Rationalization Quality Assurance
This month, TiPS is releasing for immediate consumption a white paper, and a spreadsheet which will be of enormous benefit to those who are thinking about rationalizing their alarm system. Why are we doing this instead of charging for it?
At the TiPS user group, one of the repeating themes was the fact that there seems to be very little consistency in the fulfillment element of alarm management- specifically in the area of rationalization. I've written on this issue before, so its not a new thing for me to address. And perhaps you already know my views on this subject, so I'll share those of others instead.
One attendee commented that they had a service company (who just happens to publish their own software and books) come in to perform the rationalization work for them. Though they didn't really know what to fully expect from the result of the rationalization exercise, they did know that what they received was NOT what they expected. This experience was shared as being common by several others. It seems some service vendors have been playing "hide the sausage" on alarm management.
Another comment was made that a major expectation was that the result would be an overall reduction in alarms. After all, this seems to be the commonly advertised thread, and therefore expectation. So, to test this, the so-called "rationalized settings" were played back against the data from the previous few months, and the resulting change in number of alarms was "negligible". The response from the service vendor when confronted with this fact was that the expectation of alarm rationalization should not necessarily be to provide a reduction in the number of alarms. In order to do that you needed to do a nuisance alarm reduction, and the client had not paid for one of those. The point is that for the price, it was expected. And, from all that is written, it seems it has been advertised as an expected result.
Additional comments indicated that only part of the database of alarms configured have actually been rationalized (sometimes less than 10%). The justification given for this by the vendor held that only high-priority alarms needed to be annunciated, and therefore rationalized for full design. Meanwhile, we've told most of our clients that its as important to document why something is NOT an alarm as why some things ARE.
Now add to that some of our own past experiences in importing rationalized data. We are often asked to include the results of a rationalization study into our alarm KB, so that the results will be tracked for auditing, enforcement, and Management of Change. The array of spreadsheets we have received show no continuity, and seem to be only partially completed. This, despite the fact that a healthy sum of money was paid for the services. We have seen exceptions- more on that later. These rationalization results were delivered by companies who should know better. They participate in all the standards boards, and write software, and lots of papers on what you ought to do with your money. Seems they've been collecting exorbitant fees, and delivering shoddy work/software. I guess your money spends a little more freely outside US borders...
Well, we found this just downright un-American, and decided to do something about it. Thus the result that is available to you now, and will continue to be updated and made available to you: the alarm rationalization quality assurance kit. It consists of a spreadsheet in Excel format, and instructions detailing how to use it. With these instructions, you should be able to hold anybody's feet to the flames for what you expect of an alarm rationalization exercise done at your site.
As strictly a software vendor, I think you are aware that TiPS does not perform such services. We've done lots of studies for our clients, but few projects. Our intent is to make our software easy enough, and to perform enough in an automated fashion that you should not need external services should you decide to do this yourself. Software these days should offer you that option. From a purely commercial standpoint, ours is the only one that is not offered by a company with a service desire built in as shortcomings. See more about it at www.tipsweb.com/products/logmate.
However, rationalization- the process of fully documenting cause, consequence, and corrective action for alarms and prioritizing those alarms properly can be a time-consuming effort and perhaps a little intimidating to one who has not done it. So TiPS partners with companies who are the state of the art in delivering services to that end. If you attended our user group, many of them were in attendance, and you were able to hear what they had to say for themselves. These vendors all offer the complete service one might expect when performing a rationalization exercise. In other words, they:
1. Help you to review or create an acceptable alarm philosophy.
2. FULLY configure and document your alarm system.
3. Perform a nuisance analysis so that those pesky alarms are reduced.
4. Complete the documentation that shows the expected result you pay for.
5. See that your expectation was achieved.
So, this means they adhere to the quality assurance process offered by the kit. Some even offer services in excess of what we have stated as the minimum expectation.
We're hoping that our alarm rationalization quality assurance kit will help to shed light on the minimum of what you should be expecting in return for your efforts- whether internally, or contracted. Additionally, our software is designed to help you accomplish that end.
So, please enjoy what we have taken pains to put into print for you. Use it, test it, and send us back your comments. We intend to maintain this kit as an evergreen item that will always be available in the latest best practices rendition. It will adhere to the principles of EEMUA, ISA's SP-18 Standard, and the experience of persons key to those efforts, including past members of the ASM consortium (ASM Is a trademark of Honeywell). Our intent is to be certain that alarm management as a practice does not get a bad name from the habits of others. The more educated our user base is about what to expect, the less chance they will be surprised with the results.
