Summary | Initial Review | Site review


Applications from all organisations that manage, operate and maintain assets are welcome. However, please note that:

  • The application cannot be only from the maintainer but must be from the owner or manager and the operator as well. Submissions must show how maintenance efforts align with the needs of the business.
  • AMEA documentation assumes that the maintenance organisation is made up of a number of people. Outcomes from very small organisations often depend on the performance and ingenuity of an individual, while in larger organisations outcomes depend on people and processes. Applications should be for an overall asset or logical significant area rather than for a project or subset.
  • Applicants create a submission which becomes the centrepiece of the assessment process.

    Applicants pay a fee of $5,000 (or $8,000 for non-Roundtable members) for the full peer review process.

    Initial Review

    Applicants create a submission which is the basis of the assessment. Initially the submission is reviewed by an experienced reliability professional who is familiar with the AMEA process. The aim of the review is to determine whether the submission is likely to result in an Award of, at least, Achiever level. If the auditor believes that:

    1. it may qualify, then an assessment team will be formed and the Submission will be passed to it.
    2. it will clearly not qualify, then feedback will be given in bullet point form, indicating how the Submission could be improved.

    Some reasons the Submission may not qualify:

    If a Submission does not pass on to a peer evaluation team, then the applicant can amend and resubmit the application — but only up to the final date for submission. If the submission does not go forward to peer review then any fees that have been paid will be refunded.

    AMEA timeline

    Note that this initial review is designed primarily to help where a submitter has misunderstood how to draft a Submission. Feedback will be brief and it should not be relied on as a way of enhancing a complying submission. If the initial review finds that the Submission is likely to qualify, then the recommendation will be to proceed and the Submission will pass on to the peer evaluation team without modification or further review.

    Site review

    The role of the peer evaluation team is to confirm that the Submission is an accurate reflection of practices and to apply an evaluation process that defines the Award level.

    Prior to the site visit, each member of the evaluation team initially reviews the Submission in isolation forming their own view. The team then reviews the Submission together as a team comparing individual views to develop a consensus. A supplemental list of questions is created. These questions are made available to the applicant well before the site visit.

    The evaluation team leader communicates with the site representative to create an agenda for the day which will allow the site to present its strongest case and respond to questions from the team.

    The evaluation team then travels to the site for site review. In all cases so far, the site review has been completed in one day.

    If the site is within reasonable driving distance for all members of the team then there are unlikely to be any travel or accommodation costs. If this is not possible, then the applicant's representative will be responsible for booking travel and accommodation for the evaluation team, all of whom are volunteers.

    Copyright © SIRF Roundtables. All rights reserved. Terms of use | Privacy policy | Sirfers log in | Mobile | com |