307 fu chino

20th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering – ESCAPE20 S. Pierucci and G. Buzzi Ferraris (Editors) © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Management of Engineering Standards for Plant Maintenance based on Business Process Model Tetsuo Fuchino,a Yukiyasu Shimada,b Teiji Kitajima,c Yuji Nakad aChemical Engineering Department, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1, O-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 152-8552, Japan, [email protected] bChemical Safety Research Gr., National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1-4-6, Umezono, Kiyose, Tokyo, 204-0024, Japan, [email protected] cInstitute of Symbiotic Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, 2-24-16, Naka-cho, Koganei, Tokyo, 184-8588, Japan, [email protected] dChemical Resources Laboratory, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259, Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama, 226-8503, Japan,, [email protected]

Abstract The technology of a company is represented by its technology standards, and their exhaustiveness and consistency are important for competitiveness of the company. The necessary engineering standards and their management scheme should be defined on the basis of the consistent business process model. In this study, plant maintenance is concerned, and IDEF0 (Integration Definition for Function) activity model is adopted for business process modeling. We introduced a novel template to generate the consistent business process model, and proposed an approach to define the requirement of engineering standards and their management scheme on the consistent IDEF0 activity model. Keywords: Business Process Model, Engineering Standard, Lifecycle Engineering

1. Introduction In a plant lifecycle, information, knowledge and experiences, which are acquired through production and maintenance of the plant, are generalized into engineering methods, and are furthermore systematized into the engineering standards to incorporate the generalized methods in the decision making. The systematized standards constrict the activities of the rest of plant lifecycle and/or the next plant lifecycle. Therefore, engineering standards are technology itself of the company, and their exhaustiveness and consistency decide competitiveness of the company. However, the requirement of these standards relating with lifecycle activities are not specified in many cases, and the exhaustiveness and consistency are not satisfied. The reason why the requirement of engineering standards are not specified is that the business process of the lifecycle is implicit, and the engineering standards were provided without relating with engineering activities. To overcome this problem, the consistent business process model of lifecycle engineering should be developed explicitly, and the requirement of engineering standards respect for the lifecycle activities is to be defined. In this study, plant maintenance is concerned, and IDEF0 (Integration Definition for Function) activity model [1] is adopted to represent the business process model. We propose an IDEF0 activity model based approach to specify requirements of engineering standards. To make the consistent IDEF0 activity model ('To-Be' model), a novel template approach across all principal activities is used. By applying this template,

Fuchino et al.

the plant maintenance 'To-Be' model can be provided, and the hierarchal nature of engineering standards can be revealed on the model. The requirement of engineering standards for the plant maintenance can be defined on the basis of the uniformly categorized output by the template. Consequently, the consistent and exhaustive engineering standards for plant maintenance can be designed by applying the defined requirements, and it is also possible to confirm the consistency and exhaustiveness of existing engineering standards. Furthermore, a mechanism to manage the engineering standards are defined on the 'To-Be' IDEF0 activity model of plant maintenance. In the next section, the IDEF0 activity model and the introduced template are explained, and the developed activity model of plant maintenance and the definition of requirement of engineering standards are explained in the further section.

2. Template Approach IDEF0 describes engineering activities hierarchically, and the information between activities can be categorized into four types, i.e. ‘Input’, ‘Control’, ‘Output’ and ‘Mechanism’. Although the semantic rules exist, the consistency of the model is depending on authors’ capability so far.

Figure 1 Proposed Template

In the engineering activity model, the consistent model can be defined as the model which composes PDCA (‘Plan’, ‘Do’, ‘Check’ and ‘Action’) cycle not only within a hierarchy, but also hierarchies. Several approaches to make the consistent activity model have been reported. PIEBASE [2] adopted a template across all principal activities to generalize the developed model. The template consists of three sub-activity classes, i.e. 'Manage', 'Do' and 'Provide Resources'. This template supports to compose PDCA cycle within a hierarchy, but not within hierarchies. We adopted a modified PIEBASE template, which consists of four sub-activities; i.e. 'Manage', 'Do', 'Evaluate' and 'Provide Resources', and we have proposed two-step approach [3]; i.e. (1) generate and define hierarchical structure of activities, (2) provide ICOM (‘Input’, ‘Control’,

Management of Engineering Standards for Plant Maintenance based on Business Process Model

‘Output’, ‘Mechanism’) information. Compared with PIEBASE template, this proposed approach compose PDCA cycle more explicitly within a hierarch and hierarchies, in the consistent of activities, but the definition of ICOM especially ‘Output’ from each activity is still vague to apply the activity model for lifecycle management, such as that of engineering standards.

