Reliability and Integrity Management System Guideline - v3.0 - 2015

RELIABILITY and INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
6-3-15
MAY/2015
© 2015 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)
All rights reserved. This document either in its entirety or in part(s) may NOT be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the
permission of the copyright owner. PETRONAS makes no representation or warranty, whether expressed or implied, as
to the accuracy or completeness of the facts presented. PETRONAS disclaims responsibility from any liability arising out
of reliance on the contents of this presentation.
Internal
Group Technical Solutions
Author Approved By Date Approved Classification
MJK Nurul Amin Datuk Ir May 2015 Internal Use
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Reliability and Integrity Management System
• Renumbered to
eight (8) elements.
• Details on
Availability,
Maintainability and
Integrity are
clarified.
• Included generic
KPI tree for
achieving
availability.
• Applicability of the
document
extended to
May 2015 3 Design, MJK Nurul Amin
Procurement,
Construction and
Commissioning,
and the key
elements within.
• Simplified method
of writing, while
maintaining the
intent of RIMS.
• Included selected
work flows for
Element 4, and
review checklists
for the work flows.
Document Classification
SECRET or RAHSIA
CONFIDENTIAL or SULIT
INTERNAL USE or UNTUK DALAMAN X
OPEN or TERBUKA
Internal
Group Technical Solutions Page 3 of 188
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Using this Document ................................................................................................................................... 15
1.3. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
1.4. Scope .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
1.5. User of the Document................................................................................................................................. 15
2. ELEMENT 1. LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT ................................................................................... 16
2.1. Visibility........................................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2. Set policy and targets .................................................................................................................................. 16
2.3. Assign roles and responsibilities, and resources to achieve the targets ............................................ 16
2.4. Ensure compliance and effectiveness of reliability and integrity programs ...................................... 17
3. ELEMENT 2. POLICY AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... 18
3.1. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2. Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 18
4. ELEMENT 3. ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES ................................................................................. 19
4.1. Organization.................................................................................................................................................. 19
4.2. Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
5. ELEMENT 4. RELIABILITY and INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROCESS ............................................... 22
5.1. Definition and Explanations ........................................................................................................................ 22
5.2. Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 23
6. ELEMENT 5. PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 39
7. ELEMENT 6. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 40
8. ELEMENT 7. ASSURANCE ....................................................................................................................... 41
8.1. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... 41
8.2. Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 41
9. ELEMENT 8. MANAGEMENT REVIEW .................................................................................................... 42
9.1. Definition .......................................................................................................................................................42
9.2. Requirements ................................................................................................................................................42
APPENDIX: ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix 1: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................43
Appendix 2a: Factors influencing Availability and life-cycle cost ...................................................................... 47
Appendix 2b: Mapping of applicable KPIs for various levels .............................................................................. 48
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Appendix 3a: Simplified Reliability and Integrity workflow ................................................................................. 49

Appendix 3b: RIMP with MORE SELECTED details............................................................................................... 50
Appendix 3c: Grouped inputs, processes and outputs for “Design, Procure, Fabricate and Install” ........... 51
Appendix 3d: Grouped inputs, processes and outputs for “Operate and Maintain” ....................................... 52
Appendix 3e: Grouped inputs, processes and outputs for “Assess/Analyse” ................................................... 53
Appendix 4.1: RAM guidelines ................................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix 4.2: LCC guidelines ...................................................................................................................................62
Appendix 4.3: ECA guidelines ................................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix 4.4: ERS methodology guidelines .......................................................................................................... 79
Appendix 4.5: OP and Maintenance Procedure Management guidelines ........................................................ 91
Appendix 4.6: Performance Reporting and Analysis guidelines ........................................................................ 96
Appendix 4.7: Benchmarking guidelines............................................................................................................... 152
Appendix 4.8: RCFA guidelines ............................................................................................................................... 158
Appendix 4.9: BAM guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 170
Appendix 4.10: LLP guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 174
Appendix 4.11: Deviation and Deferral Management guidelines ...................................................................... 179
Appendix 4.12: RIDM guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 183
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Acronym Definition
ABT Area Based Team
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
AM Asset Management
AMS Asset Management Solutions
API American Petroleum Institute
BAM Bad Actors Management
CBM Condition-Based Maintenance
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CUSUM Cumulative Summation
DI Design Integrity
DOD Downstream Operations Division
ECA Equipment Criticality Assessment
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
ELSOR Electrical Safety and Operability Review
ERS Equipment Reliability Strategy
ESRR Electrical Safety and Robustness Review
ETBF Estimated Time Between Failures
FERA Fire and Explosion Risk Assessment
FFS Fitness for Service
FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FSA Formal Safety Assessment
FSAR Fire Safety Adequacy Review
FV Future Value
GM General Manager
GTS Group Technical Solutions
HAC Hazardous Area Classification
HAZID Hazard Identification
HAZOP Hazards and Operability
HCU Holding Company Unit
HCU Holding Company Unit
HEMP Hazards and Effects Management Process
HPP Homogeneous Poisson Process
HSE Health Safety and Environment
HSE MCF Health Safety and Environment Mandatory Control Framework
HSE MS Health Safety and Environment Management System
IEC International Electrotechnical Council
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Acronym Definition
IEC International Electrotechnical Council

IPF Instrumented Protective Function
iPOCS integrated Plant Operations Capability System
IR Inflation Rate
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ITPM Inspection, Testing and Preventive Maintenance
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LCC Life Cycle Costing
LDA Life Data Analysis
LLP Lessons Learned Program
MCI Material Corrosion Inspection
MI Mechanical Integrity
MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimator
MOC Management of Change
MPLAN Maintenance Plan
MPM Maintenance Procedure Management
MR Moving Range (used for SPC)
MSR Maintenance Strategy Review
MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
MTR Mean Time to Restore
MTTR Mean Time to Repair
NHPP Non-Homogeneous Poisson Process
NPV Net Present Value
OP Operating Procedures
OPU Operating Unit
OSF Operations System & Framework
P&S Planning and Scheduling
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
PAM Physical Asset Management
PASR Pre-Activity Safety Review
PDCA Plan, Do, Check, Act
PEAR People (health and safety), Environment, Asset and Reputation
P-ELSOR PETRONAS Electrical Safety and Operability Review
PERSIS PETRONAS Equipment Reliability Strategy and Information System
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PHA Process Hazard Analysis
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Acronym Definition
PLTA Proprietary License Technology Assessment
PMMS PETRONAS Maintenance Management System
PSI Process Safety Information
PSM Process Safety Management
PSRA Process Safety and Risk Assessment
PTS PETRONAS Technical Standard
PV Present Value
QA & QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
RACI Responsible, Accountable, Consult and Inform
RAM Reliability, Availability, Maintainability
RBD Reliability Block Diagram
RBI Risk Based Inspection
RCFA Root Cause Failure Analysis
RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance
RDA Recurrent Data Analysis
RGA Reliability Growth Analysis
RIDM Reliability and Integrity Database Management
RIM Reliability and Integrity Management
RIMP Reliability and Integrity Management Process
RIMS Reliability and Integrity Management System
RP Recommended Practice
SCE Safety Critical Elements
SCM Supply Chain Management
SD Standard Deviation
SGM Senior General Manager
SIS Safety Instrumented System
SKG Skill Group
SOL Safe Operating Limit
TA Technical Authority (refer to context of sentence)
TA Turnaround (refer to context of sentence)
TAMG Turnaround Management Guideline
TECO Technical Completion
UTP Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
1. Introduction
IMPORTANT: It is vital to read and comprehend this section on Introduction prior to reading the
following sections of this manual.
This document is prepared to describe the management system and work process
required to manage the asset over the entire life cycle in order to achieve targeted
Availability, Reliability, Integrity, and Maintainability. The document is in line with the
following.
• Integrated Plant Operations Capability System (iPOCS) requirements.

• PTS 18.00.01 – Health, Safety and Environment Management System (HSE MS)
requirements – especially on sub section “5.1”, “Asset Integrity & Reliability”.
• Process Safety Management elements.
• ISO 1 9001 document on Quality Management.
• IEC 2 60300 documents on Dependability.
• ISO 55000 documents on Asset Management.
This document was prepared by a team comprising of members representing RIMS (from
centre and PETRONAS operated facilities) and Group Technical Solutions (GTS).
The custodian of this document is Asset Management, GTS.
This document is next due for review in 2017 and is to be issued after review, in 2018.
PETRONAS facilities exist as a business entity to make profits and add value, while
meeting stakeholders (customers and regulatory bodies) requirements.
The requirements typically range from (but not limited to) legal, price, safety, and product
availability.
The underlying elements that assure the sustenance of Reliability, Integrity and
Maintainability are the right design, right operation (i.e. according to design), and right
maintenance (i.e. according to design).
This document is written to address key activities required to achieve desired Availability
(for assets) as set by the business, while eliminating or reducing the risk to people,
environment, asset and reputation (PEAR), at the optimum cost and strategy – through
systematic elimination of defects.
The following highlights key definitions of Reliability, Integrity, Maintainability and

Availability, the relationship of the elements, and factors affecting those.
1
International Organization for Standardization.
2
International Electrotechnical Council.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Maximise Asset Availability at

minimum Total Ownership Cost
Maximise Uptime Minimise Downtime

(Reliability and Integrity) (during ITPM and corrective maintenance)
Right Design Right Operation Right Maintenance
Figure 1.1:1: Simplified relationship of elements within a business with physical assets 3.
This is in-line with Asset Management Council 4.
3
Also referred to as, facilities.
4
That delivered PAS55 (Publicly Available Standard) methodology. Refer: http://theasset.amcouncil.com.au/article1.htm.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
The following table highlights key definitions of Reliability, Integrity, Maintainability and
Availability, the relationship between the elements, and the factors influencing the results.
Table 1.1:1: Definitions of Reliability, Integrity, Maintainability and Availability.

Element Definition Influencing
factors
Reliability Probability of an item to perform a required Time 6-to-failures
function under given conditions for a given (influenced by
time interval 5. design – including
configuration,
Key points on Reliability. materials and
environment
• It is a measure of probability that an considerations,
asset can function as intended (i.e. the operation and
reciprocal of failure). process conditions,
• It depends on the original function that it: and maintenance)
• was designed for, of an item or group
• operated at (i.e. the conditions), and of items.
• maintained.
• Time is calendar time, cycles, running-

hours or any other time-related unit that
the item is subjected to.
Hence Reliability is applicable to any item,

including:
• rotary equipment and machinery,

• electrical equipment,
• instrumentation and control, and
• static equipment (e.g. vessels, tanks,
piping, pipeline and structures).
Common measurement for Reliability is Mean

Time Between Failures (MTBF).
Mathematically, (simple) MTBF is:
Total run-time
Number of failures
5
ISO 20815, first edition, 2008, page 2.
6
After certain run-time which can be, operation time, calendar time, number of cycles, or number of demands.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title

factors
Integrity Integrity is an inherent design attribute (i.e. • Design,
property of the components selected to build • Operation
a product) that could withstand external • according to
tampering or resist intrusion to minimise risk design,
exposure 7,8,9. • Risk Based
Inspection
In the context of plant operations, the term (RBI), and
“Integrity” refers to the structural integrity • maintenance
of elements to prevent failure of structures according to
and loss of containment. design.
In order to achieve “Integrity”, it is essential

to identify Safety Critical Elements (SCE),
develop Performance Standards;
Inspection, Testing, and Preventive
Maintenance (ITPM), and execute ITPM.
PTS 18.53.02 describes the management of
SCEs.
Key points on Integrity.
• It is a feature of design and part of the

item’s function,
• to withstand external tampering of any
sort, be it:
• physical,
• chemical,
• normal or abnormal aging, or
• software-related tampering,
• to minimise any sort of risk towards:

• people,
• environment,
• asset, and
• reputation 10.
Hence Integrity is applicable to any item,

including safety and business-related
consequences. Integrity is the foundation to
achieve Reliability.
7
IEC 60300-2, second edition, 2004, page 31.
8
http://tc56.iec.ch/about/faq.htm#4_Integrity.
9
This is in-line with MIL-STD-1798C, August 2013, page 11.
10
PEAR.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title

factors
Maintainability Probability of an item under given conditions Time-to-
of use, to be retained in, or restored to, a state restoration
in which it can perform a required function, (influenced by
when maintenance is performed under given Failure Mode,
conditions and using stated procedures and consequence,
resources 11. logistics time, spare
parts and
Key points on Maintainability. manpower
availability) of an
• It is a measure of probability of item or group
restoration 12 of an item within a items.
specified time.
• It depends on the:
• design (e.g. interchangeability,
simplicity, and accessibility),
• operation practices and conditions
(that influences the different Failure
Modes and consequences), and,
• maintenance policy 13, procedures
and resources.
Common measurement for Maintainability is

Mean Time to Restore (MTR) or Mean Time to
Repair (MTTR).
Mathematically, (simple) MTTR is:
Total actual-repair time

Number of repairs
Mathematically, (simple) MTR is:
Total restoration14 time

Number of repairs
11
12
In order to continue functioning.
13
e.g. replace parts, or replace equipment upon failure, or setting up maintenance contracts.
14
Including actual repair time, logistics, and other delays, i.e. total downtime.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title

factors
Availability Probability of an item to be in a state to • Reliability.
perform a required function under given • Maintainability.
conditions at a given instant of time, or in
average over a given time interval, assuming
that the required external 15 resources are
provided 16.
Mathematically (for historical Availability):
Uptime
Availability (%)=
Uptime+Downtime
Where,
• “Uptime” excludes, unplanned and

planned stoppages (i.e. run-time).
Uptime is a simplified measure of
Reliability, and,
• “Downtime” includes the duration of,
planned and unplanned downtimes.
These are simplified measure of
Maintainability.
MTBF, MTTR, MTR and Availability targets for each equipment class are obtained from
each Business, or Group Technical Solutions (GTS).
Main elements and overview of the structure employs the “Plan”, “Do”, “Check” and “Act”
(PDCA) cycle as follows.
• Leadership and Commitment

• Policy and Strategic Objectives
• Organization and Resources.
• Reliability and Integrity Management Process
• Planning
• Implementation
• Assurance
• Management Review
15
External to the boundary of study or interest. If supply availability if of concern and included in the study, then it is no longer
considered “external”.
16
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Each PETRONAS operated facility shall assess how to apply this document specifically to
its respective organization, without diluting the main purpose and requirements.
Recommendations for a course of action are made with varying degrees of emphasis. As
a rule:
• “shall” indicates a course of action with a required, mandatory status within

PETRONAS Companies,
• “should” indicates a preferred course of action, and
• “may” indicates a possible course of action.
Provide a comprehensive requirements for managing asset Reliability and Integrity; and
Maintainability in PETRONAS facilities, in achieving the targeted business and Health, Safety and
Environment performance levels.
This document states “WHAT” PETRONAS Companies need to perform to achieve

required availability, reliability, maintainability and integrity performance for the entire
facility, as well as inculcating its desired culture.
This document is applicable to design (including change of design), operation, and

maintenance activities within PETRONAS operated facility. Assets covered in this
document are Safety Critical, and non-Safety Critical Elements, as defined in PTS
18.53.02 17.
PETRONAS Operating Unit (OPU) and Holding Unit (HCU) Heads.
OPU Reliability and Integrity Management group.
OPU Design/Engineering group.
OPU Operation group.
OPU Maintenance group.
17
PTS 18.53.02 – Mechanical Integrity, May 2013, page 13.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
2. ELEMENT 1. LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT
Leaders in the PETRONAS operated facilities shall ensure that the assets are designed,
operated and maintained right, to deliver availability requirements.
They shall own the Asset Availability elements as depicted in “Figure 1.1:1”, and
communicate on underlying concept and deliverables of RIMS.
They shall drive RIMS programs and, build and sustain a culture of reliability excellence
through (in general):
• involvement in reliability and maintainability related programs within the facility,

• make subject of asset availability, reliability and integrity, and maintainability; as an
agenda in Plant Leadership meetings,
• provision of timely rewards and recognition for excellent performance, and
• RIMS conditioning workshops.
Leaders shall set Reliability and Integrity policies that take into account the total cost of
ownership 19 during the various phases of asset lifecycle.
They shall set leading targets (e.g. compliance to design, operating procedures and ITPM)
that are derived from high-level business targets (e.g. Plant Availability).
Leaders shall assign an independent group of personnel to facilitate the engineering and
management elements of reliability and integrity.
They shall ensure direct participation from the various engineering sections to support
RIMS programs, in delivering overall business goals.
Shall provide resources that includes conditioning workshops, trainings (to increase and
sustain competency), manpower (external and internal), infrastructure (e.g.
communication channels to present asset achievements), budget and time; to achieve the
set leading targets.
Ensure that succession planning is in place and consistently applied to critical positions
to minimise disruptions.
18
Details of this section are explained in “Element 2”, “Policy and Strategic Objectives”.
19
The total cost to own an asset, starting from purchase, operating, maintaining, until decommissioning.
20
Details of this section are explained in “Element 3”, “Organization and Resources”.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Leaders should review that the activities to achieve the set leading targets are achieved
through relevant processes.
They shall focus on quality execution of the planned activities through, e.g. appointing
quality control and audit task forces.
They shall set up infrastructure for:
• tracking implementation of RIMS activities (e.g. through an existing committee

meeting, like HSE, or a separate committee meeting if necessary),
• identification of improvement opportunities from leading and lagging KPIs (explained
in sub section "3.2.2", in "Element 2", "Policy and Strategic Objectives"), and
• reporting and gap closure monitoring from audits and assessments.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
3. ELEMENT 2. POLICY AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
“Policy” in this context, refers to the organization’s course of actions that benefit HSE and
the total cost of ownership during the various asset lifecycle (from design, until
decommissioning).
“Strategic Objectives” is the broad goals, arising from RIMS policy that a company sets
itself to achieve, and should be quantified wherever practicable 21.
Policy.
• RIMS policy shall be prepared. The content of the policy shall include what the
company intends to comply, prevent and improve.
• The policy shall be communicated to the entire organization.
• The policy shall be reviewed every year.
Strategic Objectives.
• RIMS Strategic Objectives shall be established with practical short (yearly) and long
term [i.e. five (5) years] availability targets.
• Leading indicators shall be developed from lagging ones. Reference should be made
to Appendix 2a that shows the factors influencing Availability and life-cycle cost.
Mapping of applicable KPIs, and simple examples on how and when to measure these
are shown in Appendix 2b.
• The organization shall track and measure the strategic objectives during design,
operation and maintenance.
21
Modified from PTS 18.00.01 – Health, Safety and Environment Management System, March 2014, page 14.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
4. ELEMENT 3. ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES
OPU Head shall establish a governance function to ensure implementation of RIMS

program, monitoring availability performances, and facilitating improvement initiatives
related to reliability and integrity.
Responsibility, Accountability, Consult and Inform (RACI) chart shall be developed for key
personnel involved in RIM, to cover the requirements in this document.
Key personnel involved in assuring availability, reliability and integrity and maintainability
of PETRONAS facilities shall be typically responsible as follows.
Table 4.1:1: Typical functions and responsibilities for key personnel involved in managing
RIMS.
Function Responsibility
OPU Head As explained in “Element 1”, “Leadership and Commitment”.
Reliability • Lead performance improvement through failure analysis,
prediction and prevention using data from various predictive and
inspection techniques; and Reliability Engineering tools.
• Review or evaluate:
• Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) studies and life
cycle cost,
• compliance to Safe Operating Limits (SOL),
• Equipment Reliability Strategy (ERS) and required spare parts 22.
• Consolidate and review of improvement suggestions from

operators, technicians and engineers (or from improvement teams).
• Obtain, and share better practices and lessons learned from, and to
other OPUs.
• Manage asset KPIs as stated in sub section “3.2.2”, “Strategic
Objectives”, by consolidating, analysis, and reporting (for decision
making).
• Manage RIM in OPUs from planning, execution and review.
HSE Advice on law and regulations with regard to public and occupational
PSM health and safety; and process safety, to be used as inputs in RIMS
programs where applicable.
22
Liaise with Supply Chain Management (SCM) and suppliers.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
Function Responsibility
Design/ • Deliver completed facility or small part of it, by incorporating
Project/ operating philosophy, maintenance policies, and choice of
Technical configuration and technology through RAM 23 studies and life cycle
Services cost 24 assessments.
• Maintain all records regarding a completed project.
• Propose for facility availability improvements through available
infrastructure.
Operation • Provide inputs to the Design/Engineering group on the operation
context (during design).
• Manage procedures and systems to ensure correct operation steps
and correct SOL – according to the design.
• Executes Asset Owner 25 responsibilities as follows.
• Ensuring that the local jurisdictional requirements relating to
Mechanical Integrity are met,
• ensuring that critical equipment are identified and included in
ITPM tasks,
• ensuring that the ITPM tasks are executed as planned, and
• ensuring that the deviations on Performance Standards for
critical equipment are managed.
• Maintain all records regarding plant operations and key

parameters 26.
infrastructure.
Maintenance • Execute ITPM tasks as per schedule and corrective/breakdown
and maintenance.
Inspection, • Manage procedures and systems to ensure correct maintenance 27
and Technical tasks (inspection, testing and preventive maintenance), steps, and
Authorities intervals.
• Provide inputs to the Design/Engineering group on the
maintenance policies (during design).
• Execute Technical Authority 28 roles as follows.
• Approving technical deviations and deferrals of ITPM tasks,
• verifying validity and risk assessment of temporary repairs
extension,
• verification and approval of technical specifications for direct
charge materials (non-stock materials).

infrastructure.
23
Performed by Reliability Engineers.
24
Performed by Reliability Engineers.
25
Single point responsibility. PTS 18.53.02 – Mechanical Integrity, May 2013, page 7.
26
Explained in Element 4, Process Safety Information (PSI).
27
Including Turnarounds.
28
Single point responsibility from each discipline. PTS 18.53.02 – Mechanical Integrity, May 2013, page 8, 21.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
OPU shall be adequately manned (internal and external manpower) to execute the RIM
activities.
OPU shall ensure that each Reliability Engineer has adequate competence in any one core
discipline (such as rotating, static, electrical or instrument) in order for the engineer to
deliver failure analysis, prediction and prevention tasks.
The OPU shall organise for training for internal manpower on:
• RIMS,
• RIM processes,
• general multi-discipline engineering knowledge (for Reliability Engineers),
• codes 29, standards and design (for Design/Project Engineers, Maintenance Engineer
and Inspection Engineer to assure integrity),
• process and operation practices (for operators),
• and maintenance skills (for technicians).
The OPU shall organise training for external manpower on risks (safety and plant
operation) around the facility.
The OPU shall establish reporting, tracking, and communication channels for RIMS
activities.
The OPU shall allocate adequate budget for the planned RIM activities.
29
Including HSE Mandatory Control Framework (MCF), section “9.0”.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
5. ELEMENT 4. RELIABILITY and INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROCESS
“Reliability and Integrity Management Process” (RIMP) refers to the cycle that contains the
core methodologies in assuring high availability of physical assets.
The process is segregated into three main phases, namely Assess/Analyse, Design,
Procure, Fabricate and Install, and, Operate and Maintain.
Each of these three phases involves risk assessment (or part of it, i.e. probability or
consequence) and mitigation.
Business
opportunity
(new)
4.1
Design,
Procure, New
Fabricate & or improve
Install 4.2
Operate & Improve

Maintain or continue
4.3
Incident or
Assess/Analyse
improvement
potential
# No-go or
Terminate
Begin
(Manage- Input Process
(Manage- Decommission
ment juris- ment
diction)
jurisdiction)
Output
Figure 5.1:1: Overall RIMP. Selected 30 details are shown in Appendix 3a (simplified
workflow), 3b (detailed workflow), 3c, 3d and 3e. Subsequent sub sections will use
numberings in Appendix 3b as reference. Broken lines indicate management jurisdiction.
30
PDCA cycles within the methodologies are not shown.
Internal
Kamarudin Zakaria
Title
The following is a brief explanation of the simplified workflow with reference to Appendix
3a.
• In the event that a new plant is to be set up.

