Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90249

RELIABILITY SCORECARDS FOR OPERATING PIPELINES


Brad Jones Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Andr-Michel Ferrari Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

KEY WORDS Reliability Scorecard, Reliability Performance Measurement, Pipeline Performance Measurement, Pipeline Reliability Measurement, Value Creation, Reliability Engineering ABSTRACT Scorecards are generally used to track operational performance in various fields of work and direct the management team toward correcting the observed deviations. Generally, a Scorecard is made up of specific metrics which have been carefully identified against defined operating objectives. In this paper, the Scorecard examined uses a reliability growth indicator in combination with other traditional factors to measure speed of progress to a target level. As a leading liquid pipeline operator, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (hereafter Enbridge) holds established and comprehensive management systems governing all aspects of its operations. In essence the Reliability Scorecard adds enhanced capabilities to the existing systems.1 In September 2010, using current throughput performance and failure historical data, the Reliability Team in Enbridge developed a quarterly Reliability Scorecard for its pipeline network. Metrics for each pipeline consisted of utilization, adherence to shipping schedules and a unique reliability growth indicator of the overall line as well as the top ten failure modes. This enabled not only the tracking of performance levels but also the direction and speed of improvement or decline in those metrics. The analysis was conducted using the Crow-AMSAA
1 All examples presented in this paper utilize fictitious or hypothetical values. No actual data of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. or its affiliates has been incorporated herein.

Analytical Process. Using the throughput impact (e.g. barrels not shipped), level of reliability performance and magnitude of reliability improvement for each failure mode on all pipelines, it became easy to select targets for improvement. Unacceptable deviations were those having more than a 10% share of throughput volume impact per failure mode combined with a Crow AMSAA growth factor (Beta) of 1.2 or greater. The advent of this Reliability Scorecard has improved the organizational focus on areas with greatest impact on pipeline performance and revenue generation. Having a solid indication of the issues affecting each pipeline system, the Reliability Team was able to target its efforts accordingly. For example, for a specific high impact failure mode, a formal Root Cause Analysis would be conducted to identify the causes and implement a corrective action plan. Additionally, systematic lack of improvement for one failure mode over multiple quarters would be shared with relevant teams as awareness of specific threats to performance in their area. In essence, if well-defined and accepted, an effective Scorecard can be a powerful driver for improvement in an organization. It can assist in channeling the efforts of individuals, departments or the overall organization in addressing real threats to performance specific fields. Management can also use this tool to justify where appropriate resources need to be allocated. Finally, as demonstrated in this case, in addition to traditional operational targets, an improvement or regression factor can also be used to measure the progress or decline of specific scorecard metrics. INTRODUCTION The Reliability Scorecard is a significant improvement to the existing performance management systems in Enbridge. This paper explores the value created through the use of a Reliability Scorecard measurement system, and how this has been used as

Copyright 2012 by ASME

an additional catalyst to drive improvements in Enbridges pipeline network throughput while also reducing unplanned operational interruptions and costs associated with changes in the pipeline shipping schedule. Firstly, it will be demonstrated how this Reliability Scorecard aligns under a higher level Asset Management Framework and can become one of the drivers of improvement initiatives for the overall pipeline network. This will also show how individual pipeline throughputs can be increased while at the same time reducing unnecessary operational costs resulting from startups, shutdowns, field responses and equipment failures that manifest themselves as increases in operating budgets and thereby negatively impacting revenue. Secondly, the genesis of the improvement process effort will be discussed as well as the formation and structure of the Reliability Scorecard including its input sources, analysis methods and how the resulting outputs are applied to identify and quantify improvement opportunities. An example of a Reliability Scorecard is then used to illustrate how this process can be used repeatedly to drive further improvements in systems to deliver on expected strategic results. Additionally, the results obtained from a Root Cause Analysis driven by the Reliability Scorecard process are highlighted as a tangible benefit provided by this Scorecard. Finally, since the current analysis is a manual process, the paper will briefly discuss improvements with regards to the automation of the Reliability Scorecard and extending its reach into other areas of improvement beyond throughput such as aggressive cost reduction, optimization of resources as well as improvements in design and operational processes. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING Enbridge, as a leading pipeline operator, holds established and comprehensive management systems governing all aspects of its operations including operational performance management systems highlighted in this paper. In essence the Reliability Scorecard adds enhanced capabilities to the existing systems in line with the Continuous Improvement requirements of any Total Quality Management Systems. Since pipeline systems and networks are large capital intensive assets, they can significantly benefit from a structured Asset Management System to maximize value over the assets lifecycle. For example, the Publicly Available Specification PAS-55:2008 [1] states that Performance assessment and improvement is an essential required element of the Asset Management System and Performance and condition monitoring is one key aspect of that element. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, this Asset Management System structure is integrated to the ISO quality management systems

