Assessment Methodology

The AMRRI program evaluation plan has been modified many times to continually reflect the changing needs of manufacturing and mining interests. The survey now designed to be suitable for either Self-Assessment, or for assessment by an AMRRI consultant.

The 255 question survey is summarized by category and topic.

Each topic contains 3 to 5 categories.

There are 9 topics, multiple categories in each topic, and multiple questions in each category.

Each category has multiple questions, each with an Objective and Subjective response.

Each question is posed in such a way that it can be answered with an objective yes or no. If the question response in a ‘yes’, then it receives a value of one, if the response is ‘no’ then it receives a value of zero. All of the questions are answered, and averaged to represent a topic score. All of the topic scores are averaged to represent a category score. These objective scores for each topic and category can be seen in the column labeled ‘Obj. Score’.

In addition to the objective responses, for each question that receives a ‘yes’ response there is also a subjective score that represents the consultants’ opinion about the quality of the activity. If the activity is conducted with a high degree of consistency/quality then the qualitative score is high (maximum of 10) and conversely, if the consistency/quality is low then the qualitative score for each question is low (minimum of 1). These individual question scores are averaged to produce a topic score, and the topic scores are averaged to produce a category score. These subjective scores for each topic and category can be seen in the column labeled ‘Qual. Score’.

The responses for the questions combine to create a category score.

Each category receives a stand-alone rating.

This rating is derived by multiplying the average objective score by the average subjective score for each category. The final category rating value can be found in the column labeled ‘rating’ in the example below.

Category ratings are combined to create a site rating.

The category ratings roll together to provide the overall site score. The final rating value as shown is the value produced by the rating exercise.

A plant that does not have a history and pattern of aggressively developing lubrication practices will typically have a composite score between 3.5 and 5.5. While this may seem low, it is a reflection of the fact that programs in an under-developed early stage are not accustomed to thinking about lubrication from either a precision or reliability perspective. A score of 4 or less represents an opportunity for material improvement. A score of 7 would represent appreciable quality. A score of 8 or better for any category is possible, but uncommon.

All of the scores are plotted on a multi-dimensional diagram, as show below in Orange, against an achievable high quality standard.