A publication of

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS

VOL. 57, 2017 The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.aidic.it/cet
Guest Editors: Sauro Pierucci, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Laura Piazza, Serafim Bakalis
Copyright © 2017, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
ISBN 978-88-95608- 48-8; ISSN 2283-9216

Asset Integrity Management System (AIMS) for the Reduction

of Industrial Risks
Stefano Milanese*, Emanuele Salvador, Stefano Decadri, Riccardo Ratti
Arthur D. Little S.p.A., Corso Monforte 54, 20122 Milan (Italy)
milanese.stefano@adlittle.com

An Asset Integrity Management System is a necessary component of a well-functioning company. Arthur D.

Little (ADL) proposes a 5-step approach towards building a robust and reliable system, that may help in better
controlling risks resulting from all conditions and situations that may affect the integrity of assets during all life-
cycle, such as ageing of assets, process variables modifications, management of different products, etc. The
solid management system thus developed produces tangible results from which the whole company culture
may reap benefits.

1. The need of an Asset Integrity Management System

1.1 Definition of assets
An asset is “an item, thing or entity that has potential or actual value to an organization. The value will vary
between different organizations and their stakeholders, and can be tangible or intangible, financial or non-
financial” (ISO 55000:2014).
Assets span many categories, ranging from infrastructures (e.g. highways, viaducts, etc.), to fluid transport
networks (e.g. drinking water, fuel oil, etc.), to industrial plants (including both static and rotating equipment)
and to local and national transportation networks (e.g. electrical grid).
The asset life is the period beginning with the conception and the initial stages of the asset design and ending
with the decommissioning of the asset itself. Therefore, over its life, an asset can provide value, which may
change over time, to one or more organizations.
1.2 Asset Integrity Management Systems
An Asset Integrity Management System (for short AIMS) includes several activities such as planning, control
and monitoring activities, to exploit opportunities and to reduce risks.
The goal is to make sure that a system is in place to maintain asset integrity when needed, throughout the
entire life cycle. Control measures include personnel, physical resources, procedures, process control
systems and emergency plans dedicated to this task (NOPSEMA, 2012).
Asset Integrity processes are fundamental in reducing company risks: developed in industries with reduced or
volatile margins (such as the refining and petrochemical industries), they should be now implemented
anywhere a correct management is quintessential for company reputation, business continuity and efficiency
or in all cases where the ageing of equipment can become a critical issue.
Typical examples are aqueducts, characterised by old assets and complex ramifications: waste of water and
large releases (leading not only to economic impacts but also to reputational damages) are risks that call for
the implementation of Asset Integrity methodologies.
Therefore, the main benefits obtained by the implementation of an AIMS are to:
 reduce the probability of catastrophic events;
 limit the exposure to risk, in terms of health, safety, environment, reputation and business continuity;
 help the Companies’ turnaround from “maintenance after fault”, reacting to events, to preventive and
predictive maintenance schemes that proactively prevent faults;
The challenge is to find a balance between the high operating performances required by assets, on one hand,
and the costs of TIMS activities (short for Testing, Inspection, Maintenance and Substitution), on the other; the
system should be flexible enough to follow market evolution, while maintaining high safety and environmental
standards. International recommended practices (API 581, 2008) can help an organization develop an
inspection plan based on the risk posed by each equipment. Others may prefer a more holistic approach and
develop their own system.

2. Arthur D. Little’s Methodology

2.1 Definition of operating areas
The first step towards building an Asset Integrity Management System is to define the operating areas that the
system will focus on, i.e. the assets involved in TIMS activities.
Figure 1 shows how an Asset Management System relates to other management measures and levels. The
System should fit within the company’s safety process and Risk Management procedures and within other
quality or reliability improvement programs. That is, the approach should be built on existing frameworks and
developed from there onwards (CCPS, 2006).
The methodologies to be used at this stage, either qualitative or quantitative, depend on several factors
related to the examined occupancy.
The choice of the asset typologies to be included should be based on applied or applicable standards and
regulations, on the requirements of management systems or programmes (safety management systems,
quality management systems, testing programmes, risk-based inspections) already in place, on established
future development plans (new technologies or new production sites).
All these parameters should be analysed by the team within the company to make sure that the list is
complete and no important element has been overlooked.