encompassing the Plan-Do-Check-Act process hence highlighting the important role of Performance assessment and improvement in this process.

FIGURE 1 PAS 55-1 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FRAMEWORK [1] The Reliability Scorecard discussed here provides one aspect of performance monitoring of the pipeline network by measuring key liquid pipeline performance factors such as utilization and reliability of daily shipped volumes but also uses a unique reliability growth indicator to indicate direction and magnitude of reliability improvements or deterioration in the pipeline network performance. The Reliability Scorecard also breaks down the cause of unreliability into specific failure modes that can be analyzed in a variety of ways. By definition, throughout this paper, failure modes are any event disrupting the scheduled throughput on the pipeline. Examples include operational upsets, logistical delays and equipment related disruptions or restrictions. In addition, the scorecard uses benchmarked performance markers to indicate various rating levels of current performance. This enables areas of poor performance to be identified and quantified quickly based on the reactive measurements and summation of volume impacts. Additionally, with the inclusion of the reliability growth indicator, a leading indicator is added and enables predictive capability to the Reliability Scorecard thereby enhancing decision making capabilities. By following the linkage from the higher level Asset Management System such as PAS-55 down to a lagging and leading indicator measurement system such as the Reliability Scorecard, improvement opportunities that align with the strategic directions can more easily be identified, quantified and thereby acted on for improvement. Improvement opportunities hold tremendous value for both shippers on the system through increased throughput and efficiency with the existing assets but

Copyright 2012 by ASME

also hold value for the company by maximizing revenue streams from the pipelines and corresponding facilities. Furthermore, in terms of efficiency gains, the Reliability Scorecard is a means by which areas showing less efficient performance, can be identified, quantified and prioritized within the organization. Once prioritized, those areas are then analyzed typically through a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) process to develop solutions that will capture the identified value and other improvement opportunities. Application of formal RCA processes ensure that solutions are generated to target the reduction in unreliability but also can lead to systemic level improvement in the processes that allowed the unreliability to exist in the first place. These systemic issues can include improvements in such areas as design standards, operating procedures or even business processes used in the development of assets. Once solutions are implemented (e.g. following an RCA) the Reliability Scorecard can also be used as an objective means to measure actual progress caused by the solutions. This allows feedback on the improvements effectiveness by measuring the effect caused by the solutions not only in magnitude but also in time. This is mainly achieved through the use of the reliability growth indicator, discussed in greater detail later. The scorecard then acts both as the initiator of priority improvement opportunities as well as a measure of results from the improvement efforts in an unbiased and objective manner. By repeating the process of identifying opportunities, conducting RCAs to determine solutions, implementing those solutions and measuring the results, a long term improvement cycle can be achieved. This cycle can be continued until there are no more economically viable opportunities to work on and the system can move strictly to a measurement system to ensure improvements remain in control long term. RELIABILITY SCORECARD DEVELOPMENT Over the years Enbridge has put many measurement systems in place to record and manage system performance parameters. In September 2010 the Reliability Team developed the Quarterly Reliability Scorecard as a means of measuring different attributes of liquid pipeline functional performance. The intent was to develop a single paged, easy to read document that would quickly indicate acceptable and unacceptable areas of pipeline system throughput capabilities and the underlying failure modes or causes to scheduled throughput disruptions. The Scorecard would apply to the entire liquid pipeline network but also focus on specific regional entities. In essence, this new tool would help management and to strategically allocate the necessary resources to clearly identified threats.

