Equipment Criticality risk reduction choices must really reduce operating risk

[MikeS]

When you select a risk mitigation to address an unacceptable risk in
the Equipment Criticality assignment of Planning Module 1, chose one
that is clearly measurable.

For example, instead of saying “Follow the OEM Operation manual
instructions” as the way to reduce equipment risk, make it “Train
Operators to follow the OEM Operation manual instructions”.

The reasons for doing that are:

1) now it is very clear what action must be done—someone must train
the operators,

2) you have also created a way to measure the operators’ performance—
it must be good enough to run the equipment correctly, anything less
is not suitable,

3) the necessary quality of the operators’ performance is also clear—
it must meet what the OEM has specified,

4) you can now do a regular 6-monthly audit of what the operators
really do and compare their real practices with what the OEM says they
should be doing. If they are doing the wrong things then that problem
must be addressed.

If you use, “Follow the OEM Operation manual instructions”, the
Operations people will tell you that they already do that and nothing
will be done to improve the situation. Unless the operators do run
the equipment to OEM requirements the risk reduction you wanted cannot
happen and thus the risk is not truly reduced. To reduce the risk the
operators must run the equipment properly and nothing else but correct
operation is acceptable.

Unless you can clearly measure the improvement from a risk mitigation
there is no real risk reduction. You cannot claim reduction in risk
if a mitigation can never be proved to actually happen.

Best regards,

MikeS