Power System Development and Economics: Business Requirements For Asset Performance Management

Power system
C1 development
and economics
Business requirements for asset

performance management
TECHNICAL BROCHURES
July 2023 - Reference 910
TECHNICAL BROCHURE
Business requirements for

asset performance
management
WG C1.43
Members
Y. TSIMBERG, Convener CA C. OREMUS, Secretary NL
R. CHEUNG CH H. HUANG US
J. LEVINE CA B. JOROWSKI CA
S. PARUPALLI US J. DI GIROLAMO US
S. MARWITZ DE M. ARAUJO BR
T. GUERRERO CA R. TOMAZIC SL
M. ELLENBOGEN IS L. ZHAO DE
L. MANLI AU F. LIRIOS AU
E. HILL US T. MOKWANA SA
K. ZELLERS US H. HASAN KAZMI DE
Copyright © 2023
“All rights to this Technical Brochure are retained by CIGRE. It is strictly prohibited to reproduce or provide this publication in any
form or by any means to any third party. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized without permission from CIGRE”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted
by law”.
WG XX.XXpany network provided access is restricted to their own employees. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
utilized without permission from CIGRE”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent
ISBN : 978-2-85873-615-7
permitted by law”.
TB 910 - Business requirements for asset performance management
Executive summary
The purpose of this WG was to provide a guideline for utilities on having a consistent set of requirements for
Asset Performance Management (APM) platform to facilitate selection process in deciding which of the APM
vendors provide the most suitable platform for meeting a utility’s specific needs. Additionally, an assessment
of the selected group of APM vendors was conducted based on the publicly available information, input from
the utilities survey conducted by the WG members and, lastly, experience of WG members themselves.
Finally, recommendations regarding future steps for improving Asset Management processes were to be
provided to build on the materials contained in the Technical Brochure (TB).
To better understand challenges utilities are facing in selecting and in some cases using an APM platform,
the WG first examined available publications describing APM platforms and challenges associated with
selecting and using such a platform. Section 3 of this TB presents some of these challenges, describes at
the high-level typical data and analytical models used, and sites examples of such systems being used at
utilities. The survey questions incorporated the WG’s perspective regarding the general approach to
developing APM system requirements as described in great detail in Section 5
The WG decided to develop a set of requirements using the collective wisdom and expertise of its members
which included mostly utility industry experts. At the same time, the WG felt that it was extremely important
to understand and incorporate perspective of utilities outside of the WG. For this purpose, the WG designed
and conducted a survey which included responses from 33 utilities across the world. The survey was
designed so that the responding utilities used drop down menus to select the most appropriate response
and/or provide additional comments/responses. Section 4 of this TB presents the results of the survey
using spider charts for mean values and highlights regional differences.
Results of the survey validated the identified Asset Sustainment Strategies described in Section 5 of this TB
and their use in the vendor assessment survey presented in Section 6.
At the project outset, the WG established a need to identify decision areas referred to as Asset Sustainment
Strategies. Ten (10) strategies were defined and are described in detail in Section 5. For each of the
strategies the following is provided:
1 Introduction describing the Asset Sustainment Strategy and associated challenges
2 Information requirements
3 Data types used in generating required information
4 Software requirements.
To ensure consistency in describing information requirements, data types and software requirements are
defined in the tables at the end of Section 5. The tables include references linking each item with relevant
Asset Sustainment Strategies.
Section 6 contains the WG’s assessment of the selected vendors’ capabilities. The list of vendors assessed
is based on Gartner’s 2018 and 2019 reports. It is important to note that their capabilities were assessed
based on publicly available information only and do not necessarily present the current or complete list of
their capabilities.
The assessment is based on comparing APM software needs derived from the combination of a) survey
results, and b) additional software attributes derived from vendor information.
Finally, Section 7 presents observations and recommendations for future work to build on the materials
presented in this TB.The observations include the following:
• Each utility has its unique set of challenges and requirements; therefore the material in this Technical
Brochure should be treated as a general guide. We hope that utilities will find this information useful as
a starting point in identifying their specific APM platform requirements.
• Although a majority of utilities surveyed indicated that they do have an APM platform, the platform met
only about 50% of their needs which indicated that more “homework” needs to be done before selecting
the APM platform
• None of the vendors assessed had the capabilities needed to address all the identified requirements
while all the vendors combined did
• Using an APM system is expected to improve data collection, improve the risk-based decision-making
process, and facilitate development of Asset Management Plans to satisfy ISO55000x standards
requirements
3
• The 10 identified Asset Sustainment Strategies should be used as a starting point in developing utility-
specific ones
• Typical interfaces between APM platforms and utility enterprise systems were included in the survey
and used in the vendor assessments. However, it is possible that some utilities have other tools not
mentioned in the TB
• Having an APM platform will enable utilities to incorporate “near real time” inputs to complement typical
“static” inputs. This is expected to improve investment decisions and the timing of required actions
regarding not only capital spending, but also maintenance aspects of sustaining the existing asset base.
• Using utility specific Asset Sustainment Strategies combined with informed decisions and timely actions
to address discovered issues/problems is expected to improve reliability performance of assets both at
the end of life and throughout their life cycle.
This TB provides a starting point for utilities in developing their own Asset Sustainment Strategies and their
corresponding unique set of requirements for an APM system. It is recommended to focus future efforts in
the following areas:
• Facilitate integration of sustainment (addressing needs of existing asset base) and development
(addressing need for expanding the existing asset base) decisions
• Standardize asset categories and asset components to the extent possible, including developing a
default naming convention
• Link data quality and availability with confidence in the decisions made
• Define Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence requirements
• Develop a methodology for linking utilization of Asset Sustainment Strategies with resultant
reliability at both individual asset and system levels
Yury Tsimberg
Convener, WG C1.43
4
Contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 3
1. Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 8
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9
3. Publications review .................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Data ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Condition Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.3 Modelling and Analytics .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Integrated Systems .................................................................................................................................. 13
4. Utility Survey ............................................................................................................ 14

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Survey Results ......................................................................................................................................... 15
5. Asset Sustainment Strategies ................................................................................. 33

5.1 Introduction and objectives .................................................................................................................... 33
5.2 Asset Sustainment Strategies overview ................................................................................................ 35
5.3 Asset Sustainment Strategy 1: Define (initial) optimal asset maintenance strategy ......................... 35
5.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 35
5.3.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 37
5.3.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.3.4 Software requirements ....................................................................................................................... 38
5.4 Asset Sustainment Strategy 2: Time Based Maintenance – optimize frequency and activities........ 38
5.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 38
5.4.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 38
5.4.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Asset Sustainment Strategy 3: Condition Based Maintenance – optimize planning and activities . 39
5.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 39
5.5.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 39
5.5.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.6 Asset Sustainment Strategy 4: Risk Based Maintenance – optimize planning and activities ........... 40
5.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 40
5.6.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 40
5.6.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 40
5.7 Asset Sustainment Strategy 5: End of useful life scenario .................................................................. 41
5.7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 41
5.7.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 41
5.7.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 42
5.8 Asset Sustainment Strategy 6: Select replacement strategies: RtF, TBR, CBR, RBR. ...................... 42
5.8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 42
5.8.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 44
5.8.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 44
5
5.9 Asset Sustainment Strategy 7: Time based Replacement.................................................................... 45

5.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Information ......................................................................................................................................................... 45
5.9.2 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 45
Software requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 45
5.10 Asset Sustainment Strategy 8: Condition Based Replacement ........................................................... 45
5.10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 45
5.10.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 46
5.10.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 46
5.11 Asset Sustainment Strategy 9: Risk Based Replacement .................................................................... 46
5.11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 46
5.11.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 46
5.11.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 47
5.12 Asset Sustainment Strategy 10: Optimize life cycle value ................................................................... 47
5.12.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 47
5.12.2 Information ......................................................................................................................................... 47
5.12.3 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 48
5.13 Information, Data and Software requirement definitions...................................................................... 49
6. Assessment of Vendor Software Capabilities ........................................................ 58

6.1 Review of earlier reports ......................................................................................................................... 58
6.2 Vendor Capabilities Assessment ............................................................................................................ 59
6.3 Summary of observations about APM platforms .................................................................................. 65
6.4 Mapping Utility Survey Results with Vendors Capabilities .................................................................. 66
7. Observations and Recommendations..................................................................... 69
8. References, in order ................................................................................................. 70
Figures and Illustrations

Figure 3-1 TB422 ([03] CIGRE, 2010) page 20 sect. 2.3.2 - Component strength/stress time function ........ 11
Figure 3-2 TB422 ([03] CIGRE, 2010) figure 4.3-1 ........................................................................................ 12
Figure 4-1 Survey Participants ....................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4-2 Q1. Type of Utility .......................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4-3 Respondents with APM in place ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4-4 Extent of APM meeting needs ...................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4-5 APM application to Asset Sustainment Strategies and monitoring functions ............................... 17
Figure 4-6 APM application (mean) ................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4-7 APM application (mean) by region ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4-8 Enterprise system integration........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 4-9 Data exchange .............................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 4-10 Data exchange (mean)................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 4-11 Data exchange (mean) by region ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 4-12 Required interface automation .................................................................................................... 22
Figure 4-13 Required interface automation (mean) ....................................................................................... 22
Figure 4-14 Required interface automation (mean) by region ....................................................................... 23
Figure 4-15 Required APM functional capabilities ......................................................................................... 24
Figure 4-16 APM functional capabilities (mean) ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 4-17 APM functional capabilities (mean) by region ............................................................................. 25
Figure 4-18 APM IT Capabilities ..................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 4-19 APM IT capabilities (mean) ......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4-20 APM IT capabilities (mean) by region ......................................................................................... 29
6
Figure 4-21 APM Outputs ............................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 4-22 APM Outputs (mean) .................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 4-23 APM Outputs (mean) by region .................................................................................................. 32
Figure 5-1 Sustainment in Asset Life cycle Management .............................................................................. 33
Figure 5-2 Asset Sustainment Strategies: complexity vs requirements ......................................................... 34
Figure 5-3 Business requirements, information requirements and data requirements .................................. 34
Figure 5-4 Condition over time with time based maintenance intervals ......................................................... 38
Figure 6-1 Spider Chart for Survey Question 4-1: APM interfacing requirements ......................................... 63
Figure 6-2 Spider Chart for Survey Question 5: APM platform's functional capabilities ................................ 63
Figure 6-3 APM platform's IT capabilities (Survey Question 6) ...................................................................... 64
Figure 6-4 Desired outputs (Survey Question 7) ............................................................................................ 65
Tables
Table 1-1 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 5-1 Maintenance Strategies summary .................................................................................................. 36
Table 5-2 Replacement Strategies summary ................................................................................................. 43
Table 5-3 - Information for Asset Sustainment Strategies.............................................................................. 49
Table 5-4 Required Data to support Information for Asset Sustainment Strategies ...................................... 53
Table 5-5 General/generic Software requirements for all Asset Sustainment Strategies .............................. 55
Table 5-6 Software requirements, Analytic and handling Data for Asset Sustainment Strategies ................ 56
Table 5-7 Asset Sustainment Strategies ........................................................................................................ 57
Table 6-1 APM Vendor Capabilities ............................................................................................................... 59
Table 6-2 Functionality completeness categories .......................................................................................... 62
Table 6-3 Cross Reference between Figures, Survey Questions and APM Capabilities .............................. 66
Table 6-4 Excluded Survey Questions ........................................................................................................... 68
7
1. Glossary
Table 1-1 Glossary
Term Description
AM Asset Management
APM Asset Performance Management System
CBM Condition Based Maintenance
CM Corrective Maintenance
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System
CoF Consequence of Failure
DSO (DNO) Distribution System Operator (Distribution Network Operator)
DX Distribution
EAM Enterprise Asset Management
EOL End of Life
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
GEN Generation
GIS Gas Insulated Switchgear
HV High Voltage
IED Intelligent Electronic Device
KPI Key performance indicator
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OHL Overhead Line
PDCA Plan Do Check Act
PM Preventative Maintenance
PPM/AIP Project Portfolio Management / Asset Investment Planning
PoF Probability of Failure
P&C Protection & Control
RBM Risk Based Maintenance
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SME Subject Matter Expert
TB Technical brochure
TBI Total Business Impact
TBM Time Based Maintenance
TOTEX Total of OPEX and CAPEX
TSO Transmission System Operator
TX Transmission
WG Working Group
8
2. Introduction
The Asset Management environment for utilities is constantly changing due to internal and external
stresses, such as the need to control costs, climate change, proliferation of distributed energy generation,
ageing infrastructure, higher level of regulatory and customer scrutiny, etc. At the same time, technological
advances allow utilities to seamlessly extract both “static” and “near real time” data from a multitude of
available sources, process this data using configurable analytics, and generate desired outputs in support of
better decision making by asset managers.
One of the developments in Asset Management that enables improved decision-making is the
implementation of Asset Performance Management (APM) platforms whose functions include seamlessly
integrating available data from existing sources, generating required information using built–in analytics, and
producing desired outputs to facilitate decisions on optimizing the sustainment of assets. It is important for
utilities to clearly define their business needs and decision areas for such APM platforms to be effective;
therefore the objective of this Working Group (WG) was to develop and recommend a consistent set of
requirements to enable utilities to acquire the “right” APM platform which would address their specific needs
in the most cost-effective manner possible.
The purpose of this TB is to serve as a starting point in providing a guidance to utilities on the “homework”
needed to be in a position to select the most suitable APM vendor. The document identifies the data,
information and software requirements needed to facilitate Asset Management decisions making.
Furthermore, a comparison of vendors capabilities based on publicly available information is also provided.
Lastly, this TB contains a list of recommendations for improving the APM selection process in the future.
9
3. Publications review
In practice, the development, implementation, and maintenance of such platforms are arduous and resource
intensive. An inadequately scoped/planned implementation can result in poor decisions and worse
outcomes than those provided by manual processes based on known failures, complaints from operators
and maintenance staff, and APM platforms are complex systems that offer the potential for more informed
decisions regarding which equipment is best served by what attention, that are reported in a way that is
consistent and transparent for regulators and other stakeholders.
the individual opinions of in-house experts.
There are many ways to get the analytics wrong, including, but not limited to:
• Incomplete equipment registries,
• Inaccurate equipment data,
• Inconsistent condition assessment,
• Complex, error-prone, multi-modal data gathering procedures/systems,
• Inappropriate bundling or too-small equipment populations that may mask important problems and
highlight non-issues,
• Oversimplified algorithms that mask important problems and highlight non-issues,
• Cumbersome reporting systems that prevent deep dives into what is driving the results.
The literature includes a great many descriptions of academic exercises and isolated case studies. This
section reviews a sampling of this work in an attempt to illustrate both the challenges and apparent
successes.
3.1 Data
There is little in the literature on how best to capture equipment data, be it nameplate information in a
registry, or condition/testing data from external systems such as a work management system. There is wide
recognition that it’s really difficult to have good data, but perhaps only because of the degree of effort
required, not because there is a lack of know-how. According to AM summary document Technical Brochure
(TB)309 ([01] CIGRE, 2010) (page 11) [1] "A key challenge for an asset manager is making the best use of
available data, especially when assigning some level of predictability to the uncertainties at hand. The levels
of confidence in quantifications using limited data always pose an interesting challenge and an element of
innovative research for an asset manager. The data collection, handling and input into the information
systems are tasks that are often seen to be ‘disconnected’ from the delivery of the work on the assets. In
reality it is a critical stage as it forms the basis of a large proportion of the asset investment decisions".
There is literature discussing issues around the collection and management of big data in power systems.
D2-130, Study Committee (SC) D2 PS1 ([02] M. Savinek, 2020) [2] describes a system of data collection for
data capture and storage for predictive maintenance of smart meters. While this is likely to be a much more
homogenous data set than is necessary (and available) for substation equipment, it illustrates some of the
challenges of implementing a collection system and some of the tools used in the solution.
3.2 Condition Assessment