• Perform target setting, economic studies and engineering studies.
• Carry out Safety Studies, Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) studies;
and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) to obtain license to operate, obtain assurance for
safety and obtain highest availability at lowest total ownership cost.
• Once the decision has been made to set up the plant, or in the case of an existing
plant.
• Identify SCEs and conduct criticality assessment using Equipment Criticality
Assessment (ECA) for all assets as per asset register.
• Develop Performance Standards for SCEs.
• Develop ITPM using Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), RBI or Instrumented
Protective Function (IPF) as applicable.
• Develop procedures for operation and maintenance.
• Incorporate ITPM in PETRONAS Maintenance Management System (PMMS).
• Execute ITPM as per schedule.
• Track and analyse the performance.
• Optimise or improve performance through continuous improvement process
(Maintenance Strategy Review and Benchmarking) and incident investigation (Bad
Actors Management, Root Cause Failure Analysis and Lessons Learnt process).
• Any deviations from or deferral of the ITPM is managed through deviation and
deferral process.
OPUs shall develop a RACI chart on ownership and implementation of the methodologies.
OPUs shall assess quality and compliance 31 of each methodology. This may be achieved
through checklists.
31
Covered in Element 6.
Internal
MJK Nurul Amin Datuk Ir Kamarudin Zakaria May 2015 Internal Use
Title
Key and specific requirements, typical ownership and references are provided in the following table.
Table 5.2:1: Sub-processes within RIMP.

# in Methodology Key requirement/s Typical Reference/s
Appendix ownership in
3b OPU
- Risk Assessment Risk assessments (for hazards and threats) and [Various] PETRONAS Risk Matrix
mitigations that are not covered by the Guideline, June 2010.
subsequent processes shall be:
• covered by specific guidelines,

• performed, and
• documented.
4.1.1 Safety Studies 32 All design and change of design shall be PSM • PTS 18.04.02 – Hazards and
subjected to the studies, where applicable, as Effects Management
advised by PSM, to obtain license-to-operate. Process.
• P-ELSORTM.
32
Refer to “Appendix 3c” for details.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.1.2 RAM studies • All new design shall be subjected to RIM Appendix 4.1.
availability and/or throughput simulations
– during feasibility and detail design – to:
• verify design against target availability
or throughput,
• identify and rank systems and
equipment,
• find out options for overall system
improvement, and
• set initial spare part for major
equipment.
• RAM analyses shall be performed prior to

any modification that change the
operating context.
4.1.3 LCC Any design or change of design with RIM Appendix 4.2.
alternatives shall be subjected to LCC for:
• lowest ownership cost and

• highest profitability.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.1.4 (and QA & QC • QA & QC shall be used during: QA & QC OED-L1-iPOCS-PAM-MTCE.
4.2.1) • Design, Coordinator
PASR • Procure, PSM PTS 18.53.08 – Pre-Activity
• Fabricate, Safety Review.
• Install,
• operation, and
• maintenance, and
• PASR shall be used during:

• commissioning or start-up, or
• before shutdown,
to assure that facilities are designed,

procured, fabricated, installed, operated
and maintained in accordance to the
correct assessments and analyses.
4.1.5 OP OP shall be developed, and maintained to PSM PTS 18.53.05 – Operating
assure correct operation tasks, i.e.: Procedures.
• the steps,
• the SOL, and
• actions to correct excursions.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
Maintenance • Maintenance procedures shall be RIM Appendix 4.5.
Procedure developed, and maintained to assure
Management correct maintenance tasks, i.e.:
(MPM) • the steps,
• the Acceptance Criteria, and
• actions to correct deficiencies.
• Maintenance procedures shall be

reviewed:
• in the same cycle as OP, or
• on as need basis.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.1.6 ECA • Equipment criticality shall be assessed RIM • Appendix 4.3.
using: • Upstream and Downstream
• Hazard Identification (HAZID) – for guidelines on SCE.
SCEs, and
• risk matrix 33 for other criticality classes
(1, 2 and 3),
for prioritisation of Equipment Reliability

Strategy (ERS) development (and other
relevant initiative).
• The criticality shall be reviewed upon:

• changes in operating context,
• changes in equipment, and/or
• every five (5) years 34.
33
Availability simulations may be used for this purpose, to identify business losses.
34
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.1.7 35 Failure Mode • FMEA or RCM-based tools shall be used to: RIM • Appendix 4.4.
and Effects • identify Performance Standards, and • PERSIS user manual.
Analysis (FMEA) • I, T and PM tasks and intervals (using
Reliability Reliability Engineering and cost-
Centered benefit analysis outcomes) for all
Maintenance equipment and structures that are
(RCM) not covered by:
• IPF and
• RBI, or.
• (if required) propose for design

changes.
• PETRONAS Equipment Reliability Strategy

and Information System (PERSIS) has been
developed as FMEA-based tool, and shall
be used for this purpose.
35
ERS.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
RBI • RBI shall be used to develop inspection (I) Inspection PTS 30.27.10.30 – PETRONAS
tasks and intervals for process Risk Based Inspection
containment element of a fixed/static Implementation.
equipment.
• The results of RBI may be used to extend
mandatory inspection intervals by
statutory bodies (e.g. Department of Safety
and Health – DOSH) – provided that the
call for shutdown is limited by the
requirement.
IPF IPF shall be used to: Instrument PTS 14.12.10 – Classification,
Verification and Implementation
• develop testing (T) tasks and intervals for of Instrumented Protective
SIF, or Functions.
• (if required) propose for design changes.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.1.8 P&S • All ITPM tasks and intervals (which include Maintenance • OED-L1-iPOCS-PAM-
TA, the tools to perform the tasks, and MTCE.
spare parts): • Turnaround Management
• shall be planned according to: Guideline (TAMG).
• MTR targets, • SCM guidelines ranging
• spare part requirement, availability from “SCM-MM-INV-01” to
and lead time, “SCM-MM-INV-11”.
• manpower availability, and
• external sources availability, and
• should take into account manning

distribution throughout the year.
• The tasks shall be uploaded into PMMS,

except for extraordinary instances, e.g.
RBI and TA tasks.
4.2.1 QA & QC – or Refer to 4.1.4. QA & QC Refer to 4.1.4.
PASR Coordinator
Internal
Title

3b OPU
Audits Shall be performed to verify implementation Audit team • Generic audit checklists,
of planned operation and maintenance: coupled with sample sizing
tables from Appendix 4.6.
• tasks and • PMMS Scorecard.
• intervals,
every:
• month and quarter, for ITPMs monitored

by PMMS,
• year, otherwise.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.2.2 Performance The following data shall be: RIM Appendix 4.6.
Reporting and
Analysis • gathered and
• analysed, with
• appropriate advise for decision making for
continuous improvement, including
raising incident reports for RCFA.
The data are:
• process (and equipment) parameters,

especially critical operating parameters,
• acceptance criteria for maintenance
activities,
• Failure Mode, Mechanism, Cause,
component involved, repair activities,
and the up-down dates, and
• PEAR losses (including Availability
losses) (for incidents and defects).
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.3.1 Benchmarking Benchmarking for: RIM Appendix 4.7.
• availability (%),
• reliability (e.g. MTBF),
• maintainability (e.g. MTR), and
• cost,
should be performed whenever an

improvement potential is identified.
4.3.2 Fitness for FFS shall be performed for static equipment Inspection Material Corrosion Inspection
Service (FFS) (e.g. process containment element) with (MCI) Handbook, Section 18 –
residual defects: Fitness for Service, March 2010.
• during normal operation,

• or after an incident,
IF repair to as-good-as-new is to be deferred.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.3.3 Investigation • Investigate non-compliances on: RIM Use appropriate investigation
(generic) • operating and maintenance techniques.
procedures,
• Maintenance Plan 36 (MPLAN),
• Turnaround activities, and
• material procedures, and/or.
• investigate incorrect spare part inventory

levels,
for systemic improvements.

Trouble- • Troubleshooting shall be performed for Maintenance Appendix 4.8.
shooting defects found during operation and
Root Cause maintenance, for continuous RIM
Failure Analysis improvements.
(RCFA) • RCFA shall be performed for Degraded and
Bad Actors Critical Failures found during operation RIM Appendix 4.9.
Management and maintenance, to understand and
(BAM). correct systemic issues.
• BAM shall be utilised (RCFA being the
major process within) for frequent failures.
36
Also known as ITPM.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.3.4 Lessons • LLP shall be embarked upon completion of RIM Appendix 4.10.
Learned • RCFAs,
Program (LLP) • TAs,
• or learning from external incidents
by highlighting key learnings to be
applied to similar assets or practices.
• All learning from internal incidents shall be

shared amongst PETRONAS OPUs.
4.3.5 MOC Any change in design (e.g. plant change), PSM PTS 18.53.01 – Management of
operation and maintenance that is not Change.
covered by a specific procedure (e.g.
temporary repairs, bypassing Safety Critical
Elements – SCE or bypassing Safety
Instrumented System – SIS) shall be managed
through MOC to:
• evaluate the risks,

• understand the risks,
• develop risk mitigation actions (if required
by the risk assessment), and
• track the action item/s implementation.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
Deviation and Any deviation from planned: • Operation Appendix 4.11.
Deferral • Maintenance
Management • operation and
• maintenance activities, and
• any deferral from ITPM tasks
shall be:
• reinstated to original, or
• supplemented with risk reduction
measures.
4.3.6 Maintenance MSR shall be performed upon RIM Appendix 4.4.
Strategy Review recommendations from:
• Benchmarking,
• FFS,
• Investigation, Troubleshooting, RCFA and
BAM, and/or LLP,
for improvements in ITPM and the intervals.
Internal
Title

3b OPU
4.4.1 Reliability and • A complete register of data shall be RIM • Appendix 4.12.
Integrity available, • PTS 18.53.03 – Process
Database • mapped for ownership, location and Safety Information.
Management latest version (if applicable), and
(RIDM) • kept current for necessary analyses
PSI and enable application of RIMP. PSM PTS 18.53.03 – Process Safety
Information.
The data are:
• that required by PSI,

• that required and analysed by
Performance Reporting and Analysis,
• RAM studies and LCC details and
results,
• asset KPIs,
• operation and maintenance
philosophy and policies, and
strategies,
• peer benchmark results, and
• lessons learnt and best practices.
• OPUs may choose to manage the data

under one database, e.g. PSI.
Internal
MJK Nurul Amin Datuk Ir Kamarudin May 2015 Internal Use
Zakaria
Title
6. ELEMENT 5. PLANNING
1. A comprehensive plan shall be developed to adopt and implement each element of this document,
beginning with RIMP and considering the following items:
• Critical elements to the facility’s availability (e.g. repetitive failures and improvement of time-to-
restore), arising from self or third party evaluation,
• the targets set to achieve the lagging KPIs 37,
• available resources (internal and external),
• competency, and
• interface with other activities within the company.
2. This plan shall be reviewed every year.
37
Sub section “3.2.2”.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
7. ELEMENT 6. IMPLEMENTATION
The plan (in “Element 5”) shall be implemented and include tracking of planned activities, and justification
and/or risk assessment for deferred activities.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
8. ELEMENT 7. ASSURANCE
“Assurance” is provided by means of assessment of the OPU’s/HCU’s on RIMS and its practices, and gap
closure of the findings.
OPUs shall perform self-assessment (against iPOCS checklist), and feedback the results
and gap closure plans, if planned otherwise, every three (3) years.
OPUs shall prepare itself (especially on the interviewees and evidence) for external
assessment (against iPOCS checklist) as planned together with GTS, every three (3) years.
OPUs shall track and complete agreed gap closure activities.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
9. ELEMENT 8. MANAGEMENT REVIEW
“Management Review” is performed to ensure that the PETRONAS Company has the continuing
capacity to meet the implicit and explicit needs of shareholders, the authorities, customers, and
employees on matters related to availability, reliability and integrity, and maintainability.
OPU Head shall review the RIMS programs annually based on the following (but not
limited to):
• recommendations made in “Element 6”,

• ineffectiveness of certain initiatives,
• trends in availability (and its sub element) statistics,
• continuing suitability of the RIMS Policy and Strategic Objectives and the need for
changes arising from changes in legislation, changes in the needs and expectations of
the shareholders, customers, and employees, advances in technology, major changes
to the manufacturing process or mode of operation 38; and advances in the
understanding of availability, reliability (and integrity), and maintainability.
OPU Head shall set availability, reliability (and integrity), and maintainability improvement
objectives and targets for the forthcoming year, every year.
These objectives shall be cascaded to all personnel.
38
e.g. advanced process control, affecting instrument equipment strategy.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
APPENDIX:
Acceptance Criteria – Refer to PTS 18.53.02 – Mechanical Integrity, page 35.
Availability – Probability of an item to be in a state to perform a required function under given conditions
at a given instant of time, or in average over a given time interval, assuming that the required external 39
resources are provided 40.
Benchmarking – The process of comparing performance with peers, identifying comparatively high
performing peers, and learning what is it the peers do that allows high level of performance 41.
Competency – Competence is the ability in terms of skill and knowledge to perform an activity within
an occupation or function to specified standards. To be competent implies that a person possesses the
essential skills and knowledge, and can apply them appropriately in a particular working environment.
Competence represents the threshold of performance which people should cross before being allowed
to perform the associated work unsupervised.
This includes the ability to transfer skills and knowledge in both routine and non-routine situations, the
ability to organise and plan work and the consistent display of personal effectiveness to interact positively
with co-workers, managers and third parties.
This definition of competence is outcome-based in that a person is deemed competent by evidence

that their performance constantly meets or exceeds the prescribed standard. Proof of competence is
not simply a matter of recording an individual’s qualifications, training and experience. It should include
an assessment of delivered performance according to the prescribed standards 42.
Defects – Incipient Failure (refer to Failure Mode).
Dependability – collective term used to describe the availability performance and its influencing factors:
reliability performance, maintainability performance and maintenance support performance 43.
Due Diligence – The process of inquiring into characteristics of an asset for the purpose of evaluating
it in connection with a proposed transaction. The type of due diligence vary according to the objective
of assessment 44.
Facility/Facilities – Buildings, containers, or equipment that contain a process.
Failure – termination of the ability of an item to perform a required function 45.
39
External to the boundary of study or interest. If supply availability if of concern and included in the study, then it is no longer
considered “external”.
40
41
PTS 50.001 – Maintenance Management Philosophy, January 1993.
42
As defined in PTS 18.0302 – HSE Competence Assurance.
43
44
PTS 60.0113 – HSE Guideline for Due Diligence, December 2008, page 6.
45
ISO 14224, second edition, 2006, page 4.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
Failure Mechanism – is the physical, chemical or other process or combination of processes that leads
to the failure. It is an attribute of the failure event that can be deduced (and validated 46) technically, e.g.
the apparent, observed cause of the failure 47.
Failure Mode – is the effect by which a failure is observed on the failed item, and categorised into three
failure modes, namely;
• desired function is not obtained (e.g. failure to start), i.e. Critical Failure,
• specified function lost or outside accepted operational limits (e.g. spurious stop, high output), i.e.
Degraded Failure, and
• failure indication is observed but there is no immediate and critical impact on the equipment unit
function [these are typically non critical failures related to some degradation or incipient fault
condition (e.g. initial wear)], i.e. Incipient Failure or Defects. 48
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis – Failure Mode and Effects Analysis is use to analyse failure modes,
the related mechanisms to each failure mode; and the causes and consequences for each failure
mechanism.
Fitness for Service – “assessment is performed to make sure that process plant equipment, such as
pressure vessels, piping, and tanks, will operate safely and reliably for some desired future period” 49.
Inspection, Testing and Preventive Maintenance – These are the tasks that represent the activities
performed to ensure that facilities (and the equipment to maintain the facilities) continue to perform the
function.
• Inspection is the task performed to check condition of an asset, through non-destructive

techniques.
• Testing is the task performed to check condition of an asset, through providing an artificial demand
on the function of the asset.
• Preventive Maintenance is the task performed to restore condition of an asset through scheduled
servicing or replacement 50.
Instrumented Protective Function – Instrumented Protective Function is a function comprising one or

more Initiators, a Logic Solver and one or more Final Elements whose purpose is to prevent or mitigate
hazardous situations. An IPF is intended to achieve or maintain a safe state for the process, in respect of
a specific hazardous event. 51
Integrity – is an inherent design attribute (i.e. property of the components selected to build a product)
that could withstand external tampering or resist intrusion to minimise risk exposure 52,53,54.
46
Added by RIMS.
47
ISO 14224, second edition, 2006, page 114.
48
ISO 14224, second edition, 2006, page 4 and 120.
49
Jaske. E., Process Equipment Fitness for Service Assessments Using API RP 579, Dublin, November 2001, page 3.
50
51
PTS 14.12.10 – Classification, Verification and Implementation Of Instrumented Protective Functions, March 2014, page 10.
52
53
http://tc56.iec.ch/about/faq.htm#4_Integrity.
54
This is in-line with MIL-STD-1798C, August 2013, page 11, where it mentions:
Internal
Zakaria
Title
Maintainability – Probability of an item under given conditions of use, to be retained in, or restored to,
a state in which it can perform a required function, when maintenance is performed under given
conditions and using stated procedures and resources 55.
Maintenance Support – Resources required to maintain an item under a given maintenance concept
and guided by a maintenance policy 56.
Performance Standards – Performance expectation of an element which can be measured and

assessed against the predefined criteria 57. Read: Function.
Procedure – A written step by step instruction and associated information (cautions, operating limits,
notes and warnings) of how to proceed, from start to finish, in performing a task properly (safely) within
predefined limits. This is in line with Level 2 document as per ISO 19001:2000, which is termed as
“Procedures and Instructions”.
Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability studies – Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability study is
performed to analyse the availability of systems or equipment by aggregating the reliability and the
maintainability measurements
Reliability – Probability of an item to perform a required function under given conditions for a given
time interval 58.
Risk Based Inspection – Risk Based Inspection provides cost optimised inspection planning designed
to manage risks. Prescribes what, where, how and when to inspect fixed/static equipment.
Risk assessment – is the process of risk analysis and consequence evaluation
Safe Operating Limits – Safe Operating Limits are specified operating parameters (depending on
equipment type and characteristics of safe operation) and regions for equipment, such that risk of unsafe
operation is maintained low – if the specifications are met 59.
Safety Critical Element – Any installation, which failure cause or contribute substantially to the release
of a hazard with Major Risks 60.
Policy – in this context, refers to the organization’s course of actions that benefit HSE and the total cost
of ownership during the various asset lifecycle (from design, until decommissioning).
Strategic Objectives – is the broad goals, arising from RIMS policy that a company sets itself to achieve,
and should be quantified wherever practicable 61.
“Integrity is comprised of the essential characteristics of systems and equipment which allows specified performance, safety,
durability, reliability, and supportability to be achieved under specified operational conditions over a defined service lifetime.”
55
56
IEC 60300-3-14, first edition, 2004, page 19.
57
58
59
Modified from http://www.hse.gov.uk/pipelines/resources/pipelinepressure.htm.
60
Modified from PTS 18.53.02 – Mechanical Integrity, May 2013, page 28.
61
Modified from PTS 18.00.01 – Health, Safety and Environment Management System, March 2014, page 14.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
Underlying Cause – Systemic cause 62.
62
Adopted from “Root Cause Failure Analysis Guideline”, December 2009, by GTS.
Internal
Title
Legal & Regulatory

Bodies Compliance
Correct Design (& Reliability Modeling
Change of Design)* Accuracy
Design for Reliability
Reliability Modeling
Compliance
OP Accuracy
Correct Operation
Uptime [MTBF/MTTF]
OP Compliance
(days)
ITPM Procedure
Accuracy
ITPM Procedure
Compliance
Correct Maintenance
ITPM Accuracy
Revenue Potential Availability (%)

ITPM Compliance
Legal & Regulatory

Bodies Compliance
Correct Design (& Reliability Modeling
Change of Design)* Accuracy
Design for
Maintainability
Profit
Compliance
Manpower Skills
Downtime [MTR] (days)
Manpower Availability
Manpower Quantity
OC Analysis Accuracy
Correct Design for
Lowest OC Tool/Equipment
Accuracy
OC Analysis Compliance
Ownership Cost +Correct Operation & Tool/Equipment
(Currency) Maintenance Support Availability
Tool/Equipment
Correct O & M for Quantity
OC Analysis Compliance
Lowest OC
Spare Part Accuracy

Spare Part Availability
Accuracy
Spare Part Quantity
Compliance
Internal
Title
Applicability at (Asset Level) Applicability at (Asset Lifecycle)

More lagging
Decommissioning
Plant/Platform
Procurement
Fixed/Static
Fabrication
Instrument
Installation
Machinery
Operation
Electrical
Rotating
Design
Area
KPI More leading # Measurement tools/methods (Examples)
1 Profit 1 √ (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) √ √ LCC analysis or year-to-year profit.
1 Revenue Potential 1.1 √ (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) √ √ LCC analysis or actual revenue.
1 Availability (%) 1.1.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Availability simulation or actual Availability.
1 Uptime [MTBF/MTTF] (days) 1.1.1.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Recurrent or Life Data Analysis; or actual uptime.
1 Correct Design (& Change of Design)* 1.1.1.1.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 Legal & Regulatory Bodies Compliance 1.1.1.1.1.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Developed checklists from Law, Act and PTS.
2 Design for Reliability 1.1.1.1.1.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 Reliability Modeling Accuracy 1.1.1.1.1.2.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Checklists from RAM procedure.
2 Reliability Modeling Compliance 1.1.1.1.1.2.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Checklists during procurement, fabrication & installation.
2 Correct Operation 1.1.1.1.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 OP Accuracy 1.1.1.1.2.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Procedure review.
2 OP Compliance 1.1.1.1.2.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Tier 1 audits.
3 Correct Maintenance 1.1.1.1.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 ITPM Procedure Accuracy 1.1.1.1.3.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ Procedure review.
2 ITPM Procedure Compliance 1.1.1.1.3.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ Tier 1 audits.
3 ITPM Accuracy 1.1.1.1.3.3 √ √ √ √ √ √ Checklists from ERS procedure (including performance standards).
4 ITPM Compliance 1.1.1.1.3.4 √ √ √ √ √ √ Tier 1 audits.
2 Downtime [MTR] (days) 1.1.1.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Maintainability Analysis; or actual downtime.
1 Correct Design (& Change of Design)* 1.1.1.2.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 Legal & Regulatory Bodies Compliance 1.1.1.2.1.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Developed checklists from Law, Act and PTS.
2 Design for Maintainability 1.1.1.2.1.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 Reliability Modeling Accuracy 1.1.1.2.1.2.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Checklists from RAM procedure.
2 Reliability Modeling Compliance 1.1.1.2.1.2.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Checklists during procurement, fabrication & installation.
2 +Correct Operation & Maintenance Support 1.1.1.2.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 Manpower Availability 1.1.1.2.2.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Productivity Survey.
1 Manpower Skills 1.1.1.2.2.1.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ Skill assessments.
2 Manpower Quantity 1.1.1.2.2.1.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Manpower loading analysis.
2 Tool/Equipment Availability 1.1.1.2.2.2 √ √ √ √ √ NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 Tool/Equipment Accuracy 1.1.1.2.2.2.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ Required against actual tool quality/conformance audit.
2 Tool/Equipment Quantity 1.1.1.2.2.2.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Required against actual tool quantity audit.
3 Spare Part Availability 1.1.1.2.2.3 √ √ √ √ √ NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 Spare Part Accuracy 1.1.1.2.2.3.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ Required against actual spare part quality/conformance audit.
2 Spare Part Quantity 1.1.1.2.2.3.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Required against actual spare part quantity audit.
1 Reliability Modeling Accuracy 1.1.1.2.2.3.2.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ Checklists from RAM procedure.
2 Reliability Modeling Compliance 1.1.1.2.2.3.2.2 √ √ √ √ √ √ Checklists during procurement, fabrication & installation.
2 Ownership Cost (Currency) 1.2 √ (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) √ √ LCC analysis or actual costs (all cost elements).
1 Correct Design for Lowest OC 1.2.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 OC Analysis Accuracy 1.2.1.1 √ (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) √ Checklists from LCC procedure.
2 OC Analysis Compliance 1.2.1.2 √ (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) √ √ √ √ Checklists during procurement, fabrication & installation; and OP & ITPM compliance.
2 Correct O & M for Lowest OC 1.2.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -
1 OC Analysis Compliance 1.2.2.1 √ (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) √ √ √ √ Checklists during procurement, fabrication & installation; and OP & ITPM compliance.
Legend:
NA Not Measured. Used as heading.
√ Default.
(√) Possible on case-by-case basis.
Internal
Title
Reliability & • MTBF & MTTR, Continuous

