SPEAKERS & SESSIONS

Agenda by Day Agenda by Track

Meet the Speaker: John Woodhouse

Session: Do We Really Need More Data? And How Can We Better Use What We Already Know?

SPEAKER

John Woodhouse, CEO, TWPL

John is CEO of the consulting and training organization, TWPL. With a personal senior management background in the oil industry (esp. Shell O&G and refining) and major engineering (Kvaerner), he launched TWPL in 1995 as a consortium of former senior industrial managers to provide pragmatic advice, training and support in physical asset-dependent organizations. John is also Founder, Fellow and Chair of the Panel of Experts for the Institute of Asset Management. He chaired the BSI/IAM development of the PAS 55 standard for optimal management of physical assets, and was UK Expert Representative in the development of the first International Standard for Asset Management (ISO55000). He has also led the development of the first published Asset Management Competences Framework (IAM 2006), and the International MACRO & SALVO collaboration programs in cost/risk optimization of asset management decisions and life cycle management. John is also author of the book ‘Managing Industrial Risk’, Publ. Chapman & Hall, 1993 and ‘Asset Management Decisions: the SALVO Process’, Publ. TWPL 2014, and lecturers widely around the world at conferences, and through university and in-house management training programs.

SESSION

Do We Really Need More Data? And How Can We Better Use What We Already Know?
Keynote
John Woodhouse, CEO, TWPL

How much of your existing data, good or bad, actually gets used? Everybody complains about not having enough, or not having the right data, and talks in vague terms about its importance for “supporting better decisions”. And we are all aware of the nightmares of legacy systems, incompatible formats and keeping master data up to date. So millions of dollars are spent on EAM systems, clever monitoring or data capture tools and data ‘cleansing’. But such projects have a very bad record in value-for-money: the ‘business case’ is made using ‘strategic importance’ language, and even then usually disappoints. And the bigger the IT project, the higher the rate of failure or under-delivery. We have lost sight of common sense and what represents good investment in the data and EAM world.