Equipment degrades based on stresses on its systems and materials, and equipment can have multiple,
vastly different failure modes. Any degradation mechanism may be illustrated with this figure, from TB422
([03] CIGRE, 2010) [3].
10
Figure 3-1 TB422 ([03] CIGRE, 2010) page 20 sect. 2.3.2 - Component strength/stress time function
For condition assessment of individual components, there is a lot of focus in the literature and by instrument
vendors on continuous monitoring systems for every imaginable type of equipment. There are a great many
individual case studies on how a particular monitoring system predicted incipient failure and avoided a
catastrophe. While this is important for safety of personnel and preventing collateral damage to equipment,
it is often not easily quantified in a business case because there is no way to know for sure how severe the
consequence would have been.
A2-101-2016 ([04] L. F. Queiroz, 2016) [4] cites a typical example of a utility that used an online DGA
monitor to detect a failing bushing and avoid catastrophic failure of a power transformer. This is a very
common place to start and there are dozens of similar examples.
Every utility will have different means of dealing with the notifications arising from gas limits: the information
might go to SCADA (with some means to reset alarms to higher level to provide trending without
overloading the operators), a dedicated non-operational data network with a separate notification system to
technical experts, a cloud-based system monitored by a third party, or drive-by data collection triggered by a
general gas alarm. There does not need to be a fully integrated data management and analysis system to
be successful, but the more equipment that has continuous monitoring, the more necessary such a data
system becomes.
B3-201-2020 ([05] S. Rhoads, 2020) [5] poses the question, “Who sets the alarms, who receives the alarms,
and who responds?” Using the example of bushing leakage current monitoring, a system is described for
who is responsible for what and at what stage, and the significant technical competencies required.
Continuous monitoring does not mean that one can just plug it in and read a simple display.
One utility used an on-load tap-changer monitor to predict tap changer wear to not only avoid costly failures,
but also to reduce unnecessary and expensive intrusive maintenance. D1-101-2020 ([06] A. M. Barbosa,
2020) [6] describes the workings of the monitoring device, including examples of detected defects.
While reduced maintenance activities from online monitors and other non-intrusive diagnostics make for an
appealing business case, it is important to consider not only the cost of the monitor and installation, but its
own maintenance and repair/calibration requirements. While there may be significant savings in eliminating
site visits, some activities that are eliminated with the use of an online monitor are only part of a
maintenance package and reduce the time necessary for the site visit rather than eliminate it completely.
3.3 Modelling and Analytics

Analytics systems rely on models and algorithms to make decisions based on data. This data can come
from different types of sources, including (subjective) inspections and assessments, continuous monitoring
and regular manual tests. Analytics models vary greatly in sophistication, and just because they are widely
published doesn’t mean they are always appropriate or even widely used.
11
An example of this is the risk taxonomy which may be implemented in an asset management tool to help
decide between competing maintenance or replacement programs, in this case from TB422 ([03] CIGRE,
2010) [3].
Per incident Safety Financial Reliability Environment
Impact Fatality (ies) Impact totalling Customer hours lost Reportable environmental incident
class 5 >= 10 M$ >= 7 Million with regulatory prosecution and/or
uncertain mitigation
Impact Permanent Impact totalling Customer hours lost Reportable environmental incident
class 4 disability 5 M$ to 10 M$ 3 to 7 Million with regulatory fines and mitigation
possible
Impact Lost time injury/ Impact totalling Customer hours lost Reportabel environmental incident
class 3 temporary 1 M$ to 5 M$ 1 to 3 Million with long term mitigation (> 1 year)
disability
Impact Medical aid Impact totalling Customer hours lost Reportable environmental incident
class 2 injury/ illness 0.5 M$ to 1 M$ 0.25 to 1 Million with short term mitigation (<1 year)
Severity
Impact First aid injury/ Impact totalling Customer hours lost Non-reportable environmental
class 1 illness < 0.5 M$ < 0.25 Million incident
Figure 3-2 TB422 ([03] CIGRE, 2010) figure 4.3-1
The reliability indicator only takes into account lost power events to customers. This is not a sufficient
indicator of the reliability of a transmission system, because the loss of major trunk lines or critical substation
equipment may not result in a lost power event. While lost transmission capacity is sometimes included in
such tables', lost redundancy is not, and neither are lost isolation points (i.e., broken switches that are wired
shut). Both of these can result in cancelled outages that severely affect maintenance activities and capital
replacement programs, that, in turn, affect reliability.
TB422 ([03] CIGRE, 2010) [3] describes risk-based methods at length, but in very general terms, with little
discussion of pitfalls and how to avoid them, with suggestions like: if data is sparse or inhomogeneous,
compare it with industry norms. There is an example of a time-based maintenance cycle-length comparison
that assumes one could quantify the effect of delayed maintenance before you delay it. In practice, however,
budget cuts to time-based maintenance programs typically do not simply result in stretched cycles, as these
would delay everything that is now due maintenance. The reality is a hodgepodge backlog of competing
priorities that is very difficult to analyse.
It has been common practice to use equipment age as a broad indicator of the general condition of
aggregated populations. While it is still used to justify very high-level replacement pacing strategies, the goal
of an analytics system is to do better than making replacement decisions based on age alone.
There is general agreement that tracking failure rates and modes is extremely valuable for determining the
effectiveness of a program, but also general acknowledgement that it’s difficult to assign probabilities of
failure to specific populations, particularly where part of the data set includes equipment that was
decommissioned for other reasons. TB 175 ([07] CIGRE, 2000) [7] describes how incidents might be
expressed economically in terms of net present value, but some parameters are inevitably assumed.
While substation assets have many varied characteristics and failure modes that make it difficult to apply
statistical analysis, overhead lines assets have the advantage in having large populations of similar
components. D2-103-2020 ([08] A. Fraioli, 2020) [8] describes data driven statistical methods for
maintenance of overhead conductors. This transmission system operator has gathered meticulous line
component characteristics (structures, insulators and conductors), failure reports, test results, as well as
drone and satellite surveys to build a predictive maintenance model. The model not only indicates where the
problems are, it allows for “what if” analysis and work forecasting.
A Health Index can be a useful tool to provide a means of both performing population analysis and
identifying the specific unit condition and probability of failure. A very common style of Health Index
encountered in literature is a straight sum of weighted characteristics for each failure mode.
If each characteristic represents a certain type of loss of integrity, then all of them have to show some
deterioration for the overall health to be poor, whereas any one of them could cause a catastrophic failure.
For example, a fairly new power transformer could be in very good condition for most parameters but is
generating acetylene, or a midlife transformer has high power factor on a single bushing. If the health index
12
does not include some means of prioritizing near failure due to any one mode, the system may not detect an
imminent failure.
B3-201-2018 ([09] S. Rhoads, 2018) [9] describes the difficulties resulting from the sheer uncertainty in any
measurement (focusing on transformer DGA). This paper details how the simple weighting scheme is
ineffective as a useful cumulative Health Index, whereas a log scale for each parameter is much better at
highlighting the trouble spots.
A2-110-2016 ([10] P. Lorin, 2016) [10] combines the failure mode characteristics using a logic diagram,
where each mode is assessed based on a combination of criteria that must be satisfied together (.AND.
logic) any one of them would result in a poor health score (.OR. logic).
In B3-211_2020 ([11] J. R. Jung, 2020) [11] an APM provider describes using machine learning to
determine health indices for power transformers and gas insulated switchgear (GIS) based on a data set
assessed by subject matter experts. Of this verified data set, 90% was used for training, and 10% for
evaluation. Various learning schemes were tested, producing a prediction accuracy of 78-94%. This idea
dispenses with attempting to generate a weighting/bump-up/logic scheme.
Other indicators of expected reliability that are not directly related to condition, like number of trouble calls,
could have many instances for the same problem or many separate issues, and these may or may not be
resolved permanently, or could be unrelated to specific equipment performance, such as outages due to
animal contact or stolen ground conductor.
3.4 Integrated Systems