Integrity • Cost, Improvement
Database (e.g.): • EDM, Process:
• Maintenance
• SOL. Strategy
• Asset Register, Review
• DOSSIER, • Benchmarking
• SCE
Develop
Perform Identify Dashboard
Performance
HAZID SCE Standards ITPM (including Assurance Deferral Optimization • PMMS
Task and EBC): Scorecard
• Inspection
• Testing
•RCM • Preventive Maintenance • Planning & Performance
Management
ECA •RBI Identify requirements for: Scheduling Execution Reporting and
Review
•IPF • PMMS Analysis
• design changes,
• procedures and WIs,
• critical spare part,
• SOL changes, and Deviation
• contracting strategy. Improvement
Reliability Management
Business
Engineering
Targets studies
Statutory Incident
Bad Actors (including
Require- Management Loss
ment Identification)
Lessons
RCFA
Learned
ERS
Work
Input Output Execution Feedback
Process
Internal
Title
Design, Procure, Fabricate & Install

Targets, policies
Technical feasibility (incl. technology) Business
opportunity from ”4.3.1” to “4.3.4”
Engineering studies (new)
Hazards DOSSIER MTR targets
Rates (failure, repair) Op. tasks
Equipment details Estimated Hazards list
4.1.1 risk, 4.1.3 NPV Project KPIs
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
Safety Availability, IRR PFDs OP &
Studies & Utilisation P/back P&IDs
QA & QC – Maintenance Procedures available
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
HAZID until Spare # or PASR Acceptanc ITPM Procedure
Criticality e (incl. Management
QRA)
4.1.2 AFC docs. criteria TA)
Costs Risks Asset Struct. from PS
Fail. conseq. SCE ITPM MTR targets
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
C2 ERS TA) Planning &
No-go or C3 methodology
Scheduling MPLAN in PMMS & other
Decomm- ECA (FMEA or RCM, systems managed tasks
ission and RBI and Freq- (and TA
IPF) uency processes)
Sp. parts
Assess/Analyse Targets, policies

Redesign, to “4.3.5” Operate & Maintain
Rates (failure, repair)
Mtce. improvement 4.3.1 Costs Implmt.
to “4.1.7” Function (PS) from “4.3.5” and/or “4.3.6” evidence
Bench- Failure details
marking Equipment details 4.2.1
QA & QC –
Improvement potential or PASR
Overall asset and/or
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
performance (sub Audits
MOC or
Remnant life/defects/deficiencies section “2.2.2”)
Deviation
MSR FFS
and Deferral or obsolescence 4.2.2
Management
Incident, defects/deficiencies or deviations Performance
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
Design, operation Maintenance Begin
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)
and/or maintenance & spare part

jurisdiction)
and/or
Troubleshooting, Output
improvement impr. Inputs and outputs Perf.
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
Business Targets, policies
4.3.4 4.4.1 opportunity Technical feasibility (incl. technology)
– Due Hazards
RIDM and/or Diligence Rates (failure, repair)
LLP Equipment details
PSI
from “4.1.7” Operation improvement
to “”4.1.5” External incident Inputs and reporting
Internal
Title
Input/s Sub process/es Output/s
• Targets: • Safety studies: • Recommendations for:
• Public risk, • Environment Impact Assessment • proceed or not-to-proceed, or

• individual risk, (EIA). • design in compliance with regulation,
• availability, • Hazard Identification (HAZID) and • design at As Low as Reasonably
• utilisation, and Bowtie. Practicable (ALARP), and
• cost. • Hazards and Operability (HAZOP). • design at highest Net-Present Value
• Electrical Safety and Robustness (NPV)a (including revenue stream).
• Technical feasibility studies – including Review (ESRR).
technology (civil, structure, process, • Electrical Safety and Operability aIncluding spare part quantity proposals.
static, rotating, electrical and instrument). Review (ELSOR).
• Engineering studies • Hazardous Area Classification (HAC). • SCE and equipment criticality listing.
• Initial: • IPF. • Facility designed and installed as per
• Flaring networks assessment. stakeholders (customers and regulatory
• operating philosophy, • Relieving adequacy. bodies) requirements.
• maintenance policy, • Fire and Gas Mapping.
• operating context and SOL, • Fire Safety Adequacy Review (FSAR). (including accurate and adequate
• equipment listing and Asset Structure, • Fire and Explosion Risk Assessment tools/maintenance equipment, accurate
• DOSSIER (FERA). spare part and quantity)
• Process Flow Diagram (PFD), • Formal Safety Assessment (FSA).
• Piping and Instrumentation Diagram • Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). • Equipped with:
(P&ID), and,
• layout drawings. • RAM studies. • operating and maintenance
• LCC. procedures,
• Hazard list (& Major Accident Hazards). • QA & QC – or PASR. • Performance Standards, and
• Function (i.e. Performance Standards), • OP and MPM. • ITPM tasksb and frequencies
failure modes, mechanisms, effects and • ECA (if [b] is not available). uploaded into PMMS; or
causes. • ERS studies: • (if applicable) recommendations for
• Rates: redesign.
• FMEA, or
• failure (component) and degradation, • RCM, and bIncluding TA tasks.
• repair (component), • RBI, and
• demand, • IPF.
• manpower availability,
• manning, and/or • Planning and Scheduling (and TA
• dispersion. processes).
• Cost elements (including repair) and

values.
• Agreed project deliverables:
• HSE,
• time, and,
• cost.
Internal
Title
• Plan and practice on: • QA & QC – or PASR and/or Audits. Optimisation:

• Performance Reporting and Analysis.
• Operating and maintenance • Improvement potential.
procedures, and
• ITPM tasks and frequencies. Optimisation/Improvement:
• Actual facility’s operation and • Remnant life/defects/deficiencies (and/or

maintenance performance (including plant reliability threat).
material inventory levels). • Deviations.
• Information on other facility/ies plan and
practice. Improvement:
• Incident.
Internal
Title
• Improvement potential (including Optimisation: Optimisation:

redesign).
• Remnant life/defects/deficiencies and • MSR. • Recommendations for repair, rerate or
deviations. • Benchmarking for Best Practices. redesign.
• Incident details:
Improvement: Optimisation/Improvement:
• Failed equipment/system details,
• failure mode/s, • FFS. • Recommendations for:
• history, and, • Deviation and Deferral Management.
• failure analyses. • Investigation, Troubleshooting or RCFA. • Redesign or decommission;
• BAM.
• Current: and/or
Optimisation/Improvement:
• operating philosophy, • compliance to OP,
• maintenance policy, • LLP. • operating steps and/or,
• operating context and SOL, • MOC. • SOL;
• acceptance criteria,
• equipment listing and Asset Structure, and/or
• DOSSIER
• PFD, • compliance to ITPM,
• P&ID, and, • ITPM tasksa,
• layout drawings. • ITPM frequency,
• ITPM steps,
• Rates: • manpower skills,
• manpower quantity,
• failure, • tool/equipment quality and quantity,
• repair, and/or,
• demand, • spare part quantity and quality.
• manpower availability,
• manning, and/or aIncluding TA tasks.
• dispersion.
• Cost elements and values.
Internal
Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
Figure 4.1:1: This section refers to “4.1.2” in sub-section “5.2.3” and “Appendix 3b”.
Detailed references to this section can be found in (but not limited to) the following references
and standards.
• IEC 61078 – RBD.

• ISO 20815/API 63 17N RP 64 – Production assurance and Reliability Management.
• IEC 60300-3-15 – Engineering of System Dependability.
• System Reliability Analysis, Life Data Analysis (LDA) and Recurrent Data Analysis (RDA) articles
by ReliaSoft®.
Available in-house and external trainings are as follows.
• Skill Group (SKG) 12.3 – Introduction to Reliability Management and Engineering, Level 1.
• SKG 12.3 – Data Acquisition & Correlation Technique, Level 2.
• SKG 12.3 – Reliability Engineering Part 1, Level 3.
63
American Petroleum Institute.
64
Recommended Practice.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
• SKG 12.3 – Maintenance Engineering, Level 3.

• Software trainings by software providers, e.g. ReliaSoft® or DNV.GL.
Major purposes for RAM include the following.
• Verify design against target availability or throughput,

• identify and rank systems and equipment,
• find out options for overall system improvement, and
• set initial spare part for major equipment.
RAM is performed for one or combination of the following situations.
• Setting up new facility.

• Modifications 65 that involve:
• changes in operating context, e.g. utilising all available spares, or increasing production
by adding loads to several equipment,
• changes in system configuration (i.e. redundancy), or
• changes in equipment sizing, performance ratings and technology – which, effects to the
overall system is unclear.
• PETRONAS OPU Heads.

• OPU Reliability and Integrity Management group.
• OPU Design/Engineering group.
• RAM work flow.

• RAM review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow.
65
Also referred to as plant change.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
Begin Data Process defined ment
nate Process -ide
Output
• Proposed facility design Perform RDA and/or LDA 10

Feasibility and technologies
and Safety
• Equipment and facility and Maintainability
throughput data
studies • Failure data Engineering analysis
passed for • Repair data
new facility/ • Planned maintenance,
modification inspection, Turnaround
intervals and durations 11
• Cost data Simulate and verify base model
to “8”
results with past performances of
or “9”
1 own or similar facility/ies
Identify study objectives.
• New facility, or
• plant change Perform sensitivity analysis on 12
options
Agree on study boundaries (system,2 13

Perform sensitivity analysis on new
equipment unit or component) and
options
details
Obtain availability and/or throughput 3 Perform LCC for each 14

targets, production profile (upstream viable option
only), and design life
Obtain and understand operating 4 15

Recommend for option that meet
contexts, and regulations that may the target, at lowest LCC,
affect overall availability and facility
utilisation throughout the design life
5
Obtain initial options/configurations 16
Present findings Review
for achieving targets set in “3”
17
6 Document official report
Agree on RAM study timeline
7
Document practical assumptions
Yes Management No
Obtain failure, repair, and important 8
decision
cost element data by order of priority:
1. Own data,
from “11”
2. internal benchmark,
3. vendor, 19
No-go
4. elicitation of expert opinion, or
5. external benchmark
18
Build RBD based on PFD, P&ID and 9 Proceed to “Procurement” and
expert knowledge track action items
Internal
Group Technical Solutions May 2015
RAM review checklist
Project: Overall comments:

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
Step Process # Acceptance Criteria NA √ X Remarks
1 Identify study objectives a Study performed for new facility

b Study performed for plant changes
c Other objectives stated, technically feasible, and practical
2 Agree on study boundaries (system, a Boundaries are clearly stated/sketched in available drawings
equipment unit or component) and
details b Equipment list obtained
c Throughput details per equipment are obtained
d Buffers and buffer durations are obtained
3 Obtain availability and/or throughput a Availability targets provided with number of on-stream days
targets, production profile (upstream
only), and design life b Throughput targets provided with number of on-stream days
c Asset life-cycle duration provided (design until

decommissioning)
d Full production profile provided for the asset life-cycle
4 Obtain and understand operating a Operating philosophy (e.g. rates, switching, loading, unloading)
contexts, and regulations that may obtained and recorded as per Design Basis
affect overall availability and facility b Mandatory shutdown intervals obtained
utilisation c Mandatory shutdown durations obtained
d Major planned maintenance intervals obtained
e Major planned maintenance durations obtained
5 Obtain initial options/configurations for a Initial options (or alternatives) noted

achieving targets set in “3” b Clarifications are made, that analyst may recommend other
options that may benefit the facility better
6 Agree on RAM study timeline - Timeline provided based on study complexity and resource
availability
Internal Checklist page numbering. 1 of 5


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
7 Document practical assumptions a Definition of failure for each equipment type is clear
b Standby equipment switching frequency and intervals (to
analyse obtained data) obtained/estimated
c Major shutdown dates and durations (to analyse obtained data)
stated
d Last overhaul, or major repair, or modification to system (to
analyse obtained data)
e Buffers and buffer durations are stated
f Capital costs for equipment (fixed or ranges) selected and
justified
g Repair costs per failure (fixed or ranges) selected and justified
h Other cost elements (fixed or ranges) selected and justified
i Initial spare parts and replenishment times are stated and

justified
8 Obtain failure, repair, and important a Own data obtained from PMMS
cost element data by order of priority b Own data obtained from Plant Information system or
Distributed Control System (DCS)
c Own data obtained from rotating equipment monitoring
database
d Own data obtained from P-RBI
e Own data obtained from RV testing records
f Own data obtained from IPF testing records
g Internal benchmark data obtained from PMMS
h Internal benchmark data obtained from Plant Information
system or Distributed Control System (DCS)
i Internal benchmark data obtained from rotating equipment
monitoring database
j Internal benchmark data obtained from P-RBI
k Internal benchmark data obtained from RV testing records


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
8 Obtain failure, repair, and important l Internal benchmark data obtained from IPF testing records
cost element data by order of priority
m Failure and repair data taken from vendor
n Own data obtained from elicitation of expert opinion
o Failure and repair data taken from external benchmark (e.g.
OREDA, API 581, or exida)
p Data obtained are relevant to equipment involved in RAM.
9 Build RBD based on PFD, P&ID and a Equipment failure that can shutdown the entire system is put in
expert knowledge series
b Equipment that has redundancy is put in parallel, and number
of required path for success is stated
c Hot standby equipment are put in standby containers
d Equipment that perform multi-function are put in mirrored
blocks
e Special shutdown or start-up conditions are considered, e.g.
Equipment X will only be used during plant shutdown
f Blocks are built from plant level, followed by process unit level,
followed by system level, equipment unit level, and
component level, where applicable
10 Perform RDA and/or LDA and - [Refer to RDA, LDA and Maintainability Engineering acceptance
Maintainability Engineering analysis criteria]
11 Simulate and verify base model results a Enter LDA data in Reliability distribution
with past performances of own or b Enter RDA data and current age in Reliability distribution, with
similar facility/ies Restoration Factor in Corrective Maintenance input
c Enter Maintainability Engineering analysis data in Corrective
Maintenance distribution
d Enter Planned Maintenance intervals and durations
e Set initial spare part and replenishment times
f Base case simulations results within 5% (or less) of past
performances (of same or similar facility/ies)


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
12 Perform sensitivity analysis on options a Base case saved in different folio

b New folio used for each option (alternative) tested
c Overall availability, block availability, throughput (if applicable)
results are saved for base case and options
13 Perform sensitivity analysis on new a New option proposed when "12" can't meet targets
options b New option proposed when better option/s discovered by
analyst
c Overall availability, block availability, throughput (if applicable)
results are saved for each new option
14 Perform LCC for each viable option - [Refer to LCC acceptance criteria]
15 Recommend for option that meet the - Availability and/or throughput results and overall LCC costs are
target, at lowest LCC, throughout the tabulated for comparison and recommendation
design life
16 Present findings a Best option, as stated in "15" is mentioned

b Specific recommendations on equipment reliability (e.g. Failure
Modes to watch for) are stated
c Specific recommendations on equipment maintainability are
stated
d Generic recommendations are avoided, or stated on as-need
basis (e.g. poor data quality)
17 Document official report a Presentation report available

b Written report available
c Title of study stated
d Date of study and approval stated
e Contents include executive summary, assumptions, data
sources, RBDs, the various results, and recommendations as
minimum
f Report approved


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
18 [Approved] Proceed to “Procurement” a Action items stated

and track action items b Action parties stated
c Action items registered in QA & QC/PASR checklists for
tracking
19 [Not approved] No-go - Justifications stated in the report in "17"

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• IEC 60300-3-3 – Life Cycle Costing.

• System Reliability Analysis, LDA and RDA articles by ReliaSoft®.
• SKG 12.3 – Life Cycle Cost, Level 2.

• SKG 12.3 – Asset Life Cycle Cost, Level 3.
Major purposes for LCC include the following.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
• Recommend option for lowest total cost of ownership.

• Replacement analysis (“Defender” – or the existing system – against “Challenger” – or the
new, like-to-like system) [work flow to be included in next revision].
LCC is performed for one or combination of the following situations.
• Designing new facility or performing plant changes.

• Performing analysis to keep or replace an existing system [work flow to be included in next
revision].

• OPU Maintenance group.
• LCC work flow.

• LCC review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
9
• Failure characteristics from
LDA and/or RDA
Calculate Net Present Value (NPV),
The need • Availability or utilization data
• Well potential (upstream)
to perform • Cost and revenue element
data, and the distribution (if
LCC required)
Design life
analysis •
Rates (e.g. Discount,
•
Exchange, Inflation) Rank options based on NPV 10
1 Perform sensitivity analyses and 11

Identify study objectives
assess if sensitive cost/revenue
elements can change the rank in
2 “10”
List viable options for LCC
Perform further analyses (if 12

3
Document practical assumptions necessary).
• Discounted Payback Period
(when the overall NPV 0),
Determine key cost and revenue 4 • Rate of Return (test the
from “14” maximum r, for “0” NPV).
elements; and the drivers
5 13
Obtain and quantify data Recommend for option that meets
highest NPV, results from “11” and (if Review
performed) results from “12”
Set up LCC analysis table until year 6
n, taking into account, the design
life to
14 “3”,
Obtain approval
“4”,
7 or “5”
Calculate Future Value (FV) for each
year-end, taking into account, the 15
costs and Inflation Rate (IR); and (if Document official report
applicable) revenues and tax.
Yes Management No
decision
8
Calculate Present Value (PV) for 17
No-go
each year-end, taking into account
the Discount Rate (r).
16
Proceed to “Procurement” and
track action items
Internal
LCC review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Identify study objectives a Selecting configuration for a new facility/modification

b Selecting equipment type/technology/brand for a new
facility/modification
2 List viable options for LCC a Options passed engineering feasibility studies
b Simple and practical solutions are considered as options, along
with more complex ones (if any)
c Options passed safety studies/requirements
d Maintaining existing setup is considered as "Base Case", for
modifications
3 Document practical assumptions - Assumptions on data (when used) are based on acceptable
finance and engineering estimations, and clearly stated
4 Determine key revenue and cost a Key revenue and cost element selected, has major impact
elements; and the drivers towards LCC
b Key revenue and cost driver selected, has major impact
towards LCC
5 Obtain and quantify data a Design life for each equipment is specified, and used to
determine the number of columns (years) for the table
b [Revenue and Recurring cost] Availability and/or utilisation data
for different options/configurations obtained from RAM study
for revenue and loss calculations
c [Revenue] Well potential data (for upstream) obtained, for the
study period, and taken into account for revenue calculations
d [Revenue] Revenue streams are obtained and quantified

e [Acquisition cost] Equipment purchase costs are obtained and
quantified
f [Acquisition cost] Equipment installation costs are obtained and
quantified


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5 Obtain and quantify data g [Acquisition cost] Equipment commissioning costs are obtained
and quantified
h [Acquisition cost] Equipment insurance spare costs are
obtained and quantified
i [Acquisition cost] Equipment reinvestment costs are obtained
and quantified
j [Acquisition cost] Equipment acquisition's administration costs
are obtained and quantified
k [Recurring cost] Energy costs are obtained and quantified
l [Recurring cost] Planned maintenance activities, intervals and
costs are obtained and quantified
m [Recurring cost] Failure characteristics of involved equipment,
obtained from LDA and/or RDA, and used for corrective
maintenance cost calculations
n [Recurring cost] Corrective maintenance costs are obtained
and quantified
o [Recurring cost] Production loss costs are obtained and
quantified
p [Recurring cost] Penalty costs are obtained and quantified
q Revenue and cost units and currencies are clearly stated for "b"-
"p"
r Discount rates (Weighted Average Capital Cost) are obtained
and quantified from Finance department, or other sources
s Inflation rates are obtained and quantified from Finance

department, or other sources
t Exchange rates are obtained and quantified from Finance
department, or other sources
u Asset depreciation and tax rates are obtained and quantified
from Finance department, or other sources
v Data sources for "b" to "u" are stated and traceable


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
6 Set up LCC analysis table until year n , a Table starts with year "0"
taking into account, the design life b Acquisition costs are put in year "0", or number of years prior to
operation
c Revenues and recurring costs are input on years when occurs,
or incurred
d Failure characteristics from LDA and RDA are used to calculate
number of failures in a year, and used to calculate corrective
maintenance costs
e Depreciated asset values are input based on depreciation rates
f Revenues, costs and depreciation are used for tax calculations
g Expected discount rates are entered each year, or assumed

same for the entire period
h Expected inflation rates are entered each year, or assumed
same for the entire period
i Expected exchange rates are entered each year, or assumed
same for the entire period, and all costs are normalised to one
currency
j n will be the project duration, if specified by the management
k n will be common denominator for all options, if NOT

specified by the management
7 Calculate FV for each year-end, taking a Formula specified in the work flow is entered correctly in
into account, the costs and IR ; and (if spreadsheet
applicable) revenues and tax b Single output is checked prior to formula copy and paste
c Reference cells that are not supposed to change, are "locked"
in the formula
d Revenues are on the "+" side of the formula, and costs are on
the "-" of the formula


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
8 Calculate PV for each year-end, taking a Formula specified in the work flow is entered correctly in
into account the Discount Rate (r ) spreadsheet
b Single output is checked prior to formula copy and paste
in the formula
9 Calculate NPV a Formula specified in the work flow is entered correctly in

spreadsheet
b Single output is checked prior to formula copy and paste
in the formula
10 Rank options based on NPV - Ranked descending, based on highest to lowest NPV
11 Perform sensitivity analyses and assess if a Key revenue and cost drivers are tested from -100% to +100%,
sensitive cost/revenue elements can or in multiples of +/-100%
change the rank in “10” b Changes in NPV s are tabulated against changes in revenue and
cost drivers
c Most sensitive revenue and/or cost driver is/are the ones that
result in largest NPV change
d Sensitivity analysis results are plotted
e Outcomes of sensitivity analysis are checked if rank in "10"
changes
f Scenarios that may change NPV s (and rank) are assessed for
the likelihood
12 Perform further analyses (if necessary). a Options are ranked on ascending order, based on lowest to
-Payback Period (when the overall NPV highest Discounted Payback Period
≥ 0), b Options are ranked on descending order, based on highest to
-Rate of Return (test the maximum r , lowest Rate of Return


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
13 Recommend for option that meets - Highest NPV (based on likely scenario from sensitivity analysis),
highest NPV , results from “11” and (if (if performed) lowest Discounted Payback Period, and highest
performed) results from “12” Rate of Return is proposed to be selected
14 Present findings a Objectives of study are stated

b Options are stated
c Key data, and sources are highlighted
d Assumptions are clearly stated
e Outcomes, including sensitivity analysis are clearly presented
f Recommendations are presented based on outcome from "13"
15 Document official report a Presentation report available

b Written report available
c Title of study stated
d Date of study and approval stated
e Contents include executive summary, assumptions, data
sources, LCC sheets, the various results, and recommendations
as minimum
f Report approved
16 [Approved] Proceed to “Procurement” a Action items stated

and track action items b Action parties stated
c Action items registered in QA & QC/PASR checklists for
tracking
17 [Not approved] No-go - Justifications stated in the report in "16"

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• PETRONAS Risk Matrix Guideline, June 2010.

• Memorandum from GHSE (GHSED/SGM/ME/2015/0303-78)
• PTS 18.53.02 – Mechanical Integrity.
• PTS 18.04.02 – Hazards and Effects Management Process (which includes reference to
HAZID).
• PTS 30.27.10.30 – PETRONAS Risk Based Inspection Implementation.
• PTS 14.12.10 – Classification, Verification and Implementation of Instrumented Protective
Functions.
• SKG 12.3 – ECA and ERS Training, Level 2.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
Major purpose for ECA includes assigning criticality ranking for equipment (and other assets) for
(commonly):
• prioritisation of ERS development,

• management of procedures,
• prioritisation of performance reporting,
• prioritisation of benchmarking, and
• prioritisation of monitoring of deviations and deferrals.
ECA is performed for one or combination of the following situations.
• Identification of SCEs.
• Assigning criticality and (if required) risk ranking of non-SCEs.

