Jump to content
Test ×


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Andrej

  1. Hi Jim and Raul, just wanted to add an additional piece of information about the KPIs; the updated GMARI (Global Maintenance and Reliability Indicators) workbook on harmonized indicators has just been released jointly by SMRP and EFNMS. It describes the similarities and differences between SMRP metrics and the EN 14341 which I have mentioned in some of my posts. It is available for purchase on both organizations' web sites and might be a valuable input for an effort Jim and many others are facing with. Best regards, Andrej
  2. Andrej


  3. Hi @Raul Martins there were some discussions on KPIs already in one of the Preventive Maintenance discussions in January and this is indeed a very important topic. KPIs cover broad aspects of maintenance management and they can be categorized as: · economic, · technical and · organisational. This is also the approach of the international standard EN 15341 Maintenance - Maintenance Key Performance Indicators, which I refer to very often. It proposes a huge number of KPIs, so it is absolutely necessary to selective and specific for the purpose. For monitoring the performance of the maintenance process(es) specifically, there is another useful standard, EN 17007 Maintenance process and associated indicators, which is a very thorough and systematic presentation of different (sub)processes in maintenance and associated metrics for each one of them. The reason one may want to consider using standardized KPIs is that the definitions are very clear which also makes potential benchmarking easier. For those not fond of standards, I would recommend a book Developing Performance Indicators for Managing Maintenance by Terry Wireman. Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Hence, every facility has to look into their own situation and goals they want to achieve in order to define the right set of KPI's. For the practitioners that are about to start using them, my advice would be to start with no more than 10 and to add or change them later on - when the maturity of maintenance processes grows. Besides selecting the KPIs it is also crucial to set the target values which you want to follow and those need to reflect the strategic business goals of the company wherever possible. So, at the end of the day, maintenance KPIs are not exclusively a matter of Maintenance Department, but should also be aligned with internal customers and top management. Back to the initial question; my personal perception of the items in the table is that, even though we can consider all of them as metrics, the 2nd and 3rd are more of useful analytical items than KPIs. Yet, they are useful for sure. If I try to make a suggestion on a few more KPI's to be added to the list above when starting the journey, the following should prove to be useful in most cases: total maintenance costs vs. budget, immediate corrective / deferred corrective / preventive maintenance costs vs. total maintenance costs, Number of immediate corrective / deferred corrective /preventive maintenance Work Orders vs. total maintenance Work Orders, immediate corrective / deferred corrective / preventive maintenance man-hours vs. total maintenance man-hours, Number of maintenance man-hours recorded on WOs vs, total maintenance man-hours. It should be emphasized again that there need to be a sufficient size and precision of input data to make any KPI meaningful and actionable. And while this discussion is part of the Planning & Scheduling, it should be noted that the WO process in the CMMS/EAM has to allow for the parameters which enable the KPI calculation and reporting. And all involved in the WO process need to be very disciplined otherwise neither the process nor the KPIs will work. Quite often, some KPIs cannot simply be calculated by CMMS/EAM and may require interfaces with systems like SCADA, Operations Management System, Business Intelligence or even some manual effort to arrive to them - yes, even in the 21st century :). Let me conclude with a suggestion that setting and tracking the KPIs should be encouraged even if they are not yet completely accurate. We can at least start observing trends and react on them with due caution. In its essence, Maintenance Management is a continuous improvement process and KPIs can be a very useful tool. And, as any other tool - it has to be repaired or changed from time to time... Best regards, Andrej
  4. Hi @Jim Vantyghem, I absolutely agree with your thoughts and that's why I mentioned the PCT in my response on May 12. The Prosci's Project Change Triangle (PCT) is about the three necessary constituents of any change project - Sponsorship/Leadership, Project Management and Change Management. While PM is mostly about technical aspect of the project, CM is all about people as human beings and their needs which have to be met should we want the change to succeed. And the reason Prosci has introduced so called ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) elements, is exactly related with teh need for change at individual level, when an organizational change is to be achieved. In my understanding, the sponsorship has been more exposed in the latest few messages just because we wanted to point out that is but a must, yet often missed. As mentioned, it is one of the three PCT elements and if any of them is missing, the chances for the change to be successful are very slim. I am not trying to advocate Prosci's methodology as the only viable one - there are several others out there (John Kotter's is also very well known and widely used). I like ti as it is very well structured, based on 20 year+ research worldwide and I have personally positive experience with in practice. You may want to visit https://www.prosci.com/, where wealth of useful information, articles, webinars and even on-line trainings can be found. Best regards, Andrej
  5. Hi UptimeJIm and all; could not agree more with your statement. Have seen quite a few cases like that - and the worst of it all was that the top management was not even aware of the need for sponsorship. And let me cite just two important conclusions from Prosci's studies over the last 20 years worldwide having involved more than 3400 participants: Projects with excellent CM are 6x more likely to meet or exceed their objectives. The executive sponsor has the highest single impact on project success. Best regards, Andrej
