Brief Overview of ASPM and Master data setup – Blog Series Part 1
Asset Strategy Performance Management (ASPM) took its first step with 1711 release and since then it has taken many steps forward. Being part of the ASPM development team I have seen its features enhancement with every release since 1711. ASPM is part of IAM portfolio –
In my blog series, I would like to share the step wise details of creating different kinds of assessment in ASPM. The details will be based on 2005 release.
Series 1: Brief Overview of ASPM and Master data setup
Series 2: Risk and Criticality (RC)
Series 3: Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)
Series 4: Checklist Assessment
Series 5: Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)
Series 7: Preventive Maintenance Review (PMR)
On a high level, ASPM provides a well-integrated solution where in, as a reliability engineer you can perform set of assessments on the asset to recommend a maintenance strategy. With its integration with other Intelligent Asset Management (IAM) products and SAP PM, reliability engineer gets a complete 360* view of the asset which helps in taking an informed decision on what kind of maintenance strategy would be appropriate for the asset. For the maintenance planner, ASPM provides a complete information on all the recommendation which are provided by the reliability engineer. The maintenance planner can further enhance the maintenance strategy and execute them.
Based on the technical breakdown of assets (example: Equipment) users can first perform a Risk & Criticality assessment of all the assets. In a matrix, they can rate probability and consequence of failure in various categories. Out of this exercise, assets are classified in different criticality and the reliability engineer can decide what should be the next actions like RCM/FMEA assessments. In case of assets with a lower criticality, the decision might result in a run-to-failure approach or following the manufacturer’s instructions set, which is being provided through SAP Asset Intelligence Network. For medium-critical assets, a review of the existing maintenance plans and task lists is recommended. New maintenance intervals can be calculated based on historic failure data. For the assets with a criticality above a certain threshold, the solution provides capabilities for performing an FMEA and RCM. With its ERP integration, user can view the maintenance plans and task list created in ERP and further enhance it by providing recommendations. A general term for continuous cycle of improvement is PDCA.
- Plan – establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the specifications
- Do – Asses the asset to complete the analysis
- Check – monitor and evaluate the processes and results against objectives and specifications and report the outcome
- Act – apply actions to the outcome for necessary improvement. This means reviewing all previous steps and modifying the process to improve it before its next implementation
The PDCA can be completely mapped with IAM portfolio as mentioned below –
- Plan step is where the ASPM supports with different kinds of assessment – RCM / FMEA / Checklists
- Do step is where planned maintenance gets involved via MP, Tasklists, Notifications and WO
- Check step is where different kinds of analysis can be done via PdMS and SAC
- Act step is again where ASPM comes in in forms of re-assessment and RCA processes(planned scope)
- Define & Identify – This is the “plan” phase in which asset information is defined and criticality assessment is done on the asset which gives the strategy on how to further asses the asset if there are critical
- Analyse &Recommend – This is the “do” phase in which detailed assessment are done to arrive at a set of recommendation
- Implement – This is the “act” phase in which the previously identified recommendation are implemented.
- Verify – An finally the entire process is monitored to ensure the process is helping in continuously improving the asset.
I will start with the step 1 of defining the asset information.
The below master will be considered for the assessment:
- Model Template – “Centrifugal Pump Template” with subclass as “Centrifugal”
- Model: “Centrifugal Pump” created from model template “Centrifugal Pump Template”
- Equipment Template: “Fire Fighting Equipment Template” containing local indicators
- Equipment Template: “Dewatering Equipment Template” containing asset indicators which gets updated after risk & criticality assessment and FMEA assessment
- Equipment: “Fire Fighting Pump” created from “Fire Fighting Equipment Template “ and “Centrifugal Pump” model.
The below information is created in the respective master data(Functions/Functional Failure/Failure Mode/Cause/Effect) which will be used during our assessment to create the below hierarchy for the equipment:
- Equipment: “Dewatering Pump” created from “Dewatering Equipment Template” and ““Centrifugal Pump” model.