Some organizations have integrated data management, online monitoring and analytics into a complete
APM system. In some cases, these systems completely cover part of operations, while others prioritize
certain types of equipment or analysis parameters. Broad ranging, integrated systems are still unusual.
B3-208-2018 ([12] J. R. Jung, 2018) [12] describes an integrated asset health management system for a
high-voltage, 350 MVA substation serving an oil refinery. It includes a cloud-based data centre collecting
real-time monitoring information, conducts risk analysis for each apparatus, formulates a maintenance
strategy and analyses the execution of the strategy. The paper demonstrates how it is possible to implement
a relatively complete system on a small scale. The equipment performance is compared to an industry
database available to the APM provider. For example, the transformer Health Index uses a simple weighted
sum, and the maintenance program is selected based on its assumed reliability increase after maintenance.
At time of publication, the system had been in service for one year, leaving in question just how many
automatic decisions had been taken and to what effect, but with a system of this size, manual intervention
and adjustments to the tools are less daunting.
When the substation equipment experts talk about online monitors and identify the data gathering
challenges, it isn’t long before transmission line engineers show up asking if they can add distance-to-fault,
and Protection & Control (P&C) peeks over the wall, excited to talk about synchrophasors. D2-102-2020
([13] Apostolov, 2020) [13] discusses these features as well as the all-important function of Intelligent
Electronic Devices (IED) relays as time synchronization devices and data aggregators at the power
equipment edge, all using IEC 61850 communication protocol. This paper illustrates the need for the
involvement of these various disciplines to make the integrated analytics system possible, even from the
substation perspective, and shows how it benefits other stakeholders as well.
D1-314-2018 ([14] R. Cornell, 2018) [14] describes the extensive work by a midwestern US utility in
implementing a broad ranging operational APM system focusing on condition based rather than age-based
maintenance and replacement. It involves both analytical software and monitoring instruments, starting with
complete monitoring packages on the large power transformers, as well as batteries (which have
maintenance needs for regulatory compliance). The intention was to make analytics available to novice
users for when experts retire. They developed a non-operational data network that involved an extensive
data cleansing and integration exercise, and are slowly bringing in other equipment classes (circuit
breakers, HV cables) and synchrophasors. Data quality and integration continue to pose the greatest
challenge. The paper refers to a cultural journey, but members of this working group who are aware of the
project know that this culture change did not come easy. It required a strong corporate commitment and the
creation of a new department of technical staff dedicated to managing the system.
13
4. Utility Survey
4.1 Introduction
The Working Group designed and conducted a survey to better understand APM knowledge and
requirements, involving 33 utilities from across the world [Figure 4-1] with participants representing 5-10% of
total global business (this is based on rough combination of energy & load and is an estimate/range).
Figure 4-1 Survey Participants

The purpose of this survey was not to identify and prescribe best practices, but rather to receive inputs from
the participants regarding their experience with and knowledge about APM and their needs for AMP
capabilities.
The survey was divided into 7 Question Categories as follows:
• Q1. Type of Utility
• Q2. Extent to which APM addresses utility’s needs
• Q3. Purposes for using APM
• Q4. Enterprise systems that need to be integrated with APM and the extent of integration
• Q5. APM functional capabilities
• Q6. APM IT capabilities
• Q7. Desired outputs

Each Question Category (except Q1 and Q2) has several questions with drop-down menus for scoring each
of the answers on the scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most important. For the simplicity of
presentation, the results were presented using Box Plots for each of the answers and Spider Charts for
mean answer values of each answer within the Questions. The explanation for both chart types is provided
below. Additionally, for Q3-Q7 the Spider Charts of mean answer values are categorized in 3 Regions:
Americas, Africa/Asia/Pacific and Europe.
Question Category-specific observations are presented immediately following the survey results
presentation for each of the seven Question Categories.
Explanation of charts:
• Box Plot: A boxplot is a standardized way of displaying the distribution of data based on a five
number summary (“minimum”, first quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), and “maximum”). It
shows outliers and their values. It also demonstrates how tightly the data is grouped, and if and how
the responses are skewed.
14
• Spider Chart: A spider chart is a two-dimensional chart designed to plot one or more series of
values over multiple quantitative variables. Each variable has its own axis, all axes are joined in the
centre of the figure.
4.2 Survey Results
Q1. Type of Utility

Survey respondents were asked to define the type of utility: transmission & distribution, transmission only,
distribution only, generation.
Figure 4-2 Q1. Type of Utility

Note: Some utilities have selected more than one option, because - depending on their structure - they may
have assets belonging to more than one category, e.g. vertically integrated utilities own generation,
transmission and distribution assets. This explains why the total number in this figure exceeds the number
of participants.
15
Q2. Do you have APM* and to what extent it addresses your needs
Survey respondents were asked to define the baseline situation of APM in the company.
Figure 4-3 Respondents with APM in place
Observation: 72% of the survey respondents have an APM system in place and 28% don’t currently have an
APM system. The sample seems to represent more advanced utilities based on the APM implementation
percentage.
Figure 4-4 Extent of APM meeting needs
Observation: Survey respondents who currently have an APM system in place feel that their APM
addresses not more than 50% of their needs with the mean of 40%, suggesting that there is a significant
room for improvement.
16
Q3. For what purposes would you use an APM system?

The survey participants were asked to select all of the 10 Asset Sustainment Strategies and 2 condition
monitoring functions for which they are using APM. The score results are shown in Figure 4-5 below:
• Optimize maintenance- Optimize between maintenance strategies:
• No maintenance (RTF)
• Time Based Maintenance (TBM)
• Condition Based Maintenance (CBM)
• Risk Based Maintenance (RBM)
• TBM – optimize frequency and activities
• CBM – optimize planning and activities
• RBM – optimize planning and activities
• Maintain or Replace - Maintain or Replace decisions (tactical/operational)]
• Optimize replacement - Optimize between replacement strategies: RTF, TBR, CBR, RBR
• TBR – optimize replacement planning
• CBR – optimize replacement planning
• RBR – optimize replacement planning
• Optimize LC - Optimize life cycle value strategy
• Monitor performance - Monitor the performance of assets (e.g. failure rate, cost/unit, PM/CM)
• Monitor condition - Monitor condition of assets (including notification of anomalies).
Figure 4-5 APM application to Asset Sustainment Strategies and monitoring functions 1
1In all plot figures, the range is from “0”, which means a very low importance, to “10”, which indicates a
crucial importance.
17
Figure 4-6 APM application (mean)
Figure 4-7 APM application (mean) by region
18
Observation: Based on the mean values, more than 50% of the survey respondents see the need for all the
options identified. Out of these, condition monitoring of assets and providing notifications have the highest
need, while optimizing replacement planning has the lowest. All the regions follow a fairly similar pattern
when utilizing APM for maintenance and replacement decision making.
Q4. APM interfacing requirements

Survey respondents were asked to define the required interfaces to APM and the respective amount of data
exchange.
Q4-1: Which enterprise systems should be integrated with APM? (A bi-directional exchange is
assumed in each case)
Figure 4-8 Enterprise system integration
Q4-2: If yes, what is the amount of required data exchange for the platform?
Figure 4-9 Data exchange
19
Figure 4-10 Data exchange (mean)
20
Figure 4-11 Data exchange (mean) by region
21
Q4-3: If yes, what is the required automation of the interface?
Figure 4-12 Required interface automation
Figure 4-13 Required interface automation (mean)
22
Figure 4-14 Required interface automation (mean) by region
Observation Q4-1: The majority of the survey respondents feel that the data from most of the enterprise
systems included in the survey need to be integrated with the APM system. Only 25% feel that the data from
the proprietary OEM systems need to be integrated with the APM system.
Observation Q4-2: Based on the mean values, data exchange requirements are split in three levels:
1 EAM/CMMS and online sensors: most indicated a very strong need for high amount of exchange
2 GIS and PPM/AAIPM: there is a significant need for data exchange
3 SCADA, ERP and OEM: only about half indicate there is a need for high amount of data exchange
No significant differences between regions except the is less of a need for the proprietary OEM Systems for
APAC survey participants.
Observation Q4-3: Based on the mean values, the survey respondents see the need for 60% or more of the
interfaces for all enterprise systems to be automated. Need for the OEM systems automation has by far the
biggest discrepancy in the survey responses. Of all the enterprise databases, survey respondents indicate
that automation of online/offline sensor data is the most critical, followed by EAM/CMMS and SCADA data.
There is no significant differences between regions, except in the case of proprietary OEM Systems. APAC
survey participants don’t see as much need to automate the data from the OEM databases as do the
participants from the Americas and Europe.
23
Q5. What should be the APM platform's functional capabilities?

Survey respondents were asked to define the main functional capabilities of the APM system.
Figure 4-15 Required APM functional capabilities
Figure 4-16 APM functional capabilities (mean)
24
Figure 4-17 APM functional capabilities (mean) by region
Observation Q5-1: Based on the mean values, the survey respondents feel that all aspects of functional
capabilities included in the survey are important to them. This is consistent across all the regions.
25
Q6: What should be the APM platform's IT capabilities?

The survey participants were asked to select which of the following 21 IT capabilities should be included by
APM:
• Data - Data Integration with Asset Data System
• Analytics - Data Analytics
• Storage - Data Storage Capabilities
• Trending - Trending Analysis
• Metrics - Asset Performance metrics
• Monitoring - Real Time Monitoring
• Alerts - Notification and Alerts
• Health - Asset Health
• Scenario - Scenario Analysis
• Risk - Risk Assessment / forecast
• EEOL - Risk Informed Economic End of Life Assessment
• RCA - Root Cause Analysis
• FMEA - Failure Mode & Effect Analysis
• Degradation - Degradation forecast & model validation
• Failure - Failure prediction
• Data Quality - Data quality monitoring
• Data Privacy - Data privacy, security
• Flexibility - Flexibility, scalability
• Cloud - Cloud based platform
• Models - Data Model Standards (CIM, IEC)
• Real Time - Ability to incorporate (near) real-time data/changes.
26
Figure 4-18 APM IT Capabilities
27
Figure 4-19 APM IT capabilities (mean)
28
Figure 4-20 APM IT capabilities (mean) by region
Observation Q6-1: The survey respondents expect the APM system to have a variety of capabilities.
The ability to generate and handle Asset Health, Data Integration with Asset Data, flexibility/scalability
and data privacy & security are the most required. A cloud based platform and root cause analysis are
the least required.
While flexibility/scalability and Asset Health are the most required amongst all the regions, real time
monitoring, failure prediction and risk assessment are less important for the European survey
participants.
29
Q7. What should be the desired outputs?

The survey participants were asked to select which of the following 11 outputs should be generated by
APM:
1 Dashboards
2 Reports
3 CSV extracts
4 Alerts - (as distinct from operating alarms)
5 Visualization - GIS based visualization
6 Statistics
7 Historical comparison (e.g. using heat maps or reports)
8 API – Application Programming Interface
9 Web - Web Services
10 EAM Info - Maintenance strategy (tasks, frequencies) for EAM
11 Models - Asset models (AHI, degradation curves) for long term planning in AIP
Figure 4-21 APM Outputs
30
Figure 4-22 APM Outputs (mean)
31
Figure 4-23 APM Outputs (mean) by region
Note: The granularity of the outputs included in the survey are not the same, i.e. need for CSV
extracts and GIS based visualization is a prescriptive requirement, whereas others are at a rather high
level.
Observation Q7-1: Survey respondents indicate that dashboards, reports and asset models are the
primary desired outputs, and the provision of web services is the least important output. All regions are
consistent in the desired output.
32
5. Asset Sustainment Strategies

5.1 Introduction and objectives
Over the last several years, Information Technologies made significant progress and their expanded
capabilities allow utilities to extract, manipulate and process vast amounts of data that can support
Asset Management activities. To select the most suitable Asset Performance Management (APM)
system, utilities need to define requirements regarding data, information, functionality, and outputs to
support their decision-making processes.
The aim of this section is to identify typical decision areas where utilities can benefit from APM, and to
determine what kind of data, information and analytics are needed for each of these decision areas -
referred to in this document as “Asset Sustainment Strategies”. For the most part, utilities invest in
sustaining their assets to optimize grid performance and mitigate risk to business values, such as
reliability, safety, environmental risk, reputation, customer service, grid performance, etc.
It also outlines what information and software requirements are needed for the defined 10 Asset
Sustainment Strategies.
Note: the defined decision areas are associated with sustaining the existing asset base only.
Decisions associated with adding to the existing asset base are typically driven by system planning
studies or external needs, such as new load and generation connections.
Figure 5-1 Sustainment in Asset Life cycle Management
The data and information requirements increase with the complexity of selected Asset Sustainment
Strategy. For a very simple run-to-failure strategy, little information and data are required. For more
complex time based and especially condition based, and risk-based Asset Sustainment Strategies,
more data and information are required. Specifically, it is important to qualify both the probability of
failure, based on condition and use of assets, and the consequence of failure. This is applicable to
both maintenance and replacement strategies for asset (sub)-populations and/or individual assets.
33
Figure 5-2 Asset Sustainment Strategies: complexity vs requirements