• OPU Process Safety and Occupational Safety group.
• OPU Operation group.
• ECA work flow.

• ECA review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
• Risk matrix and descriptors.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Risk Matrix
• Asset register for all assets
Need to • Function of each
equipment and physical
assess/ asset
review asset • Credible Failure Modes
• Hazard list from HEMP
criticality • Production rates and
revenues
• Maintenance/Repair costs
Setup cross-functional team 1
Review and validate data 2
3a SCEs
Yes SCE identified No Perform HAZID to identify
to “4”,
using HAZID? SCEs
“C1”
“SCE”
and Remaining assets
“C1” • Perform RBI or IPF 3b
studies
RBI or IPF-covered Yes • Map consequences
from RBI and IPF study, to “4”
equipment?
to PEAR consequences
in Figure “4.3:2”
Remaining assets
Assess criticality based on 3c
credible failures, and the PEAR
consequences, according to Figure
“4.3:2”
from
4
“3a” and Obtain approval from TA 6b
“3b” • Map risk from RBI and IPF matrix,
according to Figure “4.3:3”
Update ECA database and upload 5 • Risk rank remaining assets based
into PMMS on matrix in Figure “4.3:3”, based
on likelihood and consequence
in “4”
Further prioritization Yes

required for non-
SCEs?
7
Prioritise for e.g. ERS,
No Maintenance Procedure
6a Management, QA & QC,
Document official report Performance Reporting and
Analysis, Benchmarking, FFS,
RCFA, LLP and Deviation and
Deferral Management
Internal
ECA review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Setup cross-functional team a Facilitator/Team Leader selected

b Operation team present
c Other personnel from relevant discipline present
2 Review and validate data a Asset register is comprehensive, accurate and current
b Function of each equipment and physical asset obtained from
relevant documents e.g. engineering documents
c Credible Failure Modes are obtained from e.g. engineers
experiences, PMMS
d Hazard list obtained from e.g. HEMP, ISO 17776, chemical
reactivity matrix
e Production rates and revenues obtained from operation and
business departments
f Maintenance and repair costs are obtained from, e.g. PMMS
3a [SCE not yet identified using HAZID] - [Refer to PTS 16.71.02 - Hazard Identification (HAZID)]
Perform HAZID to identify SCEs [Transfer to HAZID team]
- [SCE identified] Put as "SCE" and "C1" - All SCEs are marked as "SCE", and "C1"
3b [RBI or IPF-covered equipment] a [Refer to PTS 30.27.10.30 - PETRONAS Risk Based Inspection
-Perform RBI or IPF studies (PRBI) Implementation for RBI]
-Map consequences from RBI and IPF [Transfer to RBI team]
study, to PEAR consequences in Figure b [Refer to PTS 14.12.10 - Classification, Verification and
"4.3:3" Implementation of Instrumented Protective Functions for IPF]
[Transfer to IPF team]
c RBI and IPF-covered equipment's criticality is set based on
mapping in Figure "4.3:3"


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
3c [Remaining equipment] a Criticality assessed by individual tag/equipment number

Assess criticality based on credible b Double jeopardy are avoided in considering credible failures
failures, and the PEAR consequences,
according to Figure “4.3:3” c Double jeopardy are avoided in considering credible failures
d PEAR consequences are stated, and these are consequences

that can probably happen in the context of the facility
e PEAR consequences are classified

f "C1", "C2", and "C3" are classified based on highest of P, E, A,
and R consequences
4 Obtain approval from TA a Number of equipment and physical assets are stated
b Criticality outcome from HAZID, RBI, IPF studies, and "3c" are
integrated into one database
c Summary of "SCE", "C1", "C2", and "C3" are provided
5 Update ECA database and upload into a Contents include equipment list, credible Failure Modes and
PMMS consequences, PEAR consequence classification, "SCE"
indication, and "C1", "C2", and "C3" indications
b Criticality uploaded into PMMS for all equipment and physical
assets
6a [Further prioritisation not required for a Written report available

non-SCEs] Document official report b Date of study and approval stated
c Contents include equipment list, credible Failure Modes and
consequences, PEAR consequence classification, "SCE"
indication, and "C1", "C2", and "C3" indications, and (if
performed) risk ranking indications
d Report approved by TA


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
6b [Further prioritisation required] a SCEs are not considered in this step

-Map risk from RBI and IPF matrix,
according to Figure “4.3:4” b RBI and IPF-covered equipment's risk ranking is set based on
-Risk rank remaining assets based on mapping in Figure "4.3:4"
matrix in Figure “4.3:4”, based on c Likelihood of credible failures stated in "3c" are put, based on
likelihood and consequence in “4” occurrences within the facility, or industry
d Summary of risk rank "1", "2", and "3" are provided
7 Prioritise for e.g. ERS, Maintenance a Action items stated (for subsequent actions)
Procedure Management, QA & QC,
Performance Reporting and Analysis, b Action parties stated (for subsequent actions)
Benchmarking, FFS, RCFA, LLP and
Deviation and Deferral Management c Deadlines stated (for subsequent actions)

Zakaria
Title
P-IPF 0-1 (N) 2 (L) 3 (M) 4 (H) 5 (E)

P-RBI 0-1 2 3 4 5
Severity
1 2 3 4 5
GHSE
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
SCEs “zone” Multiple
People Slight Injury Minor Injury Major Injury Single Fatality
Fatalities
IMPACT Slight Minor Local Major Extensive

Asset
Damage Damage Damage Damage Damage
Localized Massive
Environment Slight Impact Minor Impact Major Impact
Impact Impact
Major Major
Limited Considerable
Reputation Slight Impact National International
Impact Impact
Impact Impact
Happens several
E
D4 E times per year E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Almost Certain
at location
Happens several
D
D3 D times per year D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Likely
in company
LIKELIHOOD
Incidents has
C
D2 C occurred in our C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Possible
company
Heard of
B
D1 B incident in B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
Unlikely
industry
A
Never heard of
D0 A Remotely Likely A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
in industry
to Happen
P-IPF P-RBI GHSE
Figure 4.3:2: GHSE risk matrix, mapping P-RBI and P-IPF risk matrices, and showing risk zone for SCEs.
P-IPF 0-1 (N) 2 (L) 3 (M) 4 (H) 5 (E)

P-RBI 0-1 2 3 4 5
Severity
1 2 3 4 5
GHSE
Multiple
Fatalities

Asset
Localized Massive
Impact Impact
Major Major
Impact Impact
Impact Impact
CRITICALITY 3 3 2 1 1
Figure 4.3:3: Criticality classes based on consequence.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
P-IPF 0-1 (N) 2 (L) 3 (M) 4 (H) 5 (E)

P-RBI 0-1 2 3 4 5
Severity
1 2 3 4 5
GHSE
Multiple
Fatalities

Asset
Localized Massive
Impact Impact
Major Major
Impact Impact
Impact Impact
Happens several
E
D4 E times per year 2 2 1 1 1
Almost Certain
at location
Happens several
D
D3 D times per year 3 2 2 1 1
LIKELIHOOD (ETBE)
Likely
in company
Incidents has
C
D2 C occurred in our 3 3 2 2 1
Possible
company
Heard of
B
D1 B incident in 3 3 3 2 2
Unlikely
industry
A
Never heard of
D0 A Remotely Likely 3 3 3 3 2
in industry
to Happen
P-IPF P-RBI GHSE RISK RANKING
Figure 4.3:4: Risk ranking matrix, mapping P-RBI and P-IPF risk matrices. Note that “E1” is now ranked as
“2”, in-line with GHSE risk matrix.
Internal
Title
Likelihood rating and descriptors as per Group Risk Management Unit

LIKELIHOOD 1 (Remote) 2 (Unlikely) 3 (Likely) 4 (Certain) 5 (Almost Certain)
CATEGORIES Likelihood rating as per GHSE
A B C D E
ETBE 0-0.5 years 0.5-4 years 4-20 years 20-50 years >50 years
Impact rating and descriptors as per Group Risk Management Unit

Insignificant (A) Minor (B) Moderate (C) Major (D) Catastrophic (E)
IMPACT CATEGORIES
Impact rating as per GHSE
1 2 3 4 5
Health, Safety, No impact Minimal impact on HSSE Adverse impact on HSSE Serious impact on HSSE Sustain serous losses on
Security and over short term over medium term HSSE over long term
Environment
Health and Safety First aid injury or slight Medical treatment cases. Permanent partial disability. Permanent total disability. Multiple facilities or multiple
health effects not effecting Lost time Injury or minor Significant health effect Single fatality or major permanent total disability
work performance or health effects effecting (affect performance in the health effects capable of
causing disability work performance such as long term such as irreversible damage with
restriction to work activities prolonged absence from for serious disability of death
or a need to take a few more than 4 days)
People and Envieonment
recovery days
Environment Spill/leak causing legible Spill/leak causing non- Spill/leak causing Spill/leak causing serious Spill/leak causing massive
effects impact to environment. permanent impact to the cumulative environmental damage to the environment contamination to the
environment. impact to the environment requiring 1-3 months of environment requiring >3
Noise air emission, requiring <1 month of rehabilitation. months of rehabilitation
discharge not exceeding Noise air emission rehabilitation.
company or legislative limits discharges not exceeding Noise air emission, Noise, air emission
legislative limit but Noise air emission discharge exceeding discharge resulting in legal
exceeding company limit discharges exceeding legislative limit with possible prosecution with possible
legislative limit prosecution facility shut down
Security Stable environment where There are incidents in the Incidents/events escalating Incident/Events escalating Incident/Events have direct
business operations are area, which may require which requires constant to a point where by impact on the security of
uninterrupted higher security level of security monitoring of business operations are staff
PETRONAS further developments disrupted (injuries/fatalities/operation
staff/dependents and the (corporate crimes)
business operation
Financial loss Asset damage amounting to Asset damage amounting to Asset damage amounting to Asset damage amounting to Asset damage amounting to
<1% of total assets 1-2% of total assets 2-3% of total assets 3-5% of total assets >5% of total assets
(indicative total <USD 10,000 USD 10,000-100,000 USD 100,000-1,000,000 USD 1,000,000-10,000,000 >USD 10,000,000
loss, as reference)
Asset/Shareholder Production days loss Production days loss Production days loss Production days loss Production days loss
equity production amounting to <1 days amounting to 1-4 days amounting to 4-7 days amounting to 7-14 days amounting to >14 days
days
Project cost value Project cost increase Project cost increase Project cost increase Project cost increase Project cost increase
amounting to <5% initial amounting to 5%-10% initial amounting to 10%-20% amounting to 20%-40% amounting to>40% initial
invested value invested value initial invested value initial invested value invested value
Asset
Net Profit Net Profit amounting to <3% Net Profit amounting to <3%-Net Profit amounting to Net Profit amounting to Net Profit amounting to
NPBT 8% NPBT <8%-11% NPBT <11% -17% NPBT <17% NPBT
Cash flow impact Minimal impact on cash Cash flow problems Moderate cash flow Major cash flow problems Imminent cash flow
flow absorbed internally problems problems
Working capital Business as usual, able to Unable sustain working Unable to sustain working Unable to sustain working Unable to sustain working
manage working capital capital requirements for 1 capital requirements for 1-2 capital requirements for 3-4 capital requirements for >1
quarter quarters quarters year
Financial assistance Cash flow impact resolved Impact resolved with Requires once-off funding Requires periodical funding Requires capital
without any financial internal arrangements from PETRONAS holding from PETRONAS holding restructuring within
assistance perspective within the OPU/HCU company or parent/holding company or parent/holding OPU/HCU or may require
company company external funding (financial
institutions)
Image/Reputation/ No impact Minimal impact on Adverse impact to Serious impact to Sustain serious losses to
Brand image/reputation image/reputation over short image/reputation with image/reputation
term adverse publicity over
medium term
Media/Coverage No media coverage/report Minor coverage by media at Media coverage at national Extensive media coverage at Extensive media coverage
on risk incidents national arena arena. national arena. Somewhat international arena
Reputation
coverage at international
Regional/state public arena
concern
Interference of Minimal/no: Local/town public concern. Increased scrutiny/pressure Intense scrutiny that could Immediate shut down of
third parties -conflicts/issue/crisis with from NGO which may lead lead to reprimand/ operation by regulator or
(Government stakeholder Conflicts/Issues/ Crisis with to checks/scrutiny/visit by interference/ intervention of government agencies (local
Agencies, NGOs, -third party involvement one or more internal regulatory bodies or regulators or government or international)
Stakeholders) stakeholders, customer government agencies agencies
suppliers
Management Effort No intervention required Requires OPU's middle Requires OPU's Requires intervention from Requires intervention from
from management (impact management intervention management committee OPU's Business Committee/ Board of Director
absorbed through normal (Manager/Senior Managers) intervention (Senior General Operating Committee
activity) Manager/Head of
Department)
Figure 4.3:4: Probability and consequence descriptors as per PETRONAS Risk Matrix Guideline and GHSE.
Internal
Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
Figure 4.4:1: This section refers to “4.1.7” and “4.3.6” in sub-section “5.2.3” and “Appendix 3b”.
and standards.
• PERSIS user manual.

• PTS 30.27.10.30 – PETRONAS Risk Based Inspection Implementation.
• PTS 14.12.10 – Classification, Verification and Implementation of Instrumented Protective
Functions.
• SAE JA1011/1012 – Evaluation Criteria for RCM Processes and A Guide to the Reliability-
Centered Maintenance Standard.
• SAE JA1739 – Failure Mode and Effects Analysis.
• IEC 60812 – Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis.
• IEC 60300-3-11 – Reliability Centred Maintenance
• Maintenance Steering Group-3.
• PMO2000.
• System Reliability Analysis, LDA and RDA articles by ReliaSoft®.
• SKG 12.3 – ECA and ERS Training, Level 2.

Internal
Zakaria
Title
• SKG 12.3 – Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, Level 2.

• SKG 12.3 – Predictive Maintenance Technique, Level 3.
Major purposes for ERS include the following.
• Develop and review ITPM to meet inherent reliability and statutory requirements.
• Propose for redesign (if required by the process).
ERS is performed for one or combination of the following situations.
• Developing ITPMs for a new facility or plant changes.

• Reviewing existing ITPMs.

• ERS methodology work flow.

• ERS methodology review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
• Testing interval table.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Equipment list, details

Gather existing ITPMs and 4c.1 from
The need to • Equipment criticality failure data MSR
develop/ • Failure Modes
• Failure Mechanisms
review • Failure Causes
equipment
Identify Failure Modes and 4c.2
• Statutory requirements
reliability • Failure data and rates
• Failure, repair and
strategies maintenance costs Mechanisms mitigated by the tasks
• Existing ITPM (ONLY for MSR)
Review several tasks that 4c.3

Set scope, boundaries and time 1 mitigate same Failure Mechanism
frame for each plant and/or
equipment 4c.4
Review tasks intervals
based on statutory
2 requirements or LDA
Establish ERS team and facilitator
Propose for additional tasks 4c.5

(if any) and the intervals
Compile business and equipment 3
based on statutory
data requirements or LDA
RBI or IPF related Yes • Perform RBI study 4b

equipment? • Perform IPF study
• Propose tasks. 4a.6

No
• perform cost-benefit analysis
(if allowed) for ITPM tasks, and
Yes, to • identify parameters and SOLs,
Performing MSR?
“4c.1” where found
No No,
Identify Primary and 4a.1 Suitable ITPM task to redesign
mitigate safety
Secondary Function/s consequence found?
4a.2 Yes
Identify credible Failure Modes
for each function Obtain approval from TA 5
Document official report, including 6

Identify credible Failure 4a.3 acceptance criteria, parameter and
Mechanisms for each Failure Mode SOL findings, redesign
recommendations, and data
acquisition plan
Identify credible Failure 4a.4
Causes for each Failure Mechanism
7
4a.5 Develop ITPM Master Plan and
Describe effects. Schedule, procedures, upload those
• Failure about to occur can be ITPMs in PMMS, update SOL database
detected? (if required), raise MOC for redesign (if
• PEAR consequences of each required), and prepare data acquisition
plan
failure
Internal
ERS methodology review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Set scope, boundaries and time frame a Scope: Priority is given to (by order) "SCE", followed by "C1",
for each plant and/or equipment "C2", and finally "C3".
Priority may also be given to "SCE", followed by risk rank "1", "2",
and finally "3"
b Scope also includes, e.g. entire equipment, or selected
equipment class
c Boundary of each equipment is stated as per, e.g. PMMS
Functional Location, ISO 14224
d Time frame takes into account complexity of equipment and
available resource
e Spare parts and the preservation equipment are included for
ERS development, in a separate list
f Tools (including special tools) required for ITPM tasks, e.g.
ultrasonic thickness measurement tools, torque wrenches,
chain blocks, sling ropes, calibration equipment are included
for ERS development, in a separate list
2 Establish ERS team and facilitator a Facilitator/Team Leader selected

b Operation team present
c Other personnel from relevant discipline (including key
technicians) present


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
3 Compile business and equipment data a Equipment list within the selected criticality, risk rank available
b Equipment/tool list within the scope available

c P&ID available and referred to
d PFD available and referred to
e Engineering drawings are available and referred to
f Failure Mode, Mechanism (a.k.a Damage Mechanism for RBI)
and Cause references are referred to
g Statutory requirements are available and referred to
h Failure rates are available and referred to
i Repair rates are available and referred to
j Failure, repair, and maintenance costs are available
k [For MSR] Existing ITPMs (or, in PMMS language, MPLANs) are
referred to
4b [RBI or IPF related equipment] a [Refer to PTS 30.27.10.30 - PETRONAS Risk Based Inspection
-Perform RBI study (PRBI) Implementation for RBI]
-Perform IPF study [Transfer to RBI team]
b [Refer to PTS 14.12.10 - Classification, Verification and
Implementation of Instrumented Protective Functions for IPF]
[Transfer to IPF team]
4a.1 [Not performing MSR] a Primary function is the main expectation for the equipment, by
Identify Primary and Secondary the user
Function/s b Secondary function is the other lesser expectation for the
equipment, by the user. E.g. noise, appearance, prevention of
minor loss of containment of non hazardous substance


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
4a.1 [Not performing MSR] c Function statements contain:

Identify Primary and Secondary
Function/s Verb + Object + Performance Standard , e.g.
"Transfer powder from A to B at “X” ton/hour"
4a.2 Identify credible Failure Modes for each a Failure Modes are "failure effects that are seen on the failed
function item, that it can't perform the function", e.g. "Fail to start",
"Major Loss of Containment", "Fail to provide emergency
power"
b Failure Modes are linked to respective functions
c Credible Failure Modes are covered, including those stated by
statutory bodies
4a.3 Identify credible Failure Mechanisms for a Failure Mechanisms are, physical, chemical, or other process
each Failure Mode that leads to the Failure Mode, e.g. "Powder sticky due to
moisture more than "Y"%/wt", "Screen clogged due to large
particle accumulation". "Bellow torn due to cyclical load"
b Failure Mechanisms are linked to respective Failure Modes

c Credible Failure Mechanisms are covered, including those
stated by statutory bodies
d Failure Mechanisms that arise from inadequate preservation or
poor tool performance are expanded in respective sheets
4a.4 Identify credible Failure Causes for each a Failure Causes are immediate causes leading to Failure
Failure Mechanism Mechanisms
b Failure Causes are linked to respective Failure Mechanisms
c Credible Failure Causes are covered, including those stated by
statutory bodies
d Failure Causes that arise from inadequate preservation or poor
tool performance are expanded in respective sheets


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
4a.5 Describe effects. a Statement if Failure Cause can be detected, is available

-Failure about to occur can be
detected? b Statement if Failure Mechanism can be detected, is available in
-PEAR consequences of each failure case if "4a.5, "a" is not available
c PEAR consequences are described and quantified
4a.6 -Propose tasks, a Statutory required inspections are proposed for "I" (a.k.a "PSI" in
-perform cost-benefit analysis (if PMMS), with required intervals
allowed) for ITPM tasks, and b Statutory required testing are proposed for "T" (a.k.a "PDM" in
-identify parameters and SOLs, where PMMS), with required intervals
found c Inspections and Testing tasks are preferred rather than PM
tasks, where applicable and cost-effective
d Detectable failures (e.g. through CBM) are proposed for "I"
(a.k.a PDM), if cost effective, and initial intervals are set at 1/3 of
P-F Curve
e Failures with Normal distribution are proposed for "PM"
(scheduled repair or replacement) (a.k.a "PPM" in PMMS), if cost
effective, and intervals are set at < MTBF
f Undetectable and random failures are proposed for "T" (a.k.a
PDM), if cost effective, and intervals are set based on Figure
"4.4:2"
g Acceptance criteria for ITPM tasks are clearly stated
h Run-to-Failure (a.k.a "RTOF" in PMMS) is proposed for low
consequence failures that do no have cost-effective ITPM
i Run-to-failure strategies are registered for general surveillance,

for Failure Mode notification (when happens)
j Parameters and the SOLs are stated

k Data acquisition during operation surveillance and
maintenance (including Equipment Basic Care - EBC) is derived
from this step


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
- [Suitable ITPM task to mitigate safety - Redesign tasks are marked for MOC registration
consequence NOT found] Propose for
redesign
4c.1 [Performing MSR] Gather existing ITPMs a Existing ITPMs taken from PMMS or other sources
and failure data b Failure data taken from PMMS, Plant Information, degradation
analysis (e.g. from Condition Based Monitoring, UTTM readings,
dimension trends), and other failure recording database
4c.2 Identify Failure Modes and Mechanisms a New Failure Modes and Mechanisms from failure data are
mitigated by the tasks added
b Failure Modes are "failure effects that are seen on the failed
item, that it can't perform the function", e.g. "Fail to start",
"Major Loss of Containment", "Fail to provide emergency
power"
c Failure Mechanisms are, physical, chemical, or other process
that leads to the Failure Mode, e.g. "Powder sticky due to
moisture more than "Y"%/wt", "Screen clogged due to large
particle accumulation". "Bellow torn due to cyclical load"
d Failure Mechanisms that arise from inadequate preservation or

poor tool performance are stated, where applicable
e Failure Mechanisms are linked to respective Failure Modes,

including those stated by statutory bodies
4c.3 Review several tasks that mitigate same - Only one task that addresses the Failure Mechanism is selected
Failure Mechanism


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
4c.4 Review tasks intervals based on a Intervals set by statutory bodies are followed
statutory requirements or LDA b [Refer to LDA acceptance criteria for details]
c Detectable failures initial inspection intervals are set at 1/3 of P-
F Curve
d Failures with Normal distribution have preventive maintenance
intervals set at < MTBF
e Undetectable and random failures testing intervals are set
based on Figure "4.4:2"
4c.5 Propose for additional tasks (if any) and a Statutory required inspections are proposed for "I" (a.k.a "PSI" in
the intervals based on statutory PMMS), with required intervals
requirements or LDA b Statutory required testing are proposed for "T" (a.k.a "PDM" in
PMMS), with required intervals
c Inspections and Testing tasks are preferred rather than PM
tasks, where applicable and cost-effective
d Detectable failures are proposed for "I" (a.k.a PDM), if cost
effective, and initial intervals are set at 1/3 of P-F Curve
e Failures with Normal distribution are proposed for "PM"

(scheduled repair or replacement) (a.k.a "PPM" in PMMS), if cost
effective, and intervals are set at < MTBF
f Undetectable and random failures are proposed for "T" (a.k.a
PDM), if cost effective, and intervals are set based on Figure
"4.4:2"


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
4c.5 Propose for additional tasks (if any) and g Acceptance criteria for ITPM tasks are clearly stated
the intervals based on statutory h Run-to-Failure (a.k.a "RTOF" in PMMS) is proposed for low
requirements or LDA consequence failures that do no have cost-effective ITPM
i Run-to-failure strategies are registered for general surveillance,

for Failure Mode notification (when happens)
j Parameters and the SOLs are stated

k Data acquisition during operation surveillance and
maintenance (including EBC) is derived from this step
5 Obtain approval from TA a Statistics of equipment type and class against ITPM
distributions are presented
b Distribution of ITPM against the intervals are presented
c Statistics of SOL recommendations are presented
d Findings from "4a.5" and "4a.6" recommended for MOC
registration
e Changes from existing ITPM, acceptance criteria, data
acquisition requirements, and SOL are stated
f Summary of action items related to spare part
inventory/purchasing are presented
g Statistics of action items against action parties are presented


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
6 Document official report, including a Written report available

acceptance criteria, parameter and SOL b Date of study and approval stated
findings, redesign recommendations, c Contents include equipment list covered, worksheets used for
and data acquisition plan ERS (that includes Failure Modes, Failure Mechanisms, Failure
Causes, task selection, tasks, the acceptance criteria, task
intervals), key data used to determine task and task frequency,
required procedures, SOLs, data acquisition requirements,
design change requirements, and spare part
inventory/purchasing
d Report approved by TA
7 Develop ITPM Master Plan and a Action items stated (for subsequent actions)
Schedule, procedures, upload those b Action parties stated (for subsequent actions)
ITPMs in PMMS, update SOL database (if c Deadlines stated (for subsequent actions)
required), raise MOC for redesign (if d [Refer to "OED-L1-iPOCS-PAM-MTCE" for Planning and
required), and prepare data acquisition Scheduling]
plan [Transfer to Planning and Scheduling team]

Zakaria
Title
Testing Interval = 2MTBF 1 − Required Availability
Testing Interval
MTBF
Required Ratio of Testing

Availability Interval to MTBF
5.0000% 1.9000000
10.0000% 1.8000000
15.0000% 1.7000000
20.0000% 1.6000000
25.0000% 1.5000000
30.0000% 1.4000000
35.0000% 1.3000000
40.0000% 1.2000000
45.0000% 1.1000000
50.0000% 1.0000000
55.0000% 0.9000000
60.0000% 0.8000000
65.0000% 0.7000000
70.0000% 0.6000000
75.0000% 0.5000000
80.0000% 0.4000000
85.0000% 0.3000000
90.0000% 0.2000000
95.0000% 0.1000000
96.0000% 0.0800000
97.0000% 0.0600000
98.0000% 0.0400000
99.0000% 0.0200000
99.1000% 0.0180000
99.2000% 0.0160000
99.3000% 0.0140000
99.4000% 0.0120000
99.5000% 0.0100000
99.6000% 0.0080000
99.7000% 0.0060000
99.8000% 0.0040000
99.9000% 0.0020000
99.9900% 0.0002000
99.9910% 0.0001800
99.9920% 0.0001600
99.9930% 0.0001400
99.9940% 0.0001200
99.9950% 0.0001000
99.9960% 0.0000800
99.9970% 0.0000600
99.9980% 0.0000400
99.9990% 0.0000200
99.9999% 0.0000020
100.000% 0.0000000
Figure 4.4:2: Testing Interval table based on Required Availability and MTBF.
Internal
Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• PTS 18.53.05 – Operating Procedures.

