If you're about my age, you probably grew up on a diet of Saturday Night Live, with John Belushi, Steve Martin, Gilda Radner and the rest of that wacky bunch. I loved the one when Gilda Radner took off (as Rosanne Rosanna Danna) on the righteous question of what was wrong with Saxophones and Violins on TV? When they stopped her and explained that it was actually sex and violence, she responded in the traditional "Oh-well- Never Mind" for which her character was famous. Recall she also did pieces on the "Youth in Asia" and other memorable fractured phrases.

So-to borrow from Gilda, a lot of you are probably wondering "What's all this talk about rations on libations"? Well, I'm here to enlighten you. And like the "Oh-well- Never mind." I also realized they're talking about Rationalization. Was that ever a shock. I was wondering why so many people were inviting a service company to come in for a project that never seemed to make anybody much better off. Especially if it meant they were cut off on libations. Here's what my research has found.

To start with, I looked up the word RATIONALIZE in Websters. ra·tio·nal·ize: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives (rationalized his dislike of his brother) broadly : to create an EXCUSE or more attractive explanation for (rationalize the problem)

So, do I need for people to come to my plant and make up excuses for my alarms? Rationalization as a word and a practice is at the least overused, and is nominally something done to make an excuse for the fact that we put in a bad design to start with. So, let's re-look at alarm systems as a design problem rather than a fix-it problem. If you get the design right, it's fixed for good.

Perhaps we should look at the problem in the way that is supported by the ISA's SP-18 committee. As already stated, the fact that you have a bad alarm system is due to the fact that it was not designed properly to start with. Or, perhaps it was designed properly, but it was not engineered properly with the protections and safeguards in place to ensure that it would not grow to an unmanageable state. That is because there was no attention paid to the alarm system design lifecycle. The upcoming ISA SP-18 specification will pay particular attention to alarm system design lifecycle. The point is that if you put the proper design in place, and install proper safeguards and practices, your alarm system should NEVER become a problem. So, let's stop paying so much lip service to alarm rationalization, and instead pay particular attention to alarm system design and the tools to protect its integrity.

How do I do that?

Alarm management is not rocket science. There's no special algorithms, and no special proprietary secrets necessary to make it work. The EEMUA 191 document is written just for those who need to know how to get their arms around it, and it's not really that bad to read. You can buy it with your credit card at www.eemua.co.uk. If you have designed your system such that it is now out of hand, an alarm system lifecycle review will tell you that you need to rectify that to get it back within a state of control.

In the late 80's and early 90's there was a lot of talk about process optimization. There were people who would come to your site, and optimize your process. When they left, things ran well- all the loop controllers were tuned, all the targets were properly set, and things seemed to run fantastic for a few weeks. A few weeks later- back to square one. They did not install the tools to protect your unit from falling out of an optimized state. In fact, they did not want to install such tools, as that was how they made money. If they did install a tool, it was so rudimentary as to make you need their help anyway.

Such is the state of alarm management that is being sold by a handful of service companies. Yes, they offer software packages, but it is not in their best interests to make that package address your alarm system lifecycle. If it did, their income would drop drastically.

What is the pattern? A team comes on site- does a rationalization, and all is well for awhile, and then we're right back where we started. Why is that? It's because to be successful, we need to institutionalize and internalize the processes associated with good alarm management. And we need to correct the bad practices that allowed the alarm system to get into the shape it is in to start with. These need to be incorporated as a part of our internal processes and practices. Just as we did with process optimization (if we did). And as Mr. Ian Nimmo says (www.mycontrolroom.com) you need to consider all the factors associated with good SITUATION AWARENESS (his term- read his papers).

What is meant by that? It's simple- other than absolute nuisance alarms- all alarms exist for a reason. Unless you discover and resolve the cause for an alarm, it makes no sense to get rid of it just for the sake of reducing alarms. It will simply reappear, or- lead to an incident. Too few alarms can be more damaging than too many alarms. This means that some alarms just cannot be reduced without additional work around the control automation subsystems. Some have learned this the hard way on some of their initial rationalization attempts.

So- just what am I getting at?

Some service vendors out there want to sell you a rationalization project. They would also like to sell you a product which supports rationalization the way they see it. And at least a few of them have a very narrow view of the subject. They do not recognize the lifecycle aspects of an alarm system, just their desire to rationalize. So what do you do with their product once you've rationalized? Well- its only valuable if you need to rationalize again, and it is their goal to ascertain that need will exist. That's rather disappointing if you've designed a complete bid process around finding a product that will help you rationalize your systems. Quite frankly if that product did what it was desired to do, you could use it once and throw it away.

Much like the Webster's definition of the word rationalize, their motives are to create a rationale to hide the true motives behind their actions. i.e they've rationalized rationalizatrion, and made it sound as if it's a final answer when it is not. It's ignoring the causal drivers for bad alarms Essentially, it is akin to fixing a flat tire on your car everyday,rather than finding why it goes flat.

Ignore the noise you're hearing in this area long enough to consider a lifecycle approach to alarm management. Think of your alarm system as a system that needs to be properly designed to start with. If it is not, or was not, then rectify that situation, but be certain that you consider the need to get the system under control. There's a lot that's been written on this issue, but its not attractive because it says you have to alter practices and procedures and perhaps even take on additional automation changes rather than just doing a project and checking it off the list of to-do's.

So, if you have a new alarm system, put the tools on to start with to be certain it is properly tracked and kept within reasonable limits. You'll save massively in the years to come. If you have an old one, consider what is needed to get it back to a state of good design.

Yes, excuses may thus have to be made for your existing alarms, but your mindset will be one of getting it within a realm of control and tracking to be certain it stays there rather than just having to re-do it every six months. And the tools you choose will support this approach rather than one of continuous rationalization.

Place rations on their libations and they might come to the same conclusion...

I'll be addressing this issue more in the coming months.