Hence, the Quarterly Reliability Scorecard was developed to further meet the threat mitigation needs of the organization by establishing and quantifying key performance indicators in the liquid pipeline network. The main indicators included measurements for utilization, reliability, reliability growth, trending and failure mode breakdown as well as performance rating levels and targets for each. In addition to these metrics the disrupted volumes were tallied along with the number of events to assist in understanding and prioritizing opportunities. RELIABILITY SCORECARD PROCESS Using Figure 2 as a guide, the process by which the Reliability Scorecard is produced will be explained in the following sections. The inputs are typical of any liquid pipeline company data as are the desired outputs which in essence are the opportunities for the company to work proactively at resolving. Utilization and summation of disrupted shipping volumes are commonly used metrics whereas the reliability growth indicator is an aspect that is new to Enbridge that will be explored in greater detail.

FIGURE 2 - OVERVIEW OF RELIABILITY SCORECARD PROCESS RELIABILITY SCORECARD INPUTS Inputs to the Reliability Scorecard consist of the following 3 areas:

1.

Annual Capacity of Pipelines

Each liquid pipeline has an average annual capacity that it was designed to operate at, however this number is adjusted monthly. This adjustment is to account for changes in various factors such as seasonal temperatures, expected product viscosity and densities, planned outages or restrictions of the system for connected systems or operational work such as project tie-ins or planned maintenance. The metric is usually stated as average cubic meters per day (m3/d).

Copyright 2012 by ASME

2.

Throughput Summary

This is defined as the volume in cubic meters (m3) flowed down each pipeline. Each pipeline tends to have one segment on the line that is a historical maximum volume point where the most volume flows past compared to other segments on the line. This is due to the fact that receipts and deliveries can occur at multiple locations along a pipeline rather than at a single receipt and delivery location at the beginning and end of the pipeline. The throughput maximum volumes are used to calculate utilization on the pipeline against the monthly capacity and also the reliability of shipped volumes to the scheduled volumes. 3. Throughput Loss Events

operational events or limitations such as logistical conflicts of tanks or manifolds due to scheduling. External events include such items as utility power outages or connected system issues with other pipelines, producers or refineries. Their issues typically include lack of available product to ship and shortage of tanks to receive volumes. Depending on the size and time of the event during the month and the nominations for the month, scheduled shipping volumes may not be negatively impacted over the month. This approach also allows the Reliability Scorecard to capture and analyze chronic events [2]. As is frequently the case, large impact events (sporadic events) tend to make it to the top, whereas chronic events especially if not properly tracked, can lead to significant inefficiencies and revenue losses in the system. RELIABILITY SCORECARD ANALYSIS OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE In the Reliability Scorecard, each analyses factor below is calculated for three levels, the pipeline system as a whole (Total System), a rational grouping of pipelines that service a particular area (System) and for each individual pipeline in the grouping. This allows the ability to look both at the macro level performance of all pipelines and drill down through systems to individual pipelines and failure modes. Utilization Utilization is calculated as shown below in Eq. 1. It is calculated on a quarterly basis and is simply the throughput on the pipeline divided by the capacity of the pipeline shown as a percentage. Capacity may not be constant over a quarter due to items mentioned earlier such as seasonal temperatures or product changes. Throughput is based on daily summaries of volumes moved through the pipeline. Utilization is a macro indicator of the demand that the pipeline or system is under. Performance rating levels, described in Figure 4, have been set to indicate high achievement of utilization, acceptable and underutilized areas. = [ Eq. 1 - Utilization Reliability The reliability factor is calculated as shown in Equation 2. This is not a true probabilistic value as per the definition of Reliability but rather a factor resembling an availability calculation. It is an understandable term within the company to indicate how much adherence there is to the daily shipping schedule over a quarter. As with Utilization there are three (3) ] 100% (3)

