MANAGEMENT
Why Asset Integrity Implementation
Often Fails
Stephen W. Ciaraldi, Senior Integrity Management Specialist, Velosi Asset Integrity
Compare the approaches of the top 10
operating companies around the world
to tackling the asset integrity chal-
lenge and you will find many similar-
ities. Whether in the models used to
identify risks or the approaches used to
manage them, the industry thinking has
evolved to a point at which most agree
on the fundamental elements of how to
approach integrity management.
Look closer and you might find
some more commonalities. The reasons
asset integrity management strategies
often fail to achieve the expected results
are also often the same from operator
to operator.
So what are these reasons, and how
can you ensure you are building them
into your implementation strategy to
ensure that you do not repeat them?
There are 10 reasons why integrity man-
agement implementations often fail.
1. Trying to tackle integrity
in isolation.
Perhaps the most common reason asset
integrity strategies fail is integrity spe-
cialists trying to achieve integrity in
isolation. Integrity is not a subject that
thrives in a silo—it requires the entire
business to be aware, on board, and sup-
porting of a unified effort. Staffers need
to know how integrity affects their daily
job, and they need to be encouraged,
cajoled, instructed, and motivated to
ensure that they are working together.
Different groups have different goals,
but not caring about others’ goals and
complaining about having to do others’
work demonstrates a silo mentality. If
that type of silo mentality exists, there
will be problems in implementing integ-
rity management.
64
2. Losing sight of process,
people, and plant.
It may seem obvious, but an asset integ-
rity plan is an extremely complex under-
taking with many moving parts and
even more stakeholders involved in its
successful execution. Recognizing that
there are many reasons why asset integ-
rity implementations do not achieve the
results expected of them is an important
starting point. Problems are not con-
fined to one particular area of an integ-
rity implementation and can just as eas-
ily emerge in either the process, the
people, or the plant components that
make up an integrated integrity man-
agement program. Focus too narrowly
on one area and you can be sure prob-
lems will emerge elsewhere. The key to
implementation is the effective working
together of these three components and
ensuring that checks and balances exist
at every stage.
3. Not addressing the
competition between
productivity and integrity.
Companies that fail to properly budget
for and book production deferrals are
also key reasons an implementation can
fall down. It has been known for indi-
viduals to go on site and say, “It is not
my job to maximize production; it is my
job to ensure integrity of facilities and to
implement the asset integrity require-
ments.” That naturally brings them into
conflict with those whose job it is to
maximize production. In practice, an
enormous amount of resistance is often
faced by integrity specialists from peo-
ple whose primary goal is to maximize
production and who are going to get less
bonus because the integrity specialist is
asking to do work on their facility.
Having that production loss booked
in advance and everyone in agreement is
an important obstacle to overcome. Pro-
active companies motivate their staff on
the basis of operational safety as well as
asset productivity.
4. Failing to monitor progress
once an implementation
plan is under way.
Many implementations fail because
their architects fail to effectively moni-
tor their progress once the implemen-
tation moves from theory to reality. No
plan is perfect, and once you finalize
an integrity plan it may change with-
in an hour. So it is important to pre-
pare for the fact that constant monitor-
ing will be required to ensure that your
plan stays on track. Successful integri-
ty strategies are always putting correc-
tive actions in place to ensure that you
achieve at least your primary objective.
If you do not monitor, therefore, you will
not achieve your objective. Expect it and
plan for it, but you will need to be flex-
ible to achieve your goal. One technique
that can be applied is multiple-level key
performance indicator (KPI) monitoring
using a wide range of KPIs. When things
go red, corrective actions need to be put
in place.
5. Failing to realize that asset
integrity management
never actually ends.
We all know that asset integrity is a
cradle-to-grave process, right? Of course
we do, and, yet, in too many cases,
JPT • JULY 2012
asset integrity advisors can approach a
project with a mind-set of having been
brought into an operation to carry out
some integrity work, and once that work
has been done and that asset integrity
advisor has been allocated elsewhere,
a perception remains that the job will
then be finished and go away. It does not
work that way. Asset integrity requires
constant monitoring and constant vigi-
lance even when—especially when—
responsibility shifts from one team to
another. In cases where things are going
well, it is easy for a dangerous level of
complacency to creep in. People start to
accept risks that should not be accepted.
Asset integrity is a continuous process
and needs constant vigilance.
ly among the most common reasons
integrity rollouts fail. So how do we go
about building a robust integrity cul-
ture? First, people need to know what
asset integrity is. Training is required in
the fundamentals of the subject and how
they apply to the business. Contractors
should be included in this training, too.
Leaders must push the integrity agen-
da. If leaders push, people will follow.
Finally, encourage honesty. If staffers
are afraid to report a hydrocarbon leak
and fear it may affect their performance
rank or pay, then you have a problem.
8. Failing to effectively
prioritize what needs
to be done.
9. Not effectively balancing
the experience levels of
site staff.
Having too many new faces or raw
recruits working on the same project at
any one time increases the risk of integ-
rity failure—it is important to make sure
there is a balance. Effective manage-
ment of contractors is key as well. The
final manpower lesson to bear in mind is
that, once the program is agreed and the
funding is approved, the time to get the
team together is typically longer. Good
engineers may not be integrity experts,
and dedicated integrity teams take a
long time to assemble and get in place.