Figure 1: Relationship between key terms

2.2 Analysis of existing items

The second stage is a review of the Asset Integrity management practices that the company is already
applying; a well-thought-out analysis can provide a solid reason towards building an AIMS that engages
company resources, both materials and human.
A good review should have five fundamental chapters:
1. A presentation of existing formal or informal programmes, both at a general level and in-depth on each
single unit; this chapter should also include Asset Integrity procedures and instructions;
2. A description of the asset types covered by existing programmes and the criteria that led to the operating
area definition;
3. The definition of how the existing programmes face risks associated with assets’ malfunction or loss of
integrity; the review should also describe whether and how these risks have been appraised to prioritize
asset TIMS activities;
4. The definition of roles, responsibilities and rules for the communication within the company (e.g. between
Headquarters and single production units or, within each unit, among different departments or production
lines). This chapter should also mention:
- If any, discrepancies between allocated and necessary resources to complete TIMS activities;
- Barriers hindering the exchange of information between operating levels and the management (and
vice versa), both within HQ and in each operating unit;
- Anomalies or gaps in the definition of reporting standards;
- Company’s expectations and goals for the implementation of an AIMS.
5. The description of the applied criteria and methodologies in monitoring the implementation and
effectiveness of Asset integrity programmes, including changes after tests or inspections.
The review should be completed with an analysis of the improvement plan, to be discussed and verified
by the management. The definition of the plan of improvement should account for international best
practices and especially for each production unit’s strengths to be maintained, strengthen even further
and extended to the other units.
An action plan should shortly follow, prioritising the actions according to costs, benefits, and time
schedule criteria. Each action should provide an assessment of all the risks that could undermine its
effectiveness and a list of countermeasures to contrast them.
Once completed, the report will be a synthesis, at a company-wide level, of the “as-is” situation, capable
of suggesting:
- Strengths to leverage;
- Quick wins to obtain results in a short time span;
- Obstacles to remove whenever possible;
- Performance misalignments among different production units.
The required information is collected via both a series of visits and meetings with a sample of personnel from
the production units to be involved in the application of the AIMS. Visits and meetings will include focused
interviews, field inspections and documentation collection.
2.3 Classification of Critical Assets
The next step is the identification of assets to be included in the TIMS activities, in other words a draw up of
the list of critical assets (Figure 2).
This list should be the result of a systematic application of principles and rules defined and shared through
collaboration with the people in charge of Asset Integrity and approved by Top Management.
The criteria should include elements from existing practices, typical criteria of the industry, standards or
international best practices.
For example, in a refinery or in a petrochemical complex, four categories of critical assets could be identified:
 Safety Critical Elements (SCE), i.e. equipment’s whose loss of integrity could lead to an uncontrolled
release of hazardous fluids or energy;
 Operational Critical Elements (OCE), i.e. equipment’s whose loss of integrity could impact the plant’s
availability and business continuity;
 Critical Preventive Barriers, i.e. systems (such as alarms, Safety Instrumented Functions (SIF) and
pressure relief valves) which can reduce the frequency of a loss of integrity of an SCE or an OCE;
 Critical Mitigative Barriers, i.e. systems (such as containers, dikes, gas detectors, water spray, deluges,
foam systems), which can reduce the consequences of a loss of integrity of an SCE or an OCE.
This stage is important for two main reasons: first, it ensures that TIMS activities are extended to all assets
that truly need them; in addition, it is the first point of contact and sharing with the people in charge of planning
and execution of TIMS activities.
It is also crucial to define the level of detail to get into; for example, the list could include single pieces of
equipment or subsets comprising multiple machines, as different methodologies apply to different levels of
detail. Risk assessment analysis, if executed in a systematic and detailed manner, can integrate the
classification criteria. HazOp (Hazard and Operability), SIL (Safety Integrity Level) and FMEA (Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis) analysis can all provide useful information for thee selection of critical assets.

