Baseline
...
Evidence
...
Losses
...
Reports
...
Verify or challenge interview statements through visual inspection and site survey.
Capture field observations that can confirm, challenge, or qualify interview responses before normalization. Use comma-separated refs for photos, files, linked questions, evidence items, system-condition records, actions, and report sections.
| Workstream | Inputs | Outputs | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| inspection observations, document review, system review, photo/evidence refs | field-verified signals, contradictions, recommended actions | results | |
| astor_admin, engagement_lead, reliability_engineer, maintenance_engineer, operations_reviewer, integrity_reviewer | Site survey JSON | role mapped | |
| anonymized_loss_shutdown_register_2017_2019.xlsx, anonymized_loss_shutdown_review_report.pdf, anonymized_rca_workshop_loss_shutdown_review.docx, anonymized_spares_impact_review.pptx, anonymized_site_survey_field_notes.docx, anonymized_system_condition_self_assessment.xlsx, anonymized_master_activity_register_template.xlsx, anonymized_master_activity_register_report.pdf, anonymized_thermography_summary.pdf, anonymized_vibration_oil_analysis_pack.pdf, anonymized_cmms_work_history_export.csv | rpt_aga-demo-fpso_executive | released |
Convert field observations into inspection findings that can support normalized findings, adjusted scores, action plans, and report annexes. Proposed score changes are stored separately from interview scores.
These observations sit between stakeholder interviews and evidence-adjusted results. They verify, challenge, or qualify maturity answers before findings move into Pillar 2 and Pillar 3.
| Date | Area | Discipline | Category | Severity | Traceability | Adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-10 lead-assessor | facility and maintenance offices West Africa FPSO | process | procedure availability | critical | 1 questions 1 evidence refs / 0 photos | Evidence-adjusted score support |
| 2019-05-11 site-reliability-engineer | offshore and onshore warehouses West Africa FPSO | warehouse | spare parts preservation | critical | 1 questions 1 evidence refs / 1 photos | Evidence-adjusted score support |
| 2019-05-12 lead-assessor | CMMS and field equipment basis West Africa FPSO | other | labeling tag identification | major | 2 questions 1 evidence refs / 0 photos | Evidence-adjusted score support |
| 2019-05-13 site-reliability-engineer | maintenance execution process West Africa FPSO | other | access for inspection maintenance | critical | 2 questions 1 evidence refs / 0 photos | Evidence-adjusted score support |
| 2019-05-14 lead-assessor | rotating equipment and electrical inspection routines West Africa FPSO | mechanical | equipment condition | major | 1 questions 1 evidence refs / 0 photos | Evidence-adjusted score support |
| 2019-05-15 site-reliability-engineer | maintenance management review West Africa FPSO | process | procedure availability | major | 1 questions 1 evidence refs / 0 photos | Evidence-adjusted score support |
| 2019-05-16 lead-assessor | offshore maintenance organization West Africa FPSO | other | procedure availability | moderate | 2 questions 1 evidence refs / 0 photos | Context only |
AMOS-to-Maximo migration was not yet complete; planning, spares, PM plans, history, costs and KPIs were not fully operational in the CMMS basis.
Materials management and warehousing/preservation controls were observed as a risk to operational continuity.
Asset information was not accurate enough to act as the cornerstone of maintenance management, including asset existence, condition, location, spares, failures and interventions.
Maintenance operated predominantly in reactive/firefighting mode; PM plans were either not in CMMS or not sufficiently accurate.
AMOS-to-Maximo migration was not yet complete; planning, spares, PM plans, history, costs and KPIs were not fully operational in the CMMS basis.
Materials management and warehousing/preservation controls were observed as a risk to operational continuity.
Asset information was not accurate enough to act as the cornerstone of maintenance management, including asset existence, condition, location, spares, failures and interventions.
Maintenance operated predominantly in reactive/firefighting mode; PM plans were either not in CMMS or not sufficiently accurate.
Vibration collection existed, but no sustained vibration-analysis routine was implemented; thermographic survey checklist was not consistently performed.
Existing indicators were more related to production/customer and safety; maintenance technical availability, MTBF, MTTR and PM percentage were not visibly governed.
Vibration collection existed, but no sustained vibration-analysis routine was implemented; thermographic survey checklist was not consistently performed.
Existing indicators were more related to production/customer and safety; maintenance technical availability, MTBF, MTTR and PM percentage were not visibly governed.
Stakeholders repeatedly raised salary, knowledge sharing, motivation, recognition, acting-as positions, feedback and qualification concerns.