This is defined as shortfalls against the daily scheduled shipping volumes (defined in m3). This information along with a throughput summary is used to calculate Reliability and Reliability growth. As part of its Pipeline Operation Management system, Enbridge tracks operational performance of which the logging of pipeline disruption events is a key aspect. The logs consist mainly of unplanned events affecting the pipeline operation. This could be as simple as a pump trip due to an instrument failure leading to the required startup of another pump or more significant disruptions that prevent the Pipeline Control Center from reaching the scheduled shipping volumes for the day. All events are logged but most do not have any throughput loss associated with them. If an event occurs that is short in duration and is not likely to impact shipping schedules over the day or can be made up by running at marginally higher throughput rates, then it is recorded with a zero throughput loss. Events that are longer in duration or have a more significant impact on the pipeline operation such as shutting down an entire pipeline almost always incur a throughput loss volume that is logged as the volume cannot be made up during the day. For a heavily utilized pipeline less significant events start to show up as throughput loss volumes since there is little time or capacity to make up for losses. For the purposes of the Reliability Scorecard inputs, 3 key variables, based on historical events, are considered and defined as follows: : the time of the event, the volume that has been impacted over the day (shortfall against the shipping schedule), the cause of the event (leading to failure mode classification)

The causes can be either restrictions in pipeline capacity or complete shutdowns of the pipeline. As well the outages include both external and internal events that are either equipment or process related. Internal events include physical items such as different types of equipment failures but also

Copyright 2012 by ASME

performance rating levels associated with this metric. As an illustration only, rating levels used are given in Figure 4. (3) (3) =[ ] 100% (3) Eq. 2 Reliability Reliability Growth Indicator The Reliability Growth indicator is calculated using the CrowAMSAA [3], [4] method of Reliability Growth calculation and provides a simple indication of the trend in reliability growth. Reliability growth is a standard analysis method used because it can handle mixed failure modes and small sample sizes yet still provide accurate reliability growth trends. It is typically used in fully developed reliability programs. Reliability Growth aims to show both the direction and magnitude of improvement in a defined systems performance. In simplistic terms, the Reliability Growth is represented by the slope of a line fitted to a plot of mixed mode failure data. With regards to a pipeline operation, the data is a log-log plot of parameters defined as follows: X axis in days: cumulative time between disruptions in shipping schedule (known as Mean Time Between Failure or MTBF) Y axis: cumulative number of disruption events

FIGURE 3 - EXAMPLE OF CROW/AMSAA RELIABILITY GROWTH PLOT (SUPERSMITH) Reliability Growth Plot analysis makes it relatively easy to distinguish a systemic change in reliability from general randomness in the data. In Figure 3, failures are plotted from a continuous system. Visually there are two areas in the data that form almost straight lines meeting at a cusp also known as an inflection point in the middle. This point represents a systemic change in system performance in terms of failure intervals (times between failures). A line fitted to each area indicates the change in reliability and the slope of each line is defined by the Beta value highlighted at the bottom of the graph. For the section on the left side of the line cusp (i.e. earlier in the system history), the Beta value of 2.001 indicates that the failure rate is increasing over time. On the right side of the cusp, the Beta for this fitted line is reduced to 0.909 indicating not only that the failure rate is slowing but is now on an improvement path where the time between failures will continue to get longer and longer. Additionally, for the same two areas of Figure 3 relative to the cusp highlighted above, there is a calculated Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) at the bottom of the graph which shows the characteristic time between failure events. Logically and in correlation with each corresponding Beta value, there is an improvement from 0.87 days to 2.24 days in terms of MTBF. Hence, as illustrated in Figure 3 and based on the above overview of the Beta value, the Reliability Scorecard defines a trend indicator which shows if the Beta term has improved or worsened over the last quarter. Therefore even if the Beta is in the improvement range (i.e. less than 1), the change from the last quarter may indicate if this term is getting smaller (further improving) has stabilized (improvement limit reached) or Beta is increasing (improvements have been defeated or old methods re-instated). This gives further information to the reader on where to take action and potentially re-enforce or review corrective actions that were unsuccessfully applied.

