Every reliability engineer knows the component that fails in service because nobody checked it at receiving inspection. Power system studies belong on that list. A specification calls for power flow with voltage drop, short circuit and arc-flash analysis. A study group delivers a report, the report goes to the customer, and far more often than not it sits in the contract papers until something happens.
Ask most facilities how often their electrical assets receive a thermal imaging inspection and the answer is annual. Ask why annual, and the answer is usually that it has always been annual, or that the insurer or an auditor expects to see a yearly certificate. Neither is an engineering answer. Annual-by-default is a calendar decision wearing an engineering costume, and on some assets it is too often, on the ones that matter most it is nowhere near often enough.
Utilities are under pressure to deliver safe, reliable, affordable and lower-carbon services while managing ageing networks, capital programmes, workforce constraints, cyber exposure and increasingly complex operating conditions.
AI can help utilities detect weak signals, predict failure risk, prioritize interventions and improve planning. But a prediction does not create value by itself. Value appears only when the insight reaches an accountable operational decision, becomes safe and executable work, and produces an outcome that can be measured.
Field service is often discussed as a scheduling or workforce-productivity challenge. Organizations invest in mobile applications, dispatch engines, route optimization and digital work orders expecting that faster coordination will automatically produce better outcomes.
A weekly collection of recommended articles and videos to boost your reliability journey. Right in your inbox
The most valuable moment in an electrical thermal imaging survey is not when the image is captured. It is the moment a finding is raised while the panel is still open, the load is still on, and someone with authority is still on site. Miss that window and a finding that could have been actioned that afternoon becomes a line in a document that lands days later, competing for attention with everything else in an inbox.
The "Data Collection Paradox" One of the most frequent complaints I hear from operator communities in industries ranging from oil and gas to power generation is simple but stinging: "I spend hours recording these readings, but nobody ever looks at them. Why am I doing this?"
During a routine electrical thermal imaging survey, a distribution board read a maximum surface temperature of 36 degrees Celsius. On a route covering dozens of boards in a shift, a reading like that does not slow you down. It was cooler than the room on a warm day, no gradient worth annotating, no discoloured connection, nothing that earns a second look. If the thermal image were the whole story, that board would have been marked clean and I would have moved on.
In high-volume logistics operations, failures rarely start as emergencies. A sorter drive that seizes at 2 a.m., a control cabinet that trips mid-shift, a conveyor that grinds to a halt during peak: none of these begin at the moment they happen. They start days or hours earlier, as small, detectable signals that nobody was watching for.
Traditional asset performance management (APM) is breaking under the weight of modern industrial complexity. Today’s industrial environments generate orders of magnitude more data across far more complex, distributed operations than the systems managing them were ever designed to handle. This creates a growing gulf between the data enterprises generate and their ability to act on it. At the same time, industrial manufacturers face mounting pressure from all sides: volatile market conditions, rising costs, tighter margins, net-zero emission targets, and uncompromising safety requirements. Many enterprises have set ambitious goals towards achieving digital transformation and Industry 4.0 initiatives, yet the reality of day-to-day operational challenges hinders progress.
Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) architectures with 2-out-of-3 (2oo3) voting are designed to tolerate a single hardware fault without interrupting processes. However, an unexpected Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) trip occurred when only one of three safety controllers failed. This case study analyzes the event, demonstrating the critical distinction between fault tolerance and fail-safe behavior when safety integrity is compromised.
In the late 1990s, handing your entire IT infrastructure to an outside vendor sounded reckless. Why would a Fortune 500 company give away its technology backbone? The answer was simple. Technology wasn't their core business. IBM Global Services, EDS, and Accenture proved enterprises could shed the operational burden of IT and get better service from specialists who did nothing else. By the early 2000s the argument was over. TCS, Infosys, and Wipro scaled fast after Y2K, proving even mission-critical work could sit outside if governance and metrics held up.
Most articles about IoT-enabled maintenance focus on the win: a sensor catches a failure early, downtime gets avoided, everyone’s happy. Fewer people write about what a plant looks like eighteen months in, after the dashboards have filled up and technicians have quietly started ignoring half the alerts on them.
It’s worth talking about, because it’s common, and because it’s avoidable.