Condition Assessment and Defect Assessment are not the same thing!

While it is important to capture defects, the "defects" or “anomalies” should be differentiated from the "condition". A subsystem may have several minor defects, but the overall condition may be good. The defect's status and numbers can be a proxy for the asset condition, but they are not the same.

Asset conditions assessment is typically defined as deciding the numerical condition rating on the degradation curve to show where the asset or component is in relation to its useful life. (Refer to the asset degradation curve shown in Figure 1).

Accordingly, condition assessment indicates how far along the path towards the ‘end of reliable life’ an item is. An asset or component should not be down-graded just because a defect is present. While Defects are imperfections that cause an inadequacy, they do not necessarily change the condition.

A defect may be caused by physical damage or a functional problem. Most hazards can be considered as defects, although not all defects present a hazard. Defects can usually be summed up by a ‘fix or replace’ answer – whereas condition is always related to ‘life expectancy. The Defect Management process involves the detection of defects, resolution of defects, defect reports, and processes such as Defect Prevention and Defect Elimination to improve the assets.

In Figure 2, the typical key steps in both the defect management and condition assessment processes are represented. While both processes share the critical inspection activity, the focus and the level of information captured differ based on the intended outcome of each process. From the defect management perspective, the inspection data captured covers details that can go to the subcomponent and parts level. That is essential to ensure that the assets perform to the required level of safety, reliability, availability, and maintainability. On the other hand, from the condition assessment point of view, the inspection data focuses on the condition of the overall asset or its major components to inform the strategic objectives of when the asset or the component needs to be renewed, replaced, refurbished, or even retired.

Inspection, for the purpose of defect identification, can differ in nature, scope, and frequency from the condition assessment inspection. However, considerable efficiencies and synergies can be realised if both scopes are considered simultaneously. In many instances, the inspectors who are competent to perform Condition Assessments are capable of capturing defects. On the other hand, defect capturing does not necessarily require the same skillset required for condition assessment. Typically, condition assessment inspections are performed less frequently. Depending on the practicality, cost, and resource availability, the opportunity to align condition assessment and defect management inspections can be very beneficial. Figure 3 visually represents the alignment between two distinct inspection timelines: the "Defect Management Inspection Timeline" and the "Condition Assessment Inspection Timeline".

Regarding planning horizons, defect management drives short-term tactical planning, while condition assessment drives medium to long-term strategic planning. The short-term tactical planning includes repairs of high-risk defects, optimising shutdowns by prioritising defects and deferring less-critical defects and repairs. On the other hand, long-term strategic planning includes asset replacements and major refurbishments.

In many instances, due to budget and availability constraints, less critical defects are deferred, sometimes indefinitely. The accumulation of such defects impacts the asset's condition. While the majority of the high-risk defects may be managed, collectively, the lower-risk items pose higher levels of risk than the individual defect’s risk and uncertainty on the performance of the asset. In such situations, the condition assessment process plays a major role in managing the uncertainty and the risks that are typically not addressed by the defect management process.

Summary and Conclusion:

The article discusses the difference between 'defects' and assets' overall 'condition'. While defects are specific issues or problems with an asset, the condition tells us about its overall health and how long it might last. Just because there's a defect doesn't mean the whole asset's condition is bad.?

Furthermore, the article sheds light on defect management and condition assessment processes, the data each process prioritises, and how both processes can be aligned for increased efficiency. It concludes by discussing the implications of defects and condition assessments on short-term and long-term planning horizons and how condition assessments help mitigate risks not directly addressed by defect management.

************

If you are involved in the strategic asset management decision-making process and need any support with lifecycle modelling, please talk to us at Quarterbac , and we will be happy to help. We partner with organisations in all aspects of the asset management transformation journey.

#assetmanagement, #AssetCondition, #AssetConditionAssessment,

#strategicassetmanagement, #wholeoflife, #physicalassetmanagement, #lifecycle

? Shihab Abdalla