Can you be more specific here by your statement below? Any examples of real applications of the PAM that they are reporting on? How many of the advantages that they mentioned in the report are achievable in real implementations? I would like to know & understand the "substance" to which ARC report is referring to here. TQ

quote:

PAMs themselves are sort of next generation condition monitoring and CMMS integrated tools. (A sub component of many current EAM style systems.) They use neural networks and fuzzy logic, although more of the former than the latter. They are very, very powerful in terms of achieving a level of artificial intelligence and further removing the fallible human from asset management. (Not that this is a good thing, merely a thing)

Josh,

I suggest you read the report, search through their website and/or contact them directly.

Rgds,

quote:

"For example, I recently saw the publication of a standard here in the UK regarding Asset management. It is garbage, the people who wrote it did so for purely commercial gain, and it came from an Asset management association that has been hijacked by consultants and promoters for their own commercial ends."

I have seen a lot of this, too, in associations up to, and including, IEEE. Part of the reason, in the USA, is that power utilities and large computer companies (ie: Lucent) are no longer supporting their engineers' involvement (or far less than they used to). In an increasing number of cases, vendors slip in to fill the vacuum.

In a few cases, I have seen technical specifications and standards completely developed by marketing types! (not IEEE, yet). The concern is that companies, engineers, etc. are conditioned to follow standards as if they were law.

Howard

quote:

So thats the point of view that I take, and I would suggest that everybody else who reads them does the same. Acronyms such as PAM and others are merely their effort at branding and at influencing market speak, we know what they mean so take it with a pinch of salt.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the way things go. I have observed companies take known processes (technical and otherwise), put a 'brand name' on the process and then present it as something unique. Then a competitor will do the same. (this is rampant in the motor diagnostics industry)

The problem is that decision makers do not often recognize this issue. They are the ones who need to learn to take this with a grain of salt.

Howard

Daryl,

I agree with Bryan that your knowledge and explaination of the "context" of these reports is meaningful as you seem to have actually used the information for your benefit.

As you may notice- we do not seem to have many CEO's on this message board.

I find it interesting that you do not perceive any bias simply because an analyst is being hired by a company to provide coverage.

Let me summarize something here:

1) Analysts are major influencers of how top corporate management hold asset management, maintenance and reliability

2) Analysts are not reliability experts but do have other (mainly IT) expertise and many diffeernt information resources

3) Analysts are paid by some suppliers to provide both public and private reports

4) Some reports (ex: Magic Quadrant) are not works for hire and you feel they are independent

5) Many maintenance and reliability professionals are not accessing this information or even know that it exists

So whether someone (like me) agrees or disagrees with the reports - they are being read and acted on in boardrooms around the world.

Is that a fair summary?

Any recommendations for those of us not hanging around in boardrooms?

Terry O