The below information is created in the respective master data(Functions/Functional Failure/Failure Mode/Cause/Effect) which will be used during our assessment to create the below hierarchy for the equipment: In the next blog I will provide details on performing risk and criticality assessment on the equipment created namely “Dewatering Pump” & “Fire Fighting Pump”.
|Asset Strategy Performance Management||ASPM|
|Risk and Criticality||RC|
|Failure Mode Effect Analysis||FMEA|
|Reliability Centered Maintenance||RCM|
|Preventive Maintenance Review||PMR|
|Fiori Launch Pad||FLP|
|Risk Priority Number||RPN|
Thanks for sharing Rupali Ray
This captures the required steps in great detail.
Thanks and Regards,
Do we have a functionality to capture Warranty Information in AIN Equipment/Model which would flow back to S4 Equipment as Vendor Warranty Start and End dates? E.g a manufacturer provides a 1 year warranty on a new equipment of a specific model and wants to publish the same for a specific set of operators/customers?
No currently warranty information is not captured in in AIN equipment/model
Is there a blog available on using the Failure Mode analytics model management and its prerequisites as well using machine learning.
Hi , can we know how SAC helps in analysis with respect to ASPM functionality
If the equipment is disposed off or retired, is there any control which forbids doing any further assessments like FMEA on the same Equipment?
Right now, assessment is allowed in any published/inrevision equipment/asset.
Many thanks for such an informative blog. What I could understand from my ASPM system that it is not possible to create Classes and Sub-classes in ASPM module and the same is with their templates. Is it correct or am I missing something? Since we are not planning to use Asset Integration Network, then how would I bring my existing Class and subclasses to ASPM system?
Class/subclass are delivered by the foundation layer, hence you will get it in ASPM system even if you dont have AIN. Regarding templates, I assume you are referring to equipment/location/etc template. Those can be created by end user.
Ok, I will check in the Asset Central Foundation. And by template, I meant the template for Classes and Sub-Classes in ASPM solution.
Templates to create class/subclass not available. You can create template only for Model/Equipment/Location/Spare Parts/System/Functional Location.
Hello Rupali, For defining the failure modes and patterns currently we understand that its a manual way to choose the respective graphs for a failure pattern. Is there a flexibility within ASPM to have an interface with any third party system(Non cloud) where these patterns are generated and we can then sync the failure modes and type of graph from that system?
You can consume public FM APIs to update the fields.
The /ACI/TEMPLATE_MAPPING is not displaying the class of type 002 created in S4,what could be the reason? We want to link the Model Templates to our class created in S4
Please select Equipment from the dropdown after executing the template mapping program, so that it displays all the irrespective of equipment classification types as part of sap we provided 002 is equipment class type if you have your own /custom Equipment types and if any classes have been created with the same type, those classes also will appear here.
FYI, you should not link equipment classes with the Model template. we are not supporting it. hence it won't work.
But Material classes can be linked with Model templates.
In order to load new equipment's data in S4 lets say a volume>10000 we can load via mass programs in S4 like LSMW to a point where equipment and its classification can be loaded and Equipment would get replicated to AIN. In order to link it in the AIN further with data such as Indicators, Alerts,Failure modes we would then need to build some additional custom programs using the API's provided? Is this understanding correct or is there some other provision as well?
You can upload >10000 equipment's into the cloud system using your mass program or standard sap provides a concept called an initial load, by using this you can easily upload all the collection of equipment. But you need to implement enhancement to sync Indicator, alert, and Failure modes into the cloud system. Please go through the below link for more information.
Thankyou. For the comment "you need to implement enhancement to sync Indicator, alert, and Failure modes into the cloud system."-
Since these objects are not linked to any S4 master data objects we assume that we would need to load these via some flat file from S4 and then build enhancement to sync the indicators etc.
Does initial load provide a mechanism to load via a Flat File from S4?
Is there any future road map to have some standard programs available to load the data directly in AIN?
sorry, we are not supporting the flat-file approach.
Thankyou. Another clarification on the point above "you should not link equipment classes with the Model template. we are not supporting it. hence it won't work."
Does this mean we cannot sync the attributes from AIN to S4 Equipment classification either directly or even while doing checklist assessment?. Is this functionality going to be available in the future or would never be supported?