S. Marwitz, M. Hopfensitz and H. Spitzer, CIRED 2021 pp. 2994-2998 [15]
In general, Transmission & Distribution Network/System Operators (TSOs and DNOs) are advancing
from time based- to condition based or even risk-based maintenance and replacement strategies.
Utilities need support in deciding when to use which Asset Sustainment Strategy and, once selected,
how to optimize that strategy. This chapter describes the data and information needs of asset
managers to optimize within, or between different Asset Sustainment Strategies. In this context,
optimization refers to balancing between cost and the resultant risk/benefit to business values.
Figure 5-3 Business requirements, information requirements and data requirements
Using IT solutions, specifically an APM system, allows utilities not only to establish the optimal cycle
for Time Based Maintenance and Replacements but also to advance from the time-based approach to
Condition Based and/or Risk Based approaches, which result in more cost-effective maintenance and
replacement protocols. Since an APM platform allows for integration and processing of both static and
continuous input data, it facilitates the utility’s decision-making process by helping determine what is
the optimal approach by using relevant built-in analytics.
34
5.2 Asset Sustainment Strategies overview

The following ten Asset Sustainment Strategies for maintenance and replacements are described at a
high level below. Each Asset Sustainment Strategy description includes the following components:
• An introduction with a description of the Asset Sustainment Strategy and associated
challenges and decisions.
• Details of the information requirements that are needed to support decision making. The
detailed description of each information category can be found in Table 5-3.
• Data needed to generate the required information. The detail description of data types can be
found in Table 5-4.
• Software capabilities required to address data collection and analytics for transforming data
into information.
o The general software capability requirements applicable to all Asset Sustainment
Strategies are listed in Table 5-5.
o Additional software capability requirements applicable to specific Asset Sustainment
Strategies are listed separately in the sections describing these Asset Sustainment
Strategies.
Sections 5.3 and 5.8 contain the high-level strategy descriptions and initial triggers for maintenance
strategies and for replacement strategies respectively.
Please note that the lists of information and data (including the listings in Table 5-3 and Table 5-4) are
not intended to be comprehensive, exhaustive, fully accurate and/or complete, and are intended to
provide direction and guidance to the essential topics that are required to support decision making on
Asset Sustainment Strategies.
5.3 Asset Sustainment Strategy 1: Define (initial) optimal asset

maintenance strategy
5.3.1 Introduction
The optimal maintenance strategy is the one that provides the optimum balance among life cycle
costs, performance and risks for the asset owner and includes a mixture of condition-based, risk-
based and time-based maintenance strategies. The goal is generally to increase reliability and/or
reduce maintenance costs and/or prolong the assets usable life while maintaining acceptable levels of
risks. The optimal maintenance strategy is usually the one that provides the lowest total life-cycle cost
measured either in terms of TOTEX or TBI.
Optimal Asset Sustainment Strategy selection for a particular asset category depends on the asset
type (including specific failure modes) and its function and criticality in the grid. This section describes
generic choices, triggers and challenges for the four main asset maintenance strategies and provides
guidance on when each strategy should be used.
1 No preventive maintenance / run to failure (RtF) / corrective or reactive maintenance only
For some asset categories, no planned, proactive, or preventive maintenance activities (including
inspections) are performed. These assets are operated until they cease to function (run to failure).
Typically, this maintenance strategy is used for inexpensive and easily replaceable assets with low
risks attributed to the asset failure. The costs for reactive maintenance or repair after a failure occurs
are typically low or not much higher than for proactive replacements. There may be a need to track the
failure rates to have adequate spare parts inventory available.
Examples of asset types are secondary/tertiary equipment, low voltage (LV) cable connections,
distribution transformers, etc.
When (for example as a by-product of other planned maintenance activities in that location) unplanned
inspections indicate some form of degradation, maintenance actions may of course be performed.
Note that an asset can be inherently non-maintainable, while failure may have relevant impact on
business values. Please refer to Asset Sustainment Strategy 6, where the decisions on replacement
strategies are described.
35
2 Time Based Maintenance, (TBM)

Time-based maintenance activities are performed on assets or their sub-components that contain an
undesirable risk, yet the risk is not quantified because:
• The probability of failure can only be derived from failure statistics, which may not be available
in sufficient quality and quantity for assets of similar type and condition; or
• Because there are either no cost-effective ways to assess or monitor degradation, and/or
degradation is believed to occur linearly in time.
In such cases, preventive maintenance activities with a fixed (optimized) intervals are the best means
to maximize asset life and reduce risk to business values.
Examples may be cleaning station transformers and bushings, lubrication tasks and blowdown of
receiver tanks on pneumatic breakers, OHL insulators washing, etc.
Note that TBM may also be based on regulatory or OEM warranty requirements for fixed maintenance
intervals, and these intervals may be subject to change, depending on the asset’s age and/or
remaining useful life.
3 Condition Based Maintenance, (CBM)
Condition-based maintenance is performed on assets where failures present an undesirable risk to
business values with the aim to address identified failure modes. CBM may be applied when the
condition (degradation and estimated remaining useful lifetime; related to probability of failure) can be
determined at an individual asset level in a cost-effective way through either inspection, monitoring, or
testing, and/or be implied through utilization (number of operations, loading, etc.). This allows for
preventative maintenance and/or lifetime extending maintenance activities based on the condition of
assets. CBM is used to manage condition by either slowing the degradation rate or improving
condition through corrective maintenance activities. CBM can be employed when it is assumed that
the failure consequences (CoF) are similar for all assets within that category.
Maintenance activities are based on the outcomes of condition monitoring activities (which may or
may not be interval-based). Examples may be substation transformers DGA and oil quality testing, PD
and Tan Delta underground cables testing, OHL structures climbing inspections, breakers timing test,
etc.
4 Risk Based Maintenance (RBM)
Risk Based Maintenance is similar to CBM, with the addition of considering consequence of failure,
and therefore the criticality and risk to business values for individual assets and/or specific failure
modes. Examples may include substation equipment like HV GIS assets, critical overhead lines, HV
autotransformers, etc.
Table 5-1 Maintenance Strategies summary

Strategy Maintenance Typically used when: Issues/Challenges
activities
triggered based
on:
Run to Fail Failure Asset (or specific failure - No means to control CM
(no PM) mode) with minimal COF costs
Cost for unplanned - Need to track failure rates to
replacement is low or not have adequate spare parts
much higher than for inventory
proactive replacement. - No way to monitor
deterioration
Time Based Pre-determine Asset (or specific failure - Appropriate interval selection
Maintenance time interval mode) has moderate CoF. (TOTEX/TBI)
Degradation of the failure - Tracking failures to provide
mode can't be monitored, input into selection of
or the degradation is maintenance interval and tasks
believed to decline linearly - Tracking unit cost for different
with time (e.g. simple tasks
assets with constant usage
or exposure).
36
Strategy Maintenance Typically used when: Issues/Challenges

activities
triggered based
on:
- Inspection vs testing vs
repairs (defining criteria for PM
vs CM)
- Monitoring not applicable
- Coordination with the EOL
replacement (is there a need
for PM if a decision was made
to replace the assets shortly)
There are regulatory or - Warranty vs non-warranty
warranty requirements. protocols
Condition Condition Asset (or specific failure - Drivers for moving from time-
Based indicators mode) has moderate to based Maintenance to CBM: at
Maintenance (including usage) high CoF what point in assets life based
exceeding Failure mode(s) extent of on defined condition criteria
thresholds degradation can be - Identifying and selecting
assessed through CBM tasks (e.g., on-line
inspections or testing or monitoring, more frequent
implied through usage/duty. inspections and off-line testing,
Used to control condition minor repairs)
assuming consequences - Extent of slowing down
are very similar for all degradation or preventing
assets. failures: cost vs benefits
analysis
Risk Based Risk exceeding Asset has failure mode(s) - Drivers for moving from time-
Maintenance thresholds where the probability of based Maintenance/CBM to
failure and consequences RBM: at what point in asset life
of failure (criticality) can be based on condition criteria and
determined. criticality considerations
- Identifying and selecting
critical assets
- Identifying/selecting tasks to
slow down degradation and
reduce consequence of failure
5.3.2 Information
To select an optimal (initial) maintenance strategy, the following basic information should be available,
acquired or developed:
• Regulatory requirements
• Manufacturer policies and warranties
• Financial: costs of replacement (vs costs of continuing maintenance)
• Financial: costs of the maintenance
• Failure Modes, Effects & Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
• Probability of Failure (PoF) Statistics
• Effectiveness of maintenance strategy
• Condition monitoring options
• Effectiveness of condition monitoring
• Effectiveness of identifying non-obvious defects.
5.3.3 Data
Data required to generate the required information and/or to support the decision for selecting an
optimal maintenance strategy are shown below.
37
• Asset Master data, including:

• Financial data
• Failure records
• In-service record
• Legislative and regulatory data
• Maintenance data
• Monitoring data
• OEM recommendation
• Asset
• Consequence of failure data
• Strategic data.
5.3.4 Software requirements
All requirements from Table 5-5 must be met. Specific software requirements associated with each of
the four maintenance strategies are described in the sections below.
5.4 Asset Sustainment Strategy 2: Time Based Maintenance – optimize

frequency and activities
5.4.1 Introduction
Time-based maintenance strategies (TBM) specify when and which maintenance activities are to be
carried out on specific assets. The regular intervals and activities are usually based on the
recommendation of the manufacturer and/or regulators and operational experience of the
maintenance experts. The intervals for the activities are either constant over the entire useful life or
may be adjusted depending on asset age or other indicators that predict remaining useful lifetime.
An example of this is a 3-year (frequency) washing (activity) of power line insulators. The purpose of
this maintenance strategy is to optimize both frequency and the activities themselves to manage risk
to business values and to allow for assets to reach the end of their expected useful life. Figure 5-4
illustrates how TBM impacts assets life and condition.
Figure 5-4 Condition over time with time based maintenance intervals
Note: Even though time-based inspections may often be combined with time-based maintenance
activities, these inspections are considered to be a part of CBM strategy covered under Asset
Sustainment Strategy 3 which purpose is to collect and manage condition indicators and perform
corrective maintenance activities rather than to be a part of the prescribed time-based maintenance
plan.
5.4.2 Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.3.2) needed for this strategy is:
38
5.4.3 Data
Data required to generate the required information are shown below.
Table 5-5 requirements
5.5 Asset Sustainment Strategy 3: Condition Based Maintenance –

optimize planning and activities
5.5.1 Introduction
Asset condition is the representation of the degradation state of the asset, and is related to the asset’s
probability of failure and/or is an indicator of the asset’s ability to function as designed. To perform
CBM, the condition needs to be assessed in such a way that a prediction of the degradation rate can
be made, so that appropriate maintenance activities can be planned accordingly. The condition of the
asset can be assessed through inspections, monitoring, or testing, and/or indirectly by applying
(predictive) data analytics on correlated condition parameters or on operating indicators related to
degradation, such as fault information, loading, environmental conditions, etc.
The two main activities in defining the CBM strategy are:

1 Select relevant maintenance activities aligned with the failure modes and company
criteria/thresholds regarding acceptable condition.
2 Set time intervals to perform Condition Monitoring activities, such as time-based inspections,
online monitoring using sensors, and/or testing. The purpose is to set the time interval for
these activities so that the degradation rates can be reduced, and failures can be prevented to
the greatest extent possible.
5.5.2 Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.3.2 and 5.4.2) needed for this
strategy is:
• Condition Criteria
• Asset Health Index (AHI).
5.5.3 Data
• Ambient environment data, including:
• Failure records
• Inspection data
39
• Monitoring data
• Operational/utilization data
• Asset .
In addition to Table 5-5:
• Monitoring condition data
• Display degradation curves
• Provide heuristic, SME and AI monitoring models
• Calculate AHI and POF.
5.6 Asset Sustainment Strategy 4: Risk Based Maintenance – optimize

planning and activities
5.6.1 Introduction
Risk is derived by combining probability of failure, which is related to the condition of the asset, and
the consequence of failure. In addition to CBM, RBM includes means of measuring consequence of
failure either by using a risk score related to corporate business values or by monetizing the
consequences of failures.
In addition to CBM, the two main activities in defining the RBM strategy are:
1. Measure, estimate or define the consequence of failure per asset, asset portfolio or at the
system level, for all relevant business values either by generating a risk score, or by
monetizing failure impact.
2. Select relevant maintenance activities aligned with the failure modes and consequences for
the company criteria/thresholds regarding acceptable risk.
5.6.2 Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.3.2, 5.4.2 and 5.5.2) needed for
this strategy is:
• Key Performance Indicators
• Consequence of Failure (CoF)
5.6.3 Data
• Failure records
• Inspection data
• Maintainability data
• Duration of repair
• Monitoring data
40
• Asset
• Strategic data.
• Monitoring condition data
• Provide AI monitoring models
• Calculate AHI and POF
• Monetize Consequence of failure.
5.7 Asset Sustainment Strategy 5: End of useful life scenario

