- The tariffs on RAB value for infrastructure were reduced due to regulations. Therefore clients had to reduce maintenance costs and investments.
- Most regulators were imposing efficiency rates. Again, which again necessitated a further reduction in costs, especially on maintenance costs and investments (aside from personnel costs which is in most cases not the first option
- The technical & operational data of the clients was converted to the Asset Management tool (AMT).
- The maintenance records which were not originally connected to the assets, were - using spatial techniques – then linked to these assets.
- Quantitative maintenance analyses were performed, in particular life span analyses.
- The clients were trained in Life Cycle Costing (LCC) cost benefit analyses .
- Investment plans were set up using the results of the quantitative maintenance analyses and the LCC cost benefit analyses.
The insight was that the failure rate was not very much related to the age of the assets, that most assets in the grid never fail, and that only few assets were subject to multiple failures. Thanks to the LCC cost benefit analyses replacement investments were delayed with an average of 20 years. This led to a reduction of 50% of the investments over the next 20 years and a very substantial decrease of the average costs.
Realizing that most of the assets have no failures when replaced, a different approach amongst investments planning started, based upon FMEA & budget based investment planning.
The life span analyses and prognosis analyses proved that the delay of replacement investments did not lead to an expected increase of maintenance and failures.
The quantitative maintenance analyses also led to the understanding that more then 30% of maintenance was not effective.
This kind of assignment has been performed many times for different types of European utility companies