For Production Critical Environments
See what threatens production. Solve the underlying cause.
ayjah connects production-risk visibility, a suite of root-cause analysis tools and AI-assisted reporting. Teams prioritise the problems that matter, coordinate action across departments, prevent repeat failures and protect asset performance.
Built for Asset, Production and Reliability Managers — and the leaders they report to.
| PaR ID | Threat | Exposure (est.) |
|---|---|---|
| PaR-001 | Compressor C-201 recurring vibration Gas processing · RCA-012 open | 4,200 bbl/dper trip, ~6 h · basis below |
| PaR-003 | HSSEFirewater pump assurance gap Offsites | Plant-widelicence-to-operate risk |
| PaR-005 | Cooling-water exchanger fouling Utilities | 1,800 bbl/drate cut in summer |
| PaR-008 | Instrument-air leak at header Utilities | 650 bbl/dif compressor trips |
The Operator who sees what others miss.
The Technician who solves the underlying problem.
The Engineer who asks the uncomfortable question.
The Leader who clears the way for work that matters most.
The problem
Urgent requests, departmental priorities and new initiatives all compete for the same people. The issue that most threatens production can sit quietly behind them.
Operations, maintenance and engineering each rank their own list. The loudest item wins, not the costliest.
Threats live in spreadsheets, actions in work orders, findings in reports. Nobody sees the whole picture.
Actions slip between departments. Nobody checks whether the fix worked, so the same failure returns.
You may already have a threat register and an RCA procedure. The gap is turning them into results. ayjah connects the priority to the cause, the cause to the action, and the action to proof that it worked.
How it works
An illustrative scenario: Compressor C-201 has tripped three times in six weeks.
The threat is logged once, with an estimate of what it could cost and the basis for that estimate.
Managers see the same ranked register and vote on focus, so the reason for priority is visible to everyone.
An RCA opens straight from the PaR item, using the timeline, cause and effect, 5 Whys and fishbone tools.
Each action has an owner, a due date and the department expected to help.
A check date is set when the actions close. The PaR item stays open until the evidence says the fix held.
The finished investigation becomes a report and a lesson the next team can find. AI drafting for this step is planned.
Identify production exposure → agree priorities → investigate causes → assign and complete actions → verify effectiveness → retain the learning.
Products
Available
One ranked register of what threatens production, with exposure, owners, management focus and actions in one place.
Available Some tools planned
Structured root-cause tools that open straight from a PaR item, so the investigation stays tied to the production risk.
In development
Reliability and maintenance views being built inside the same workspace, so equipment performance and repeat failures can feed the PaR register.
Ask about early access →Planned
Drafts RCA reports and lessons from the evidence your team has already captured. Every draft is reviewed and approved by a person before it is issued.
See the report preview →PaR decides what matters. RCA Intelligence finds why it happens. Reliability & Maintenance Intelligence shows where it may happen next. AI Report Writing captures what was learned.
RCA Intelligence
Structured tools in one investigation, linked to the production risk that started it. Screens below use illustrative data.
Sequence shows the alarm was acknowledged 28 minutes before the trip.
Problem: C-201 tripped on high vibration at 03:02, losing about 6 hours of Train 2 production.
| Is | Is not | |
|---|---|---|
| What | High-vibration trip, C-201 | Train 1 or Train 3 |
| Where | Drive-end bearing | Non-drive end |
| When | Nights, ambient above 34 °C | Cooler periods |
| Extent | 3 trips in 6 weeks | Every high-load period |
Planned Concept screen. Not yet available in the product.
Planned Illustrative
C-201 tripped on high bearing vibration after lube oil overheated when cooler fan B failed.
The routine had no standby check for cooler fans. Evidence: temperature log, alarm history (linked).
ACT-031, ACT-032, ACT-033. Effectiveness check: 90 days without a repeat trip.
Production exposure
Every exposure figure in PaR carries its basis. Managers can see the assumptions, question them and agree a priority on the same facts.
PaR-001 exposure basis Illustrative
Assumptions are entered by the PaR lead and can be updated as evidence improves.
Who it’s for
See which threats carry the most exposure across the asset, and where resources should go first.
Get one agreed list in place of competing ones, with owners and due dates everyone can see.
Run investigations that reach a fixable cause, and check that the fix held.
The business case: fewer repeat failures, less lost production and decisions you can explain.
Built from the plant floor
Shaped by operational experience across the UK, Australia, the Middle East and South Korea, ayjah is designed for the realities of live assets—not idealised workflows.
Threats compete for attention. RCAs stall. Actions cross functions. ayjah helps teams see what matters, solve the underlying cause and follow critical work through.
Start with your existing threat register and RCA procedure. Details are confirmed during the demo.
A list of current production threats, owners and open actions. A spreadsheet is enough to begin.
No integrations are published yet. Tell us which systems you use and we’ll discuss what’s possible.
Ask us for our current security and data-handling approach. No certifications are claimed at this stage.
About ayjah
ayjah was born from a frustration seen repeatedly inside asset-intensive operations: too often, what gets attention is not what matters most. Production does not respond to confidence or hierarchy. It responds to physics, failure modes, operating discipline and follow-through.
Bring one production threat. We’ll walk it from priority to proof in a 30-minute demo.
