset classes
 Estimated effective lives and remaining useful lives of assets
1.03.02 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Promotes consistent determination of asset effective life, calculation of remaining useful life,
and protocols for making lives adjustments
 Provides data for more accurately forecasting asset renewal/replacement needs, and
supporting CIP planning and annual budgeting processes
1.03.02 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.03.06: Define Asset Business Risk Exposure
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define an asset consequence of failure scoring scale, and how asset business risk
exposure is determined to support prioritization of asset related activities and decisions .

A criticality rating system (based on consequence of failure) is currently used to rate assets, and the
ratings are captured in the CMMS
DURATION:

 To get business risk exposure (BRE) ratings into the CMMS: ~ 1 to 2 weeks (likely will use
existing criticality data field on asset records to hold BRE values)

 To get BRE ratings into the CMMS: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, 1-FTE IT Subject Matter
Expert
DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the scoring scale for assigning a consequence of failure (CoF)
rating for assets (this includes enhancing definitions provided in the Asset Renewal Evaluation
Tool as needed for different asset groups, classes, types, etc.)
 Within the SOP, define how BRE is calculated
 Within the SOP, define protocols for making adjustments to likelihood of failure (LoF)
ratings (calculated within the Asset Renewal Evaluation Tool), including how adjustment
assumptions are to be documented
 Within the SOP, define frequencies for when BREs are reevaluated (e.g. based on risk)
 Evaluate and score assets to assign CoF ratings and calculate BRE ratings
1.03.06 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Migrate BRE ratings into the CMMS
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined asset CoF scoring scale

 CoF and BRE ratings assigned for assets
 Promotes consistent determination of asset CoF and BRE, and protocols for making
adjustments to LoF ratings
 Provides asset BRE ratings that should be used to prioritize all asset related activities and
decision making
1.03.06 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.04.01.A: Develop Reliability Centered Maintenance Asset Evaluation Program
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will develop protocols for conducting asset reliability centered evaluations in order to
determine expected failure modes and appropriate detection and/or mitigation maintenance tactics.

Wastewater Operations has prior experience conducting reliability centered maintenance (RCM)
evaluations, but the location of files/outputs of those efforts is unknown
DURATION:
 To develop SOP: ~ 4 to 6 weeks

 To conduct RCM evaluations: ~ 2 to 3 weeks/asset (based on asset versus maintenance
managed item level for estimating purposes). Overall level of effort TBD based on
outcomes of business risk exposure work.

 To conduct RCM evaluations: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, .5-FTE Operator, 1.5-FTE
Maintenance Tech
DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the protocols to be followed for conducting RCM evaluations and
incorporating evaluation outcomes into the maintenance tactics for evaluated assets
 Within the SOP, define methods for prioritizing which assets are subject RCM evaluation
(e.g. based on risk)
 Within the SOP, define triggers that will initiate review of previous RCM evaluations and
previously established maintenance tactics (e.g. based on analysis of actual failures, or
notable decline in asset condition, performance, or reliability ra tings)
 Within the SOP, define where documented RCM evaluations will be stored for retrieval
and/or subsequent updating
 Develop templates as needed for documenting RCM evaluations
 Determine which asset failure modes/causes should be included in the CMMS to support
better/more accurate failure reporting in work order updating processes
1.04.01 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Conduct RCM evaluations of appropriate assets

 Update CMMS maintenance tactics based on RCM evaluation outcomes
DEPENDENCIES: Initiative 1.03.06 Define Asset Business Risk Exposure
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined protocols for conducting RCM evaluations

 Enhanced failure reporting codes within the CMMS
 RCM evaluations of appropriate assets
 Updated CMMS maintenance tactics based on RCM evaluation outcomes
 Provides a standardized methodology for determining asset specific maintenance tactics based
on the operating context and environment of a given asset
 Promotes optimizing asset maintenance tactics based on a defined evaluative process rather
than staff intuition and manufacturer recommendations
1.04.01 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.04.01.B: Develop Preventive Maintenance Optimization Program
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will develop protocols for conducting asset preventive maintenance optimization
evaluations in order to evaluate the appropriateness of existing preventive maintenance tactics for
assets that are not subjected to reliability centered maintenance evaluations .
Wastewater Operations has a Preventive Maintenance Plan in place, but the plan is more focused on
conducting asset reliability centered maintenance (RCM) evaluations rather than preventive
maintenance optimization (PMO) evaluations
DURATION:
 To develop SOP: ~ 4 to 6 weeks

 To conduct PMO evaluations: ~ 2 to 3 weeks/asset (based on asset versus maintenance
managed item level for estimating purposes). Overall level of effort TBD based on
outcomes of business risk exposure and RCM work.

