Calculating Infrared Inspection Program Payback
Sponsored by:
Calculating Infrared Inspection Program Payback
Calculating savings and/or avoided costs is one of the most difficult tasks associated with an infrared inspection program; however, doing so is required in order to gauge how effective a program is.
In short, there is no way to calculate the exact value of the findings of an infrared inspection other than allowing the component run to failure and adding up the subsequent losses. Unfortunately, this is not a practical approach to maintenance.
As an alternative, there are several methods that professionals use to estimate program savings. A brief description of each of the most common methods is listed below:
1. Summary of Findings – A report comprised of the deficient items found during a given time period. Reports may be by the day, month, year, etc. This type of report does not provide any financial data.
2. Performance Effectiveness Ratios – Use accounting data to trend how an infrared inspection program impacts an overall maintenance program. Typically calculated for a single facility over an extended period of time. Improvements in efficiency can be compared to similar facilities or to the performance history of the subject facility.
3. Avoided Costs Method – A summary of the estimated cost of repairs for breakdown versus proactive repair efforts. Typically, proactive repairs are always cheaper since the outage can be planned and the cost of the actual repair is usually less since the subject equipment often suffers far less damage when not allowed to run to catastrophic failure.
4. Permanent Improvement Method – This is a summary of the financial impact on a given facility due to the implementation of an infrared inspection program. For example, infrared can be used to supplement a maintenance program by directing repair efforts to only those areas in need of attention rather than periodic application of labor-intensive manual work. In such cases, the cost difference between the two methods results in a savings every time the manual maintenance procedure is avoided in the future.
5. Statistics Based Method – This method is based upon insurance industry statistics associated with loss claims that have been paid to clients over a several year period. This method takes into account the value of the overall facility along with the severity of the problem. While this method is not as accurate as the Avoided Cost Method, it can be applied quickly and easily with a minimum of effort. Infraspection Institute’s Exception® Pro software utilizes this method for calculating savings as one of its standard features.
Each of the above methods varies in the information provided as well as the ease of use and accuracy. We cover each method in depth in our Level III Certified Infrared Thermographer Course.
When calculating savings, we recommend that thermographers consult with their end user and choose one of the above methods that will best suit his/her needs and consistently apply the chosen method over time. While you will not be able to calculate savings exactly, you should obtain a good indication of the value of your program.
