Risk analysis process

The options for risk analysis processes are: • Use evaluation forms – The analysis team uses wizards to evaluate the probability of failure, economic consequences, health and safety consequences, environmental consequences, reputation consequences, and confidence factors. APM then calculates the risk and shows it in the risk matrix. This process can be performed on failure modes or demand scenarios. • Use weighted severity and relative risk – The analyst assesses the severity of economic, health and safety, environmental, and reputation consequences, assigning a number (weighting) to each factor. The analyst also enters the probability of failure and the confidence factor. APM then calculates the relative risk and shows it in the risk matrix. • Use embedded evaluation forms – The analysis team uses forms that are “embedded” in the Risk tab of the Maintenance Action Plan window to evaluate consequence and confidence factors. SIF analysis uses this type of form. • Not performed – Risk analysis features are not shown in the analysis window.

	See Also

Risk matrix

The risk matrix specified as the default for risk analyses of this type. The matrix displays the results of the failure mode’s probability and severity evaluations, as well as its relative risk (criticality).

	See Also

Supports detectability

The detectability value assigned in the criticality assessment is used in the calculation that determines the failure mode’s relative risk number.

	See Also

Default the action plan strategy and frequency from the risk matrix

If this option is selected, when the risk analysis has been performed, the recommended strategy and frequency (if applicable) are copied from the risk matrix entry to the action plan.

	See Also

Safety provision is required when the risk level is or exceeds

When the evaluation results in a risk level at or above this value, the analysis team must add a safety provision to reduce the risk level. In this box, specify the SIL value that cannot be exceeded. The failure mode cannot be marked “Facilitation Complete” or “Implementation Complete” until the risk level is below this threshold.

	See Also

Safety provision is required when the risk level is or exceeds

When the evaluation results in a risk level at or above this value, the analysis team must add a safety provision to reduce the risk level. In this box, specify the SIL value that cannot be exceeded. The failure mode cannot be marked “Facilitation Complete” or “Implementation Complete” until the risk level is below this threshold.

	See Also

Maximum mitigated risk level

When the evaluation results in a mitigated risk level greater than this value, the failure mode cannot be marked “Facilitation Completed” or “Implementation Completed”. The analysis team can add one or more safety provisions to reduce the risk level.

	See Also

Safety mitigated risk cannot exceed

When the evaluation results in a mitigated risk level greater than this value, the failure mode cannot be marked “Facilitation Complete” or “Implementation Complete”. The analysis team can add one or more safety provisions to reduce the risk level. In this box, specify the SIL value that cannot be exceeded.

	See Also

Confidence questionnaire

Questionnaire used to perform the confidence evaluation for likelihood of failure.

	See Also

Probability of failure matrix

Matrix to use when the probability of failure is based on a demand scenario.

	See Also

Susceptibility to failure analysis is performed

A susceptibility to failure evaluation examines the asset’s non-age related degradation patterns. The evaluation uses a questionnaire to review the asset’s composition and materials, for example.

	See Also

Questionnaire

A susceptibility to failure questionnaire presents the analyst with a series of questions. Like a decision diagram, the response to one question determines the next question, and so on, until a conclusion is reached.

	See Also

Evaluation performed

When selected, this option allows the evaluation to be performed.

	See Also

Probability is based on estimated time between failures

The probability of failure is determined by the estimated time between failure (ETBF) without maintenance tasks. When this option is enabled, the Estimated time between failures without maintenance box appears in the Failure Mode window, Criticality tab.

	See Also

Positive adjustments

The maximum positive score for the confidence questionnaire. For example, if the positive adjustment is “2.0” and the sum of the selected responses’ confidence adjustments is “2.10”, APM retrieves the confidence factor assigned an evaluation score of “2.0”.

	See Also

Negative adjustment

The maximum negative score for the confidence questionnaire. For example, if the negative adjustment is “-2.0” and the sum of the selected responses’ confidence adjustments is “-2.10”, APM retrieves the confidence factor assigned an evaluation score of “-2.0”.

	See Also

Inspection factor confidence evaluation performed

A confidence evaluation is performed to determine the inspection factor. This option is only relevant when risk analysis is performed using pop-up evaluation forms. The Confidence tab appears in the Maintenance Action Plan window.

	See Also

Matrix to use

Options are: • 3D matrix – based on degradation type, criticality, and confidence factor • 4D matrix – based on degradation type, criticality, confidence factor, and asset integrity group

	See Also