5.7.1 Introduction
As assets approach the end of their expected useful lives, decisions must be made regarding the
appropriate course of action:
• Keep them in service by taking lifetime extending measures: modified maintenance,
refurbishments, operating solutions, monitoring, etc.
• Replace the asset.
For some aging assets close to the end of their useful life, risks can spike due to increased probability
of failure and maintenance costs can spike due to increasing corrective maintenance requirements,
lack of spare parts, negative impacts on system performance, etc. Therefore, life-extension may
become uneconomical. In such cases, a proactive replacement could be a more economical and more
efficient solution as it will eliminate the costs associated with incremental maintenance service and will
also reduce risk costs.
On the other hand, proactive replacement strategies may not be economical if the entire life cycle is
considered, and the asset has not yet reached the end of its useful life. If maintenance service, e.g.,
refurbishment or more frequent inspections or monitoring, etc., can be executed in an economic way,
then the useful life of an asset can be extended, and the risk of failure can be reduced for less than
the cost of an outright replacement.
It is vital to compare and understand the impacts of these types of trade-offs from the TBI (which
considers tangible and intangible risk costs) perspective when making decisions regarding the
appropriate action. This involves comparing replacement cost with the TBI as well as incremental
planned and unplanned maintenance costs.
5.7.2 Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.3.2, 5.4.2, 5.5.2 and 5.6.2)
needed for this strategy is:
• Asset Health Index (AHI)
• Impact of replacement.
41
5.7.3 Data
• Financial data
• Failure records
• Inspection data
• Monitoring data
• Resource availability
• Asset
• Replacement data
• Strategic data
• Total Business Impact (TBI).
• Perform Scenario analysis
5.8 Asset Sustainment Strategy 6: Select replacement strategies: RtF,

TBR, CBR, RBR.
5.8.1 Introduction
The optimal replacement strategy is the one that provides the required balance between life cycle
costs, performance, and risk for the utility. This optimal strategy will likely contain a mixture of
risk/condition based and time based replacement strategies. The goal is to maintain or increase
reliability and/or reduce costs while maintaining acceptable levels of failure risks. The best
replacement strategy is usually the one that provides the lowest total life-cycle cost (TBI) which
includes TOTEX and costs associated with impact on business values.
Optimal Asset Sustainment Strategy selection for a particular asset category depends on the asset
type (including specific failure modes) and its function in the grid. This section describes generic
choices, triggers, and challenges for the four main asset replacement strategies, and provides
guidance on when each strategy should be used.
42
Table 5-2 Replacement Strategies summary

Strategy Replacement Trigger Typically used when: Issues/Challenges
Run to Fail Replace on any failure Not economically - Unpredictable number of
(reactive) feasible to repair even if replacements each year
Replacements extending life by repairs (need to have spares
is possible strategy based on
historical failure rates)
- Difficult to decide on the
right maintenance strategy
(Life Cycle cost?)
- Decision criteria for this
approach (capture tangible
and intangible failure
costs)
Time Based Replace if economically Pre-determined time - Appropriate interval
Replacement feasible before the intervals are well selection (TOTEX/TBI)
scheduled replacement established based on - Tracking failures and
date history of failures and/or capture planned and
SME experience unplanned replacement
costs to provide input into
Assets of the same age selection of replacement
are in a similar condition interval
- Monitoring not needed
- No need for EOL replace
vs refurbish assessment
- Need to make replace vs
refurbish decision if fails
before scheduled
replacement date
Condition Minimum acceptable Asset has moderate to - Drivers for moving from
Based condition as derived by high consequences of TBR to CBR: variety of
Replacements HI or monitoring of a failure and extent of different conditions for the
specific component or degradation can be same age assets
other means AND more assessed through - Having enough input
economical than inspections and/or data to quantify the
continuing to keep in testing, and/or implied condition and feed
service through usage/duty. analytics
- Developing credible HI
Used to replace assets methodology
in unacceptable - Linking estimated
condition assuming condition score with POF
consequences are very
- Defining condition or
similar for all assets.
POF threshold for
targeting units for
replacement
- EOL replace vs refurbish
decision making
Risk Based Risk exceeding defined Consequence of failure - Includes all of the above
Replacements thresholds varies greatly among challenges/issues
assets in the same associated with CBR
asset category - Establishing measures of
estimating consequence,
e.g., using cruciality
- Criticality may not be the
same for all assets in the
same asset category
43
1 Run to failure (RtF) / corrective or reactive replacement

For some asset types, no planned, proactive replacements are performed. These assets are operated
until they cease to function (run to failure). This strategy is used for assets with neglectable/low
consequence of failure and which are easy to replace. The costs for reactive replacements are
typically low or not much higher than for proactive replacements. There may be a need to track the
failure rates to have adequate spare parts inventory.
Some examples / asset types may be secondary/tertiary equipment, low voltage (LV) cable
connections, smart meters, distribution transformers, etc.
2 Time Based Replacements, (TBR)
Time based replacements are performed on assets or sub-components that contain an undesirable
risk, yet the probability of failure can only be derived from failure statistics (if available) and can’t be
defined for an individual asset, because there are either no cost-effective ways to assess or monitor
degradation and/or degradation is believed to decline linearly in time. In such cases, preventive
replacements with a fixed interval are an accepted means to maximize asset life and reduce risk to
business values.
Examples may be replacing substation equipment at a predefined age (related to typical useful
lifetime).
3 Condition Based Replacements, (CBR)
Condition based replacements are performed on assets (and for specific failure modes) that contain
an undesirable risk. CBR may be applied when condition (degradation and remaining lifetime, related
to probability of failure) can be indicated on an individual asset level in a cost-effective way through
either inspection, measurements and/or testing, or be implied through operations (usage/duty). This
allows for proactive “just in time” replacements based on the condition of the degraded asset.
CBM is used to manage condition, assuming the consequences are similar for all assets within that
category.
Examples may be MV Switchgear, MV Cables, OHL structures climbing inspections, etc.
4 Risk Based Replacements (RBR)
Risk Based Replacements are similar to CBR, with the addition that the consequence of failure (and
therefore the risk) is also considered in establishing replacement planning.
Examples may be Substation equipment like HV GIS, and station transformers.
5.8.2 Information
5.8.3 Data
Data required to generate the required information and/or to support the decision for selecting an
optimal replacement strategy are shown below.
• Financial data
• Failure records
• Monitoring data
• Asset
44
• Strategic data
All requirements from Table 5-5 must be met.
5.9 Asset Sustainment Strategy 7: Time based Replacement

5.9.1 Introduction
For a time based (e.g., age based) replacement strategy, Asset Managers must schedule
replacements at predetermined intervals. This replacement plan specifies when and which assets
must be replaced. The replacement intervals are based on operating experience and manufacturer
specifications. If no spare parts are available for an asset, the asset is usually replaced with high
priority. The intervals at which replacements are carried out depends on how the asset has been used
and maintained over its lifetime. The Information, Data and Software requirements an Asset Manager
needs are similar to Asset Sustainment Strategy 2 time based maintenance.
The purpose of this strategy is to find the optimal frequency and timing of replacements that optimizes
TOTEX or TBI. Sufficient failure history is needed to determine age based replacement timing with the
aim of replacing assets before they fail. This may be based on a threshold value of the probability of
failure derived from generic or utility specific degradation curves.
Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.8.2) needed for this strategy is:
• Impact of replacement
5.9.2 Data
Software requirements
All requirements from Table 5-5 must be met.
5.10 Asset Sustainment Strategy 8: Condition Based Replacement

5.10.1 Introduction
Condition based replacements (CBR) involve replacing assets when their condition, as determined by
various means such as testing and inspections, Asset Health Index (AHI) scoring, or monitoring of
specific condition parameters/components, is found to be unacceptable implying a high probability of
failure. CBR strategies assume that the consequence of failure is the same or similar for all units and
assets are prioritized for replacement or other form of intervention based only on their condition and
the corresponding probability of failure.
Once specific assets are identified for replacement, the optimum replacement timing is then
established as described in section 6.7. Additional information, such as the available resources and
materials, budgetary constraints, and the ability to schedule planned outages should be considered to
determine the optimally planned and prioritized replacement timing of the assets.
45
5.10.2 Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.8.2 and 0) needed for this
strategy is:
• Asset Health Index (AHI)
5.10.3 Data
• Failure records
• Inspection data
• Monitoring data
• Asset
In addition to Table 5-5
5.11 Asset Sustainment Strategy 9: Risk Based Replacement

5.11.1 Introduction
Risk-based replacement (RBR) differs from CBR described in the previous section by also taking into
consideration the consequence of failure so that the end of useful life is deemed to be reached when
risk exceeds a certain risk threshold or when the value of the replacement is justified based on TBI.
Once specific assets are identified for replacement, the optimum replacement timing is then
established as described in section 6.7. The asset condition and probability of failure as well as
consequence of failure are not the only information needed for such a decision. Additional information,
such as available resources and materials, budgetary constraints, and the ability to schedule planned
outages should be considered to determine the optimally planned and prioritized replacement timing of
the assets.
Risk is derived by combining probability of failure, which is related to the condition of the asset, and
the consequence of failure. In addition to what is required for CBM, RBM also includes the means of
measuring consequence of failure either by using a risk score related to corporate business values or
by monetizing failure consequence.
5.11.2 Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.8.2, 0 and 5.10.2) needed for this
strategy is:
46
5.11.3 Data
• Failure records
• Inspection data
• Maintainability data
• Monitoring data
• Asset
• Strategic data
• Monetize
5.12 Asset Sustainment Strategy 10: Optimize life cycle value

5.12.1 Introduction
Traditionally, separate departments within in the organization are accountable for improving the asset
value of each life cycle phase (asset acquisition, asset operation, asset maintenance, asset disposal).
It is therefore common that the life cycle plan for asset management activities is based on asset value
optimization within each phase separately. However, life cycle value optimization is much more
complex compared to optimization for the individual phases of an asset’s life cycle, as it is an
interdisciplinary field involving various aspects such as life cycle costing, maintenance, performance
and risk assessment, etc.
ISO 55000 provides the general standard for optimizing the life cycle of assets. However, the methods
and criteria for optimizing life cycle value may vary for each individual organization, since the strategic
objectives of the organization should be aligned with the financial, technical, legal, regulatory,
environmental, and social requirements of equipment and the organization itself. The results of life
cycle value optimization help organizations to understand the potential consequences of an applied
strategy, which can be used to develop an overarching plan that contains the asset management
objectives and to explore the development trend of the asset portfolio with a balance of cost, risk and
performance.
Life cycle value optimization requires clearly defined and quantifiable life cycle values and a tool to
simulate multi-scenarios to determine the impact of different sets of Asset Management activities on
those life cycle values.
5.12.2 Information
The information (some in addition to the information as provided in 5.8.2, 0, 5.10.2 and 5.11.2) needed
for this strategy is:
47

5.12.3 Data
• Financial data
• Failure records
• Inspection data
• Monitoring data
• Resource availability
• Asset
• Replacement data
• Strategic data
• Total Business Impact (TBI).
In addition to Table 5-5 requirements:
• Perform Scenario analysis.
48
5.13 Information, Data and Software requirement definitions
Table 5-3 - Information for Asset Sustainment Strategies