• (detailed engineering documents on operation and maintenance steps).
• (trainings on operation and maintenance steps).
Major purpose for OP and Maintenance Procedure Management includes the following.
• to assure correct operation and maintenance tasks, i.e.: the steps, the Acceptance Criteria,
and actions to correct deficiencies.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
OP and Maintenance Procedure Management is performed for one or combination of the

following situations.
• Developing new procedures.

• Reviewing existing procedures.

• OP and Maintenance Procedure Management work flow.

• OP and Maintenance Procedure Management review checklist (stating requirements for each
step within the work flow).
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Equipment criticality list

Prepare/ • Operation tasks and SOLs
• ITPMs and acceptance
Review criteria
Operation • DOSSIER (including
and operation and
Maintenance maintenance manuals)
procedures • PFD
• P&ID
• Layout drawings
Yes 1a
Operation task? Manage through OP
No
List ITPMs 1b.1

(starting from C1 equipment)
Develop/Review procedures 1b.2

based on ECA
1b.3
Obtain approval
Document procedures and 1b.4

upload into PMMS
Train key maintenance 1b.5

personnel on the procedures
1b.6
Implement procedures and
perform procedure audits
Perform periodic briefing to 1b.7

the personnel
Internal
OP and Maintenance Procedure Management review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1a [Operation task] Manage through OP - [Refer to PTS 18.53.05 - Operating Procedure (OP)]
[Transfer to OP team]
1b.1 [Maintenance task] List ITPMs (starting a Main tasks from ITPMs are listed
from C1 equipment) b Tasks are marked for procedure availability
c Procedure number is stated
d Owner of each task is specified
e Location of procedure is specified
1b.2 Develop/Review procedures based on a Procedures put emphasis on photographs, drawings, and
ECA figures
b Procedures shows key items e.g. symbols, handles, buttons,
keys used in the facility
c Procedures use simple and instructive writing style
d Procedures include acceptance criteria and data acquisition
forms
e Procedures include predefined troubleshooting, corrective
tasks, and (if those failed) the notification actions
f Procedures are drafted by key and experienced technician
g (Optional, as far as practicable) Procedures are translated into

visual aids at site

OP and Maintenance Procedure Management review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1b.3 Obtain approval a "C1" equipment procedures are reviewed and approved by
Technical Authorities
b "C2" equipment procedures are reviewed by Senior Engineers
c "C3" equipment procedures are reviewed by Lead Technicians
1b.4 Document procedures and upload into a Procedure number is stated

PMMS b Approval is available
c Version number is stated
1b.5 Train key maintenance personnel on the a Training is provided after procedure development/review
procedures b Training is provided for new staff that are required to perform a
task
1b.6 Implement procedures and perform a Procedure number is linked to PMMS MPLAN
procedure audits b [Acceptance criteria findings are transferred to Performance
Reporting and Analysis]
c Sample procedures are audited on yearly basis (new sample
every year), based on criticality
[Refer to sample size tables in Figure "4.6:2", "4.6:3", and "4.6:4"]
d Audit findings (non-conformance and observations for

improvements) are recorded for closure
e Action items from audit findings are tracked
1b.7 Perform periodic briefing to the - Audit findings are briefed after completion
personnel

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.

• Generic graphical methods to perform trend and Pareto analysis.
• ISO 14224 – Collection and Exchange of Reliability and Maintenance Data for Equipment.
• IEC 60300-3-2 – Collection of Dependability Data from the Field.
• IEC 60300-3-5 – Reliability Test Conditions and Statistical Test Principles.
• IEC 61703:2001 – Mathematical Expressions for Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and
Maintenance Support Terms.
• System Reliability Analysis, LDA, RDA, Reliability Growth Analysis (RGA), and Degradation
Analysis articles by ReliaSoft®.
• IEC 60300-10 – Maintainability.
• Jennings, C.L. (Motorola, Inc.) and Montgomery, D.C. (Arizona State University), “Statistical
methods in process monitoring and control”, undated.
• Bhattacharya, J., “Monitoring belt conveyor performed by CUSUM control method”, undated.
• Ryan, T.P., Modern Engineering Statistics, Wiley-Interscience (2007), pp 357-358.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
• Juran, J.M. and Godfrey, A.B., Juran’s Quality Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 5th Ed. (1999), pp
45.17-45.20.
• Statistical Process Control (SPC) notes from John Wiley, MoreSteam.com®,
sixsigmatraining.org, and Quality America Inc.
• Skill Group (SKG) 12.3 – Introduction to Reliability Management and Engineering, Level 1.
• SKG 12.3 – Maintenance Engineering, Level 3.
• Software trainings by software providers, e.g. ReliaSoft® or DNV.GL.
Major purposes for Performance Reporting and Analysis include the following.
• Serves as an input to failure prediction and prevention.

• Analysis of performance
• Reporting of performance.
The said performance should be converted into a suitable reporting format. The items that
should be analysed and reported are stated in “Scope”.
Performance Reporting and Analysis is performed for the following situations.
• Checking improvements in MTBF,

• checking trends in e.g., Availability, failure rates, MTBF, MTR, cost, procedure and schedule
compliance, and work order priorities,
• checking Incipient Failures that are increasing in an operating equipment,
• implementing decision criteria for incident reporting (prior to RCFA),
• characterising failures and repairs using statistical methods,
• setting minimum spare parts,
• prioritising actions using Pareto and risk assessment,
• checking and reporting a parameter, against a pre-defined acceptance criteria,
• checking data quality (e.g. PMMS), and
• selecting sample size for audits, hypothesis testing and statistical studies.

Internal
Zakaria
Title
• Performance Reporting and Analysis work flow.

• Performance Reporting and Analysis review checklist (stating requirements for each step
within the work flow).
• Data Quality Control work flow.
• Data Quality Control review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work
flow).
• Product Quality Control work flow.
• Product Quality Control review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the
work flow).
• Sample sizing tables (population known, population estimated, and population
independent.
• Pareto and/or Risk Assessment work flow.
• Pareto and/or Risk Assessment review checklist (stating requirements for each step within
the work flow).
• LDA and/or RDA work flow.
• LDA and/or RDA review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
• Trend Test and Crow-AMSAA software (Beta version):
https://axis2.petronas.com/Rel_Int_Mgm_Sys/Shared%20Documents/[BETA%20VERSIO
N]%20REG-150511-TREND%20TEST%20and%20CROW-AMSAA-V2-MJKNA.xlsx
• LDA and RDA results interpretation table.

• Maintainability Engineering analysis work flow.
• Maintainability Engineering analysis review checklist (stating requirements for each step
within the work flow).
• Maintainability Engineering analysis results interpretation table.
• Assessing improvement/performance losses/degradation work flow.
• Assessing improvement/performance losses/degradation review checklist (stating
requirements for each step within the work flow).
• CUSUM, SPC, or Degradation Analysis, or trend analysis work flows.
• CUSUM, SPC, or Degradation Analysis, or trend analysis review checklist (stating
requirements for each step within the work flow)s.
• A2, D3, and D4 constants table.
• RGA work flow.
• RGA review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Facility in Actual facility’s operation

operation/ and maintenance
request for performance (including
Due spare part inventory
Diligence levels)
1
Checking data or Yes Perform data or
product quality? product/service QC
No
2
Prioritising Yes Perform Pareto and/or risk
actions? assessment
No
3
Characterising failures Yes
and setting minimum Perform LDA and/or RDA
spare part?
No
4
Characterising Yes Perform Maintainability
repairs? Engineering analysis
No
5
Assessing improvement/ Yes Assess deficiency, perform
performance losses/ CUSUM analysis, SPC,
degradation?
trend analysis, and/or RGA
No
6
• Determine analysis
objective/s,
• select suitable process,
• analyse and advise for
decision making
Internal
Performance Reporting and Analysis review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 [Checking data or product quality] - [Refer to Data and Product QC acceptance criteria for details]
Perform data or product/service QC
2 [Prioritising actions] Perform Pareto - [Refer to Pareto and/or Risk Assessment acceptance criteria for
and/or risk assessment details]
3 [Characterising failures and setting - [Refer to RDA and/or LDA acceptance criteria for details]
minimum spare part] Perform LDA
and/or RDA
4 [Characterising repairs] Perform - [Refer to Maintainability Engineering acceptance criteria for

Maintainability Engineering analysis details]
5 [Assessing improvement/performance - [Refer to Assessing improvement/performance

losses/degradation] losses/degradation acceptance criteria for details]
Assess deficiency, perform CUSUM
analysis, SPC, trend analysis, and/or RGA
6 [Assessing performance, other than a Objective/s clearly stated

stated from "1" to "5"] b Required methodology not covered from "1" to "5"
-Determine analysis objective/s, c Assessment methodology stated and proposed
-select suitable process, d Analysis performed and recommendations provided
-analyse and advise for decision making e Approved action items stated (for subsequent actions)
f Action parties stated (for subsequent actions)
g Deadlines stated (for subsequent actions)

Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Equipment data from

Perform
PMMS and other
data QC
sources
1a.1
Determine analysis objective
Identify data to be analysed, e.g.: 1a.2

• Short Text or event description,
• Object Part,
• Damage Code,
• Cause Code,
• Start and End Dates,
• costs
Download/Obtain data 1a.3
1a.4
Select sample size to be evaluated
based on data context, and sample
size tables in Figure “4.6:2”, “4.6:3a”,
“4.6:3b”, “4.6:3c”, and “4.6:4”.
Evaluate data accuracy based 1a.5

on actual occurrence, through
interviews
1a.6
Identify gaps
1a.7
Recommend for improvements
Review Present findings 1a.8
1a.9
Document official report
1a.10
Track action items
Internal
Data Quality Control review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1a.1 Determine analysis objective - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
outcomes from the analysis
1a.2 Identify data to be analysed, e.g.: a Data to be analysed is stated

-Short Text or event description,
-Object Part, b Date range/s is/are stated (e.g. to check for improvement or
-Damage Code, changes), where applicable
-Cause Code,
c Source/s of data collection is/are stated
-Start and End Dates,
-costs
1a.3 Download/Obtain data - Data obtained from identified source/s
1a.4 Select sample size to be evaluated a Figure "4.6:2" is used when the data population is known
based on data context, and sample size b Figure "4.6:3a", “4.6:3b”, and “4.6:3c” is used when the data
tables in Figure "4.6:2", "4.6:3a", “4.6:3b”, population is estimated
“4.6:3c”, and "4.6:4" c Figure "4.6:4" is used when the data population does not
matter, and percentage of uncertainty does matter


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1a.5 Evaluate data accuracy based on actual a Interviews conducted with right personnel (e.g. personnel that
occurrence, through interviews entered the data or personnel that understand the context of
the data)
b Correct Equipment Number and Functional Location are stated
c Short Text follows Failure Mode convention as per ISO 14224
d Short Text identifies Functional Location or Equipment Number

for non-tagged equipment
e Short Text writing convention is consistent
f Object Part selected represents the defective component, and
related to the Short Text
g Object Part selected consistently from duplicating options of
the drop-down list
h Damage Code follows Failure Mechanism convention as per
ISO 14224, and related to the Object Part and Short Text
i Damage Code selected consistently from duplicating options

of the drop-down list
j Cause Code is related to the Damage Code
k Cause Code selected consistently from duplicating options of
the drop-down list
l Failure date is the Malfunction Start Date
l Failure end date is the Malfunction End Date
m Costs incurred include internal manpower, external services,
and spare parts
n Production loss and other consequential losses are stated for
the failure, in a consistent field or database


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1a.6 Identify gaps a Gaps are identified according to assessed element

b Summary of gaps is presented accordingly
1a.7 Recommend for improvements - Recommendation/s is/are specific
1a.8 Present findings a Analysis objective/s is/are stated

b Summary of finding/s (including gap/s) is/are stated
c Comparison with previous finding/s is/are made
d Summary of recommendation/s, with action party/ies is/are
stated
1a.9 Document official report a Presentation/Written report prepared separately, or together

with other related reports
b Contents include items from "1a.8"
c Date of report is available
d Report is reviewed
1a.10 Track action items a Action items stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
b Action parties stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
c Deadlines stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
d Status of action items are tracked

Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Perform
Product/Service
product/
specifications
service QC
1b.1
Determine analysis objective
1b.2
Identify specifications to be
analysed, e.g.:
• dimensions,
• weight,
• time, and
• tolerance
Obtain data 1b.3
1b.4
Select sample size to be evaluated
based on data context, and sample
size tables in Figure “4.6:2”, “4.6:3a”,
“4.6:3b”, “4.6:3c”, and “4.6:4”.
Evaluate specification accuracy1b.5

based on predefined acceptance
criteria
1b.6
Identify gaps
1b.7
Recommend for improvements
Review Present findings 1b.8
1b.9
1b.10
Track action items
Internal
Product Quality Control review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1b.1 Determine analysis objective - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
1b.2 Identify specifications to be analysed a Data to be analysed is stated

e.g.:
-dimensions, b Date range/s is/are stated (e.g. to check for improvement or
-weight, changes), where applicable
-time, and c Source/s of data collection is/are stated
-tolerance
1b.3 Obtain data - Data obtained from identified source/s
1b.4 Select sample size to be evaluated a Figure "4.6:2" is used when the data population is known
based on data context, and sample size b Figure "4.6:3a", “4.6:3b”, and “4.6:3c” is used when the data
tables in Figure "4.6:2", "4.6:3a", “4.6:3b”, population is estimated
“4.6:3c”, and "4.6:4" c Figure "4.6:4" is used when the data population does not
matter, and percentage of uncertainty does matter

Product Quality Control review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1b.5 Evaluate measurement accuracy based a Interviews conducted with right personnel (e.g. personnel that
on predefined acceptance criteria entered the data or personnel that understand the context of
the data)
b Measurements, e.g. response time, UTTM readings, vibration
readings, thermal imaging readings, RV testing data, SIF testing
data, equipment performance data conforms to the respective
acceptance criteria
1b.6 Identify gaps a Gaps are identified according to assessed element

b Summary of gaps is presented accordingly
1b.7 Recommend for improvements - Recommendation/s is/are specific
1b.8 Present findings a Analysis objective/s is/are stated

b Summary of finding/s (including gap/s) is/are stated
stated
1b.9 Document official report a Presentation/Written report prepared separately, or together

b Contents include items from "1b.8"
1b.10 Track action items a Action items stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)

Zakaria
Title
Confidence Level Confidence Level

90% 95%
ME ME
N 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% N 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1%
10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
20 16 17 17 18 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 20 20
30 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 29 30 30 30 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 30
40 26 28 30 32 34 35 37 39 40 40 40 29 31 32 34 35 37 38 39 40 40
50 29 32 35 37 40 43 45 47 49 50 50 34 36 38 40 43 45 47 48 49 50
60 33 36 39 43 46 50 53 56 58 60 60 38 41 44 47 50 53 55 57 59 60
70 35 39 43 47 52 56 61 65 68 70 70 41 45 48 52 56 60 63 66 69 70
80 37 42 46 51 57 62 68 73 77 80 80 44 49 53 58 62 67 71 75 78 80
90 39 44 49 55 62 68 75 81 86 89 90 47 52 57 62 68 74 79 84 87 90
100 41 46 52 59 66 74 82 89 95 99 100 50 55 61 67 73 80 86 92 97 99
1000 64 78 96 122 159 214 298 430 629 872 1000 88 107 131 165 211 278 376 517 707 906
1100 64 78 97 123 161 218 306 447 667 947 1100 89 108 133 167 215 285 389 542 755 988
1200 65 79 98 124 163 221 313 463 703 1020 1200 89 108 134 169 219 292 401 566 801 1067
1300 65 79 98 125 165 225 320 477 736 1091 1300 90 109 135 171 222 297 411 587 844 1146
1400 65 79 99 126 166 227 325 490 767 1161 1400 90 110 136 173 225 302 421 606 885 1222
1500 65 80 99 127 168 230 330 501 796 1228 1500 91 110 137 174 227 306 429 624 924 1298
1600 65 80 100 128 169 232 335 512 823 1295 1600 91 111 138 175 229 310 437 641 961 1372
1700 66 80 100 128 170 234 339 522 848 1359 1700 91 111 138 176 231 314 444 656 996 1445
1800 66 80 100 129 171 236 343 531 873 1422 1800 92 112 139 177 233 317 451 671 1029 1517
1900 66 81 101 129 172 237 346 539 895 1484 1900 92 112 140 178 235 320 457 684 1061 1587
2000 66 81 101 130 172 239 350 547 917 1544 2000 92 112 140 179 236 323 462 697 1092 1656
10000 68 83 105 137 185 264 406 700 1447 4036 10000 96 118 148 193 260 370 567 965 1937 4900
11000 68 83 105 137 185 265 408 704 1466 4189 11000 96 118 149 193 261 372 570 973 1971 5128
12000 68 83 105 137 186 265 409 708 1483 4326 12000 96 118 149 193 261 373 572 981 2001 5335
13000 68 83 105 137 186 266 410 711 1497 4450 13000 96 118 149 194 262 374 574 987 2027 5524
14000 68 84 105 137 186 266 411 714 1509 4561 14000 96 118 149 194 262 374 576 992 2050 5697
15000 68 84 105 137 186 266 412 716 1520 4662 15000 96 118 149 194 263 375 578 997 2070 5856
16000 68 84 105 137 186 267 412 718 1530 4755 16000 96 118 149 194 263 376 579 1001 2088 6002
17000 68 84 106 137 186 267 413 720 1539 4839 17000 96 118 149 194 263 376 580 1005 2104 6138
18000 68 84 106 137 186 267 414 722 1546 4917 18000 96 118 149 194 263 377 581 1008 2119 6263
19000 68 84 106 138 187 267 414 723 1553 4989 19000 96 118 149 195 264 377 582 1011 2132 6380
20000 68 84 106 138 187 267 415 725 1560 5055 20000 96 118 149 195 264 377 583 1014 2144 6489
100000 68 84 106 138 188 270 421 746 1663 6336 100000 96 119 150 196 267 383 597 1056 2345 8763
110000 68 84 106 138 188 270 422 747 1666 6373 110000 96 119 150 196 267 383 597 1057 2350 8833
120000 68 84 106 138 188 270 422 747 1668 6404 120000 96 119 150 196 267 383 598 1058 2354 8893
130000 68 84 106 138 188 270 422 748 1670 6430 130000 96 119 150 196 267 384 598 1059 2358 8944
140000 68 84 106 138 188 271 422 748 1671 6453 140000 96 119 150 196 267 384 598 1060 2361 8988
150000 68 84 106 138 188 271 422 748 1673 6473 150000 96 119 150 196 267 384 598 1060 2364 9026
160000 68 84 106 138 188 271 422 749 1674 6490 160000 96 119 150 196 267 384 598 1061 2366 9060
170000 68 84 106 138 188 271 422 749 1675 6506 170000 96 119 150 196 267 384 599 1061 2368 9091
180000 68 84 106 138 188 271 422 749 1676 6519 180000 96 119 150 196 267 384 599 1061 2370 9118
190000 68 84 106 138 188 271 422 749 1677 6532 190000 96 119 150 196 267 384 599 1062 2371 9142
200000 68 84 106 138 188 271 422 749 1677 6543 200000 96 119 150 196 267 384 599 1062 2373 9164
1000000 68 84 106 139 188 271 423 751 1689 6719 1000000 97 119 151 196 267 384 600 1066 2396 9513
χ2 NP 1−P
n=
ME2 N−1 + χ2 P 1−P
Symbol Definition
n Sample size.
χ2 Chi-Square value, at the confidence level, at 1
degree of freedom.
N Population size.
P Populatipon proportion. Assume "0.5" for
conservative estimate.
ME Margin of Error, in %.
Figure 4.6:2: Sample sizing for known population N.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
s Confidence Level s Confidence Level

10% 90% 20% 90%
ME ME
N' 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% N' 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1%
10 2 3 3 4 6 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
20 2 3 3 4 5 8 11 20 20 20 20 8 9 11 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
30 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 20 30 30 30 7 9 11 15 20 28 30 30 30 30
40 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 40 40 40 7 9 11 14 19 28 40 40 40 40
50 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 43 50 50 7 9 11 14 19 27 43 50 50 50
60 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 60 60 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 60 60 60
70 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 70 70 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 70 70 70
80 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 80 80 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 75 80 80
90 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 90 90 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 75 90 90
100 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 100 100 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 100 100
1000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1100 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1100 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1200 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1200 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1300 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1300 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1400 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1400 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1500 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1500 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1600 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1600 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1700 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1700 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1800 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1800 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
1900 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1900 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
2000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 2000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
10000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 10000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
11000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 11000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
12000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 12000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
13000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 13000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
14000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 14000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
15000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 15000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
16000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 16000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
17000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 17000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 74 165 658
18000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 18000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
19000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 19000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
20000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 20000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
100000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 100000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
110000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 110000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
120000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 120000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
130000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 130000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
140000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 140000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
150000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 150000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
160000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 160000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
170000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 170000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
180000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 180000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
190000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 190000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
200000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 200000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
1000000 2 3 3 4 5 7 11 19 42 165 1000000 7 9 11 14 19 27 42 73 165 657
Figure 4.6:3a: Sample sizing for estimated population N’. s, 10% and 20%.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
s Confidence Level s Confidence Level

