ASM Survey

Take the Asset Strategy Management Maturity Assessment

How does your Reliability Improvement and Strategy Management efforts stack up against best-in-class programs?

This diagnostic evaluates your existing program against the four core competencies of successful Asset Strategy Management:

» Data: Relevance, quality, and availability
» Technology: Adoption, performance, and functionality
» People: Skills, culture, and organizational structure
» Process: Tracking, analysis, and decisions

Take this 12-question assessment and you'll receive a score, your score summary and a personalized report.

Tell us about yourself

First Name*

Last Name*

Job Title*

Where do you work?

Company Name*

Country*

State*

Do you use a FMECA / RCM approach to maintenance plan development?*

Not at all Sometimes, it is done on an ad hoc basis Mostly, it is done on critical assets Yes, it is done on all assets

Do you justify each maintenance task based on quantified risk or cost benefit?*

Not at all Sometimes, it is done by qualitative assessment only Mostly, it is done on critical assets Yes, it is done on all assets

Do you closely monitor the compliance of maintenance strategy execution?*

Never. We have a disconnect between the reliability group and the execution group - it's probably not implemented Sometimes, the agreed strategy is in our CMMS but not sure if it's being executed Most of the time, we regularly check that our agreed strategy is in our CMMS (and hasn't been modified) and is being executed Always, we have real time monitoring and triggers/notifications in place to ensure strategy compliance

Are task or plan intervals changed in your CMMS without approval or justification?*

Often. Access is based on CMMS permissions and most planners can change an interval with no review or approval Sometimes. Reliability Engineers can change intervals but there is no formal review or tracking Rarely. Only Reliability Engineers can change intervals and we have some form of review process Never. Access to make changes to intervals is controlled and we follow a formal review and approval process including appropriate subject matter experts

Do you review and update maintenance plans regularly based on performance feedback?*

Not at all, our strategies haven't changed since we put them into the CMMS Sometimes, review is limited and ad hoc Most of the time, review is fairly regular and always based on major failures Yes, reviews are regular, based on agreed triggers and follow a formal process

Do you generate maintenance plans using a standard "Asset Type" library?*

Never Sometimes, we have some maintenance plan templates Most of the time, we have templates for all equipment types Yes, we have it for all assets and criticality variants

Can you easily adjust standard maintenance plans for specific operational requirements?*

We don't use standard/generic maintenance plans Not at all, we only use standard maintenance plans Somewhat, for some assets only Yes, for all assets

Are standard maintenance plans and tasks easily created, changed, updated, and deployed?*

No, we don't have a standard task library Not really, our libraries aren't connected to our assets, or become disconnected when we make context changes Somewhat, we can do it but its slow/manual Yes, we can do it automatically/rapidly even where local context changes have been made

Do you benchmark the performance of like assets?*

Never Rarely, it's not easy because the data structure is inconsistent but we can do it Occasionally, for some assets Often, benchmarking is done regularly and with ease

Do your maintenance plans have a consistent standard structure within your CMMS?*

Not at all, the tasks are manually grouped Somewhat, we have some guidelines but still have inconsistencies Mostly, generally people structure the plans the same Yes, we have rule based structures to generate plans - so they all have the same structure

Is it clear in your organizational structure who is accountable for maintenance strategy improvements?*

Not at all Somewhat, we have some site Reliability Engineers and corporate Reliability Engineers Mostly, we have some clarity around accountabilities of strategy review and performance monitoring is in place Yes, our reliability organization, at sites and corporate, including executive sponsorship is well defined and understood

Does your organization understand and embrace the concept of Reliability and integrate it across multiple functions of the business?*

Not at all Somewhat, however reliability is a standalone domain Mostly, we have had some training and most would understand reliability and our improvement process Yes, we have had formal training, the Asset Strategy Management process is widely understood by the organization and incorporates several functions other than reliability

Choose which best describes your role*

Choose which best describes your area of responsibility*

Get your results

We will email a report with your personal results, what best in class Asset Strategy Management looks like and helpful steps to progress on your ASM journey. Please enter your email address to receive your report.

Email*

Privacy Policy

Click here to accept the terms of our privacy policy

I consent to receive digital communication (including email, social, and re-targeting ads) from ARMS Reliability. I understand I may change my preferences or opt-out of communications with ARMS Reliability at any time using the unsubscribe link provided. I acknowledge that ARMS Reliability will process my personal data in accordance with their Privacy Policy

Your Score

Medium

Content

Tracking Source

Campaign

​Take the Asset Strategy Management Maturity Assessment

Take the Asset Strategy Management Maturity Assessment