{"id":2998,"date":"2014-01-12T09:41:08","date_gmt":"2014-01-12T14:41:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/?p=2998"},"modified":"2025-11-06T05:40:46","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T10:40:46","slug":"what-is-maintenance-decision-automation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/posts\/what-is-maintenance-decision-automation\/","title":{"rendered":"What is Maintenance Decision Automation?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>We automate a decision process because we don&#8217;t want to make day-to-day decisions each time from first principles. There aren&#8217;t sufficient human \u00a0resources available in the Maintenance Department to eyeball every graph of condition monitoring data and every work order comprising an item&#8217;s maintenance and failure history. Yet these databases are generally believed to hold the &#8220;secrets&#8221; of when and where the next failure will occur.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>What is the recurring decision in maintenance? What decisions do we make scores of times a day consciously or unconsciously as new information reveals itself and data accrues? For each system all action decisions repetitively boil down to one of three choices:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Should we intervene immediately and perform a specified task?<\/li>\n<li>Should we schedule a particular maintenance task for some time in the next few days, weeks, or months?<\/li>\n<li>Should we defer the decision until the next observation of the monitored data?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Given the repetitive nature of failure and its consequences, it is reasonable to surmise that our knowledge of the patterns of data preceding failure can coalesce into a rule or model for decision making. EXAKT converts condition monitoring and Event data into a model used in an automated decision process.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_2999\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2999\" style=\"width: 648px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/DecisionAutomation.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2999\" src=\"http:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/DecisionAutomation.jpg\" alt=\"Decision Automation\" width=\"648\" height=\"447\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/DecisionAutomation.jpg 648w, https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/DecisionAutomation-600x414.jpg 600w, https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/DecisionAutomation-300x206.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 648px) 100vw, 648px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-2999\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Decision Automation using EXAKT.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The figure illustrates two levels of reporting generated by the EXAKT decision agent. The agent monitors data continuously as it unfolds, that is, as each new record arrives into a variety of databases. The upper table, &#8220;Fleet Exception\/Summary&#8221; appears in the CMMS as an exception report. The model generated decision (column 4) derives from an item&#8217;s calculated failure probability, its remaining useful life, and the consequences of its failure.<\/p>\n<p>One drills down to the second level of reporting whenever the summary flags an exception, for example as in line 4. The graphical reports underlie the Exception\/Summary report. Each graph conveys information regarding the automated decision. The leftmost graph combines the business factors with failure probability highlighting the recommendation as a red, yellow, or green indicator. The center graph provides the item&#8217;s failure probability within a future time horizon of 250 and 500 age units. \u00a0The third graph conveys the Remaining Useful Life Estimate (RULE) and confidence (standard deviation) we may hold in the reported RULE.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We automate a decision process because we don&#8217;t want to make day-to-day decisions each time from first principles. There aren&#8217;t sufficient human \u00a0resources available in the Maintenance Department to eyeball every graph of condition monitoring data and every work order comprising an item&#8217;s maintenance and failure history. Yet these databases are generally believed to hold [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[115],"tags":[120,113,112],"class_list":["post-2998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exercises","tag-automation","tag-cbm","tag-lrcm"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2998","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2998"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2998\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7030,"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2998\/revisions\/7030"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.livingreliability.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}