Figure 2: Classification of Critical Assets

From these analyses, it may result that Critical Assets are associated with accidental scenarios caused by
their loss of integrity, or are themselves preventive or protective barriers against an accidental scenario.
The effort and the resources for this third stage will depend on the level of detail and on the available
information and studies. The result will be a report of all the Critical Assets for each production line, including
supporting evidence to guarantee the transparency and traceability of the whole process.
2.4 Definition of TIMS Activities
The fourth step of the process is the definition of methodologies for the most suitable TIMS activities (Testing,
Inspection, Maintenance and Substitution) for the list of Critical Assets.
Standards, guidelines and best practices are available and are combined with company personnel’s
knowledge and experience. It will be particularly important to: provide a clear definition of the department in
charge, the timeframe and the technicalities of the activities to execute; plan support for communication and
training; establish clear personnel roles, in order to avoid gaps or overlaps of responsibilities; define asset
performance indicators.
Due to the fact that this kind of activity typically involves various departments of the Company’s Organization
(e.g. Operations, Risk Management, Procurement), two key issues must be tackled:
 create synergies between different departments, thus limiting the organizational silo mentality;
 effectively integrate AIMS into the existing Organization, thus avoiding that it is perceived as an additional
formalism.
2.5 Development and Implementation of an AIMS
The fifth stage of the process is the development of the Asset Integrity Management System. The ultimate
goal is to review and develop a ready-for-action AIMS, with a scale-up approach in the implementation
process: first on a single production line or unit (a “pilot” unit), afterwards on the entire company network.
The AIMS should be in line with the company organisation and processes, to value the existing practices
(Figure 3). It should be interfaced with other Management Systems or Programmes, such as Operation
Management System, Risk Management System and HSE Management System.
Three activities are required for this stage:
1. The definition of an AIMS architecture, including:
- Asset Integrity strategies to be followed;
- Elements of the AI system (e.g. policies, strategies, goals, resources, roles and responsibilities);
- Relations among several elements in the AIMS (e.g. definition of goals based on the policies);
- The structural actions to ensure the AIMS’ success.
It is important to determine the stakeholders’ expectations (headquarters and production unit personnel
that are directly or indirectly involved in the TIMS activities). On-site visits will help reach two main goals:
to maximise the value of existing documentation and practices, especially their application, and to
integrate the new system with the existing programmes (HSE, Process Safety, etc.) to avoid overlaps
and unnecessary paperwork. The final product of this activity is the Operating Manual to formalise the
AIMS;
2. The communication and training to personnel: this is necessary to enable the development of a
company-wide culture that can adopt the AIMS and the subsequent changes. All the communication and
training activities will be part of the Management of Change programme and will be spread over time to
fulfil the different requirements at different stages of the implementation. Two training sessions are
suggested, first to top management and to operations unit management involved in the “pilot” phase,
then to internal staff in charge of training, to favour awareness in the whole company.
3. The implementation of the AIMS, based on the application of the principles defined above and on a
periodical supervision process. A typical PDCA (Plan – Do – Check – Act) management cycle,
analogous to the existing systems, will be the basis of the review process. Such a structured approach
helps identify competencies and gaps, underlining the need for training.
Figure 3: The AIMS Development Process and the main questions to ask during its development.

3. Output of the analysis

What are the tangible results of this process? There are three main outcomes of the analysis that can be used
to build an AIMS:
1. A list of the identified Critical Assets, spanning all production units and in a pyramidal structure (Site,
production unit, line, single asset) enabling managers to have a bird’s eye view of the objects of TIMS
activities to set up and possible imbalances in resource allocation;
2. A set of worksheets detailing the description and schedule of all TIMS activities on each asset. At a macro
level, it helps top management to distribute resources properly; at a unit level, it is a roadmap of all TIMS
activities, in order to follow the implementation status and to identify issues that need operating
instructions or specific procedures;
3. A KPI system to evaluate the AIMS performances, both company-wide and of each unit and asset. KPIs
(Key Performance Indicators) are presented to the client and discussed to develop a “tailored fit” model
based on organizational size, average personnel’s experience, type of assets, etc.
Examples of KPIs for Asset Integrity Management are included in Table 1, both as lagging (easy to
measure, but hard to influence, such as the number of accidents) and as leading (focus on implemented
activities, such as testing, incident investigation, maintaining).
The three outcomes will merge into the AIMS set up, according to the Deming cycle (Plan – Do – Check –
Act).

