Primer: Risk Analysis Functionality in HxGN EAM

The implementation backbone is: RCM Project → Risk Matrix → equipment/location RCM records → optional RCM templates → failure mitigation and reporting. A practical rollout usually starts with a defined risk vocabulary and scoring model, then standard templates by asset class, then controlled execution on prioritized assets.

1. What Risk Analysis is in HxGN EAM

HxGN EAM allows four related RCM structures: Risk Assessment, Risk Analysis, FMECA, and Classic RCM. Risk Analysis is the structure that combines functions, functional failures, failure modes, and consequences in a way that supports deeper failure-centric analysis and mitigation planning.

The vendor documentation positions Risk Analysis as the more detailed option, typically used on lower-level equipment in the hierarchy after broader, higher-level risk work has already been performed on parent locations or production lines.

2. Implementation architecture and required setup

3. Risk Matrix design considerations

The Risk Matrix is the scoring engine behind Risk Analysis. Each project should have its own matrix. In practice, this is where the client’s risk model is made operational inside EAM.

Consequence categories represent the impact lens, such as Safety, Environment, Service, Reputation, or Financial/Profitability.
Probability records define the likelihood bands. Each probability can also carry a default probability percentage and can be flagged as a black swan condition.
Risk levels define the outcome bands assigned after the system compares the calculated Risk Priority Number against the configured thresholds.
Colors and icons improve readability on the equipment/location RCM experience and on related reports.

Recommended Design Rule

Do not start with too many risk bands. For most implementations, 4–5 probability bands, 4–5 consequence severity levels per category, and 4–5 final risk levels are easier to govern and calibrate than highly granular matrices.

4. How end users perform a Risk Analysis

Risk Analysis is executed on the RCM tab of Assets, Positions, Systems, or Locations. The user builds the analysis in a top-down hierarchy and then optionally adds mitigation against the failure modes.

Set the record to the appropriate RCM Level: Risk Analysis.
Add functions that describe what the asset or system is expected to do in its operating context.
Add functional failures that describe how the function could fail to meet its required performance standard.
Add failure modes. In Risk Analysis, this is the critical extra layer that differentiates the method from Risk Assessment.
For each relevant functional failure or failure mode, assign consequences and consequence cost information.
Review the resulting Risk Priority Number, Risk Level, consequence cost, and black-swan indicators on the header/detail section.
If justified, add failure mitigation records and activate only those mitigations that are truly applied in operations.

Failure Mode Record Content

The failure mode popup can carry operationally useful work-management metadata, not just analytical text. The help documentation shows fields such as Problem Code, Failure Code, Cause Code, Action Code, Standard WO, downtime hours, downtime cost, symptom, tactical cause, human factor, workmanship, human oversight, and method of detection. That makes Risk Analysis a bridge between reliability engineering and downstream work execution.

5. How scoring works

6. Mitigation and control strategy

Risk Analysis becomes operationally valuable when failure modes are tied to mitigations. HxGN EAM allows mitigation only where failure modes exist, which is why Risk Analysis is materially stronger than Risk Assessment for maintenance strategy design.

Mitigation can be linked to PM schedules, maintenance patterns, PM plans, condition monitoring aspects, projects, and cases.
A mitigation record includes mitigated probability and a Mitigation Applied flag. Only active mitigations are considered in the recalculated RPN and Risk Level.
The product also supports control-strategy decision support concepts such as feasibility, effectiveness, worth doing, and decision-guide prompts for mitigation methods.
Imported mitigation from templates is intentionally brought in with Mitigation Applied unselected, which is a good control because it requires the business to confirm implementation rather than assuming it.

7. Template strategy and deployment model

8. Reporting and management use cases

Risk Matrix report: visualizes the matrix and can optionally show equipment count or failure count by cell, with or without mitigation.
RCM Risk Levels report: lists equipment with associated Risk Assessment, Risk Analysis, or FMECA results.
RCM Equipment at Risk: identifies equipment with a qualifying risk level and no active PM schedule or maintenance pattern, highlighting gaps in mitigation coverage.
RCM Potential Yearly Savings: identifies equipment with lower risk and active PM/maintenance patterns, supporting optimization conversations about over-maintenance.
RCM Functions report: supports review of functions across a parent asset and its hierarchy.

Management Implication

These reports support a closed-loop process: define risk, link mitigation, monitor residual risk, and continuously challenge whether the preventive strategy is too weak or too expensive.

9. Common implementation pitfalls

Building an over-engineered matrix before agreeing on the client’s practical risk vocabulary.
Using Risk Analysis on every asset instead of reserving it for assets where failure-mode detail is materially valuable.
Treating imported mitigation as automatically active instead of validating actual operational deployment.
Allowing uncontrolled template edits that weaken comparability across organizations or depots/plants.
Confusing risk ranking from Equipment Rankings with RCM Risk Analysis. They are complementary, not interchangeable.
Failing to connect RCM outputs to PM, inspection, case, and project processes, which turns the analysis into static documentation rather than a living maintenance strategy.

10. Practical recommendations for implementation teams

Start narrow: Pilot on one asset family with meaningful consequence diversity and active maintenance history.
Use workshops intentionally: Define functions, failures, and failure modes with SMEs from operations, maintenance, reliability, and safety/environmental compliance.
Standardize language: Publish controlled lists and examples for function statements, functional failure phrasing, and consequence category usage.
Tie analysis to action: Require every high or unacceptable risk failure mode to have a documented decision: mitigate, redesign, monitor, or accept.
Govern residual risk: Review mitigated vs. unmitigated values during steering or maintenance strategy governance reviews.
Keep class templates current: Use revisioning and periodic review dates on templates, especially for regulated or safety-critical assets.

11. Relationship to other HxGN EAM capabilities

Asset Performance Management: vendor guidance explicitly points to RCM functionality as the standard EAM path for determining business risk within the broader APM process.
Equipment Rankings: these can calculate Risk Priority Indexes and Criticality Indexes using surveys, queries, and formulas. They support portfolio-level ranking and automation, whereas Risk Analysis provides failure-logic depth and mitigation traceability.
Work Management and PM: failure-mode records can carry work codes and standard work references, while mitigation can connect directly to PM schedules and related maintenance constructs.

12. Bottom line

Appendix A. Source basis

HxGN EAM RCM Brief 12.1.1 (overview of Risk Analysis, setup, mitigation, import, and reports).
HxGN EAM Help 12.2.1 (procedural steps for risk matrix setup, RCM templates, failure modes, and mitigation fields).
HxGN EAM Technical Reference 12.2.1 (screen/function names and field labels confirming where Risk Analysis and related data appear).
HxGN EAM Asset Performance Management brief (use of RCM functions to determine business risk within the APM process).
HxGN EAM Equipment Rankings brief (distinction between Equipment Rankings and RCM-based risk analysis).

Version Note
This primer was assembled from vendor materials spanning 12.1.1 through 12.2.1, with supplemental overview content from 12.2/12.3. Screen labels and minor field behavior should be verified in the client’s exact EAM release and enabled module set before final design decisions are locked.

Value solutions

Value solutions