No. Information Which Asset
Sustainment
Strategies [Table 5-7
Asset Sustainment
StrategiesTable 5-7]
A. Key Performance Indicators 4, 5, 9, 10
Asset performance objectives or KPI’s as defined by the
Asset Owner in line with the grid performance for the
short and long term. Should be defined in Strategic
Asset Management Plan.
B. Regulatory requirements 1,2,6,7
Some regulators have specific requirements on the
minimal set of activities to be performed. For example,
regulators may have specific requirements on the
maximum defined asset useful lifetime. Also, regulatory
frameworks can be relevant for defining the Return on
Investment in financial business cases.
C. Manufacturer policies and warranties 1,2,6,7
Based on experience and the contractual warranties on
equipment, OEM may have defined expected asset
useful lifetimes, based on defined prescriptive
maintenance activities and intervals, which have to be
conducted during the warranty period in order to be
compliant to contractual obligations.
D. Financial: costs of replacement (vs costs of continuing 1,5,6,10
maintenance)
The information regarding the cost and effort to
maintain or replace the asset, including economic
considerations, such as discount rate, cost of
preventive- vs reactive replacements, cost of
maintenance activities costs of consequence of failure,
etc.
E. Financial: costs of the maintenance 1,2,5,10
Cost of defined maintenance activities (materials,
equipment, personnel, etc.).
Historical labor and material costs of planned and
unplanned maintenance (O&M) including reactive
replacements for asset and/or group of similar assets.
Historical labor and material costs of refurbishments
(O&M and capital) for asset and/or group of similar
assets.
F. Failure Modes, Effects & Criticality Analysis (FMECA) 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
Failure modes identify how an asset or group of like
assets can functionally fail and define the impacts of
that type of failure. Failure mode information is used to
identify what inspection and testing approaches can be
used to detect degradation prior to failure.
Failure modes and their associated modes of
degradation should also form the basis for condition
monitoring parameters and the Asset Health Index
(AHI) scoring methodology.
G. Probability of Failure (PoF) Statistics 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
49

Sustainment
Asset Sustainment
Historical failure/removal-based Weibull functions
(probability density, hazard rate, cumulative probability
of failure and degradation rate)
PoF statistics includes:
• Population failure analysis –
historic/future (rates and failure root causes /
failure modes – including removal data)
• Aging mechanisms – degradation rate
• Qualified or quantified PoF reduction and/or
remaining useful life extension per maintenance
activity
• Failure mode-based failure rates
• Structured failure records to provide failure
modes, severity (potential, functional failure,
forced outage), and how the failure was found
• Aging mechanisms – degradation rate
• Degradation curves
• Removal records, with reasons for removal
(e.g. condition caused failure, need for capacity
increase, etc.)
• Future utilization/duty based on system
requirements
• Future environmental factors based on weather
data, data indicating conditions conducive for
corrosion, etc.
H. Asset Health Index (AHI) 3,4,5,8,9,10
AHI is a (weighted) combination- or other
representation of condition parameters.
The condition parameters are defined according to the
importance of the degradation modes they represent, in
determining the end of life of an asset.
Current condition of asset regarding each condition
parameter/degradation mode and how this condition
has changed over time and is expected to change in the
future: this information could be inspection or test
based, or for degradation rate/trend could be estimated
by analysing utilization/duty.
I. Consequence of Failure (CoF) 4,5,9,10
Relates to KPI domains, estimated using monetized
approach or risk score derived using Criticality Matrix
which considers location, system impact, obsolescence,
spare parts availability, and other factors
J. Effectiveness of maintenance strategy 1,2,3,4,5,10
Metrics such as preventative maintenance to corrective
maintenance ratios (Proactive Maintenance/Condition
based Maintenance), failure rates, or tasks completed
to defectives found ratios. Ratios can be used to help
inform decisions on, for example, whether frequencies
of certain condition monitoring activities can be reduced
without overly impacting reliability. A question would be,
50

Sustainment
Asset Sustainment
can we maintain acceptable reliability while reducing
maintenance program costs?
Supports identifying maintenance activities that can
slow down aging mechanisms and prolong useful life of
assets: activity type (inspection, maintenance,
repair/restoration, refurbishment).
Also includes assessing impact of maintenance
activities, in-situ or off-line and potential risk of such
activities, e.g. inadvertent failure or shortening of useful
life.
K. Condition Criteria 3,4,5,8,9,10
These criteria identify the thresholds for condition
monitoring parameters that indicate when degradation
associated with a failure mode has advanced to a point
where maintenance activities should be performed.
These criteria can be determined through manufacturer
or industry guidance, analysis of failure records and/or
subject matter expertise, and if sufficient historical data
is available for a sufficiently similar population, through
artificial intelligence/machine learning.
The criteria may also have to consider reliability
requirements since increased degradation can be
associated with increased probability of failure and
hence increased failure rates.
L. Condition monitoring options 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
The time interval (frequency) for condition monitoring
may be set based on manufacturer guidance,
maintenance effectiveness, degradation curve
(forecast) modelling, failure rate analysis, and/or subject
matter expertise. The frequency of condition monitoring
can vary depending on the current condition of the
asset.
For all available condition monitoring activities,
information on the costs and related benefits of the
specific activity are required. Costs may include
equipment, personnel, etc. and are related to the
frequency; benefits include the accuracy, the ratio of
false positives / false negatives, timeliness, etc.
M. Effectiveness of condition monitoring 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
Frequency of asset failures can provide an indication of
whether the frequency of condition monitoring activities
associated with each failure mode are adequate.
Therefore, failures must be recorded and registered
accordingly. Some levels of potential and functional
failure rates are likely acceptable while, depending on
reliability requirements, higher rates for a failure mode
may necessitate additional or more frequent monitoring
activity.
This information can also help estimate the impact to
the expected probability of failure (PoF) if the
maintenance strategy is altered, although subject
matter expertise is also generally required.
51

Sustainment
Asset Sustainment
N. Impact of replacement 5,6,7,8,9,10
Availability of Switch-off-windows.
Availability of spare parts
Historic prices and a price forecast
O. Effectiveness of identifying non-obvious defects 1
52
Table 5-4 Required Data to support Information for Asset Sustainment Strategies
Nr Data Which Asset Sustainment
Strategies [Table 5-7 Asset
Sustainment StrategiesTable 5-7]
a) Ambient environment data, including: 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
• Temperature
• Isokeraunic level
• Winds distribution
• Solar radiation
• Proximity to pollution sourced
• Future environmental factors based on
weather data indicating conditions
conducive for corrosion, etc.
b) Asset Master data, including: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
• Asset designation
• Asset classification/hierarchies
• Asset location
• Name plate data (manufacturer, typical,
insulating medium etc.)
• Commissioning data (manufacture,
installation and operation data)
c) Financial data, including: 1,5,6,10
• Depreciation rate
• Residual value
• Whole life cycle cost
• Price development of material
• Costs of external/internal labor
d) Failure records, including: 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
• Location
• Asset type
• Failure mode
• Severity (potential, functional failure,
forced outage)
• How the failure was detected
e) In-service record, including: 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
• Failure and removal records of individual
asset and asset type including planned
and forced outages, with reasons (e.g.
in-service failure, capacity increase, etc.)
f) Inspection data, including: 3,4,5,8,9,10
• Inspection scope
• Measurement/test service records such
as, electric and mechanic measurement,
oil quality, DGA, power factor, tan delta,
PD, remaining strength, etc.
• Costs per inspection work order
g) Legislative and regulatory data, including: 1,2,4,6,7,9
• Legislative requirements such as safety,
IT security and environment
h) Maintainability data, including: 4,9
53

• Spare parts availability
• Technical support availability
• Internal/extern know how
i) Maintenance data, including: 1,2,3,4,5,10
• Unit costs of the maintenance activities
(materials, equipment, personnel, etc.)
• Maintenance history
j) Duration of repair 4,5,9
• Time
• Effort
• Complexity
k) Monitoring data, including: 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
• Costs of monitoring system (hardware,
software, personnel, license)
• Accuracy, the ratio of false positive/false
negative, timeliness, sample frequency
of the monitoring system
l) OEM recommendation, including: 1,2,6,7
• Inspection intervals
• Recommend practices on maintenance
activities
• Warranties
m) • Operational/utilization data, including: 3,4,8,9,10
• Historic loading/voltage profile
• Operational capability
• Temperature of equipment
• Switching number
• Data from monitoring system and
sensors
• Oscillation frequency
• Future utilization/duty based on system
requirements
• Exposure to fauilts
n) Resource availability, including: 5,10
• List of projects with scope, plan and
timeframe
• Available internal and external human
resources for service and construction
and trend
• Available material resource and trend
• Available budget according to
investment plan and operational
planning activities
• Availability of switch-off-windows
o) Asset reliability data, including: 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
• Fault rate
• Fault frequency
54

• Fault duration
• Grid protection schemes
• Grid model (connection, redundancy
etc.)
• Fault searching strategy
• Future trend of outage
p) Replacement data, including: 5,10
• Costs of procurement of new asset
• Costs of the replacement activities
(tools, personnel, etc)
• Expected useful life of asset
• Default replacement cycle (reference
value)
• Appropriate resources and funding
• Historical costs
q) Consequence of failure data, including: 1,4,5,6,9,10
• Environment impact
• Financial impact - total cost of failure
(direct and indirect)
• Grid impact (number of customers
impacted)
• Safety impact
• Reputation impact
• Regulatory impact
r) Strategic data, including: 1,4,5,6,9,10
• Objectives and strategy
• Asset management objectives
• Asset Sustainment Strategy
(maintenance and replacement)
• Demand management strategy
• Asset management plans
• Corporate service levels
s) Total Business Impact (TBI) data, including: 5,10
• Business values to be included in TBI
and their relative importance
• Relative weighting of TBI components
• Relative qualitative impact of
consequence of failure to different TBI
components
• Monetized value of consequence for
measurable consequences, e.g.
collateral damage, overtime costs,
emergency equipment delivery, premium
for accelerated manufacturing cost, etc.
Table 5-5 General/generic Software requirements for all Asset Sustainment Strategies
55
Nr Technical / interfacing
I. Ability to extract data to be used in analytics or directly from various data sources, both
enterprise systems and third parties
II. Ability to push results of analytics, notifications, data assessment, etc. back to enterprise
systems
III. Data handling
IV. Perform data cleansing, verification, and quality assessment
V. Track failure data
VI. Track unit cost data for various activities, both maintenance and replacement
VII. Track time it takes to resolve notification issue
VIII. Analytics (data -> info)
IX. Calculate TBI for different TBM intervals and intensity of maintenance activities to
perform cost optimization for different maintenance and replacement approaches
X. Calculate Performance Metrics, e.g. CM vs PM ratio, unit costs, percent of defects found
via inspections
Table 5-6 Software requirements, Analytic and handling Data for Asset Sustainment Strategies
Nr Data handling Which Asset Sustainment
Asset Sustainment
1. Monitoring condition data 3,4
Monitor both static and real time condition data and have
ability to compare with defined condition criteria
thresholds to generate notifications
2. Display degradation curves 3,4,5,8,9,10
based on the failure/removal statistics
3. Provide AI monitoring models 3,4
Use and improve using AI condition monitoring models
developed by vendor, user or third parties for optimizing
task/frequency of monitoring and testing/inspection
activities
4. Perform Scenario analysis 5,10
Scenario analysis and optimization algorithm to enable
appropriate timing for maintenance or replacement
activities taking into account constraints (budget,
resources, risk threshold, etc.)
5. Calculate AHI and POF 3,4,5,8,9
Calculate Health Index and POF at the present based on
static and real time data, and predict the future changes
6. Monetize Consequence of failure 4,5,9
Calculate monetized Consequence of failure or risk score
using criticality matrix for individual units within selected
asset categories
56
Table 5-7 Asset Sustainment Strategies

Number Asset Sustainment Strategy
1 Define (initial) optimal asset maintenance
strategy
2 Time Based Maintenance
3 Condition Based Maintenance
4 Risk Based Maintenance
5 End of useful life scenario
6 Select replacement strategies
7 Time based Replacement
8 Condition Based Replacements
9 Risk Based Replacement
10 Optimize life cycle value
57
6. Assessment of Vendor Software Capabilities

Although some utilities had developed or used IT platforms to facilitate Asset Management decision
making processes, many challenges still exist, especially related to data availability. Therefore, as
stated in the scope of this WG, one of the objectives is to assist utilities in selecting “an Asset
Analytics platform, capable of extracting the data from multitude of data sources, has functionality to
process these data and generate the required information, and provide users with required outputs.”
The purpose of this WG is to assist utilities in identifying requirements for such a platform. The APM
platform is aimed at supporting decision making processes in the integral context of Asset
Management: condition management, risk management and policy development, etc. The ultimate
purpose of the platform is to provide actionable intelligence for the Asset Management organization.
Note: investment portfolio management is considered to be beyond the scope of this assessment and
is typically dealt with using AIP tools.
The following software requirements were identified:

• Input data categories and where they are typically stored.
• Data requirements, functional (what data) and non-functional (availability, quality, reliability, etc.)
requirements.
• Methodologies for translating these data into information, e.g., Asset Condition Assessment,
investments prioritization, short- and long-term planning, establishing economic end-of-life, etc.
• Desired outputs and their intended usage.
• Generate typical cases derived from core asset management decision making processes:
condition management, risk management, policy development, standardisation, portfolio
management, vendor management, service provider management, reporting, compliance,
PDCA loop monitoring, Life Cycle Costing analysis, etc.
• APM platform functionality, e.g., ability to:
• Extract data from various enterprise systems and use them in specified algorithms.
• Incorporate both “static” and “near real time” inputs.
• Generate desired dashboards, reports and e-mails requesting actions.
• Identify relevant trends using machine learning based on collected data and information.
This Section presents an assessment of APM vendor capabilities. The assessment is based on three
considerations:
• Materials from two (2) relevant earlier reports produced by a reputable consulting company.
• WG generated list of requirements for APM.
• Results of utilities survey addressing WG-defined “Asset Sustainment Strategies” as

described in Section 5 of this TB.
6.1 Review of earlier reports

APM is offered as a service or through software platforms by many companies. The ISO standards
and other guidance for APM are meant to be industry neutral and can be applied at any company. As
a result, companies that offer APM software operate in a wide variety of industries, and relatively few
are utility specific.
Given the large number of vendors offering APM software, the WG focused on a select group of
vendors. To this end, the WG reviewed a 2017 report from a well-known consulting group (“Report 2”)
[16], which identified APM companies in many asset-intensive industries. Example industries include
utilities, oil and gas, manufacturing, transportation, water, and others. Report 1 defined what they
58
considered to be APM functionality – for example, the use of the ISO-55000x standards or other older
ad hoc standards such as the “Seven Questions” approach which pre-dates ISO55000x standards and
PAS 55 specification:
• What do we own and where is it?
• What is it worth?
• What condition is it in?
• What do we need to do to it?
• When do we need to do it?
• How much money do we need?
• How do we achieve sustainability?
Report 1 also discussed cloud services, not an essential part of APM but considered to be a growing
part of the software offerings going forward. Lastly, it also provided a list of vendors that they felt were
important APM platform providers, along with a description of the services each provided. This list,
with some minor modification, became the initial list of vendors reviewed by the WG.
In addition, the WG also reviewed a 2018 report (“Report 2”) [17] from the same consulting group to
validate the list of companies. Report 2 was designed to be T&D utility specific, rather than general
industry wide. Report 2 provided a “Leader Board Grid” that designated companies as “Leaders”,
“Contenders”, “Challengers”, and “Followers” based on two criteria: strategy and execution. Only the
first two categories were included for review by this WG. Fourteen companies fit into these two
categories. The consulting group also provided a summary of the capabilities of each company. Based
on the capabilities review, the WG added several companies to the review beyond the “Leaders” and
“Contenders” selected from Report 1 & 2.
Later, several of the companies were removed due to mergers between vendors or vendors exiting the
APM business area. As a result, the WG identified a final list of twelve companies for APM
functionality review that would be representative of the best offerings in the T&D industry. Per CIGRE
guidelines, names of the companies could not be disclosed in this brochure.
6.2 Vendor Capabilities Assessment

WG members developed a list of APM categories to address the topics above. This was an attempt to
assess vendors’ capabilities regarding each category and was not meant to be a comparison of the
effectiveness or value of the APM platforms. The purpose of this exercise was to identify all the
capabilities which might be needed when a utility wants to perform an APM vendor assessment. Table
6-1 below provides the summary.
Table 6-1 APM Vendor Capabilities

APM Category Capability Description
1. General Generic information on vendor and

software functionality
2. Data Data collection / integration with asset Ability to integrate with EAM, CMMS, OSI PI,
Aggregation data systems LIMS and other asset data systems
& Analytics
Data visualization Ability to easily navigate and view data in user

friendly ways
Data analytics Ability to develop custom analytics using

aggregated data
3. Data Data quality Ability to compare available data to

Aggregation requirements/standards and report
& Analytics
(cont.) Cloud solutions Ability to host data and analytics on cloud
platform
59
Internet of Things (IoT) solutions Ability to integrate and utilize real-time data from
operating technologies such as on-line condition
monitoring
4. Performanc Asset Performance metrics Ability to implement analytics and reporting for
e Monitoring performance metrics such as failure/forced
outage rate, cost/unit, PM/CM ratio, etc.
Library of performance metric models Vendor provided models to support above

capability
5. Condition- Condition monitoring Ability to implement rules engines that record

based tolerance levels for physically observable
managemen characteristics in a piece of equipment.
t (CBM)
Library of condition monitoring Vendor provided models to support above

models capability
Condition notification Ability to raise a notification in EAM when

tolerance levels exceeded
6. Asset Asset Health Ability to implement analytics and reporting to

Sustainment combine information from various sources into
Strategy condition parameters and then into an overall
and Risk AHI score for each piece of equipment.
Managemen
t
Library of Asset Health models Vendor provided models to support above

capability
O&M Scenario Analysis Ability to determine effectiveness of current

maintenance program at addressing known
failure modes and meeting performance
objectives and generate recommendations for
improving that effectiveness.
Risk Assessment / Forecast Ability to model criticality and risk today and into
the future based on AHI, degradation expected
with maintenance strategy, etc.
Library of criticality models Vendor provided models to support above

capability
Risk Informed Economic End of Life Ability to determine optimal replacement date
Assessment considering risk and economic factors for this
asset
7. Asset Certified integration with major EAM Ability to automate the updating of maintenance
Sustainment vendors for reviewing and updating plans in EAM based on analysis done in APM
Strategy maintenance plans
and Risk
Managemen Library of failure modes and Vendor provided models to support above
t (cont.) recommended practices capabilities
60
8. RCM Root cause analysis Ability to facilitate and record assessment of why
including a particular failure or issue exists and how it can
Root Cause be corrected
Failure
Analysis
Failure Modes & Effect Analysis Ability to facilitate and record assessment of
(FMEA) where and how an asset may fail and the relative
impact of different failures
9. Predictive Degradation forecast & model Ability to develop degradation curves and to
Asset validation validate risk models (e.g., AHI, probability of
Managemen failure curve)
t
Statistical modelling/regression of Specific tools that can be used to provide the

physically observable characteristics above capability
in a piece of equipment, recorded
over a period of time.
Neural Network Analysis

Machine Learning
Proprietary algorithms
This list is not designed to include all areas of Asset Management, but only those deemed likely to
require or to be facilitated by an APM platform.
Although not included in the vendor assessment, the four survey questions included in Q6 in section 4.2
are vital to the success of APM platform implementation. These four questions are related to:
• Data storage capabilities

o APM should be able to store detailed historical information for large quantity of assets
originally stored in in data storage facilities (servers or cloud)
• Data privacy, security
o Much of APM data will be proprietary or company sensitive; consequently,
cybersecurity is a constant threat to any platform connecting to SCADA/DCS or other
systems used for grid control and operation (e.g., reference the many NERC
requirements for cybersecurity in the US and Canada while similar requirements exist
in many other countries)
• Flexibility, scalability
o Collected data vary from company to company; moreover, many utilities start to
implement the APM platform on a trial or pilot program basis; as time goes on, the
platform should be able to record additional data without any limitation as new data will
continuously be added to the APM.
• Data Model Standard (Common Information Model, IEC and other standards, guidebooks, etc.)
o These models represent an established data-modelling strategies which define a
means to look at APM and other data system and provide alignment with accepted
industry practices. A data model standard could also be defined for a group of
companies (i.e. members of the same bulk network) for benchmarking or other sharing
information purposes.
Each vendor was assessed against the 26 “Capabilities” listed in above Table 6-1. Reports 1&2
provided a paragraph for each APM vendor. The WG research began with this description, and then
61
added more detailed information from the website for each vendor. The quality of the assessment is
limited by the following factors:
• Only public information is collected to avoid any suggestion of favouritism through privileged
information
• No verification of software capabilities and quality is performed; the assessments are based
purely on the expertise of WG members and their professional opinion
• While functionalities may not have been identified during the internet search, it is still possible
the vendor’s product has these functionalities
• Information provided on the internet may not be fully reflective of the current functionalities
offered by the vendor's products.
The results of this APM software review are used to tabulate how many vendors met the identified
T&D utilities requirements. The results are presented in the spider plots at the end of this section.
These plots provide a high-level assessment of the extent vendors service the APM market.
For each category listed, the APM platform is assessed using the following approach:
Table 6-2 Functionality completeness categories

Complete Functionality: Detailed description of capability; high confidence full capability is
provided
Partial Functionality: Some description of capability; capability seems to be provided
No / Minimal Functionality: Insufficient description of capability; not likely that full capability is
provided
Insufficient Information: No explicit information about capability is provided
The spider charts in Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-4 show how many vendors meet the requirements of
the survey questions 4, 5, 6 and 7. Only the cases where the APM software platform had complete
capability (as defined in the table above) and those where complete or partial capability seemed likely
to be provided are mapped on these charts. The number of vendors providing complete capability are
shown on the charts in blue traces; those with full or partial capability are in red traces.
62
EAM / CMMS
12
10
Online/Offline 8 ERP
Sensors/M2M
6
SCADA GIS
Proprietary OEM Systems PPM/AIPM
Complete Total (Complete and Partial)
Figure 6-1 Spider Chart for Survey Question 4-1: APM interfacing requirements
Data analytics
14
12
Proprietry algorithms 10 Cloud solutions
8
6
4
2
Condition Assessment
Machine Learning 0
and Risk Calculations
Risk Assessment /
Neural Network Analysis
Forecast
Condition notification
Figure 6-2 Spider Chart for Survey Question 5: APM platform's functional capabilities
63
Data collection/integration
with asset data systems
Trending Analysis 14 Data analytics
Statistical 12 Data quality
modeling/regression of…
10
Degradation forecast &
Cloud solutions
model validation 8
6
Failure Modes & Effect Internet of Things (IoT)
Analysis (FMEA) 4 solutions
2
Root cause analysis 0 Real Time Monitoring
Library of failure modes and

Asset Performance metrics
recommended practices
Certified integration with Library of performance

major EAM vendors for… metric models
Risk Informed Economic End
Notification and Alerts
of Life Assessment
Risk Assessment / Forecast Asset Health
O&M Scenario Analysis
Figure 6-3 APM platform's IT capabilities (Survey Question 6)
64
Data collection/integration
with asset data systems
14
12
Degradation forecast &
10 Web Services
model validation
8
6
4
2
Maintenance strategy (tasks,
0 Data visualization
frequencies) for EAM
Library of Asset Health

Condition monitoring
models
Library of condition
monitoring models
Figure 6-4 Desired outputs (Survey Question 7)
6.3 Summary of observations about APM platforms

The WG review of the APM platforms was focused on comparing their capabilities vis-a-vis the
selected set of functional requirements. The platforms were compared using the original 26
capabilities developed by the WG for the vendor assessment, which were then mapped to the Section
5 survey questions as shown in Table 7-3 below. Following are the main observations:
• Nine (9) survey questions were not specifically addressed in the assessment. Most of these
are platform characteristics which are key to successful implementation. As noted above, this
includes, cyber security requirements, scalability (since the platform scope may expand with
the time to capture additional equipment) capabilities, and the use of a data model such as the
Common Information Model, which is specific to Transmission and Distribution. Other listed
characteristics are important too, but may not be as critical to the platform acquisition
decision.
• Based on the publicly available information, there is no APM platform scored as a “Complete”
in all areas. It is possible that some additional functionalities may have been missed by
reviewers of the WG due to their unavailability in the public platforms for various reasons (e.g.
subjected to non-disclosure agreements). The WG found that reviewed platforms fit into two
major categories: CMMS-related and condition monitoring related. The first category focuses
on the business aspects of asset management, such as tracking asset inventory, writing, and
storing work orders for corrective and preventive maintenance, and managing business costs.
The second category is more focused on equipment condition and importance, such as
monitoring asset parameters and applying analytics to determine courses of action.
• Some features, such as capability of data/information interchange with other IT systems or
stand-alone data bases were included in all platforms. Only “Scenario Analysis” capabilities
were not available at most APM platforms assessed.
65
• Based on the conclusion that no individual platform provides complete suitable capabilities. It
should be noted that most of the vendors were assessed in 2021 and some during 2020 and
updated in 2021. It is also confirmed that taken together, the vendors provide all requirements
needed for Asset Management, even if no individual vendor does.
• Another recommendation for utilities is to review their own needs before acquiring an APM
platform. While APM platforms may provide many and eventually all the functions described
herein, the business effectiveness of the APM platform must also be addressed before purchase
and implementation.
6.4 Mapping Utility Survey Results with Vendors Capabilities