30% 90% 40% 90%
ME ME
N' 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% N' 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1%
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
20 16 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
30 16 20 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
40 16 19 24 32 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 28 34 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
50 16 19 24 31 43 50 50 50 50 50 50 27 34 43 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
60 16 19 24 31 42 60 60 60 60 60 60 27 34 42 55 60 60 60 60 60 60
70 16 19 24 31 42 61 70 70 70 70 70 27 34 42 55 70 70 70 70 70 70
80 16 19 24 31 42 61 80 80 80 80 80 27 33 42 55 75 80 80 80 80 80
90 16 19 24 31 42 61 90 90 90 90 90 27 33 42 55 75 90 90 90 90 90
100 15 19 24 31 42 60 94 100 100 100 100 27 33 42 55 74 100 100 100 100 100
1000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 371 1000 1000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1000
1100 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1100 1100 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1100
1200 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1200 1200 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1200
1300 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1300 1300 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1300
1400 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1400 1400 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1400
1500 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1480 1500 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1500
1600 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1480 1600 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1600
1700 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1480 1700 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1700
1800 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1480 1800 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1800
1900 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1480 1900 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 1900
2000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1480 2000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2000
10000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 10000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
11000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 11000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
12000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 12000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
13000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 13000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
14000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 14000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
15000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 15000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
16000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 16000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
17000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 17000 27 33 42 54 74 106 165 293 658 2629
18000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 18000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
19000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 19000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
20000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 20000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
100000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 100000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
110000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 110000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
120000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 120000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
130000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 130000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
140000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 140000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
150000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 150000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
160000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 160000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
170000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 170000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
180000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 180000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
190000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 190000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
200000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 200000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
1000000 15 19 24 31 42 60 93 165 370 1479 1000000 27 33 42 54 73 106 165 292 657 2628
Figure 4.6:3b: Sample sizing for estimated population N’. s, 30% and 40%.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
s Confidence Level
50% 90%
ME
N' 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1%
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
50 43 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
60 42 52 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
70 42 52 66 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
80 42 52 66 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
90 42 52 66 86 90 90 90 90 90 90
100 42 52 66 85 100 100 100 100 100 100
1000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1000 1000
1100 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1100
1200 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1200
1300 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1300
1400 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1400
1500 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1500
1600 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1600
1700 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1700
1800 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1800
1900 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 1900
2000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1028 2000
10000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
11000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
12000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
13000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
14000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
15000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
16000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
17000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
18000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
19000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
20000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4107
100000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
110000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
120000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
130000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
140000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
150000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
160000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
170000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
180000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
190000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
200000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
1000000 42 51 65 84 115 165 257 457 1027 4106
ts 2
n=
ME
Symbol Definition
n Sample size.
t Student-T's distribution value, at specified
confidence level, and ESTIMATED population
(N ')
s Standard deviation. Normally assumed, based
on initial feedback.
Figure 4.6:3c: Sample sizing for estimated population N’. s, 50%.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
Confidence Level Confidence Level

90% 95%
ME ME
p 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% p 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1%
5% 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 7 16 62 5% 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 10 22 87
10% 3 3 4 5 7 9 14 25 55 220 10% 4 4 5 7 9 13 20 35 78 312
15% 5 6 7 9 13 18 28 49 110 440 15% 7 8 10 13 18 25 40 70 157 625
20% 7 9 11 15 20 28 44 77 174 693 20% 10 13 16 21 28 40 62 110 246 984
25% 10 12 15 20 27 39 60 106 238 952 25% 14 17 22 28 38 55 85 151 338 1351
30% 12 15 19 25 34 48 75 133 299 1194 30% 17 21 27 35 48 68 106 189 424 1695
35% 15 18 22 29 39 57 88 156 351 1401 35% 20 25 32 41 56 80 125 221 498 1989
40% 16 20 25 32 44 63 98 174 390 1559 40% 23 28 35 46 62 89 139 246 554 2213
45% 17 21 26 34 47 67 104 185 415 1658 45% 24 30 37 49 66 95 148 262 589 2354
50% 17 21 27 35 47 68 106 188 423 1691 50% 25 30 38 49 67 97 151 267 601 2401
55% 17 21 26 34 47 67 104 185 415 1658 55% 24 30 37 49 66 95 148 262 589 2354
60% 16 20 25 32 44 63 98 174 390 1559 60% 23 28 35 46 62 89 139 246 554 2213
65% 15 18 22 29 39 57 88 156 351 1401 65% 20 25 32 41 56 80 125 221 498 1989
70% 12 15 19 25 34 48 75 133 299 1194 70% 17 21 27 35 48 68 106 189 424 1695
75% 10 12 15 20 27 39 60 106 238 952 75% 14 17 22 28 38 55 85 151 338 1351
80% 7 9 11 15 20 28 44 77 174 693 80% 10 13 16 21 28 40 62 110 246 984
85% 5 6 7 9 13 18 28 49 110 440 85% 7 8 10 13 18 25 40 70 157 625
90% 3 3 4 5 7 9 14 25 55 220 90% 4 4 5 7 9 13 20 35 78 312
95% 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 7 16 62 95% 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 10 22 87
Symbol Definition
n Sample size.
z z-score (of Normal distribution) at stated
Confidence Level.
p� Estimated proportion to fall within a
hypothesis, e.g. 30%, 50% or p % wrong.
50% is conservative.
Figure 4.6:4: Sample sizing, independent of population.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Performance
(including
The need operation and
to maintenance
prioritize performance) data
• Failure data
actions • Repair data
• Cost data
2.1
Determine analysis objective/s
2.2
Identify data to be analysed, based
on the objective/s.
• Failure,
• performance data,
• repair, and/or
• cost
Obtain data 2.3
Pareto Pareto/Risk Risk Assessment

Assessment?
2.4a.1
Group data where appropriate, e.g.
based on same Failure Mode or cost
element
2.4a.2
Sort data in descending order
2.4a.3 2.4b.1
Assess probability and consequence
Produce Pareto chart (sorted bar
of failure, repair or cost becoming
graph with cumulative % line)
worse
Present findings and 2.5

Review Review
recommendations on focus areas
2.6
2.7
Track action items
Internal
Pareto Analysis and/or Risk Assessment review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
2.1 Determine analysis objective/s - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
2.2 Identify data to be analysed, based on a Data to be analysed is stated

the objective/s. b Date range/s is/are stated (e.g. to check for improvement or
-Failure, changes), where applicable
-performance data, c Current state of failure (which include defects), repair, or cost,
-repair, and/or is stated
-cost d Source/s of data collection is/are stated
2.3 Obtain data - Data obtained from identified source/s
2.4a.1 [Pareto] Group data where appropriate, - Data is not analysed based on mixed elements, e.g. Failure
e.g. based on same Failure Mode or cost Mode is not analysed with Failure Mechanism in single Pareto
element chart
2.4a.2 Sort data in descending order a Number of occurrences within same item/class is counted
b Item/class is sorted in descending order, based on number of
occurrences
2.4a.3 Produce Pareto chart (sorted bar graph a Number of occurrences is put on "primary-y-axis"
with cumulative % line) b Cumulative % line, based on number of occurrences is put on
"secondary-y-axis"
c Item/class is put on "x-axis"
d Vertical line at 80% cumulative chart is placed to identify top
items/classes to focus on

Pareto Analysis and/or Risk Assessment review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
2.4b.1 [Risk Assessment] Assess probability and a Risk matrix used has consequence class mapped to GHSE
consequence of failure, repair or cost b Risk matrix used has probability-of-escalation on the likelihood
becoming worse scale
c Risk number is achieved through probability and consequence
assessment
2.5 Present findings and recommendations a Analysis objective/s is/are stated

on focus area b Summary of finding/s is/are stated
stated
2.6 Document official report a Presentation/Written report prepared separately, or together

b Contents include items from "2.5"
2.7 Track action Items a Action items stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)

Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Corrected Time-to- 3.3a

Failure (TTF) data from: Perform Exploratory Data Analysis
The need • PMMS,
to perform • Degradation
LDA and/or Analysis 3.3b
• log books, Order TTF chronologically,
RDA • interviews, and
omitting censored data, and
test for Renewal assumption
• other sources using:
• Graphical Test and
• Mann Test
Define objective and scope 3.1
No Renewal Process
valid?
No Combine homogeneous
data?
[Jump to “3.3b” if no data]
Yes
3.4a.1
Yes Input data (including censored data)
Treat data separately 3.2b
Fit distribution based on: 3.4a.2

3.2a • goodness of fit and
Combine data
• Likelihood Value
Obtain failure distribution 3.4a.3

parameters
Yes
Data ≥ 5?
Interpret results 3.5
No
Apply simple average if < 5. 3.3b
3.6
• Use in RAM exercise and/or make
to “3.4a.3” • Use elicitation method and
assume distribution if NO appropriate recommendations
DATA
Present findings 3.7

Test against Homogeneous 3.4b
Poisson Process (HPP), using
Laplace Test 3.8
Document official report here or in
RAM
Yes
HPP valid? 3.9
Track action items here or in
RAM
No
3.4b.a.1 3.4b.a.2
Apply Non-Homogeneous Obtain model parameters
Poisson Process (NHPP) using Maximum Likelihood
(power law) Estimator (MLE)
Apply Exponential 3.4b.b

distribution
Internal
LDA and/or RDA review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
3.1 Determine objective and scope - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
3.2a [Combine homogeneous data] a Equipment "A", "B" and so on, shall be of same class and type,
Combine data similar (close enough) operating ranges, and similar product
handled
b Individual TTFs are calculated from one failure date, to another,
excluding major downtimes
c TTF data from an equipment "A" is grouped with TTF data from
equipment "B", onwards
d Suspended data are included
3.2b [Do not combine homogeneous data, a Individual TTFs are calculated from one failure date, to another,
OR Non-homogeneous data] Treat data excluding major downtimes
separately b Suspended data are included
3.3a Perform Exploratory Data Analysis a Outliers are investigated for validity and extraordinary cases,
and removed if not representative
b Slope changes in Cumulative Failures against Cumulative TTF
graph are investigated
c Analysis start date is advanced if the slope changes (in "3.3a",
"b") are due to design or operating changes
d Analysis start date is maintained as per obtained data if the
slope changes (in "3.3a", "b") are due to aging
3.3b [Data ≥ 5] a Graphical and Mann Test as per hyperlink in "Appendix 4.6" is
Order TTF chronologically, omitting used
censored data, and test for Renewal
assumption using: b Data is input chronologically
-Graphical Test and
-Mann Test


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
3.4a.1 [Renewal Process valid] Input data - Complete failure data and censored data are input into LDA
(including censored data) software
3.4a.2 Fit distribution based on: a Higher end distributions, e.g. Gamma, Generalised-Gamma,
-goodness of fit and Gumbell, Logistic, and Log-Logistic are avoided
-Likelihood Value b Selected distribution has goodness of fit closest to "1", and
highest Likelihood Value
c Selected distribution can be technically interpreted, and makes
engineering sense, e.g. 2P-Exponential and 3P-Weibull with
negative γ , can be justified
3.4b [Renewal Process not valid] Test against a Laplace Test as per hyperlink in "Appendix 4.6" is used
HPP, using Laplace Test d Same data set as be "3.3b" is used
c Correct analysis output based on failure, or time termination is
selected
3.4b.b [HPP valid] Apply Exponential a Exponential distribution is used

distribution. b Complete failure data and censored data are input into LDA
software
3.3b [Data < 5, or no data] a Simple average MTBF takes:

-Apply simple average if < 5.
-Use elicitation method and assume Total run-time divided into Total number of failures
distribution if NO DATA b Exponential distribution is set for simple average, with:
MTBF is set as η , and β as "1"

c Elicitation method considers 5% (1 in 20, or earliest), and 95%
(19 out of 20, or common) TTF
d Assumed distribution for elicitation method is supplemented
with engineering judgement
e Parameter experimenter from software is used to obtain
distribution parameters for elicitation method


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
3.4a.3 Obtain failure distribution parameters a 1P-Exponential distribution parameter. λ and/or MTBF
b 2P-Exponential distribution parameters. γ and λ , and/or MTBF
c 2P-Weibull distribution parameters. η , and β

d 3P-Weibull distribution parameters. γ , η , and β
e Normal distribution parameters. μ and σ
f Lognormal distribution parameters. Log-μ and Log-σ
3.4b.a.1 [HPP not valid] Apply NHPP (power law). a Used Crow-AMSAA [refer to core RGA steps] or General
Renewal Process (GRP) (using software)
b Line goodness of fit is checked graphically, for GRP
3.4b.a.2 Obtain failure parameters using a Crow-AMSAA parameters. η , β , and Restoration Factor (RF, i.e.
Maximum Likelihood Estimator p = 1 - q ) of "0"
b GRP parameters. η , β , and Restoration Factor (RF, i.e. p = 1 -
q ) between "0" and "1", inclusive
3.5 Interpret results - Results are interpreted according to Figure "4.6:5a"
3.6 Use in RAM exercise and/or make a Results transferred to RAM

appropriate recommendations b Results are interpreted according to Figure "4.6.5a" [may also
be applicable for RAM exercise]
3.7 Present findings a Findings are transferred to RAM

b Analysis objective/s and scope are stated
c Summary of finding/s is/are stated
d Specific recommendations on equipment reliability (e.g. Failure
Modes to watch for) are stated
e Generic recommendations are avoided, or stated on as-need


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
3.8 Document official report here or in RAM a Findings are transferred to RAM
b Presentation report available
c Written report available
d Title of study stated
e Date of study and approval stated
f Contents include executive summary, assumptions, data
sources, the results, and recommendations as minimum
g Report approved
3.9 Track action items here or in RAM a Action items tracked post RAM exercise
b Action items stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
c Action parties stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
d Deadlines stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
e Status of action items are tracked

Title
Distribution Shape Parameter Characteristic or Location Inference for Failure

or analysis or Standard Mean Life or Parameter
Deviation Failure Rate
2-parameter β η - 1. β < 1. Infant mortality Failure where some Failures happen very
Weibull early in equipment life. Condition-monitoring or testing would be
beneficial. Troubleshooting would reveal the causes of early
failures
2. β ~ 1. Random Failure. Condition-monitoring or testing would
be beneficial. Troubleshooting would reveal the various causes for
3-parameter β η γ the failures. Exponential distribution has β = 1 and η = MTTF = 1/λ
Weibull 3. 2 ~> β ~> 1. Early aging. Failures are more predictable than
random. Condition-monitoring or testing would still be beneficial.
Troubleshooting would reveal the causes for large standard
deviation
4. β >> 2. Advanced aging. Failures are highly predictable at “t = η ”.
1-parameter - λ - Repairs or replacement should be performed before “t = η ”. Poor
Exponential η compared to target or benchmark would require investigation. β
~ 3.2 implies Normal Distribution
5. η is the time when probability of Failure is 63.2%
6.γ is the Failure-free time, i.e. initial time when no Failure is
expected. No intervention is required during this period, if the
2-parameter - λ γ value is "+". Troubleshooting may be required if the value is "-"
Exponential 7. Spare parts are kept/Spare part delivery by vendors are secured
based on expected number of failures per year (using software),
and delivery times
Normal σ μ - 1. μ is the mean life i.e. probability of Failure is 50%

2. σ is the standard deviation. Larger values indicate bigger spread,
and less predictable results. Time-based repairs or replacement
before or much before (quantum depending on standard
deviation) “t = η ”. Troubleshooting would reveal the causes for
Lognormal Log-σ Log-μ - large standard deviation and poor mean-life
3. Values for “Lognormal” will appear smaller due to log-value
4. Spare parts are kept/Spare part delivery by vendors are secured
based on expected number of failures per year (using software),
and delivery times
Crow-AMSAA β η - 1. This is not a distribution. Restoration quality is "as-bad-as old"
(p = 0) for Crow-AMSAA and GRP, or "minimal repair" (0 < p < 1)
for GRP
2. η is the time when probability of Failure is 63.2%
3. β is different to Weibull, where subsequent Time-to-Failure will
be adjusted according to: β √(Previous TTF)
4. Therefore, β > 1 means the Failure will happen earlier than
previous interval – not favourable. Troubleshooting would reveal
GRP
the causes for poor β and MTBF
5. Current β value that is smaller than previous one indicates
positive reliability growth
6. Spare parts are kept/Spare part delivery by vendors are secured
based on expected number of failures per year, and delivery times
Figure 4.6:5a: LDA and RDA results interpretation table.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Corrected Time-to- 4.3a.1

The need to
Perform Exploratory Data Analysis
Repair (TTR) data
perform
Maintainability
from:
Engineering • log books,
analysis • interviews, and
• PMMS
Define objective and scope 4.1
No Combine homogeneous
data?
[Jump to “4.3b” if no data]
4.3a.2
Yes Input data
Treat data separately 4.2b
Fit distribution based on: 4.3a.3

4.2a • goodness of fit and
Combine data
• Likelihood Value
Obtain repair distribution 4.3a.4

parameters
Yes
Data ≥ 5?
Interpret results 4.4
No
4.5
• Apply simple average if < 5. 4.3b Use in RAM and/or make
to “4.3a.3” • Use elicitation method and
assume distribution if NO appropriate recommendations
DATA
Present findings 4.6
4.7
Document official report here or in
RAM
4.8
Track action items here or in
RAM
Internal
Maintainability Engineering analysis review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
4.1 Determine objective and scope - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
4.2a [Combine homogeneous data] a Equipment "A", "B" and so on, shall be of same class and type,
Combine data similar (close enough) operating ranges, and similar product
handled
b Individual TTRs are calculated from restoration start to
restoration end times (i.e. total down-time)
c Breakdown of TTRs are identified (e.g. administrative delays,
time to acquire spare parts, actual repair)
d TTR data from an equipment "A" is grouped with TTR data from
equipment "B", onwards
4.2b [Do not combine homogeneous data, a Individual TTRs are calculated from restoration start to
OR Non-homogeneous data] Treat data restoration end times (i.e. total down-time)
separately b Breakdown of TTRs are identified (e.g. administrative delays,
time to acquire spare parts, actual repair)
4.3a.1 Perform Exploratory Data Analysis - Outliers are investigated for validity and extraordinary cases,
and removed if not representative
4.3a.2 [Data ≥ 5] Input data - TTR data input into LDA software
4.3a.3 Fit distribution based on: a Higher end distributions, e.g. Gamma, Generalised-Gamma,
-goodness of fit and Gumbell, Logistic, and Log-Logistic are avoided
-Likelihood Value b 2P-Exponential and 3P-Weibull with negative γ , are not used
c Selected distribution has goodness of fit closest to "1", and

highest Likelihood Value


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
4.3b [Data < 5, or no data] a Simple average MTTR or MTR takes:

-Apply simple average if < 5.
-Use elicitation method and assume Repair-time or Total-restoration-time divided into Total
distribution if NO DATA number of repairs
b Exponential distribution is set for simple average, with:
MTBF is set as η , and β as "1"

c Elicitation method considers 5% (1 in 20, or earliest), and 95%
(19 out of 20, or common) TTR
d Assumed distribution for elicitation method is supplemented
with engineering judgement, OR set as Lognormal (default)
e Parameter experimenter from software is used to obtain

distribution parameters for elicitation method
4.3a.4 Obtain failure distribution parameters a 1P-Exponential distribution parameter. λ and/or MTTR or MTR
b 2P-Exponential distribution parameters. γ and λ , and/or MTTR

or MTR
c 2P-Weibull distribution parameters. η , and β
d 3P-Weibull distribution parameters. γ , η , and β
e Normal distribution parameters. μ and σ
f Lognormal distribution parameters. Log-μ and Log-σ
4.4 Interpret results - Results are interpreted according to Figure "4.6:5b"
4.5 Use in RAM exercise and/or make a Results transferred to RAM

appropriate recommendations b Results are interpreted according to Figure "4.6:5b" [may also
be applicable for RAM exercise]


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
4.6 Present findings a Findings are transferred to RAM

b Analysis objective/s and scope are stated
c Summary of finding/s is/are stated
d Specific recommendations on equipment maintainability (e.g.
repair activities for certain Failure Modes to watch for) are
stated
e Generic recommendations are avoided, or stated on as-need
4.7 Document official report here or in RAM a Findings are transferred to RAM
b Presentation report available
c Written report available
d Title of study stated
e Date of study and approval stated
f Contents include executive summary, assumptions, data
sources, the results, and recommendations as minimum
g Report approved
4.8 Track action items here or in RAM a Action items tracked post RAM exercise
b Action items stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
c Action parties stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
d Deadlines stated in tracking (for subsequent actions)
e Status of action items are tracked

Title
Distribution Shape Parameter Characteristic or Location Inference for Repair or Restoration

or analysis or Standard Mean Life or Parameter
Deviation Failure Rate
2-parameter β η - 1. β < 1. Some repairs/restoration can be completed earlier than
Weibull others. Troubleshooting would reveal good practices
2. β ~ 1. Random repair/restoration. Troubleshooting would reveal
the various causes for the inconsistent repair/restoration times.
Exponential distribution has β = 1 and η = MTTR or MTR = 1/λ
3. 2 ~> β ~> 1. Repairs/Restoration are more predictable than
3-parameter β η γ random. Troubleshooting would reveal the causes for large
Weibull standard deviation
4. β >> 2. Repairs/Restoration are highly predictable at “t = η ”.
Repairs/Restoration can be guaranteed on or slightly after “t = η ”.
Poor η compared to target or benchmark would require
investigation. β ~ 3.2 implies Normal Distribution
1-parameter - λ - 5. η is the time when probability of Repair/Restoration is 63.2%
Exponential 6.γ is the minimum time required for repair/restoration, i.e. least
time required to repair/restore. Troubleshooting may be required
to understand the reasons
2-parameter - λ γ
Exponential
Normal σ μ - 1. μ is the mean life i.e. probability of repair/restoration is 50%

2. σ is the standard deviation. Larger values indicate bigger spread,
and less predictable results. Troubleshooting would reveal the
causes for large standard deviation and poor mean-time
3. Values for “Lognormal” will appear smaller due to log-value
Lognormal Log-σ Log-μ -
Crow-AMSAA β η - Not applicable
GRP
Figure 4.6:5b: Maintainability Engineering analysis results interpretation table.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Facility and/or operation and

The need to maintenance performance, e.g.:
assess • production,
improvement/ • work order priority,
• compliance,
performance • temperature,
losses/ • vibration,
degradation • thermography readings and
• breakdowns.
5.1
• Raise incident report,
Failures (or Incidents) Yes • raise PMMS
with consequences ≥
“MEDIUM”? notification, and
• perform RCFA
No
• Raise PMMS 5.2

Failures (or Incidents) Yes
with consequences < notification, and
“MEDIUM”?
• perform (simple) RCFA
No
• Perform CUSUM 5.3
analysis,
Detecting Incipient Yes • SPC analysis, or
Failures or measuring
general trends? • Degradation Analysis,
or
• trend analysis
Failure requiring
No
FFS assessment 5.4
• Inspect against
predefined acceptance
Checking against criteria,
Yes
other acceptance • raise PMMS
criteria? notification, and
• troubleshoot
deficiency/ies
No
Yes 5.5
Measuring Reliability
growth? Perform RGA
No
5.6
• Select suitable process,
• analyse and advise for
decision making
5.7
Initiate FFS assessment
Internal
Assessing Improvement/Performance Losses/Degradation review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.1 [Failures (or Incidents) with a OPUs consequence quantum (from the risk matrix) is referred
consequences ≥ “MEDIUM”] to
-Raise incident report, b Incident report (may use PMMS for this) states:
-raise PMMS notification, and -equipment tag and number
-perform RCFA -Failure Mode
-total consequence of failure
-concise statements of the failure, including PMMS notification
number
-date of failure
-time of failure and
-action party to lead RCFA
c PMMS notification includes:
-equipment tag and number (as pre-set, or stated in Short
Text)
-Failure Mode, in Short Text
-date of failure, in Malfunction Start Date
-(during TECO) date of failure rectification, in Malfunction End
Date
-time of failure, in Malfunction Start Time
-(during TECO) time of failure rectification, in Malfunction End
Time
-(during TECO) Failure Mechanism in Damage Code
-(during TECO) Object Part stated
-(during TECO) Failure Cause in Cause Code
-(during TECO) cost of failure
d [Refer to RCFA acceptance criteria for details]