 To conduct PMO evaluations: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, .5-FTE Operator, 1.5-FTE
Maintenance Tech
DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the protocols to be followed for conducting PMO evaluations and
incorporating evaluation outcomes into existing maintenance tactics for evaluated assets
 Within the SOP, define methods for prioritizing which assets are subject PMO evaluation
(e.g. based on risk)
 Within the SOP, define triggers that will initiate review of previous PMO evaluations and
previously established maintenance tactics (e.g. based on analysis of actual failures, or
notable decline in asset condition, performance, or reliability ratings )
 Within the SOP, define where documented PMO evaluations will be stored for retrieval
and/or subsequent updating
 Develop templates as needed for documenting PMO evaluations
1.04.01 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Determine which asset failure modes/causes should be included in the CMMS to support
better/more accurate failure reporting in work order updating processes
 Conduct PMO evaluations of appropriate assets
 Update CMMS maintenance tactics based on PMO evaluation outcomes
DEPENDENCIES:
 Initiative 1.03.06 Define Asset Business Risk Exposure

 Initiative 1.04.01.A Develop Reliability Centered Maintenance Asset Evaluation Program
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined protocols for conducting PMO evaluations

 Enhanced failure reporting codes within the CMMS
 PMO evaluations of appropriate assets
 Updated CMMS maintenance tactics based on PMO evaluation outcomes
 Provides a standardized methodology for evaluating existing asset maintenance tactics based
on the expected failure modes of a given asset
 Promotes optimizing asset maintenance tactics based on a defined evaluative process rather
than staff intuition and manufacturer recommendations
1.04.01 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.04.04: Develop Asset Life Cycle Costs Management Processes
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will develop protocols for capturing and periodically reviewing asset life cycle costs.
DURATION:

 To periodically review life cycle costs (LCCs): on-going implementation of SOP

 To periodically review LCCs: To Be Determined
DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the protocols for managing asset LCCs

 Within the SOP, define what asset related cost components comprise LCCs, and in what
information systems those components will be maintained
 Within the SOP, define methods for prioritizing which assets will be subject to LCCs
evaluation (e.g. based on risk), and frequencies for when LCCs are subject to review
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES: SOP defining protocols for LCCs capture and periodic review
 Provides a documented methodology for identifying and capturing LCCs

 Promotes periodic review of LCCs to support asset renewal/replacement decisions
AM READINESS ASSESSMENT CROSS REFERENCES: 1.04.04, 1.10.05
1.04.04 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.04.06: Develop Processes for Producing Annual Asset Management Plans
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define the processes for producing annual asset management plans from a
strategic perspective.
 A needs assessment study is conducted every three years to determine specific capital needs
related to wastewater assets
 A Scheduled Replacement Program report is prepared annually regarding wastewater plant,
CSO basins, and sewer pump station assets; the report forecasts 20 year asset replacements
 A ten year master plan exists for the department
DURATION:

st
 To prepare 1 annual plan: ~ 4 to 6 months
 To prepare annual updates: ~ 2 to 3 months
 To develop SOP: 2-FTE AMT Coordinator, 1-FTE AMT Reviewer

 To prepare 1st annual plan: 6-FTE AMT Coordinator, 2-FTE AMT Reviewer
 To prepare annual updates: 6-FTE AMT Coordinator, 2-FTE AMT Reviewer
DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the protocols for producing annual asset management plans
 Within the SOP, define the time frame cycle for preparing the plans (e.g. draft plan in
advance of fiscal planning; final plan based on outcomes of fiscal planning budget
limitations and rationalization)
 Within the SOP, define protocols for linking capital and O&M expenditure programs with
overall business goals in triple bottom line terms (e.g. social, economic, and environment)
 Within the SOP, define protocols for matching forecast renewal/replacement expenditures
with available fiscal resources (e.g. budget rationalization)
documented)
1.04.06 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
DEPENDENCIES: All initiatives
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP defining protocols for producing annual asset management plans

st
 1 Annual Asset Management Plan
 Annual updates to the AM Plan
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Continued adherence to all other initiatives
 Provides a documented methodology for producing asset management plans

 Associates long term budgeting and planning with details of the asset management plan
AM READINESS ASSESSMENT CROSS REFERENCES: 1.04.06, 1.04.08, 1.04.09
1.04.06 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.06.01: Develop Policy for Organization-wide Business Risk Management
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define the policy for evaluating and managing business risk exposure from a
strategic perspective and on a broad organization-wide basis.

