The Real Use of an AMP (Asset Management Plan)
I hear lots of people talking about an AMP in the creation of the documents but little about the value they add to asset management and the value an asset delivers to an organisation over its lifecycle. An AMP cannot just be another document that sits in a system, something you show an auditor, or something that gets updated once a year.
An AMP is meant to protect asset performance over its lifecycle.
Real Situation
Often you walk into a site and asset performance has slipped. Availability is down, costs are creeping up, breakdowns are more frequent. Nothing obvious seems to have changed and everyone has an opinion.
But when you dig deeper, you find:
- Scheduled downtime has been reduced and defects are not fixed when they are small
- Fluid conditions are degrading
- Operating practices have drifted and limits are not adhered to
- Major component lives are being stretched without conscious choice and understanding of the possible impacts
No one made a big decision, it just… happened over time.
What Is Often the Response
People react to the symptoms:
- Add more people
- Push harder on production
- Start a new improvement project
- Reduce scheduled downtime further
But they don’t go back to fundamentals. They don’t ask: “What was the original asset management approach for this equipment and what critical practices have changed?”
A Good AMP Helps Teams Align
A good AMP does three simple but powerful things and most importantly it helps cross functional teams align on an approach for an asset.
1. It translates strategy into action It takes high-level asset objectives (availability, cost, lifecycle) …and turns them into clear, practical expectations and practices for the maintenance and operating teams.
2. It defines the critical few practices Not everything. just the 20% of information that delivers 80% of the results. The handful of things that, if changed, will directly increase cost or downtime. In most operations, these are:
- Scheduled downtime strategy. (servicing, defect repairs, shutdowns)
- Operating Context What the asset is expected to do
- Operating limits that cause damage when exceeded (Zero surprises)
- Oil and fluid condition limits
- Component change out strategies (Time, Condition or combination)
3. It highlights, not duplicates, technical detail and is not a rewrite of the asset manuals. Those documents already exist. The AMP should pull out:
- What really matters (The 20% that is responsible for the 80% of cost and performance)
- What must not change
- What the teams must understand
At a level that is clear, visible, and usable on site so that everyone can easily align.
Clear Principle
An AMP is not a document. It is a control system for the few practices that protect uptime, cost, and asset life. If changing something will increase downtime or cost… it belongs in the AMP. If it doesn’t influence outcomes… it probably doesn’t belong and just as importantly:
An AMP should evolve and be updated as you learn how to:
- Extend component life
- React to changes in the operating context or business demands on the asset
- Refine operating practices
- Optimise scheduled downtime
Annually you should review your compliance to the AMP, otherwise, performance can drift.
Do your people know exactly which few practices must be protected to sustain the asset performance? Could these be stated off the top of peoples heads? Could they get this information in 20 minutes by reading the AMP?… or would they be just basing an opinion on what they have seen elsewhere?