Table 1: Examples of KPIs for Asset Integrity Management System

AIMS element Example of lagging KPIs Example of leading KPIs

Mechanical - % of safety-critical plant / equipment that

- Number of loss-of-containment
performs to specification when tested
Integrity incidents and near misses
- % maintenance plan completed on time
Operating - % of procedures reviewed and updated
- Number of operational errors due
Procedures and - % of operators who received training on
to incorrect/unclear procedures
Practices procedures during the last year

Electro- - Number of incidents linked to - % of function tests of alarms/trips completed on

failure of instrumentation or alarms schedule
instrumental
- Number of incidents due to - % of electrical substations analysed by means
Integrity
electrical systems faults predictive methods
- % plant changes suitably risk assessed and
Management of - Number of incidents linked to approved before installation
Change (MOC) failure of MOC - Average time taken to fully implement a
recommendation once approved
Table 1: Examples of KPIs for Asset Integrity Management System
- Number of incidents related with - % safety-critical equipment/systems fully in
Plant design
errors in plant design compliance with current design code
- % WPs sampled which have identified all
Work Permit - Number of incidents related with hazards and specified all suitable controls
System (WPS) errors in WPS - % WPs sampled where all controls listed were
fully in place at worksite

4. Conclusion
This paper has introduced the Arthur D. Little’s framework for the design and implementation of an Asset
Integrity Management System.
Even if Asset Integrity processes were firstly developed in industries with reduced or volatile margins (e.g.
refining, petrochemical), nowadays other sectors (e.g. power generation and distribution, district heating,
dams, water treatment, aqueducts, travel and transportation networks) can benefit from their effective
implementation.
Indeed, a structured AIMS can help Companies in reducing their industrial risks, which could typically have
huge impacts on Companies’ reputation, business continuity and efficiency and in optimizing the management
of ageing assets, an issue which is becoming more and more important in many old industrial complexes.
Several benefits of such framework have been described and assessed in this paper.
First of all, an effective AIMS turns out in a reduction of dangerous events that could affects safety,
environment and business continuity: all of that is directly linked to Companies’ reputation and to the constant
effort spent to protect and improve it.
Secondly, the positive impact that the AIMS has on the Test, Inspection, Maintenance and Substitution
activities, helping Companies in switching from a poor fault based maintenance to a preventive and predictive
one. Several more benefits stem from this change in mentality are: more consistency in maintenance
activities, which will be focused on assets that really require them, to save money and time over unplanned
maintenance; an optimisation in the management of stock and spare parts; an improvement in the
performances of external maintenance contractors, which will operate according to a clear TIMS activity plan.
Last but not least, the establishment of the proposed framework supports the Companies in successfully
optimizing internal organizational processes (breaking down the common silo mentality) and in improving
asset investments. Analysing, implementing and monitoring an AIMS are all parts of the broad sphere of “Risk
Management”, a practice that an increasing number of international standards push towards, being the
ultimate goal of any company who aspires to protect its business.

References
ISO, Asset Management, 55000:2014 series, 1st ed., International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
SUI, 2014.
NOPSEMA, Control Measures and Performance Standards – Guidance Note, N04300-GN0271, Revision No
4, National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, Perth, AU, 2012.
API, Risk-based inspection technology. 1st ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., USA, 2008.
CCPS, Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems. 1st ed., Center for Chemical Process Safety, New York,
USA, 2006.
OGP, Asset Integrity – the key to managing major incident risks, Report n.415.2008, International Association
of Oil and Gas Producers, London, UK, 2008.
UKOAA, Guidelines for the management of safety critical elements, 2nd ed., United Kingdom Offshore
Operators Association, Energy Institute, London, UK, 2007.
COMAH, Ageing Plant Operational Delivery Guide, 1st ed., Control of Major Accident Hazards Competent
Authority, London, UK, 2010.
Asset Integrity - An industry progress report, Oil & Gas UK, London, UK, 2009.
HSE UK, Hazardous Installations Directorate Offshore Division, Key Programme 3 – Asset Integrity, Health
and Safety Executive, London, UK, 2007.
Wintle, Moore, Henry, Smalley, Amphlett, Plant Ageing – Management of equipment containing hazardous
fluids or pressure, HSE UK, Health and Safety Executive, London, UK, 2006.
Horrocks, Mansfield, Thomson, Parker, Winter, Plant Ageing Study – Phase 1 Report, HSE UK, Health and
Safety Executive, London, UK, 2010.
HSE UK, Developing process safety indicators, Health and Safety Executive, London, UK, 2006.