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.2 Failures (or Incidents) with a OPUs consequence quantum (from the risk matrix) is referred
consequences < “MEDIUM”] to
-Raise PMMS notification, and b PMMS notification includes:
-perform (simple) RCFA -equipment tag and number (as pre-set, or stated in Short
Text)
-(during Technical Completion [TECO]) date of failure
rectification, in Malfunction End Date
Time
c [Refer to RCFA acceptance criteria for details]
5.3 [Detecting Incipient Failures or - [Refer to CUSUM, SPC, or Degradation Analysis, or trend
measuring general trends] analysis acceptance criteria for details]
-Perform CUSUM analysis,
-SPC analysis, or
-Degradation Analysis, or
-trend analysis


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.4 [Checking against other acceptance a Parameter to be inspected, together with the acceptance
criteria] criteria is available
-Inspect against predefined acceptance b PMMS notification includes:
criteria, -equipment tag and number (as pre-set, or stated in Short
-raise PMMS notification, and Text)
-troubleshoot deficiency/ies -Failure Mode, in Short Text
-date of failure rectification, in Malfunction End Date
-time of failure rectification, in Malfunction End Time
5.5 [Measuring Reliability growth] Perform - [Refer to RCFA acceptance criteria for details]
RGA
5.6 [Assessing improvement/performance a Objective/s clearly stated

losses/degradation using other process] b Required methodology not covered from "5.1" to "5.4"
Select suitable process, analyse and c Assessment methodology stated and proposed
advise for decision making d Analysis performed and recommendations provided
e Approved action items stated (for subsequent actions)
f Action parties stated (for subsequent actions)
g Deadlines stated (for subsequent actions)
5.7 [Failure requiring FFS assessment] - [Refer to "Material Corrosion Inspection

Initiate FFS assessment (MCI) Handbook, Section 18 – Fitness for Service, March 2010"]
[Transfer to FFS team]

Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
The need • Engineering data, 5.3.3a.1

Obtain measured data set
or SOL database
to perform • Facility and/or
CUSUM, equipment 5.3.3a.2
SPC or performance data Set/Obtain acceptance criteria, H
• Failure data
trend • Repair data
analysis • Cost data 5.3.3a.3
Calculate Standard Deviation (SD) of
data set
Define objective of analysis 5.3.1
5.3.2 5.3.3a.4
Establish required variable data to Set reference value, K as
meet the objective
Calculate (for each data): 5.3.3a.5

CUSUM , and
SPC analysis Perform CUSUM
page 2 of 4 or SPC analysis?
and plot CUSUM chart, [i,ci]
No
5.3.3a.6
Calculate (for each data):
Perform
Yes, page 4 of 4 Degradation
Analysis?
No for data above Mean, and

Perform trend analysis 5.3.3d.1
using graphs, e.g. Availability, (simple)
MTBF, MTTR, cost
for data below Mean
Better than Plot the values in Derivative
Yes
benchmark/ Accumulation Chart
targets?
No 5.3.3a.7
Count the number of consecutive
• Investigate, and/or 5.3.3d.2 periods that the CUSUM have been
• Initiate Benchmarking non-zero, indicated by N+ and N-
exercise
5.3.4 No,
• Perform predefined
corrective tasks, ci+ > H or continue
• raise PMMS notification ci- > H? moni-
(future), and toring
• perform Troubleshooting Yes
5.3.3a.8
Document findings 5.3.5 Find last in control data i.e.:
5.3.6
Present findings and continue where N+out and N-out correspond to
monitoring N+ and N- at data point iout
Internal
CUSUM, SPC, or Degradation Analysis, or trend analysis (1 of 4) review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.1 Define objective of analysis - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
5.3.2 Establish required data/measurements a Data to be analysed is stated (preferably as stated in data
to meet the objective acquisition program, as an output of ERS)
b Date range/s is/are stated (e.g. to check for improvement or
changes), where applicable
- [SPC] Go to "006.5.3 (2-3) CUSUM, SPC, a Assess larger variations, than what CUSUM can handle
DA, TA" b [Refer to "006.5.3 (2-3) CUSUM, SPC, DA, TA" acceptance
criteria for details]
5.3.3a.1 [CUSUM] Obtain measured data set a CUSUM is performed for detecting small changes (e.g. incipient
failures)
b Data range obtained do not involve step changes
5.3.3a.2 Set/Obtain acceptance criteria, H a Acceptance criteria obtained from, e.g. DOSSIER, engineering
documents, calculations, or SOL database
b When absent, acceptance criteria may be set to 4 to 5 times
SD
5.3.3a.3 Calculate SD of data set - SD formula for sample (not population) is used
5.3.3a.4 Set reference value, K as SD /2 - K = SD /2
5.3.3a.5 Plot CUSUM chart, [i ,c i ] a i is the data observation number, starting from "1"
b Mean is calculated
c c 1 is Data 1 - Mean
d c 2 onwards will have formula of Data i - Mean + c i -1
e Values are checked manually prior to copy and pasting in large
numbers
f CUSUM table is prepared prior to plotting


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.3a.6 Plot Derivative Accumulation Chart a First derivative accumulation on "+" and "-" sides are put as "0"
b Subsequent values on "+" and "-" sides are calculated using the
provided formula
c Values on "-" sides have negative signs
d Values are checked manually prior to copy and pasting in large
numbers
e Derivative Accumulation table is prepared, in-line with CUSUM
chart
f Derivative Accumulation Chart is plotted
5.3.3a.7 Count the number of consecutive a N + and N - are cumulative, when "5.3.3a.6" results are
periods that the CUSUM have been non- consecutively non-zero
zero, indicated by N + and N - b N + and N - are reset to zero otherwise
- [c i + or c i - < H ] Continue monitoring - c i + or c i - checked if < H, and monitoring continued if true
5.3.3a.8 [c i + or c i - > H ] Find last in control data a c i + or c i - checked if > H

b Last in control data is the last data when N + or N - is "0"


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.4 -Perform predefined corrective tasks, a Predefined corrective tasks are obtained from operating and/or
-raise PMMS notification (future), and procedures
-perform Troubleshooting b PMMS notification includes:
Text)
Date
Time
5.3.3d.1 [Perform trend analysis] Perform trend a Suitable x-axis unit is selected, e.g. MTTR analysis uses repair
analysis using graphs, e.g. Availability, number and date of repair
(simple) MTBF, MTTR, cost b Number of failures are trended if failures are normally "0"
c Overall trend is presented
d Moving average is presented
- [Better than benchmark/targets] - Results are checked against benchmark/targets, and

Continue monitoring monitoring continued if true
5.3.3d.2 [Not better than benchmark/targets] - Causes for deficiency are investigated or understood through
-Investigate, and/or investigation or benchmarking [continued in Benchmarking]
-Initiate Benchmarking exercise exercise


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.5 Document findings a Analysis objective/s and scope are stated

b Summary of finding/s is/are stated
c Recommendations are stated
5.3.6 Present findings and continue a Findings in "5.3.5" are presented at appropriate level, based on
monitoring criticality
b Approved action items stated (for subsequent actions - if any)
c Action parties stated (for subsequent actions - if any)

d Deadlines stated (for subsequent actions - if any)
e Monitoring continued
5.3.6 Present findings and continue f Terminated monitoring is justified and documented
monitoring

Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Facility performance 5.3.3c.a.3

The need to
data, e.g.: Plot [ ,time] and [ ,time] charts,
perform SPC
analysis (for • pressure, with lower limits, percentile,
variable
parameters) • flow median, and upper limits
(from page 1 of
4) • temperature,
• level.
5.3.3c.4
Assess if parameter is out of control
5.3.3c.1 using the following criteria.
Define objective of analysis
• 1 or more points fall outside of
LCL or UCL, OR
Identify critical 5.3.3c.2
• 2 out of 3 successive points fall
parameter that would provide in the area beyond “2-Sigma-
indication of system performance equivalent” from Median/Mean,
OR
Collect data at specified5.3.3c.3 • 4 out of 5 successive points fall
intervals, depending on criticality in the area beyond “1-Sigma-
equivalent” from Median/Mean,
OR
• 6 successive points increasing or
>1 data per decreasing, OR
Yes, page 3 of 4
observation? • 8 successive points fall on either
side of Median/Mean, OR
No • 15 successive points steadily
5.3.3c.a.1 alternating within “1-Sigma”
Yes, to
Tabulate Individual ( ) and Moving range
“5.3.3c.3”.
Range ( ) table
(may
5.3.3c.a.2 perform
additional
Calculate the following items for the In control?
distributio
entire data:
n analysis
• XMedian,
to assess
• X0.0015 Percentile (Lower Control No
Process
Limit – LCL),
• Perform predefined 5.3.4 Capability
• X0.025 Percentile (lower 2-Sigma
corrective tasks, - CPk)
equivalent),
• X0.16 Percentile (lower 1-Sigma • perform
Troubleshooting,
equivalent),
• raise PMMS notification
• X0.84 Percentile (upper 1-Sigma (if required)
equivalent),
• X0.975 Percentile (upper 2-Sigma
equivalent), Document findings 5.3.5
• X0.9985 Percentile (Upper Control
Limit – UCL),
• MRAverage, and 5.3.6
• MRUCL, Present findings and continue
monitoring
Internal

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.3c.1 [SPC] Define objective of analysis - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
5.3.3c.2 Identify critical parameter that would a Critical parameter and data to be analysed is stated (preferably
provide indication of system as stated in data acquisition program as an output of ERS)
performance
5.3.3c.3 Collect data at specified intervals, - Intervals may be hourly, every shift, daily, or otherwise, based
depending on criticality on data collection program developed in ERS
5.3.3c.a.1 [1 data per observation] Tabulate X i and a Used for 1 data per observation
MR i table b MR data will be 1 less, than X
c Individual and Moving Range table prepared
d Step changes in X due to set point changes, are identified and
analysed in different batch
5.3.3c.a.2 Calculate Median, LCL, Sigma- - Parameters calculated as per the provided formula
equivalents, UCL, MR Average and MR UCL
5.3.3c.a.3 Plot [X i ,time ] and [MR i ,time ] charts, - Two charts are plotted, with the relevant limits
with lower limits, percentile, median,
and upper limits


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.3c.a.4 Assess if parameter is out of control a 1 or more points fall outside of LCL or UCL, OR
based on the following criteria b 2 out of 3 successive points fall in the area beyond “2-Sigma-
equivalent” from Median, OR
c 4 out of 5 successive points fall in the area beyond “1-Sigma-
equivalent” from Median, OR
d 6 successive points increasing or decreasing, OR
e 8 successive points fall on either side of Median, OR
f 15 successive points steadily alternating within “1-Sigma” range
g Indicate out-of-control points for further actions
- [In control] To "5.3.3c.3" (may perform a Check if distribution has wide SD , going beyond upper and
additional distribution analysis to assess lower SOLs
Process Capability - CP k ) b Check if distribution has narrow SD , but mean going towards
upper or lower SOLs, and one side of the distribution breaching
lower or upper SOL
c Note down findings


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
-perform Troubleshooting, and procedures
-raise PMMS notification (if required) b PMMS notification includes:
Text)
Date
Time


f Terminated monitoring is justified and documented

Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
5.3.3c.b.3
Plot [ ,time] and [ ,time] charts,
to page
with lower limits, Sigma-equivalents,
2 of 4
, , and upper limits
5.3.3c.b.1
Tabulate Sample Average ( ), and
from page 2 of 4
Sample Range (Ri) table
5.3.3c.b.2
Calculate the following
items for the entire data:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
A2, D3, and D4 are obtained from

Figure “4.6:6”
Internal

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.3c.1 [SPC] Define objective of analysis - Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
5.3.3c.2 Identify critical parameter that would a Critical parameter and data to be analysed is stated (preferably
provide indication of system as stated in data acquisition program as an output of ERS)
performance
5.3.3c.3 Collect data at specified intervals, - Intervals may be hourly, every shift, daily, or otherwise, based
depending on criticality on data collection program developed in ERS
5.3.3c.b.1 [>1 data per observation] Tabulate a Used for >1 data per observation
Sample Average (X-bar i ) and Sample b Sample Average and Sample Range table prepared
Range (R i ) table c Step changes in X due to set point changes, are identified and
analysed in different batch
5.3.3c.b.2 Calculate average-of-X-bar I, average- - Parameters calculated as per the provided formula
of-R i , X-bar LCL , Sigma-equivalents, X-
bar UCL, average-of-R LCL , and average-
of-R UCL
5.3.3c.b.3 Plot [X-bar i ,time ] and [R i ,time ] charts, - Two charts are plotted, with the relevant limits
with lower limits, Sigma-equivalents,
average-of-X-bar I , average-of-R i , and
upper limits


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.3c.a.4 Assess if parameter is out of control a 1 or more points fall outside of LCL or UCL, OR
based on the following criteria b 2 out of 3 successive points fall in the area beyond “2-Sigma-
equivalent” from Mean, OR
c 4 out of 5 successive points fall in the area beyond “1-Sigma-
equivalent” from Mean, OR
d 6 successive points increasing or decreasing, OR
e 8 successive points fall on either side of Mean, OR
f 15 successive points steadily alternating within “1-Sigma” range
g Indicate out-of-control points for further actions
- [In control] To "5.3.3c.3" (may perform a Check if distribution has wide SD , going beyond upper and
additional distribution analysis to assess lower SOLs
Process Capability - CP k ) b Check if distribution has narrow SD , but mean going towards
upper or lower SOLs, and one side of the distribution breaching
lower or upper SOL
c Note down findings


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
-perform Troubleshooting, and procedures
-raise PMMS notification (if required) b PMMS notification includes:
Text)
Date
Time



Zakaria
Title
Sub-group A2 D3 D4
2 1.88 0 3.267
3 1.023 0 2.574
4 0.729 0 2.282
5 0.577 0 2.114
6 0.483 0 2.004
7 0.419 0.076 1.924
8 0.373 0.136 1.864
9 0.337 0.184 1.816
10 0.308 0.223 1.777
11 0.285 0.256 1.744
12 0.266 0.283 1.717
13 0.249 0.307 1.693
14 0.235 0.328 1.672
15 0.223 0.347 1.653
16 0.212 0.363 1.637
17 0.203 0.378 1.622
18 0.194 0.391 1.608
19 0.187 0.403 1.597
20 0.18 0.415 1.585
21 0.173 0.425 1.575
22 0.167 0.434 1.566
23 0.162 0.443 1.557
24 0.157 0.451 1.548
25 0.153 0.459 1.541
Figure 4.6:6: A2, D3, and D4 constants for SPC, involving more than one data per observation.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
The need to Performance data,

perform e.g.,
Degradation • vibration,
Analysis (from
• thickness,
page 1 of 4)
• creep.
5.3.3c.1
Define objective of analysis
5.3.3c.2
Set/Obtain acceptance criteria
5.3.3c.3
Perform trend analysis using graphs
5.3.3c.4
Select appropriate degradation
model, e.g.:
• Linear,
• Exponential, or
• Power.
5.3.3c.5
Extrapolate Time-to-Failure, based
on degradation model, rate and
“5.3.3c.4”
No Abnormal
degradation?
Yes
• Perform RCFA, and/or5.3.3c.6
• Initiate Benchmarking
exercise
• Perform predefined 5.3.4

corrective tasks,
• raise PMMS notification
(future), and
• perform Troubleshooting
Document findings 5.3.5
5.3.6
Present findings and continue
monitoring
Internal

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.3c.1 [Degradation analysis] Define objective a Degradation analysis performed to estimate TTF, based on
of analysis degradation rates
b Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
5.3.3c.2 Set/Obtain acceptance criteria - Acceptance criteria obtained from, e.g. DOSSIER, engineering
documents, calculations, or SOL database
5.3.3c.3 Perform trend analysis using graphs a x-axis shall be "cumulative time", when the inspection/data is
performed/taken
b y-axis shall be "absolute readings", corresponding to x-axis
c Critical degradation limit is set as per "5.3.3c.2"
5.3.3c.4 Select appropriate degradation model, a Linear degradation selected if data is less than "5"
e.g.:
-Linear,
b Curve-fitting is performed using software or MS Excel,
-Exponential, or
otherwise, and best degradation model is selected
-Power
5.3.3c.5 Extrapolate Time-to-Failure, based on a Line is extrapolated until it reaches acceptance criteria
degradation rate b TTF/s is/are obtained
5.3.3c.6 [Abnormal degradation] - Causes for abnormal degradation are investigated or

-Perform RCFA, and/or understood through RCFA (continued in RCFA) or
-Initiate Benchmarking exercise benchmarking (continued in Benchmarking) exercise


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.3.4 [Normal degradation] a Predefined corrective tasks are obtained from operating and/or
-Perform predefined corrective tasks, procedures
-raise PMMS notification (future), and b PMMS notification includes:
-perform Troubleshooting -equipment tag and number (as pre-set, or stated in Short
Text)
Date
Time

b Summary of finding/s (including TTFs) is/are stated


Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Estimate Cumulative and 5.5.7

The need to TTF data from: Instantaneous MTBFs using
perform • PMMS, formulas:
RGA (using • log books,
Crow- • interviews, and
AMSAA) and
• other sources
Define objective of analysis 5.5.1

5.5.8
5.5.2 Predict time (cumulative from last
Tabulate TTF data in chronological failure) to subsequent failure
order occurrence/s based on formula in
“5.5.6”
5.5.3
Tabulate Cumulative TTF, up until Review,
last failure, and plot graph of: 5.5.9
to
[Cumulative Failure,Cumulative TTF] Analyse reliability growth and
“5.5.5”
changes in trends
on-
wards
5.5.4
Tabulate ln[Cumulative TTF], up until
last failure 5.5.10
Investigate reason/s for growth
(negative or positive)
5.5.5
Estimate , using MLE formula:
5.5.11
Make recommendations
where:
Document findings 5.5.12
is the slope of the graph,
N(t) is the total number of failures
assessed at time Tn, Present findings 5.5.13
Ti is the cumulative TTF up to ith
event, and
T* is:
• Tn if the test is failure terminated,
and, No Positive Reliability Yes
• T > Tn if the test is time growth?
terminated
Estimate failure rate, λ, using: 5.5.6

5.5.14b
Continue monitoring or close
Perform simple RCFA 5.5.14a
Internal
RGA review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.5.1 Define objective of analysis a RGA is performed to analyse reliability growth (negative or
positive)
b Core RGA steps ("5.5.3" to "5.5.8") may be used for RDA
c Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
5.5.2 Tabulate TTF data in chronological - TTF data is entered in chronological order
5.5.3 Tabulate Cumulative TTF, up until last a Cumulative Failure and Cumulative TTF are used
failure, and plot graph of: b Graph is plotted on log10-log10 scale
[Cumulative Failure,Cumulative TTF ]
5.5.4 Tabulate ln[Cumulative TTF], up until - ln[Cumulative TTF] is tabulated until last failure
last failure
5.5.5 Estimate β , using Maximum Likelihood a Formula shown is used

Estimator (MLE) formula b Values are manually checked prior to multiple uses
c Correct values based on time or failure termination is selected
5.5.6 Estimate failure rate, λ a Formula shown is used

b Values are manually checked prior to multiple uses
5.5.7 Estimate Cumulative and Instantaneous a Formula shown is used

MTBFs b Values are manually checked prior to multiple uses
5.5.8 Predict time (cumulative from last a Cumulative failure number is added by a minimum of "1", from
failure) to subsequent failure last cumulative failure number
occurrence/s based on formula in b Formula shown is used
“5.5.6”


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.5.9 Analyse reliability growth and changes a Changes in slope are analysed as per Figure "4.6:5a" and
in trends highlighted
b Date when the changes happen, are identified
c New parameters are computed based on most recent slope,
using steps "5.5.5" and "5.5.6"
d New results are computed based steps "5.5.7" and "5.5.8"
5.5.10 Investigate reason/s for growth a Date when the changes happen, are used
(negative or positive) b Changes (in design, operation, and maintenance) are
investigated, identified and recorded
5.5.11 Make recommendations a Causes for negative growth are proposed to be corrected, and
recorded for LLP
b Causes for positive growth are proposed to be continued, and
recorded for good practice sharing
c Number of expected failures is specified for organisation
preparedness

b Summary of finding/s (including causes for growth and
expected number of failures) is/are stated



Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5.5.14a [No positive growth] Perform simple a Used if recommendations (in "5.5.11") proposed to correct
RCFA negative growth did not succeed
b [Refer to RCFA acceptance criteria for details]
5.5.14b [Positive growth] Continue monitoring a Monitoring continued

or close b Terminated monitoring is justified and documented

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• ISO 14224 – Collection and Exchange of Reliability and Maintenance Data for Equipment.
• IEC 60300-3-2 – Collection of Dependability Data from the Field.
• System Reliability Analysis, LDA, RDA, Reliability Growth Analysis (RGA), and Degradation
Analysis articles by ReliaSoft®.
• IEC 60300-10 – Maintainability.
• SKG 12.3 – Benchmarking, Level 2 (being developed).
Major purpose for Benchmarking includes the following.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
• Implement identified better practices from benchmarking peers to improve facility/equipment

performance (availability, reliability, maintainability and cost).
Benchmarking is commonly performed for the following situation.
• Obtaining better practices from peers, for an operating facility.

• Benchmarking work flow.

