fpf.tools
Library / Engineering Asset Management Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 119–132

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 08:01:07 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 08:04:31 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 08:15:20 UTC

EAM-PRACTICE - Improve how asset decisions are made

  • Situation: Appraisals repeatedly fail or consume avoidable effort despite usable individual asset plans.
  • Question: What should change in the way the decisions are produced?
  • First useful result or blocker: Supported advice about the arrangement, method or continued practice, or a result needed to decide.
  • Start with: EAM.14 for the working arrangement, EAM.15 for the selection method, or EAM.16 for use and continuation among practitioners.
  • Stop or return: Answer the identified recurring difficulty; change another part of the practice when its contribution matters to that answer.

In EAM.14’s appraisal office, mismatched station identifiers cause six hours of rework a week. A maintained correspondence and responsibility for returning mismatches would take twelve hours to establish and half an hour a week to maintain. Over ten comparable weeks, that is seventeen hours against sixty hours of continued rework, if the repair removes the mismatch. The comparison supports proposing the bounded repair; examine later appraisals to see whether it helps. Use EAM.3 to establish the applicable unit correspondence. If assigned work exceeds available time under adequate existing responsibilities, EAM.14 uses OPS to compare operating adjustments. If organizational responsibilities or decision rights must change, or agreed responsibilities must become workable, it uses OCE.9 to exercise an appraisal from request to usable result and an unmatched-unit return.

If the information is adequate but the selection rule fails, EAM.15 addresses the method instead. Funding D, C and A in condition-priority order exhausts CityWater’s capital before B, whereas combination comparison supplies the required programme. That calculation supports changing the comparison for this case. A proposed reusable method can be tried on other relevant cases when the consequences for adoption justify the effort.

EAM.16 takes that proposed instruction into a question about its transmission, use or continuation among practitioners. Distribution and teaching establish different facts from later appraisals using the method. Its existing branch example retains programme comparison for central planners with shared constraints and single-asset comparison for depot cases whose independence is established. A shared constraint returns a depot case to the programme comparison.