The resultant slope of the fitted line characterized by the term Beta represents the reliability growth in the system. A Reliability Growth plot example using the Supersmith Software is provided in Figure 3. One of the main outputs of the Reliability Growth Plot is the Beta Value which is essential the slope of the Log/Log plot. Beta values provide the following indications: Beta < 1: indicates that failure rates are slowing and the time between events is getting longer, Beta = 1: the failure rate is said to be constant, neither improving nor declining, Beta > 1: the time between failures is decreasing indicating increasing system failure rates.

Provided that historical data is available, the Beta value is simple to convey yet holds much information on how a specific system is currently performing and also is a leading indicator to future performance. Note that the Beta term does not represent the actual reliability only the direction and speed of reliability changes. Hence it is best coupled with the resultant calculation of Reliability from the previous section.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Conversely when the trend is higher than the previous quarter and the Beta was already greater than 1 (worsening reliability) then this means failure rates are increasing and are expected to get larger like an increasing spiral of failures. The Beta term and Quarterly Trend Indicator are leading indicators and as such are helpful aids in the decision making process. Volume Disruptions and Corresponding Number of Events In addition to the factors highlighted above, the disrupted volumes and number of events is tracked along with every level of analysis. This gives the Reliability Scorecard reviewer the opportunity to gauge the magnitude of the throughput losses and number of events. Performance Ranges Defined Figure 4 below indicates the three performance ranges for Utilization, Reliability, Reliability Trend (Beta Value) and Change in Trend from Previous Quarter along with the icons chosen to represent each range. Having the ranges that represent poor performance with regards to set targets along with easily identifiable icons, allows the Reliability Scorecard reviewer to easily identify opportunities for improvement but also have the numerical results on which to quantify the improvements economic value.

FIGURE 5 - EXAMPLE SCORECARD RESULTS FOR A SYSTEM

Example of Pipeline Level Metrics Using the same analyses but applied to each pipeline in a System we get the example shown in Figure 6 below. Looking at Figure 6, within the system, there are four fictitious Pipelines shown all with various performance levels. The overview of the pipeline performance is provided below and includes some comments on the operational aspects.

FIGURE 6 - EXAMPLE SCORECARD RESULTS FOR A SET OF FOUR PIPELINES FIGURE 4 - SCORECARD DEFINITIONS (NUMBERS ARE FICTICIOUS, FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY) Pipeline A is being pushed beyond its calculated operational limits at 104% Utilization but nevertheless still has a good Reliability at 99.5% and an improving Reliability Trend (Beta) of 0.8 with an improved trend over the previous quarter. Performance here is excellent for all metrics. Pipeline B has much lower Utilization at 84% and a good Reliability of 99.2% but a cautionary Reliability Trend of 1.3 indicating a worsening reliability which has nevertheless improved over the last quarter. If utilization remains the same, this pipeline is going to meet it requirements but likely cant if the utilization is pushed higher.

Example System Level Metrics Using Figure 5 below as an example of results for a fictitious pipeline system (multiple pipelines together servicing a region) we can see results for Utilization, Reliability, Reliability Trend (i.e. Beta value) and change from previous quarter. The numerical results along with the icon type immediately indicate that the system is performing satisfactorily. Utilization at 83% is acceptable, Reliability at 98.5% is acceptable, Reliability Trend (Beta value) at 0.98 indicates failure rates are close to stable or slightly improving and finally the trend in Beta has improved since the last quarter. By having these results for each system or pipeline it is clearly visible when areas are performing well or not.