• Benchmarking review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Failure data (PMMS Identify gaps and evaluate better 7

and other sources)
Bench- • Degradation data practices to be followed
marking (e.g. P-RBI, creep
measurement, other
exercise dimensions)
initiated • Repair and
restoration data
• Cost data
8
Define objective of exercise 1
Document findings 9 Review

2
Identify Benchmarking peers
(internal or other OPUs)
10 to “1”
Review. Obtain approval
3 to “5”
From Select equipment class and type to
“11” or be assessed
after “13”
11
Implement better
Determine parameters to 4 practices/corrective actions
benchmarked (e.g. failure, repair or
cost)
5 Monitor and analyse 12

Identify similar (range of) equipment
class and type results (before and after
implementation) based on
analysis done in “7”, using:
• RGA,
Collect data (depending 6 • distribution analysis, or
on objective), and • trend analysis
perform:
• TTF or TTR
comparison,
• Degradation analysis, investigate
combined with LDA,
• LDA or RDA, No
• Maintainability Successful?
Engineering analysis,
and/or
• cost analysis Yes
for each equipment,

individually, and group-
wise Continue monitoring or close13
Internal
Benchmarking review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Define objective of exercise a Benchmarking is performed to compare failure, repair, and

cost performances between equipment of similar type; and
identify better practices for implementation
b Objective/s state the reason for analysis, and the potential
2 Identify Benchmarking peers (internal or a Benchmarking peers have similar equipment, as categorised in
other OPUs) step "3"
b Benchmarking peers agreed to perform study with specified
objectives
3 Select equipment class and type to be a Identify equipment tags involved in the exercise
assessed b Identify equipment class, type, operating ranges and handled
product for each equipment
4 Determine assessment scope (e.g. - Scope of assessment is identified for data collection
failure, repair or cost)
5 Identify similar (range of) equipment - Identify and group equipment within same class and type, and
class and type similar (close enough) operating ranges, and similar product
handled


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
6 Collect data (depending on objective), a Simple TTF or TTR comparison may be performed unknown
and perform: causes
-TTF or TTR calculation, d [Refer to RDA, LDA and Maintainability Engineering acceptance
-Degradation analysis, combined with criteria for LDA, RDA and Maintainability Engineering analysis
LDA, for details]
-LDA or RDA, c [Refer to degradation analysis acceptance criteria for details]
-Maintainability Engineering analysis,
and/or
d Cost analysis performed using Pareto and/or normal trend
-cost analysis
analysis
for each equipment, individually, and e Analysis performed for individual equipment and group-wise
group-wise
7 Identify gaps and evaluate better a Gaps identified between peers

practices to be followed b LDA, RDA and Maintainability Engineering analysis results are
interpreted according to Figure "4.6:5a" and "4.6:5b"
c Other gaps are assessed based on difference in absolute values

and rate of change
d Better practices are identified through comparison between
design, operation, and maintenance, involving engineers,
technicians, and/or operators
e Better practices are documented
8 Make recommendations a Gaps stated from comparative analysis

b Better practices from peers/own OPU stated
c Simple cost-benefit analysis and/or risk assessment performed
d Recommendations proposed based on the cost-benefit

analysis and/or risk assessment


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
9 Document findings a Selected equipment tags, classes, types, operating ranges and
handled products are stated
b Failure, repair and/or cost analysis details are stated
c Gaps are stated
d Recommendations to close gaps are stated, based on feasibility
e Document approved, with date and title
10 Obtain approval - Documented findings are presented to appropriate level, based

on criticality
11 Implement better practices/corrective a Approved action items stated (for subsequent actions - if any)
actions
b Action parties stated (for subsequent actions - if any)
c Deadlines stated (for subsequent actions - if any)
12 Monitor and analyse results (before and a [Refer to RGA acceptance criteria for details]
after implementation) based on analysis b Continue new data collection to obtain new distribution for
done in “7”, using: MTTR or MTR
-RGA, c Analyse new distribution for MTTR or MTR
-distribution analysis, or d Continue to trend cost
-trend analysis f Unsuccessful (i.e. no positive growth, unchanged distribution,
increased SD , non-improving MTTR or MTR, non-improving
trends) results are investigated
g Corrective actions from the investigation are stated and
tracked for completion
13 [Successful] Continue monitoring or - Continue monitoring or close (with approved documentation -

close inclusive of date and title)

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• SCIE-DOE-01-TRAC-14-95 – Events and Causal Factors Analysis, Technical Research and

Analysis Center, SCIENTECH, Inc., August 1995.
• Gano, Dean L, “Apollo Root Cause Analysis”, Apollonian Publications, 1st ed., 1999
• IEC 61025 – Fault Tree Analysis.
• NRI-I 2002 – NRI MORT User’s Manual, Generic Edition, December 2002.
• IEC 60812 – Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis.
• Kepner, C. H. and Tregoe, B. B, The New Rational Manager, Princeton, 1997.
• Tripod Beta, User Guide, undated.
• Paradies, M. and Unger, L., TapRootTM Incident Investigation System, Volume 1, Tennessee,
USA, 1992.
• DOE, Root Cause Analysis Guidance Document, February 1992, page 14 and Appendix H.
• SKG 12.3 – Root Cause Failure Analysis, Level 2.

Internal
Zakaria
Title
• SKG 18 – Incident Investigation, Level 2.

• PETRONAS Leadership Centre – Problem Solving Decision Making.
Major purpose for RCFA includes the following.
• Understand and correct systemic issues (Underlying Causes) that led to a failure.
RCFA is performed for the following situations.
• Investigating critical failures.

• Investigating degraded failures.
• Investigating incipient failures (or defects).

• RCFA work flow.

• RCFA review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
• Failure Causation Model.
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Incident reports
Equipment • Deficiencies and
deficiencies, defects identified by
defects,
failures, and Performance
asset-related Reporting and
incidents Analysis tools
• Failed item and data
Appoint RCFA Leader and/or 1

Facilitator
Appoint RCFA team 2
Gather evidence and data 3
Specify Problem Statement 4
Analyse failure. 5
• Develop sequence of events
using Events and Conditions
chart,
Review • Failure Analysis, and Review
• conclusion of causes using
relevant tool
Develop solutions and 6

recommendations
Prepare RCFA report for review and 7

approval
Document report 8
9
Track implementation
Parallel
10a
Initiate LLP
Monitor performance 10b

using RGA
Internal
RCFA review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Appoint RCFA Leader and/or Facilitator a RCFA Leader and/or Facilitator is appointed based on severity
of Failure Mode (Critical, Degraded or Incipient), and
consequence to the OPU
b RCFA Leader and/or Facilitator is skilled in RCFA and
troubleshooting
c RCFA Leader and/or Facilitator is unbiased
d RCFA Leader and/or Facilitator able to control RCFA team
2 Appoint RCFA team a Small team selected for simple failures

b Larger team selected for complex failures
c Team consists of subject matter experts
3 Gather evidence and data a Failed item (e.g. parts, chemicals, software data, oil, fractured
components) are preserved for analysis
b Information on when Failure happened (date and time) is
available
c Information on what are the findings on the Failed
equipment/system is available
d Information on which equipment (tag number and name) was
effected is available
e Information on what was noticed on similar/related equipment
within the OPU or elsewhere is available
f Information on the immediate actions is available
g Information on when did the RCFA team commence
investigation is available
h Key interview findings are stated
i Stated design intention of the equipment/system (i.e. Function)
j Specified limits for equipment/system (during operation,

maintenance and inspection) are mentioned
k Stated conditions of upstream and downstream equipment
related to the Failure
l P&ID available, with labels and explanations


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
3 Gather evidence and data m Engineering drawings with labels and explanations
n Photograph of equipment/parts/samples available, with labels
and explanations
o Other documents that can describe the system are available
e.g. SLD, Cause & Effect Matrix, Hook-up Drawings, labelled
and explained
p Previous Failure Modes and dates (if available)
q Previous Failure Mechanisms and Underlying Causes (if
available)
r Previous action items (if available)
4 Specify Problem Statement a Failure Mode represents first effect noticed during the Failure
b Problem Statement contains "Failure Mode" + "Failure

Consequence" for single Failure Mode.
c Problem Statement contains "Object" + "Expected
Performance" + "Actual Performance" if it is a multiple Failure
Mode.
5 Analyse failure. a (Sequence of events) Stated (Events & Conditions) E&C

-Develop sequence of events using elements, e.g. Event, Conditions, date and time (if available)
Events & Conditions chart, include evidence
-Failure Analysis, and b (Sequence of events) Stated Events are ordered in sequence
-conclusion of causes using relevant (based on time/date/cycle)
tool c (Sequence of events) Conditions relate to the Events
d (Sequence of events) Solid line boxes and ovals supplemented
by relevant evidence (hypotheses to be put inside broken line
boxes and ovals)
e (Sequence of events) Undesired Events and Conditions are
marked
f (Sequence of events) Summary prepared and available (e.g.
pictorial, sketch or narrative)


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5 Analyse failure. g Failure Analysis (a.k.a forensic analysis) performed (e.g.

-Develop sequence of events using laboratory tests, metallurgy tests, engineering calculations,
Events & Conditions chart, simulations, visual inspections, comparison with standards,
-Failure Analysis, and CUSUM, SPC, Reliability Engineering) to identify Failure
-conclusion of causes using relevant Mechanism/s
tool h (Conclusion of causes) Current conclusions of the Failure
correlates with history (e.g. if poor design was stated as one of
the causes, but the equipment was in operation for good
number of years without issues, then the conclusion is most
probably incorrect)
i (Conclusion of causes) Causes to a particular effect shall be
immediate, necessary and sufficient
Ishikawa/Fishbone
j Beginning of the tool should state the Problem Statement
k Causes are put inside correct categories
5-Why, FMEA
lBeginning of the tool states the Problem Statement
m Cause and effects are logically linked
n No logic jump between Effect and immediate Cause
o Tool ends with Underlying Causes, which are the systemic
issues
p Solid line boxes supplemented by relevant deduction (including
Failure Analysis) and evidence (hypotheses to be put inside
broken line boxes)


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5 Analyse failure. S-5-WHY

-Develop sequence of events using q Beginning of the tool states the Problem Statement
Events & Conditions chart, r Failure Mechanism shall be put after Problem Statement
-Failure Analysis, and s Failure Mechanism shall explain the process that leads to the
-conclusion of causes using relevant Failure Mode
tool t Format for Failure Mechanism statement is: "What was
seen/deduced on the Failed item-due to-which F.Re.T.T
element that caused it". Example "Tube thinning due to
microbiologically induced corrosion"
u Any cause leading to Failure Mechanism, which does not satisfy
the requirement of Underlying Cause, is put as Transitional
Active Cause
v Cause and effects are logically linked
w No logic jump between Effect and immediate Cause
x Tool ends with Underlying Causes, which are the systemic
issues
y Contributory Causes satisfy the one of these rules.
-Cause is necessary, but not sufficient, or
-cause is a pre-existing condition, or
-failure would still happen in the absence of the Contributory
Cause. The difference will be in the magnitude and time (how
quick it happens)
z Solid line boxes supplemented by relevant deduction (including
broken line boxes)


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5 Analyse failure. FTA

-Develop sequence of events using aa Beginning of the tool states the Problem Statement
Events & Conditions chart, ab Cause and effects are linked using "AND" or "OR" gates, based
-Failure Analysis, and on immediate, necessary, and sufficient rules
-conclusion of causes using relevant ac No logic jump between Effect and immediate Cause
tool ad Tool ends with Basic Causes (which is Underlying Cause. FTA
uses Basic Cause terminology)
ae Solid line boxes supplemented by relevant deduction (including
broken line boxes)
Kepner-Tregoe TM
af Beginning of the tool states the Problem Statement
ag Problem specification's (WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, EXTENT) "IS"
and "IS NOT" information shall be related and relevant to the
question in the template
ah No logic jump from Possible Causes to Problem Statement
ai Possible Causes tested against "IS" and "IS NOT". Example "If
overheating is the possible cause of breakage, then why
equipment B is not effected?"
aj Most Probable Cause answer all the "IS" and "IS NOT" questions
factually and logically
ak True Cause confirmed by relevant deduction (including Failure
Analysis) and evidence


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5 Analyse failure. Tripod Beta

-Develop sequence of events using al Only one Agent of Change, Object and Event per set of "trio"
Events & Conditions chart,
-Failure Analysis, and am Agent of Change statement shall be an agent that can cause
-conclusion of causes using relevant harm, change or abnormal conditions
tool an Object statement shall be the object or subject that is faced by
the Hazard or normal condition
ao The following logic is fulfilled: "If Agent of Change acts upon
Object, Event happens"
ap Barriers shall be specified and relevant to prevent/protect
Hazard or Target
aq Failed Barriers shall have Immediate Cause, Precondition and
Underlying Cause
ar Missing Barriers shall have Underlying Cause only
as Only one Immediate Cause per Failed Barrier
at Immediate Cause shall answer why the Barrier Failed
au Precondition shall answer the situation, state of mind and
conditions that DIRECT or PROMOTING factor to the
Immediate Cause
av Underlying Cause shall be the systemic issues (related to the 12
Basic Risk Factors)


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
5 Analyse failure. ALL tools

-Develop sequence of events using aw Human-related errors (if identified) are understood further
Events & Conditions chart, through interviews, simulation and understanding of situation
-Failure Analysis, and around the Failure
-conclusion of causes using relevant ax (Conclusion of causes) Failure Mechanism explains the process
tool that leads to the Failure Mode
ay (Conclusion of causes) Format for Failure Mechanism
statement is: "What was seen/deduced on the Failed item-due
to-which F.Re.T.T (Force, Reactive environment, Time and
Temperature) element that caused it". Example "Tube thinning
due to microbiologically induced corrosion"
az (Conclusion of causes) Any cause leading to Failure
Mechanism, which does not satisfy the requirement of
Underlying Cause, is put as Transitional Active Cause
ba (Conclusion of causes) Conclusion ends with Underlying
Causes (systemic/"soft" issues)
bb (Conclusion of causes) Failure Consequence, Failure Mode,
Failure Mechanisms, TACs and Underlying Causes are linked to
immediate, necessary and sufficient rules
bc (Conclusion of causes) Contributory Causes satisfy the one of
these rules.
-Cause is necessary, but not sufficient, or
-cause is a pre-existing condition, or
-failure would still happen in the absence of the Contributory
Cause. The difference will be in the magnitude and time (how
quick it happens)
6 Develop solutions and a Solutions will address Failure Mechanism, Contributory Causes,
recommendations Transitional Active Causes and Underlying Causes
b Will not create other issues (e.g. unnecessary redundancies,
unnecessary work overload, hazard) to
equipment/system/human/Management System and HSE


Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
6 Develop solutions and c Puts emphasis on simple solutions

recommendations
d Cost-effective solution (e.g. through LCC or simple cost-
benefit analysis)
e Deadline available
f Action party (name, not department) clearly stated
7 Prepare RCFA report for review and a Simple report prepared for NEGLIGIBLE and LOW
approval consequence failures
b Full presentation report (with elements "1" to "6") prepared for
MEDIUM, HIGH, and EXTREME consequence failures
c Report presented at appropriate level, based on failure
consequence
8 Document report a Document in incident reporting system or in PMMS, as per

steps "5.1" and "5.2" in Performance Reporting and Analysis
b Document approved with date and title (Problem Statement)
9 Track implementation a Approved action items stated

b Action parties stated
c Deadlines stated
d Status of action items are tracked until completion
10a Initiate LLP - [Refer to LLP acceptance for details], focusing on higher
consequence failures
10b Monitor performance using RGA - [Refer to RGA acceptance criteria for details]

Title
How equipment Contributory Failure

fails… Causes1** Consequence
Investigation path
Failure Mode*
Force, Reactive environment,

Contributory Failure Temperature, Time
Causes2** (FReTT***) and Others
Mechanisms*
State of mind, ergonomics Contributory Transitional

and conditions that Causes3** Active Causes**
contribute to OR
promote the Failure, OR
aggravate the Failure
consequence. It may, or Relates to systemic issues*
may not appear (depends Contributory Underlying
on case) Causes4** Causes*
*Refer to ISO 14224 for categorization
**If applicable
***Heinz P. Bloch
Figure 4.8:2: How equipment fails.
Internal
Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• Upstream and DOD BAM guidelines.

• (as stated in “Appendix 4.8”).
• (as stated in “Appendix 4.8”).
Major purpose for BAM includes the following.
• Understand and correct systemic issues (Underlying Causes) that led to a repeat failure.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
BAM is performed for the following situation.

• Registering and investigating Bad Actors (i.e. those with frequent failures).

• BAM work flow.

• BAM review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
Internal
Zakaria
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Incident reports
Equipment • Deficiencies and
deficiencies, defects identified by
defects,
failures, and Performance
asset-related Reporting and
incidents Analysis tools
• Failed item and data
1
Failure meeting Bad Actor criteria
Prepare and rank Bad Actors list 2

based on overall failure
consequence and failure rates
3
Initiate RCFAs and close-
out Bad Actors based on
priority, using RCFA
process
Internal
BAM review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Failure meeting Bad Actor criteria - Bad Actor criteria met as per upstream or DOD BAM guidelines
2 Prepare and rank Bad Actors list based a Bad Actors Ranked in descending order, based on overall
on overall failure consequence and failure cost
failure rates b Bad Actors Ranked in descending order, based on failure rates
c Bad Actors list is prepared and updated
3 Initiate RCFAs and close-out Bad Actors - [Refer to RCFA acceptance criteria for details]
based on priority, using RCFA process

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• -.
• -.
Major purpose for LLP includes the following.
• Synthesising failure conclusions, learning from the failures, and adopting the
recommendations to relevant equipment/assets, documentation and practices.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
LLP is performed for the following situations.

• Learning from internal incidents.
• Learning from external incidents.

• LLP work flow.

• LLP review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
Lessons Learnings from:

Learned • internal incidents,
sharing and/or
session • external incidents
Compile lessons from: 1

• Failure Modes,
• Failure Mechanisms,
• Contributory Causes, and
• Underlying Causes
2
Compile recommended actions
Yes
External incident?
Validate recommendation No
3
Convert into LLP bulletin/article
Organise and conduct sharing 4

sessions
Confirm audience understanding 5
6
Investigate if gaps from lessons
learned, exist in organisation
7
8
Document findings in LLP repository
9
Present findings, monitor action
item and performance
Share lessons through 10

Communities of Practice
Internal
LLP review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Compile lessons from: - Lessons compiled from internal or external failures

-Failure Modes,
-Failure Mechanisms,
-Contributory Causes, and
-Underlying Causes
2 Compile recommendation actions - Action items compiled from internal or external failure
investigations
3 Convert into LLP bulletin/article a Findings and recommendations from external incidents are
validated
b Bulletin contains, class, type, rating, product handled and
specifics (e.g. brand) of equipment
c Bulletin contains the failure date, Failure Consequence, Failure
Mode, Failure Mechanism, Contributory Causes (if any) and
Underlying Causes
d Bulletin contains recommendations to prevent failure
e Bulletin contains own OPU's equipment or system that may
benefit from the learnings
f Bulletin approved
4 Organise and conduct sharing sessions - Sharing sessions conducted to all technical personnel
5 Confirm audience understanding - Audience understanding is obtained for MEDIUM, HIGH and
EXTREME consequence failures, through question and answer
session

LLP review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
6 Investigate if gaps from lessons learned, - Investigate if the design, operation and/or maintenance gaps
exist in organisation exist for related equipment identified in step "3"
7 Make recommendations - Adopt improvement actions based on analysis in step "6"
8 Document findings in LLP repository a State gaps identified in organisation

b State recommended action items
c State action party (after prior discussion and agreement)
9 Present findings, monitor action item a Findings as per step "8" presented
and performance b Action items tracked until completion
c [Refer to Performance Reporting and Analysis acceptance
criteria for details]
10 Share lessons learned to other OPUs - Bulletin shared to other OPUs

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.

• PTS 18.53.02 – Mechanical Integrity.
• PTS 18.53.01 – Management of Change.
• -.
Major purpose for Deviation and Deferral Management include the following.
• Assess the risks of a deviation or deferral and implement risk mitigating actions if there is any.
Else, reject the deviation or deferral.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
Deviation and Deferral is performed for SCEs and non-SCEs, for the following situations.
• Deviation from standards and ITPMs.

• Deferral from ITPM schedules.

• Deviation and Deferral work flow.

• Deviation and Deferral review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work
flow).
Internal
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Intended Deviation
Deviation from technical
specifications
or Deferral
• Intended Deferral
occur
from ITPM
schedule
Complete risk assessment 1a

Yes
SCE? and follow-up actions
through MOC
No
Perform risk assessment of 1b

Deviation/Deferral
Risk and
mitigation No
Reject Deferral/Deviation 2a
actions
acceptable?
Yes
2b
Make recommendations to keep risk
at acceptable level
Document recommendations 3
4
Present findings and monitor
action items until original
specification or schedule is
reinstated
Internal
Deviation and Deferral Management review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1a [SCE, or deviation intended as - [Refer to PTS 18.53.01 - Management of Change]

permanent] Complete risk assessment
1b [Non-SCE] Perform risk assessment of - [Refer to Pareto & Risk Assessment acceptance criteria for
Deviation/Deferral details]
2a [Risk and mitigation actions not - Rejection reason documented

acceptable] Reject Deferral/Deviation
2b [Risk acceptable] Make a Action items stated

recommendations to keep risk at b Action party stated
acceptable level c Deadline stated
d Work Order number stated for temporary repairs
3 Document recommendations - Risk assessments and mitigation actions prepared and

approved
4 Present findings and monitor action a Risk assessments and mitigation actions presented
items until original specification or
schedule is reinstated b Action items tracked until completion

Zakaria
Title

Targets, policies
4.1.4 SOLs 4.1.5
(EIA, HAZOP, LCC
QRA)
RAM studies C1
4.1.6 4.1.7 (incl. 4.1.8
Sp. parts

QA & QC –
4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.2
MOC or
Deviation
MSR FFS
Management
Reporting
4.3.3 Common or
#
and Analysis
(Manage-
ment juris-
Input Process
Terminate
(Manage-
ment
Investigation,
diction)

jurisdiction)
and/or
RCFA and/or
BAM KPIs
– Due Hazards
PSI
and standards.
• PTS 18.53.03 – Process Safety Information.
• -.
Major purpose for RIDM include the following.
• Mapping ownership, location, and latest version (if applicable) of reliability and integrity data,
and keeping the data current, for necessary analyses, and enable application of RIMP.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
RIDM is applicable for reliability and integrity data. The data are:
• that required by PSI,

• that required and analysed by Performance Reporting and Analysis,
• RAM studies and LCC details and results,
• asset KPIs,
• operation and maintenance philosophy and policies, and strategies,
• peer benchmark results, and
• lessons learnt and best practices.

• RIDM work flow.

• RIDM review checklist (stating requirements for each step within the work flow).
• RIDM template.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
#
Pre- Docu-
Termi- Input Dec
nate Process -ide
Output
• Data required by
RIM processes
Manage
• Output (including
RIM
action items)
database
from RIM
processes
Identify ownership of data 1
Identify location of data 2
Identify latest data version 3
Map “1”, “2” and “3” 4
Publish “4” 5
6
Perform data QC
Utilise data where required 7
Internal
RIDM review checklist

Team Leader:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed
date:
1 Identify ownership of data a List of data required for RIM processes is available
b List of outputs (including action items) from RIM processes is
available
c Owner of each data is identified
2 Identify location of data - Location (softcopy or hardcopy) is identified
3 Identify latest data version - Latest data version (softcopy or hardcopy) is identified
4 Map “1”, “2” and “3” - Put the information in a table
5 Publish “4” - Inform management and relevant technical personnel
6 Perform data QC - [Refer to Data QC acceptance criteria for details]
7 Utilise data where required - [Refer to RIM process requirements]

Zakaria
Title
Data Owner Location Latest version
Figure 4.12:2: RIDM template.
Internal
Zakaria
Title
END OF DOCUMENT
Internal

Reliability and Integrity Management System Guideline - v3.0 - 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reliability and Integrity Management System Guideline - v3.0 - 2015

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

Reliability and Integrity Management System Guideline - v3.0 - 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RELIABILITY and INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

© 2015 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)

Appendix 3a: Simplified Reliability and Integrity workflow ................................................................................. 49

IEC International Electrotechnical Council

• Integrated Plant Operations Capability System (iPOCS) requirements.

The custodian of this document is Asset Management, GTS.

The following highlights key definitions of Reliability, Integrity, Maintainability and

Maximise Asset Availability at

Maximise Uptime Minimise Downtime

Right Design Right Operation Right Maintenance

Table 1.1:1: Definitions of Reliability, Integrity, Maintainability and Availability.

• Time is calendar time, cycles, running-

Hence Reliability is applicable to any item,

• rotary equipment and machinery,

Common measurement for Reliability is Mean

Mathematically, (simple) MTBF is:

Element Definition Influencing

In order to achieve “Integrity”, it is essential

Key points on Integrity.

• It is a feature of design and part of the

• to minimise any sort of risk towards:

Hence Integrity is applicable to any item,

Element Definition Influencing

Common measurement for Maintainability is

Mathematically, (simple) MTTR is:

Total actual-repair time

Mathematically, (simple) MTR is:

Total restoration14 time

Element Definition Influencing

Mathematically (for historical Availability):

• “Uptime” excludes, unplanned and

• Leadership and Commitment

• “shall” indicates a course of action with a required, mandatory status within

This document states “WHAT” PETRONAS Companies need to perform to achieve

This document is applicable to design (including change of design), operation, and

PETRONAS Operating Unit (OPU) and Holding Unit (HCU) Heads.

OPU Reliability and Integrity Management group.

OPU Design/Engineering group.

OPU Operation group.

OPU Maintenance group.

2. ELEMENT 1. LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT

• involvement in reliability and maintainability related programs within the facility,

They shall set up infrastructure for:

• tracking implementation of RIMS activities (e.g. through an existing committee

3. ELEMENT 2. POLICY AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

4. ELEMENT 3. ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES

OPU Head shall establish a governance function to ensure implementation of RIMS

• Consolidate and review of improvement suggestions from

• Maintain all records regarding plant operations and key

• Propose for facility availability improvements through available

5. ELEMENT 4. RELIABILITY and INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Operate & Improve

• In the event that a new plant is to be set up.

Table 5.2:1: Sub-processes within RIMP.

• covered by specific guidelines,

# in Methodology Key requirement/s Typical Reference/s

• RAM analyses shall be performed prior to

• lowest ownership cost and

# in Methodology Key requirement/s Typical Reference/s