At the TiPS user group, one of the repeating themes was the fact that there seems to be very little consistency in the fulfillment element of alarm management- specifically in the area of rationalization. I've written on this issue before, so its not a new thing for me to address. And perhaps you already know my views on this subject, so I'll share those of others instead.
One attendee commented that they had a service company (who just happens to publish their own software and books) come in to perform the rationalization work for them. Though they didn't really know what to fully expect from the result of the rationalization exercise, they did know that what they received was NOT what they expected. This experience was shared as being common by several others. It seems some service vendors have been playing "hide the sausage" on alarm management.
Another comment was made that a major expectation was that the result would be an overall reduction in alarms. After all, this seems to be the commonly advertised thread, and therefore expectation. So, to test this, the so-called "rationalized settings" were played back against the data from the previous few months, and the resulting change in number of alarms was "negligible". The response from the service vendor when confronted with this fact was that the expectation of alarm rationalization should not necessarily be to provide a reduction in the number of alarms. In order to do that you needed to do a nuisance alarm reduction, and the client had not paid for one of those. The point is that for the price, it was expected. And, from all that is written, it seems it has been advertised as an expected result.
Additional comments indicated that only part of the database of alarms configured have actually been rationalized (sometimes less than 10%). The justification given for this by the vendor held that only high-priority alarms needed to be annunciated, and therefore rationalized for full design. Meanwhile, we've told most of our clients that its as important to document why something is NOT an alarm as why some things ARE.
Now add to that some of our own past experiences in importing rationalized data. We are often asked to include the results of a rationalization study into our alarm KB, so that the results will be tracked for auditing, enforcement, and Management of Change. The array of spreadsheets we have received show no continuity, and seem to be only partially completed. This, despite the fact that a healthy sum of money was paid for the services. We have seen exceptions- more on that later. These rationalization results were delivered by companies who should know better. They participate in all the standards boards, and write software, and lots of papers on what you ought to do with your money. Seems they've been collecting exorbitant fees, and delivering shoddy work/software. I guess your money spends a little more freely outside US borders...
Well, we found this just downright un-American, and decided to do something about it. Thus the result that is available to you now, and will continue to be updated and made available to you: the alarm rationalization quality assurance kit. It consists of a spreadsheet in Excel format, and instructions detailing how to use it. With these instructions, you should be able to hold anybody's feet to the flames for what you expect of an alarm rationalization exercise done at your site.
As strictly a software vendor, I think you are aware that TiPS does not perform such services. We've done lots of studies for our clients, but few projects. Our intent is to make our software easy enough, and to perform enough in an automated fashion that you should not need external services should you decide to do this yourself. Software these days should offer you that option. From a purely commercial standpoint, ours is the only one that is not offered by a company with a service desire built in as shortcomings. See more about it at www.tipsweb.com/products/logmate.
However, rationalization- the process of fully documenting cause, consequence, and corrective action for alarms and prioritizing those alarms properly can be a time-consuming effort and perhaps a little intimidating to one who has not done it. So TiPS partners with companies who are the state of the art in delivering services to that end. If you attended our user group, many of them were in attendance, and you were able to hear what they had to say for themselves. These vendors all offer the complete service one might expect when performing a rationalization exercise. In other words, they:
1. Help you to review or create an acceptable alarm philosophy.
2. FULLY configure and document your alarm system.
3. Perform a nuisance analysis so that those pesky alarms are reduced.
4. Complete the documentation that shows the expected result you pay for.
5. See that your expectation was achieved.
So, this means they adhere to the quality assurance process offered by the kit. Some even offer services in excess of what we have stated as the minimum expectation.
We're hoping that our alarm rationalization quality assurance kit will help to shed light on the minimum of what you should be expecting in return for your efforts- whether internally, or contracted. Additionally, our software is designed to help you accomplish that end.
So, please enjoy what we have taken pains to put into print for you. Use it, test it, and send us back your comments. We intend to maintain this kit as an evergreen item that will always be available in the latest best practices rendition. It will adhere to the principles of EEMUA, ISA's SP-18 Standard, and the experience of persons key to those efforts, including past members of the ASM consortium (ASM Is a trademark of Honeywell). Our intent is to be certain that alarm management as a practice does not get a bad name from the habits of others. The more educated our user base is about what to expect, the less chance they will be surprised with the results.
Comments