Pipeline C has a high Utilization of 105%, 5% above its calculated annual capacity. This indicates the pipeline is closer to its theoretical limit and is being

Copyright 2012 by ASME

pushed hard. The pipeline has good Reliability at 99.4% but a worsening Reliability Trend of 1.2 which means reliability is declining over time especially compared to the previous quarter. All this indicates the system may be being pushed too hard for too long and likely will not meet future and or higher demands. Depending on the situation, this could mean that preventative maintenance is being postponed leading to more failures or that design limits of equipment are being exceeded and the pipeline wont continue to operate at high Utilization for much longer.

cumulative volume, percentage impact and reliability trend (Beta calculation for the failure mode historical event occurrence). Along with the Reliability trend, the same rating defined in Figure 7 is applied to highlight poor reliability trends easily with red, yellow and green icons. This drilled down section of the Reliability Scorecard then enables easy identification, quantification and prioritization of failure modes which require mitigative action. Based on the estimated impact of the failure mode, an RCA can be triggered. Figure 7 below illustrates an example of 4 fictitious pipelines showing the results for the top two failure modes. For each pipeline and failure mode the following information is shown: MM Bbls - The volume impact shown in Millions of Barrels over a specified period for that failure mode on that pipeline (typically summed over a two year period).

Pipeline D has a low Utilization at 78% and therefore should have high Reliability as there is more time in the day to make up for disrupted shipping volumes. However it has a lower Reliability of 96.9% and a significantly high Reliability Trend of 1.7 which also declined from last quarter. This line would appear to be having significant issues that are not being resolved and performance will continue to decline unless urgent action is taken. Also if Utilization increases the indication is that Reliability and the Reliability Trend will suffer even further declines.

% Impact - The % volume impact for that failure mode on that pipeline out of the total volume disrupted by that failure mode across all pipelines. Trend The Reliability Trend (Beta) factor described earlier as it applies to just that failure mode on that pipeline.

For all of Enbridges major liquids systems and individual pipelines, the previously mentioned analysis is systematically performed on a quarterly basis and tabularized on one page to enable management review of the overall pipeline network performance. RELIABILITY SCORECARD ANALYSIS TOP FAILURE MODE In addition to the high level systems and individual pipeline metrics, the Reliability Scorecard enables the drill down into the top ten failure mode (based on volume) across all the pipelines. In total 28 specific failure modes that have been defined for the most common types of issues that cause shipping volumes to be impacted. These failure modes cover internal equipment type failures pertaining to valves, pumps seals, instrumentation, small vessels etc. They also include internal operational constraints such as delivery or receiving conflicts where 2 pipelines need to use the same equipment such as tanks or metering manifolds. Failure modes also include external operational issues such as utility power failures, third party damage or odor calls, impacts from connected pipelines, producers or refiners that may cause the pipeline to be slowed or stopped. For each event, one of 28 failure mode is assigned to the specific event as well as the associated loss based on

Line # A B C D

Failure Mode 1
MM Bbls % Impact Trend

Failure Mode 2
MM Bbls % Impact Trend

0.0 0.5 0.4 1.3

0.2% 8.4% 6.3% 20.2%

0.7 1.4 1.2 1.7

0.4 0.3 0.4 2.4

6.7% 5.6% 7.2% 44.2%

2.1 0.8 1.2 0.6

FIGURE 7 - EXAMPLE OF TOP 2 FAILURE MODE FOR FOUR PIPELINES From this example it is clear to see that Pipeline D has the largest volume of disruptions of the 4 pipelines and would represent the largest opportunity. Also it evident that the Reliability Trend for Pipeline D on failure mode 1 is worsening and therefore the problem is likely to grow in size. The same cannot be said about Pipeline D for failure mode 2 which also has a large volumetric impact of the four pipelines but has a Reliability Trend of 0.6 which indicates a significant improvement is occurring. Therefore a root cause would likely be ordered for failure mode 1 on Pipeline D but not for mode 2. Hence the Top Ten failure mode analysis provides the Scorecard reviewer with the ability to focus on the systems,