The vendor assessment above and the survey requirements discussed in Section 5 of this brochure
are not identical and, furthermore, there are cases where one vendor assessment capability
corresponds to more than one survey question, and vice versa. Also, there were some survey
questions that did not have corresponding capabilities in the initial vendors assessment. Table 6-3
maps the Spider diagrams to the survey questions and the vendor assessment categories in Table
6-1.
Table 6-3 Cross Reference between Figures, Survey Questions and APM Capabilities
Figures Survey Survey Sub- APM Category Capability
Question # question
(Chapter 0)
1. Figure 6-1 Q4 - Which 2. 3. Data Data collection / integration
enterprise Aggregation & with asset data systems
systems Analytics
Internet of Things (IoT)
should be
solutions
integrated with
APM?
Figure 6-2 Q5 - What 4. Data Data analytics
should be the Aggregation &
APM Analytics
platform's Condition-based Condition notification
functional management
capabilities? (CBM)
Asset Strategy Asset Health
and Risk
Management Risk Assessment /
Forecast
Library of criticality models

Predictive Asset Neural Network Analysis
Management
Machine Learning
Proprietary algorithms
Figure 6-3 Q6 - What Data Integration 5. Data Data collection / integration
should be the with Asset Data Aggregation & with asset data systems
APM System Analytics
platform's IT
Data Analytics Data analytics
capabilities?
Data quality Data quality
monitoring
Cloud based Cloud solutions
platform
66

Question # question
(Chapter 0)
Ability to Internet of Things (IoT)
incorporate (near) solutions
real-time
data/changes
Real Time
Monitoring
Asset Performance6. Performance Asset Performance metrics
metrics-1 Monitoring
Asset Performance Library of performance
metrics-2 metric models
Notification and Condition-based Condition notification
Alerts management
(CBM)
Asset Health 7. Asset Strategy Asset Health
and Risk
Scenario Analysis Management O&M Scenario Analysis
Risk Assessment / Risk Assessment /

forecast Forecast
Risk Informed Risk Informed Economic

Economic End of End of Life Assessment
Life Assessment
Scenario Analysis-1 Certified integration with
major EAM vendors
Scenario Analysis-2 Library of failure modes

and recommended
practices
Root Cause 8. RCM including Root cause analysis
Analysis Root Cause
Failure Analysis
Failure Mode & 9. Failure Modes & Effect
Effect Analysis Analysis (FMEA)
(FMEA)
Degradation 10. Predictive Asset Degradation forecast &
forecast & model Management model validation
validation
Failure prediction Statistical
modeling/regression
Trending Analysis
Figure 6-4 Q7 - What Through API to 11. Data Data collection / integration
should be the other systems Aggregation & with asset data systems
desired Analytics
outputs? Web Services 12.
GIS based Data visualization

visualization
Condition monitoring
67

Question # question
(Chapter 0)
Alerts (as distinct Condition-based Library of condition
from operating management monitoring models
alarms)-2 (CBM)
13.
Asset models (AHI,14. Asset Strategy
degradation curves) and Risk
for long term Management
planning in AIP 15.
Maintenance Certified integration with
strategy (tasks, major EAM vendors for
frequencies) for reviewing and updating
EAM maintenance plans
Asset models (AHI, Predictive Asset Degradation forecast &
degradation curves) Management model validation
for long term
planning in AIP
Note: There are some one-to-many relationships between vendor assessment and survey questions,
and vice versa.
Note - some survey items were not included in the original vendor assessment questions
Table 6-4 Excluded Survey Questions
Q6 Data Storage Capabilities

Q6 Data privacy, security
Q6 Flexibility, scalability
Q6 Data Model Standards (CIM, IEC)
Q7 Dashboards
Q7 Reports
Q7 Statistics
Q7 CSV extracts
Q7 Historical comparison (e.g. using heat maps or reports)
The Q7 survey questions are more related to software characteristics or general functions, rather than
APM functions. They are still important and useful to the overall APM objectives. Each utility is
recommended to review these items before applying any software.
68
7. Observations and Recommendations

This section presents the main observations and provides some recommendations regarding future
work in developing and improving the understanding of how an APM platform could be used to further
improve Asset Management decision-making processes.
1. The survey results confirm that the APM system requirements described in this Technical
Brochure, such as essential interfaces with existing IT systems, analytical capabilities, desired
outputs, etc., are well aligned with utilities’ understanding of how APM could improve their
Asset Management processes.
2. Although about 70% of the utilities surveyed have implemented an APM platform, they
indicated that it meets only about 50% of their requirements. This means that utilities must do
“homework” to better understand their requirements for selecting the most suitable APM
platform.
3. The list of 10 Asset Sustainment Strategies is a starting point in developing utilities’ own
data/information/output needs for determining their specific APM system requirements.
4. Based on the publicly available information, none of the APM vendors reviewed have a
solution with capabilities to address all the identified “wants” and “needs”, while all the vendors
combined can provide such a solution.
5. An APM platform generates a significant amount of information and outputs needed for
development of Asset Management Plans to satisfy ISO55000 requirements, particularly
involving investment decisions regarding sustainment of existing asset base.
6. An APM system enables utilities to incorporate “near real time” inputs, such as sensors
outputs, in addition to the static inputs, such as periodic testing and inspections, thus
improving both maintenance and capital decision making processes.
7. An APM system results in improved data collection, accumulation, and storage, all essential
for developing ML and AI approaches.
8. Future APM improvements are recommended in the following areas:
a. Facilitate integration of sustainment (existing asset base) and development
(expansion of the existing asset base) decisions.
b. Define ML and AI requirements and methodologies.
c. Standardize asset categories and associated attributes.
d. Provide default naming convention.
e. Link data quality and availability to resultant decisions.
69
8. References, in order
[01] CIGRE, W. C. (2010). “Asset Management of Transmission Systems and Associated CIGRE Activities”.
www.e-cigre.org.
[02] M. Savinek, T. Š. (2020). “Management of data from smart measuring device for predictive maintenance”.
www.e-cigre.org: D2-130, SC D2 PS1.
[03] CIGRE, W. C. (2010). “Transmission Asset Risk Management”. www.e-cigre.org: TB 422.
[04] L. F. Queiroz, J. M. (2016). “Remote monitoring system and analysis of equipment performance for asset
management”. www.e-cigre.org: A2-101.
[05] S. Rhoads, J. W. (2020). “Integration of Condition Monitoring into Substation Asset Risk Management”.
www.e-cigre.org: B2-201.
[06] A. M. Barbosa, C. A. (2020). “Predictive maintenance based on continuous monitoring of OLTCs electrical
signatures”. www.e-cigre.org: D1-101.
[07] CIGRE, W. 2. (2000). “Management of existing overhead transmission lines”. www.e-cigre.org: TB 175.
[08] A. Fraioli, A. F. (2020). “Failure reduction and predictive replacement approach for overhead lines using big
data and advanced analytics”. www.e-cigre.org: D2-103.
[09] S. Rhoads, J. W. (2018). “Developing and Using Justifiable Asset Health Indices for Tactical and Strategic
Risk Management”. www.e-cigre.org: B3-201.
[10] P. Lorin, L. C. (2016). “Transformer Health Index and Probability of Failure Based on Failure Mode Effects
Analysis (FMEA) of a Reliability Centered Maintenance Program (RCM)”. www.e-cigre.org: A2-110.
[11] J. R. Jung, H. D. (2020). “Optimization of Health Indices for Power Assets in Substation Using Machine
Learning Method”. www.e-cigre.org: B3-211.
[12] J. R. Jung, H. D. (2018). “Application of an Asset Health Management System for High-Voltage Substations”.
www.e-cigre.org: B3-208.
[13] Apostolov, A. P. (2020). “Artificial Intelligence Applications to Electric Power Systems Asset Management”.
www.e-cigre.org: D2-102.
[14] R. Cornell, P. C. (2018). “The Asset Health Center, Implementation of Online Monitoring and the Grid of the
Future”. www.e-cigre.org: D1-314.
[15] S. Marwitz, M. H. (2021). "Integrated Approach to Handling Risks in Critical Infrastructures - Pilot for
Transformers”. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9692212: CIRED, 26th International Conference
and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution.
[16] Gartner-N. Foust, K. S. (2017). Report 1 - “Market Guide for Asset Performance Management Software”.
Gartner.
[17] Gartner-N. Foust, K. S. (2018). Report 2 “Market Guide for Asset Performance Management Software”.
Gartner.
70
ISBN : 978-2-85873-615-7
TECHNICAL BROCHURES
©2023 - CIGRE
Reference 910 - July 2023

Power System Development and Economics: Business Requirements For Asset Performance Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power System Development and Economics: Business Requirements For Asset Performance Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power system

Business requirements for asset

Business requirements for

3. Publications review .................................................................................................. 10

4. Utility Survey ............................................................................................................ 14

5. Asset Sustainment Strategies ................................................................................. 33

5.9 Asset Sustainment Strategy 7: Time based Replacement.................................................................... 45

6. Assessment of Vendor Software Capabilities ........................................................ 58

7. Observations and Recommendations..................................................................... 69

8. References, in order ................................................................................................. 70

Figures and Illustrations

Figure 4-21 APM Outputs ............................................................................................................................... 30

• Inaccurate equipment data,

• Inconsistent condition assessment,

• Complex, error-prone, multi-modal data gathering procedures/systems,

• Oversimplified algorithms that mask important problems and highlight non-issues,

3.2 Condition Assessment

3.3 Modelling and Analytics

Per incident Safety Financial Reliability Environment

Figure 3-2 TB422 ([03] CIGRE, 2010) figure 4.3-1

3.4 Integrated Systems

Figure 4-1 Survey Participants

• Q2. Extent to which APM addresses utility’s needs

• Q3. Purposes for using APM

• Q5. APM functional capabilities

• Q6. APM IT capabilities

• Q7. Desired outputs

4.2 Survey Results

Q1. Type of Utility

Figure 4-2 Q1. Type of Utility

Figure 4-3 Respondents with APM in place

Figure 4-4 Extent of APM meeting needs

Q3. For what purposes would you use an APM system?

Figure 4-6 APM application (mean)

Figure 4-7 APM application (mean) by region

Q4. APM interfacing requirements

Figure 4-8 Enterprise system integration

Figure 4-9 Data exchange

Figure 4-10 Data exchange (mean)

Figure 4-11 Data exchange (mean) by region

Q4-3: If yes, what is the required automation of the interface?

Figure 4-12 Required interface automation

Figure 4-13 Required interface automation (mean)

Figure 4-14 Required interface automation (mean) by region

Q5. What should be the APM platform's functional capabilities?

Figure 4-15 Required APM functional capabilities

Figure 4-16 APM functional capabilities (mean)

Figure 4-17 APM functional capabilities (mean) by region

Q6: What should be the APM platform's IT capabilities?

Figure 4-18 APM IT Capabilities

Figure 4-19 APM IT capabilities (mean)

Figure 4-20 APM IT capabilities (mean) by region

Q7. What should be the desired outputs?

Figure 4-21 APM Outputs

Figure 4-22 APM Outputs (mean)

Figure 4-23 APM Outputs (mean) by region

5. Asset Sustainment Strategies

Figure 5-1 Sustainment in Asset Life cycle Management

Figure 5-2 Asset Sustainment Strategies: complexity vs requirements

Figure 5-3 Business requirements, information requirements and data requirements

5.2 Asset Sustainment Strategies overview

5.3 Asset Sustainment Strategy 1: Define (initial) optimal asset

2 Time Based Maintenance, (TBM)