6. Not understanding the
economics of integrity
management.
An aging facility requires increasing
levels of investment in asset integri-
ty, even though production levels—and,
therefore, profitability levels—might
be declining. Facilities get older, more
water is produced, and asset integri-
ty concerns rise. This might sound like
common sense to integrity specialists,
but many nontechnical people, includ-
ing those in decision-making positions,
like to maintain constant lifting costs
in their field development planning. In
short, the need for integrity rises as the
barrels produced decline. It is impor-
tant that nontechnical people involved
in planning understand that integrity
implementation costs are not produc-
tion-related, they are age-related and
need to be factored in accordingly to
avoid cutting corners down the line.
An essential element of implementing
a successful asset integrity strategy is
making sure you are doing the right
work in the right place at the right time.
Too many integrity strategies fail to pri-
oritize the work that needs to be done
based on a clear understanding of where
the most serious risk lies. Instead, they
prioritize based on financial consider-
ations or manpower availability. In a
large asset, your integrity strategy will
be complex, will contain a large number
of moving parts, and will require lots of
manpower. So plan ahead, do not under-
estimate the time and effort required,
start early, and make multiple passes at
each problem you are tackling. Some-
times, it is not practical to do major
upgrades, which affects production, so
planning on-the-job operational integ-
rity activities is the easier route to take.
10. Failing to get outside
perspectives.
We have all experienced situations where
we have been so consumed by a prob-
lem that we fail to see potential solutions
that others with the benefit of a differ-
ent perspective might recognize imme-
diately. The same applies to asset integri-
ty implementation. In addition, because
implementations are such dynamic
activities, there can often seem to be no
time to take a strategic view of where you
are. For this reason, a tactical review—
defined as a periodic assessment of a
particular issue—needs to be carried
out regularly, ideally with the input of an
external party with an independent eye.
An annual integrity review can help you
see trends that you could not see if you
only looked at the daily metrics. JPT

7. Lack of an integrity
awareness culture.
The best definition of culture describes
it as “how we behave when no one is
looking.” Creating a culture of integri-
ty awareness is often cited as the No.  1
objective for an asset integrity imple-
mentation. This, however, is actual-
Stephen W. Ciaraldi is a senior integrity management specialist with Velosi Asset
Integrity. He has more than 30 years of experience in asset integrity, having served
in various integrity management leadership roles at major oil and gas production
sites on five continents. The company has provided asset integrity management
services to several major oil and gas players, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil,
Adnoc, Petronas, Petrobras, ONGC, and Chevron. Ciaraldi’s most recent role is as
asset integrity implementation trainer at www.oilandgasfundamentals.com/courses/
asset-integrity.

JPT • JULY 2012 65