Copyright 2012 by ASME

pipelines and failure modes that provide the most improvement opportunity to the overall pipeline network operation. EXAMPLE OF THE VALUE GENERATION Based on the methods developed in the previous sections, pipelines can be tagged with the most potential for improvement based on failure modes with the largest impact and poorest Reliability Trends. Hence, using this Reliability Scorecard along with forecasts of volume on all the pipelines in the Enbridge Pipeline network, it is reasonably easy to determine the pipeline system with the most shipping schedule risk going forward. In the first use of this prioritizing process based on the output of a Reliability Scorecard, Utility Power Outages was identified as the top failure mode on one pipeline system. The potential revenue loss was estimated at $29 Million over a 4 year period based on the forecasted volumes. The RCA involved a multidisciplinary team of 8 members and led to 15 specific root causes. Each root cause was assigned a mitigative solution leading to a total mitigative investment of $1Million. These improvements identified by the RCA process were forecasted to reduce almost 60% of the volume disruptions from this failure mode on this Pipeline. This equates to increasing the capacity of the pipeline on an annual basis by 0.5% or more than 1 and a half extra days a year at full capacity. Considering almost all the solutions were based on operational issues and solved via procedural changes rather than equipment solutions requiring capital improvements, the solutions are expected to payback implementation costs in less than six months once completed. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS Although the Reliability Scorecard has only recently been developed, it has demonstrated significant value to the organization. However, the quarterly compilation of the Scorecard is currently a manual and time consuming process so

automation is being considered both for historical data collection and Scorecard output generation. Other improvements include reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the input data. Some opportunities are not being captured correctly and expanding the analysis to include high cost events that have no throughput volume impact is being considered. In addition having the Reliability Scorecard output widely distributed and easily accessible to others within the organization would prove extremely beneficial in order to encourage and proliferate improvements to the overall pipeline operation.

CONCLUSION This paper explored the recent development of a Reliability Scorecard within Enbridge and the value that can be derived using existing historical data presented in a compact format. The Scorecard assists in pertinently identifying, quantifying and prioritizing pipeline throughput improvement opportunities which in turn enable management to clearly evaluate where available resources need to be allocated in order to capture the maximum pipeline throughput benefits. By the same token, the Scorecard allows the reviewer to objectively measure if improvements actions are actually having the intended result and improving on targeted issues. The performance assessment and improvement attributes of this Reliability Scorecard are clearly defined hence making it a key building block to an Asset Management Program supporting world class continuous improvement. Although successfully tested in the Enbridge organization by demonstrating value creation to the pipeline operation, the input and output processes needs to be automated and this Reliability Scorecard report accessible to more individuals in the organization to enable even greater value.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

REFERENCES Note: portions of this paper refer to information which is the property of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. That information has been used with the permission of its owner. [1] Publicly Available Specification PAS 55-1:2008 (2008), Asset Management Part 1: Specifications for the optimized management of physical assets, British Standards Institution, pp. xiii [2] Reliability Center, Inc. (1994-2006), Student Manual Your Road to Success PROACT Root Cause Analysis Methods, Reliability Center, Inc., pp 3. [3] Reliability Growth Management, Military Handbook 189 (MIL-HDBK-189) (1981) [4] Paul Barringer, Problem of The Month - Crow/AMSAA Reliability Growth Plots (Nov 2002), Barringer & Associates, Inc., pp 1-12.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Вам также может понравиться