Manage

ProvideResources

Manage

ProvideResources

Change Request

Directive Requirement

Directive

Requirement

Directive

Manage

Provide Resource

Directive

Change Request

Requirement

Change Request

Information for Management



Activity

Activity

Figure 2 PDCA Cycle within Hierarchies

In this study, on the basis of the above mentioned two-step approach, a novel template is proposed. In this template, activities are categorized into five types, i.e. ‘Manage’, ‘Plan’, ‘Do’, ‘Evaluate’ and ‘Provide Resources’, as shown in Figure 1, the four of beginning are corresponding to ‘Action’, ‘Plan’, ‘Do’ and ‘Check’ of PDCA cycle explicitly. The ‘Manage’ activity receives the ‘Directive’, ‘Output’ and ‘Requirement’ from upper hierarchy, and decides sub-‘Directives’ to the ‘Plan’, ‘Do’ and ‘Evaluate’ activities. These activities perform according to the sub-‘Directives’, and output ‘Progress’, ‘Certified Result’, and ‘Change Request’ with deficit information. These outputs are fed back to ‘Manage’ activity as ‘Information for Management’ via ‘Provide Resources’ activity. ‘Manage’ activity decides whether ‘Certified Output’ from this hierarchy to the upper hierarchy is to be output, or sub-‘Directive’ to perform the activities again is to be output. ‘Manage’ activity also decides ‘Change Request’ from this hierarchy to the upper hierarchy. Furthermore, ‘Provide Resources’ activity receives ‘Engineering Standards’ from the upper hierarchy, and they are delivered to ‘Manage’, ‘Plan’, ‘Do’ and ‘Evaluate’ activities according to their ‘Requirement for Resources and Engineering Standards Provision’. When any deficits in ‘Engineering Standards’ are found in ‘Plan’, ‘Do’ and ‘Evaluate’ activities, ‘Change Requests’ are informed to ‘Manage’ activity via ‘Provide Resources’ one. ‘Manage’ activity decides ‘Requirement for Resources and Engineering Standards Provision’ to the upper hierarchy. The ‘Directive’ is converted in detail hierarchically, and ‘Change Request’ for a hierarchy is informed to the upper hierarchy by applying the proposed template as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, PDCA cycle within hierarchies can be composed, and the consistent activity model is possible to develop.

Fuchino et al.

3. Management of Engineering Standard

3.1. Consistent Business Process Model for Plant Maintenance

Figure 3 Hierarchal Node of ‘Maintain Process Plant’

Figure 4 Hierarchal Node of ‘Make Maintenance Plan’

The consistent activity model for plant maintenance is developed by applying the proposed template across all principal activities. ‘A5: Maintain Process Plant’ is defined as a sub-activity of ‘A0: Perform Lifecycle Engineering’ activity, and is developed into five activities; i.e. ‘A51: Manage Maintenance’, ‘A52: Make Maintenance Plan’, ‘A53: Perform Maintenance’, ‘A54: Evaluate Maintenance Plan and Performance’ and ‘A55:

Management of Engineering Standards for Plant Maintenance based on Business Process Model

Provide Resources for Maintenance’ as shown in Figure 3. The A52 activity is further developed into five activities, i.e. ‘A521: Manage Maintenance Plan’, ‘A522: Decide Maintenance Part and Time‘, ‘A523: Select Inspection and Repair Method‘, ‘A524: Evaluate Maintenance Plan‘ and ‘A525: Provide Resources for Maintenance Plan‘ as shown in Figure 4. Although, printing the other models for hierarchical nodes is omitted from limitation of the space, it is obvious that approximately similar models are generated regardless of a hierarchy by applying the template. The output information from ‘Plan’, ‘Do’ and ‘Evaluate’ activities is standardized into ‘Requirement for Resources and Engineering Standards Provision’, ‘Change Request’, ‘Progress’ and ‘Certified Output’, and is consistent within hierarchies. 3.2. Requirement of Engineering Standard and Management of Change In the proposed template, the upper hierarchal ‘Engineering Standards’ is in formed to the ‘Provide Resources (PR)’ activity, and it is delivered to the ‘Manage’, ‘Plan’, ‘Do’ and ‘Evaluate’ activities according to their provision requests, and the delivered ‘Engineering Standards’ is informed to the ‘Provide Resources’ activity in the lower hierarchy, as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, if a consistent activity model according to the template is developed, then the hierarchical structure of ‘Engineering Standards’ can be defined. In Figs. 3 and 4, the hierarchical structure of ‘Engineering Standard for Maintenance’ is defined as shown in Figure 6 on the basis of Figs. 3 and 4.

