What are the core arguing points of Asset Management?

I really don't know, but here are some issues that I regularly find rigorous debate and hardened positions. Your comments would be welcomed.

1. Asset selection - Seems to be a continuing push for criticality analysis on everything before starting the work. Not bad except there is no clear and consistent definition of criticality, and it often ends up targeting assets that are working well. (Okay, so that's my view of course)

Techniques often thrown into the mix include:

• FMECA style studies
• Bad actor analysis
• RAM simulations, de-bottlenecking
• Boss's opinion (Winning s surprising amount of arguments)

2. What is optimal? Often semantic debates about details of the final goal rather than concentrating on the journey.

Anyway, the arguments here often spiral around whether a) Its a cost risk trade off, as you spend less risk increases, or b) Its a cost - performance trade off - with safety and environment managed separately.

3. Failure codes and other hot button issues in CMMS implementations. (Every time)

4. The bathtub curve - consistent and entrenched arguments around the application, use and usefulness of the bathtub concept.

5. RCM, PMO or other - I see this ongoing discussion as a good thing. Particularly these days. It shows an interest in the detail and application. The whole equipment strategy thing turned from an optimization step to an almost "dump and run"exercise designed to get strategies in a  CMMS and not overly focused on the material impacts.

6. Use an application of probabilistic techniques. Again, I see this argument as a good thing, and one that seems to show where we think we want to move. The arguments tend to revolve around issues related to availability of data, suitability of external data, and confidence in the answers.

Any of these issues surface often where you are? Or are there glaring elephants in the room I have missed?