Improving the robustness and resilience properties of maintenance
Introduction
The purpose of maintenance is to retain systems in or to restore them to a functioning state. Maintenance also contributes to improved system knowledge and inter-discipline coordination that may benefit the entire organization. This may indicate that maintenance may be a contributor to robust and resilient organizations and systems whose ability to prevent or limit unexpected events is improved. It is therefore of interest to investigate how maintenance can be performed to gain this “added” value of increased organizational robustness and resilience.
Industries with major accident potential, e.g. the hydrocarbon and chemical process industries, are usually characterized by high degree of technological and organizational complexity (Okoh and Haugen, 2013a, Okoh and Haugen, 2013b). It is common practice in such industries to install layers of independent safety barriers that are capable of preventing the occurrence or mitigating the consequences of unexpected events in accordance with the energy-barrier principle (Gibson, 1961).
The energy-barrier principle is dominant among the organizational accident perspectives (Rosness et al., 2010, Okoh and Haugen, 2012) and tends to be applied by high-risk industries over time. Focus is often on technical issues, sometimes without paying attention to the vulnerability of the complex organizational setting encompassing production, maintenance, support and the environment. In the same vein, process industries may prioritize production at the expense of safety systems and the organizational network. This was the case in the Texas City refinery explosion (CSB, 2007, Okoh and Haugen, 2014c) and the Macondo blowout (SINTEF, 2011). The safety and production objectives of industries cannot be realized to the fullest without the personnel relating appropriately and adequately with each other, the environment and the systems. The application of a suitable combination (a mix of both the technologically and organizationally biased) of the accident perspectives can improve safety significantly (Pitblado, 2011, Rosness et al., 2010, Okoh and Haugen, 2012).
Several authors have highlighted the importance of maintenance to physical asset management and suggested ways to improve maintenance in relation to improved dependability of the assets (Okoh, 2010, Øien et al., 2010, Wilson, 2002). However, the potential of maintenance to improve the robustness and resilience of the organization itself has yet to be uncovered. The hypothesis is, by virtue of its interaction with the other departments and the environment, maintenance could also improve the robustness and resilience of the organization, not only systems.
Some studies have been done on robustness (Anderies et al., 2004, Nielsen and Holmefjord, 2004, Boissieres and Marsden, 2005, Pavard et al., 2006). Few of them have analyzed organizational robustness in relation to organizational accident (Nielsen and Holmefjord, 2004) or maintenance (Boissieres and Marsden, 2005). The latter focused on the telecommunications industry, whereas the former focused on a hydrocarbon industry's emergency preparedness organization – a subset of the entire industrial organization. However, this paper will explore the process industry organization from a broader perspective. Various industrial sectors are characterized by different configurations of independent and coordinated units aimed at realizing the set of organizational goals. It is important to address this situation specifically to achieve a better solution for a given industry.
In this paper, we intend to investigate what robustness and resilience properties exist in maintenance and how these can be improved in relation to maintenance interaction with other areas such as production and support and in turn improve the robustness and resilience of the process industries organization. The methodology is based on the application of the six perspectives of organizational accidents, i.e. energy-barrier model, normal accident theory (NAT), high reliability organizations (HRO), man-made disaster (MMD) theory, conflicting objectives, adaptation and drift (COAD) theory and resilience engineering (Rosness et al., 2010). Several of the perspectives focus on how accidents are not caused only by technical failures of physical systems, but in some cases by human and organizational factors or a combination of these. Hence, it is pertinent to investigate the maintenance-related contribution to organizational robustness and resilience in light of these factors. The contribution of maintenance to the organizational robustness and resilience will be derived by mapping the factors that influence robustness and resilience (according to each of the organizational accident perspectives) to the links between maintenance and production, maintenance and support, and maintenance and the environment. The paper will focus on the hydrocarbon and chemical process industries.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 will define robustness and resilience and present various views about organizational robustness and resilience from different authors, Section 3 will analyze the structure of the industry and the associated dependencies, Section 4 will describe a maintenance work process applicable to the hydrocarbon and chemical process industries, Section 5 will ascertain whether and what robustness and resilience properties are obtainable from maintenance, Section 6 will investigate how the robustness and resilience of maintenance and the organization can be improved in relation to maintenance interaction with production, support and the environment, and Section 7 will present a summary of the findings.
Section snippets
The concept of robustness and resilience
Robustness is the noun form of the English adjective “robust” which originates from the Latin “robustus” – it simply means firm, hard, strong. However, in scientific use there are different definitions of robustness (Jen, 2005), and as yet, there is no universally accepted definition. There may never be a unified definition, because different disciplines may choose to use the term differently, so we have to be careful about choosing definitions from very different applications. Besides,
Organizational composition of the process industries
We may consider the hydrocarbon or chemical process industry as an organization or socio-technical system characterized by “interaction between the technical structure of the system and the social and organizational structure of the operators who run the system” (Boissieres and Marsden, 2005).
The organization can be seen as a system consisting of three elements, i.e. production, maintenance and support Wilson (2002). Fig. 1 depicts the relationships between the various elements of this system
A typical maintenance work process
The maintenance work process in the process industries may vary depending on the situation of the plant, whether the decision to maintain a part of or the whole plant is being taken at the time the item is in service or out of service.