A Risk Management function has been formed within the Finance Department, and a Risk Manager
position has been advertised.
DURATION: ~ 4 to 6 weeks

2-FTE AMT Coordinator, .25-FTE AMT Reviewer
DESCRIPTION:
 Develop a business risk management policy that defines protocols for managing risk from
an organization-wide perspective
 Define roles and responsibilities for identifying, documenting, and communicating risk
within key risk areas of strategy, finance, and operations, as well as within individual
business units
 Define the processes for quantifying risk events (e.g. consequence and likelihood of
occurrence)
 Define the processes for assessing risk mitigation options and managing risk reduction
KEY DELIVERABLES:
Policy document for evaluating and managing business risk exposure on an organization-wide basis
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Ongoing adherence to policy

This initiative will provide an organization-wide policy and protocols for evaluating and managing BRE
on an organization-wide basis, to ensure that risk is managed holistically and considers implications
1.06.01 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
from strategic, fiscal, information technology, engineering, and operational perspectives.
AM READINESS ASSESSMENT CROSS REFERENCES: 1.06.01 thru 1.06.05
1.06.01 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.07.01.A: Define Protocols for Asset Acquisition, Commissioning, and Turnover
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define protocols for managing asset acquisition, commissioning, and turnover
practices to facilitate more timely and accurate tracking of assets within the asset management
program.
 There are master specifications used to define requirements for contracts and projects
 There are also provisional specifications that can be used to supplement master specification
requirements for contracts and projects
 There is also a project manager’s manual defining protocols for managing various project and
project closeout activities/tasks
 A template exists identifying data to be entered into the CMMS; this needs to be completed by
contractors/internal staff at the time of assets turnover

DESCRIPTION:
This initiative will be tasked to do the following (applies for internal as well as CIP projects):
 Develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) defining protocols for asset acquisition,
commissioning, and turnover standards to ensure appropriate asset information is being
provided to support timely asset management program tracking of new assets
 Update master specifications to include language to ensure provisional specifications are
invoked when new equipment is being provided to DWSD
 Update provisional specifications to ensure they include all the appropriate asset
specification data templates (ref. Initiative 1.02.02) to be used for compiling and providing
asset data to DWSD
 Update the project manager’s manual to ensure project closeout activities include
provisions for ensuring necessary asset information and data is provided, and that pertinent
fiscal data is provided to the financial system
 Develop quality control procedures (e.g. similar to inspection procedures), to be applied for
acceptance of construction work done by DWSD internally
1.07.01.A 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
DEPENDENCIES: Initiative 1.02.02 Define Attribute Information to be Collected for Assets & MMIs
KEY DELIVERABLES:
SOP with clearly defined protocols for successful management of asset acquisition, commissioning, and
turnover processes
 Documented standard protocols for managing asset acquisition, commissioning, and turnover
practices to better support asset management program information needs
 Broader communication and awareness of asset data needs to support asset management
 More timely identification and creation of asset records to support more accurate asset tracking
of appropriate asset information
 Clearly defined protocols for acceptance of construction work done by DWSD internally
1.07.01.A 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.07.01.B: Refine and Re-implement Records Management Policy
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will refine existing records management protocols for asset related information, and re-
implement the protocols to ensure the information is readily accessible to support asset
management program business needs.
 A records management policy exists, but the owner of the policy is unknown
 Investment was made in setting up a SharePoint site and several internal file servers to act as a
repositories for key records related to department asset
DURATION:
 To update existing records management policy: ~ 4 to 6 weeks

 To re-implement and retrofit policy for existing assets: TBD
TEAM MEMBER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
 To update existing policy: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, .25-FTE AMT Reviewer

 To re-implement and retrofit policy for existing assets: TBD
DESCRIPTION:
 Review and refine the existing records management policy to ensure it addresses all
standard operating procedures, operations & maintenance manuals, drawings,
specifications, reports, etc.
 Within the policy, identify requirements for records retention periods, and periodic reviews
and updating
 Within the policy, define where and how records are to be stored to support ready access,
retrieval, and updating
 Develop a plan to re-implement and retrofit policy protocols for existing assets
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 Updated policy for records management protocols

 Plan to re-implement and retrofit policy protocols for existing assets
1.07.01.B 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Ongoing adherence to policy
 Clearly defined protocols for managing records supporting asset management program
activities
 Re-compiled repositories for critical records
 Promotes uniform and consistent processing of critical records to ensure ready accessibility for
retrieval and updating
1.07.01.B 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.09.01: Define Protocols for Developing and Maintaining Operating Procedures
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define the protocols for developing, maintaining, and updating operations and
maintenance manuals.

DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an umbrella procedure document to define protocols for developing, maintaining,

and updating operations and maintenance manuals; including standard operating
procedures (SOPs), standard equipment maintenance procedures (SEMPs), etc.
 Within the procedure, include provisions for conducting annual reviews of manuals,
procedures, etc.
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
Procedure defining protocols for developing, maintaining, and updating operations and
maintenance manuals; including standard operating procedures (SOPs), standard equipment
maintenance procedures (SEMPs), etc.
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Continued adherence to procedure
Procedure with clearly defined protocols for developing, maintaining, and updating operations and
maintenance manuals, etc. to ensure their current relevance to asset management program
activities and goals
1.09.01 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.10.02: Define Protocols for Maintenance Planning and Scheduling, and Monitoring
and Controlling Maintenance Program Activities
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define the protocols for conducting maintenance planning and scheduling, and for
monitoring and controlling maintenance program activities.
There are several documents addressing protocols for managing maintenance activities and work
orders processing.

1-FTE AMT Coordinator, 1-FTE AMT Reviewer
DESCRIPTION:
 Update existing standard operating procedures (SOP) for work management processes to
clarify expectations for proper work order processing (e.g. screening, planning, scheduling,
updating, and maintenance staff feedback protocols)
 Within the SOPs, define protocols for conducting quality control reviews (e.g. how done and
 Within the SOP, clarify intentions to use asset business risk exposure (ref. Initiative
1.03.06) in conjunction with work order priority to calculate an overall work priority
KEY DELIVERABLES:
Updated SOPs with clearly defined protocols for work management processes, and monitoring and
controlling maintenance program activities
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Continued adherence to SOPs
Promotes uniform and consistent work management processes to ensure work management activities
1.10.02 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
are conducted in a manner best serving the goals of the asset management program
1.10.02 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.10.08: Define Processes for Evaluating Return on Maintenance Investments
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define the processes to periodically review and analyze return on maintenance
program investments.
DURATION:

 To conduct pilot implementation: ~ 4 to 6 weeks

DESCRIPTION:
 Develop an SOP defining the processes for periodic review and analysis of return on
maintenance program investments
 Within the SOP, define the nature of the analysis, its frequency, and complete a pilot
implementation of the SOP
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined processes for reviewing and analyzing return on maintenance
program investments
 Pilot implementation of the SOP
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: Continued adherence to SOP

Promotes regular review of maintenance program activities and investments to ensure investments
align with overall asset management program goals, asset renewal/replacement plans, and budgetary
restrictions forecasting
1.10.08 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
1.10.08 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.12.02.A: Develop Asset Management Process Diagrams and Procedure
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will develop asset management process diagrams, and a corresponding procedure to
provide supplemental guidance for process implementation.
EXISTING INITIATIVES AND INVESTMENTS: Process diagrams have already been developed
DURATION:
 To develop process diagrams: already done

 To develop process diagrams: already done

DESCRIPTION:
 Develop process diagrams identifying asset management process steps, and functional
roles and responsibilities for implementing the processes
 Develop an SOP that supplements and provides guidance for implementing the processes
represented by the diagrams
 Within the SOP, define how process outcomes feed into the capital improvement project
planning and budgeting processes
 Develop templates as needed to support data collection/migration
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
Asset management process diagrams and SOP to support implementation
1.12.02.A 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Promotes uniform and consistent implementation of asset management program processes

 Supports uniform training and rollout of the asset management program
1.12.02.A 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.12.02.B: Define Protocols for Conducting Business Case Evaluations
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define protocols for how to conduct and document a business case evaluation.