PR

PR

Engineering Standards


Manage

Manage

Engineering Standards Provision Request








Figure 5 Hierarchical Development of Engineering Standard

On the other hand, the outputs from activities are categorized into four for ‘Plan’, ’Do’ and ‘Evaluate’ and five for ‘Manage’ through all hierarchical nodes uniformly. The engineering standards define mechanism to provide these categorized outputs, therefore the requirement of engineering standard is also categorized into four and/or five respective for the output categories. A part of ‘Requirement of ‘Engineering Standard’ for plant maintenance is sown in Table 1. Furthermore, some defects of engineering standards are found, the change request is informed to ‘Manage’ as ‘Information for Management’ via ‘Provide Resource’. This Request is judged on the basis of ‘Engineering Standard for Management’ by ‘Manage’ activity, and is further informed to ‘Manage’ activity on the upper hierarchical node as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, on the basis of the consistent business process model, the

Fuchino et al.

hierarchical structure of engineering standards, the requirement of engineering standard respective for each activity and the process for management of change can be defined.

Engineering Standard for Maintenance

Engineering Standard for Manage Maintenance

Engineering Standard for Planning Maintenance

Engineering Standard for Performing Maintenance

Engineering Standard for Evaluating Maintenance Plan and Performance

Engineering Standard for Manage Maintenance Plan

Engineering Standard for Deciding Maintenance Part and Time

Engineering Standard for Selecting Inspection and Repair Method

Engineering Standard for Evaluating Maintenance Plan

Figure 6 Hierarchical Structures of Engineering Standards

Table 1 Requirement of Engineering Standard for Plant Maintenance

ActivityEngineeringStandard

Output Information Requirement of Engineering Standard

Change Request From Maintenance Plan Change Request Approval Criterion, Protocol and ProcedureCertified Maintenance Plan Maintenance Plan Approval Criterion, Protocol and ProcedureRequirement of Information Resources andEngineering Standard (for Upper Hierarchy)

ProvideResources Provision Request Approval Criterion,Protocol and Procedure

Requirement of Information Resources andEngineering Standard (for PR)

ProvideResources Provision Request Protocol and Procedure

DirectivesPrincipale for Deciding Maintenance Part and Time, SelectingInspection and Repair Method and Evaluating MaintenancePlan

Progress of Deciding Maintenance Part and Time Progress Information Protocol and ProcedureChange Request form Deciding Maintenance Partand Time

Change Request Protocol and Procedure

Requirement of Information Resources andEngineering Standard (for PR)

ProvideResources Provision Request Protocol and Procedure

Maintenance Part and Time Methods for Deciding Maintenance Part and Time

A521

EngineeringStandard forManageMaintenancePlan

EngineeringStandard forDecidingMaintenancePart andTime

A522

4. Conclusion In this study, plant maintenance is concerned, and IDEF0 (Integration Definition for Function) activity model is adopted for business process modeling. We introduced a novel template to generate the consistent business process model, and proposed an approach to define the requirement of engineering standards and their management scheme on the consistent IDEF0 activity model.

5. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the following plant maintenance experts for their cooperation; Mr. Sadayoshi Hano (Mitsubishi Chemical), Mr. Kazutaka Hosoda (Fuji Oil), Mr. Shuei Ishii (Kashima Oil), Dr. Masazumi Miyazawa (Mitsubishi Chemical)Mr. Hitoshi Shinohara (Tokuyama), Mr. Shinji Takagi (Asahi Kasei Chemicals), Mr. Tsuyoshi Takehara (Tonen Specialty Separator)

References [1] Federal Information Processing Standards Publications; “Integration Definition for Function

Modeling (IDEF0),” http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/ [2] PIEBASE; “PIEBASE Activity Model Executive Summary”,

http://www.posc.org/piebase/ [3] Fuchino,. T., M. Miyazawa and Y. Naka, “Business Model of Plant Maintenance for Lifecycle

Safety,” 17th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineesing - ESCAPE17, Bucharest Romania, Elsevir(2007)

307 fu chino

Documents