If an item in service requires maintenance, it can be shut down before maintenance or maintenance can be carried out while it is still in service. If an item requires shutdown for maintenance, the organization may follow a maintenance work process as shown in
Investigating robustness and resilience properties in maintenance
In this section, the intention is to investigate, based on the organizational accident perspectives, what robustness and resilient properties are obtainable from maintenance. The organizational accident perspectives present bases for organizational accident causation. Besides, maintenance is known to be a key contributor to organizational accident prevention. Hence, it is possible for maintenance to possess certain qualities implied in the perspectives by which organizational accidents may be
How the robustness and resilience of maintenance and the organization can be improved
In Table 3, Table 4, the steps in the maintenance process have been combined with the organizational properties associated with resilience and robustness. For each step and each property, it has been evaluated whether the maintenance process can contribute to strengthen the property. As far as possible, concrete examples/suggestions have been provided.
In the following three subsections, some examples from Table 3, Table 4 are brought out and briefly presented.
Conclusion
This paper is one among several intended to give more insight into how to make the best out of maintenance in the process industries. The direction in this paper has been focused on what robustness and resilience properties exist in maintenance and how these can be improved in relation to maintenance interaction with other areas such as production and support and in turn improve the robustness and resilience of the process industries organization. Over time, maintenance has been a proven
References (65)
- et al.
The Hydra model: disclosing an apoptosis-driven generator of Wnt-based regeneration
Trends Cell Biol.
(2010) - et al.
Maintenance-related major accidents: classification of causes and case study
Loss Prev. Process Ind.
(2013) Global process industry initiatives to reduce major accident hazards
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind.
(2011)Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem
Safety Sci.
(1997)- et al.
Highlights from the literature on accident causation and system safety: review of major ideas, recent contributions, and challenges
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety
(2010) An empirical study of the relationship between production technology and maintenance management
Int. J. Prod. Econ.
(1997)- et al.
A dynamic policy for grouping maintenance activities
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
(1997) - et al.
Vulnerability of systems
Civil Eng. Environ. Syst.
(2007) - et al.
A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective
Ecol. Soc.
(2004) - et al.
Assess the vulnerability of your production system
Prod. Plan. Control
(1999)
Germany: Nuclear Power Plants to Close by 2022
Organisational factors of robustness
Supply Chain Configuration: Concepts, Solutions, and Applications
Investigation Report, Refinery Explosion and Fire (15 Killed, 180 Injured), BP, Texas City, Texas, March 23, 2005. Report No. 2005-04-I-TX. Tech. Rep.
The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster, Vols. 1 and 2 (Report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy by Command of Her Majesty, November 1990). Tech. Rep.
Resilience engineering: chronicling the emergence of confused consensus
Resilience Engineering: New Directions for Measuring and Maintaining Safety in Complex Systems, Tech. Rep. November
Maintenance and quality: the missing link
J. Qual. Maint. Eng.
Maintenance: Maintenance Terminology. Tech. Rep.
Making the most of foreign factories
Harv. Bus. Rev.
Resilience theory and system evaluation
The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex
The contribution of experimental psychology to the formulation of the problem of safety-a brief for basic research
Behav. Approaches Accid. Res.
Reviews for resilience engineering in practice
Defining resilience
Safety Culture, Safety Management, and Resilience Engineering. Tech. Rep.
Prologue: the scope of resilience engineering
States of resilience
The limits of normal accident theory
Safety Sci.
ISO Guide 73:2009 – Risk Management – Vocabulary
Customized Program in Japan on “Maintenance & Safety Management” for Saudi Aramco. Tech. Rep.
Cited by (26)
Metrics and methods for resilience-aware design of process systems: advances and challenges
2024, Current Opinion in Chemical EngineeringA resilience-based maintenance optimisation framework using multiple criteria and Knapsack methods
2024, Reliability Engineering and System SafetyResilience-based approach to maintenance asset and operational cost planning
2022, Process Safety and Environmental ProtectionCitation Excerpt :Zhang et al. (2022) proposed a resilience-based approach, considering resilience efficiency importance measure (REIM) and maintenance efficiency measure (MEM), to determine the optimal maintenance strategy for a horizontal subsea Christmas tree system. Okoh and Heagen (2015) examined what robustness and resilience exist in maintenance activities and how to enhance them, and thus reinforce the resilience of process systems. Azadeh et al. (2017) developed a comprehensive method, including analytical hierarchy process (AHP), k-means clustering, and data envelopment analysis (DEA), to assess the resilience of maintenance organizations.
Applications of resilience engineering principles in different fields with a focus on industrial systems: A literature review
2021, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process IndustriesCitation Excerpt :Nemeth and Herrera (2015) performed a review on how resilience is perceived across different fields of studies and what future developments can be expected in research related to resilience. Okoh and Haugen (2015) explored the effect of maintenance activities on resilience and robustness of process industries. They concluded that maintenance could improve the adaptive, absorptive, and restorative abilities of process industries.
Identifying the causes of human error in maintenance work in developing countries
2018, International Journal of Industrial ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :Examples include Wu and Hwang (1989) who proposed a conceptual model of maintenance tasks to facilitate the identification of root causes of maintenance human errors in nuclear power plants, and Cheng and Hwang (2015) who presented an integrated human error identification technique to predict human error modes and influential factors in changing chemical cylinders tasks. As manufacturing technology becomes more complex, maintenance requirements become more stringent and workers must have high-level skills and in-depth knowledge of the equipment they are using (Vittorio and Bruno, 2017; Bommer and Fendley, 2018; Okoh and Haugen, 2015). When there is a gap between job requirements and worker performance, the chance of error increases, especially when proper training and supervision are not provided (Khana et al., 2012; Grosse et al., 2015).