A simplistic form of project rationalization process exists for major CIP projects

DESCRIPTION:
This initiative will be tasked to do the following (applies for internal as well as CIP projects):
 Develop a standard operating procedure to define the processes for conducting and
documenting a business case evaluation (BCE)
 Within the SOP, define triggers/criteria that identify when a BCE should be performed
 Within the SOP, define how results of the BCE will be utilized in asset management
decision making
 Develop templates as needed to support preparing and documenting a BCE
DEPENDENCIES: None
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 SOP with clearly defined guidelines for how to conduct, document and utilize a BCE in asset
management decision making
 Templates as needed for documenting a BCE
 Promotes uniform and consistent development of BCEs

 Institutionalizes using formal BCEs as part of asset management decision evaluation processes
for internal as well as CIP projects
1.12.02.B 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
1.12.02.B 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 1.12.02.C Define Protocols for Using the Asset Renewal Valuation Tool
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will define protocols for using the asset renewal valuation tool to forecast asset
renewal/replacement needs.
, including how outputs feed into the budget planning process and the annual asset management plan.
 Wastewater Operations has a needs assessment process that is conducted on 3-year cycles
 Wastewater Operations has a schedule replacement program that provides 20-year forecasting
of proposed asset renewals/replacements

DESCRIPTION:
 Develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) that provides guidance for populating and
using the asset renewal valuation tool that has been provided to DWSD
 Within the SOP, define procedures for updating/modifying the analysis variables in the
spreadsheet tool and documenting the changes
 Within the SOP, define how outputs feed into the budget planning, capital improvement
planning, and annual asset management plan preparation processes
DEPENDENCIES:
 Initiative 1.01.04 Define Minimum Required Level of Service

 Initiative 1.02.03 Define Asset Condition, Performance, and Reliability Assessment
Protocols
 Initiative 1.03.02 Define Asset Effective and Remaining Useful Lives
KEY DELIVERABLES: SOP for using the asset renewal valuation tool
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS:
1.12.02.C 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
 Initiative 3.0 Collect Assets & MMIs Data

 Continued adherence to SOP
 Promotes consistently prepared and uniformly documented processes for methodically

forecasting asset renewal/replacement needs based on a 100 year horizon
 When fully implemented, forecasts prepared using the tool should be able to replace
Wastewater’s needs assessment and scheduled replacement program processes
1.12.02.C 2
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 2.0: Asset Management Program Rollout
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will develop a presentation and training delivery plan to support rollout of the asset
management program design.

DESCRIPTION:
 Develop a presentation to support rollout of the asset management program design

 Deliver the presentation to all appropriate work groups
 Develop a training delivery plan to provide training to appropriate staff for the various
procedures, protocols, process diagrams, etc. developed in preparation for implementing
an asset management program
DEPENDENCIES: All other Initiatives
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 Asset management program design presentation and delivery

 Training development plan
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS: All other initiatives
 Promotes consistent and uniform communication of the asset management program intentions
 Provides a logical plan for delivering training to appropriate staff regarding roles and
responsibilities to support implementing the asset management program
AM READINESS ASSESSMENT CROSS REFERENCES: None specifically
2.0 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
Initiative 3.0: Collect Assets & MMIs Data
OVERVIEW:
This initiative will collect the attribute information and data elements defined by other initiatives for
assets and maintenance managed items identified in asset registers.
 Attribute standards for many asset classes are represented by nameplate data templates
within the current computerized maintenance management system (CMMS), and/or by GIS
data standards for the various asset feature classes
 Asset data exists to some extent within the current information systems
DURATION:
Estimated 1 to 2 hours per maintenance managed item (MMI), which includes: a physical visit to
collect condition & nameplate data; and a desktop review (documents, subject matter experts,
Oracle) to collect performance, reliability, minimum required level of service, consequence of
failure, redundancy, confined space flag, year installed, original cost and expected life data. The
following list outlines the estimated number of MMI per DWSD department:
 WW Plant – 4000 assets = ~ 12,000 to 16,000 MMI total

 CSO Basins (9) – 1300 assets total = ~ 3900 to 5200 MMI total
 Water Plant (5) – 600 assets/plant = ~ 1800 to 2400 MMI/plant = ~ 9000 to 12,000 MMI
total
 Pump/Booster Station (30) – 50 to 75 assets/station = ~ 150 to 375 MMI/station = ~ 4500 to
11,250 MMI total
 Facilities assets – most facilities are included in estimates for plants, basins and stations.
However, there are 14 additional facilities – 500 assets total = ~ 5000 MMI total
 Control Structures and Equipment – (assets and MMIs inputs needed)
 Fleet assets – 500 to 700 fleet vehicles = ~ 5000 to 7000 MMI total
 GIS represented assets – NOTE: linear assets & a GIS interface are not part of the first
phase of the WAM implementation, so data collection related to linear assets may need to
be addressed in a separate phase of this initiative. In addition, data collection for existing
assets is typically limited to a desktop review of available data, and supplemented as
assets are exposed through ongoing maintenance activities. Data for new assets should
be captured during assets commissioning and acceptance.

