fpf.tools
Library / Engineering Asset Management Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 89–106

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 02:22:15 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 03:38:22 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 04:20:18 UTC

EAM-COMBINATION - Choose asset work under shared constraints

  • Situation: CityWater’s individually preferred asset options exceed the shared capital allocation.
  • Question: Which complete programme supplies the required service within the funding and work windows?
  • First useful result or blocker: A programme recommendation with a supported calendar, or the conflict preventing it.
  • Start with: EAM.10 when alternatives and conditions are known; establish a missing service or option result where needed.
  • Stop or return: Finish with sufficient programme advice. A changed funding, service or work condition reopens the affected comparison.

The demand and capability comparison in EAM.4 and EAM.6 identifies North’s wet-season shortfall: 1,100 m³/h required against 1,000 available. EAM.7 supplies two qualified ways to add 200 m³/h at C, modification or leased service. Together with the supported A, B and D policies, these become the alternatives for EAM.9 to reconcile and EAM.10 to combine.

Under the €8 million capital limit and the other supplied limits, APP-EAM-02 finds the least-cost eligible programme: refurbish A and B, modify C, continue D. It uses €7 million capital, €0.50 million initial operating expenditure and €1.85 million annually; its present cost is €14.592 million. Replacing D as well would require €10 million capital. Leasing C instead makes D replacement affordable, but raises total present cost to €15.350 million. The individual D result therefore remains true under its own resource assumption, while the programme comparison favors continuation.

EAM.11 consumes the selected interventions and their whole outage durations. A on days 1–2, B on 3–4, C on 5–7 and D on day 8 fits the twelve-day window and the single team, restoring each asset before the next outage. It avoids the A/C and B/D overlaps that would breach the dry-window service minimum. Use EAM.12 to send a programme recommendation with a supported calendar to the committee.

If a demand driver or shared dependency changes, EAM.4 and EAM.6 reconstruct the affected service conditions before the same options are compared again. If work can share a real preparation or mobilization, EAM.10 reconciles the whole consequences with the separate policies and EAM.11 qualifies that arrangement. Its separate P+Q case changes a 4.0 estimate to 3.8 by paying for one mobilization; incompatible access windows remove that saving. These constructions are used when their premise is missing or changes.

A changed limit returns to the affected choice. If the funding board raises capital to €10 million, retaining the other premises, replacing D joins the preferred programme. If only seven days remain, the eight-day arrangement fails: the declared alternatives instead permit A refurbishment, B replacement, C leased service and D continuation. If D’s engineering qualification fails, remove continuation before comparing programmes; cost savings cannot restore it. Each changed case is worked through in the full application.