To conduct data collection for vertical assets: 1-FTE AMT Coordinator, 1-FTE Operator, 1-FTE
Maintenance Tech, 2-FTE Maintenance Tech for 20% of the assets (those in confined space, those
3.0 1
INITIATIVE DOCUMENT
requiring ladders access, those with other safety considerations)

DESCRIPTION:
This initiative will be tasked to do the following: Coordinate data collection and information systems
updating to retrofit the new data collection standards and data to the updated asset registers
DEPENDENCIES:
 Initiative 1.01.04 Define Minimum Required Level of Service at the Asset Level
 Initiative 1.02.01.A Define Asset Registers Structures and Asset Identification Protocols
 Initiative 1.02.02 Define Attribute Information to be Collected for Assets & MMIs
 Initiative 1.02.03 Define Asset Condition, Performance, and Reliability Assessment Protocols
 Initiative 1.03.02 Define Asset Effective and Remaining Useful Lives
 Initiative 1.12.02.C Define Protocols for Using the Asset Renewal Evaluation Tool
KEY DELIVERABLES:
 Data collection supporting other initiatives

 Updated assets/MMIs attribute data
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS:
Continued adherence to SOPs developed under initiatives identified as dependencies
 Promotes consistent collection of quality and accurate asset/MMI data that supports asset
management decision processes
 Improved confidence in CMMS asset attribute data
AM READINESS ASSESSMENT CROSS REFERENCES:
1.01.04, 1.02.01 thru 1.02.03, 1.03.02, 1.03.06, 1.12.02
3.0 2

Detroit WWTP Asset Management Program Michigan Gov PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detroit WWTP Asset Management Program Michigan Gov PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detroit WWTP Asset Management Program Michigan Gov PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department

Wastewater Operations Group

ATTACHMENT II: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN ......................... II

ATTACHMENT III: PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN ......................... II

ATTACHMENT IV: ANNUAL SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PLAN

ATTACHMENT V: SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPORT

2. AM READINESS ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 4

3. AM PROGRAM FUNCTIONAL DESIGN ............................................. 9

3.3 SOPs Guiding Processes in the AM Framework ..................................................... 15

4. AM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ROADMAP .................................. 17

APPENDIX B: WWOG AM READINESS ASSESSMENT REPORT ........ 21

APPENDIX C: DWSD’S AM INITIATIVE SUMMARIES ............................ 22

ATTACHMENT II: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN

ATTACHMENT III: PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN

ATTACHMENT IV: ANNUAL SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PLAN

ATTACHMENT V: SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPORT

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 ii

This document incorporates the findings of Asset Management Readiness Assessments

DWSD’s Asset Management Vision

Table 1: Elements of DWSD’s AM Vision Statement

Vision Elements How will Asset Management Achieve it?

Sustainable and Implementing asset management business processes to improve

DWSD Asset Management Program Plan Dec 2013

Use asset management information to better forecast capital needs

• Discuss highlights of the DWSD AM readiness assessment report(s);

• Propose a phased AM program improvement roadmap.

2.1 Overview of Assessment Process

• Managing Demand Analysis

• Managing Knowledge of Assets

• Accounting and Costing Methods Current in Place

• Strategic Planning Process

• Business Risk Assessment Management

• Asset Creation and Acquisition

• Asset Disposal and Policies

• Work and Resource Management

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 4

2.2 Overall Findings

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 5

To further support a consistent and quality approach to AM decision making it is recommended

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 6

MDEQ Permit AM Program Current AM Elements Future DWSD AM Initiatives 3 Assessment of

Preventive Maintenance • Preventive Maintenance Plan • 1.04.01.A – Develop Reliability Centered

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 8

Based on the assessment, EMA recommends the introduction of an Asset Management

3.1 Key AM Principles for DWSD

DWSD Asset Management Program Dec 2013 9

3.2 Proposed AM Framework

AM can only be described as good, successful or effective if there is a clear

AM is an inherently integrated approach and cannot be successfully implemented by managing

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 10

Figure 1: Proposed DWSD’s Asset Management Framework

The asset management framework is divided into four main areas:

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 11

3.2.1 Decision Making (Line of Sight)

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 12

3.2.2 Monitoring and Review

• A set of Standard Operating Procedures for maintenance activities, etc.

DWSD WWOG Asset Management Program Dec 2013 13

Successful sustained AM requires competent people and an organization that facilitates