  6. Hi Raoul, you brought up a very important topic. From my experience, I can say that many organizations are not aware enough of the importance of CM when they want to introduce any kind of organizational change. At the end of the day, the latter is only achievable if all the employees who are involved, really change the way they do their day-to-day work. And to do so, it is of paramount importance for them to understand WHY the change is happening and get a clear answer on WIIFM? What I'd like to add to your initial thoughts is the importance of the executive sponsor for a successful change. I've seen many cases where a Project Manager was assigned and the change was expected to happen. It is not hard to imagine the results. Even when the Change Agent is assigned (which may or may not be the same person as PM), that does not suffice. It is crucial to have visible sponsorship of the change. Prosci calls that Project Change Triangle - PCT (Sponsorhip/Leadership - Project Management - Change Management). There are several CM methodologies used worldwide. I had reviewed several ones and decided to follow the one of Prosci (www.prosci.com), which has a significant research background of more than 20 years good structure and lots of reference materials. And it focuses on the level of individuals, which I found very important. Consequently I also decided to get certified in accordance with their methodology. Regardles of the methodology one may choose, it is crucial for the practitioners to invest sufficient time to get well acquainted with it. Namely, the topic is more extensive than it may seem. And way too many change projects fail for CM is not (sufficiently) utilized. As we are discussing maintenance, most of the optimization or improvement projects, introductions of new technologies and/or methodologies require changes in day-to-day work. Sound CM should make a substantial difference. Best regards, Andrej
  7. Hi @Raul Martins, I agree that 5Y is very suitable for the environments where they are starting with the use of RCA techniques. It may fall short for more complex analyses. I was normally using a three-legged 5Y (3L5Y) analysis, which provides more insights, as you dig into the specific, detection and systemic root causes in each respective leg. After finding a specific root cause, it is the additional aspects (detection and systemic) that bring all pieces of the puzzle together for a true understanding of the cause(s). After applying the right corrective actions, not only are the original issues fixed, the corresponding detection system and management system gaps that allowed the issue to occur in the first place, are identified and resolved. By finding a true systemic root cause and fixing it, a massive leverage for the organisation is created as fixes spread across the plant and are incorporated into future programs. That is why the 3L5Y has a substantial advantage over a traditional 5Y method. In my experience we have often combined the 3L5Y with Ishikawa (fishbone) analyses, or used one of the two, depending on the specific situation, which allowed for a more flexible approach. As to the triggers; in many cases we have used RCA for: Events with substantial consequences (OHS, environmental, quality, economic, reputational), Equipment failures with substantial consequences, Near-misses that could have resulted in substantial consequences, Repetitive equipment failures, Maintenance rework, Customer complaints, Internal non-conformities (system, process, etc.). Or whenever it was deemed necessary by line managers, or requested by first-line supervisors. It is helpful if management defines a threshold for what “substantial” actually means in more specific terms. Should anyone be interested in a nice explanation of concepts and use of different RCA techniques, a free IAEA document can be downloaded at: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1756_web.pdf. True that the document is prepared for the NPPs in the first place, yet the concepts can be used in other industries, as well. Regards, Andrej
  8. Hi Raul, as indicated, there have been several attempts to delineate maintenance into three generations, with the 4th one lately very often associated to the Industry 4.0. It may not be easy to do so in a consistent manner. The reason is very simple; diverse industries, economies, even organizational cultures, have been so much different in terms of maintenance development, that it seems to be very hard to apply the same concept of maintenance generations to all of them. Let me illustrate that from my own experience: When I started to work as a young maintenance engineer about 30 years ago in a nuclear power plant, paper Work Orders were still used, yet the computerized Work Ordering System has been implemented shortly after. Also, we ran a Plant Maintenance Optimization project for several years based on a Streamlined RCM process. The overall concept was following contemporary maintenance developments in the US and EU NPPs using metrics and KPIs that enabled benchmarking etc. While today, as a consultant, I still face with some organizations in the same country, yet in other industries, which do not have maintenance Work Ordering process in place - neither computerized nor in a paper form and are more or less operating in a purely reactive manner. Some others have a CMMS implemented, but merely open Work Orders for the whole calendar year, which simply serve as a vehicle for collecting costs. No planning and scheduling process, whatsoever. There can be a long discussion about the reasons behind, but it would require a separate topic. So in a small country like Slovenia, you can today find cases of best practices in maintenance on the one hand and, on the other hand, completely outdated "fix-it-when-broken" attitudes. In some organizations, concepts like RCM (which is indeed more than 50 years old) are not even given a thought. And I would assume such situations may be found also in other countries. Under such circumstances, organizations wanting to make substantial changes in maintenance, need to do so in an organized and staged step-by-step approach. The capabilities of I4.0 are indeed impressive, also in terms of maintenance support, yet I strongly believe that the foundations need to be built first, such as preventive maintenance program, planning and scheduling, metrics and analytics etc. And, here I cannot agree more with Erik, that sponsorship and change management need to go hand-in-hand with any improvements. Talking about foundations; several articles can be found on implementation of modern predictive tools, which at the end of the day proved basic maintenance activities like lubrication, cleaning, etc., were often inadequate and consequently induced degraded conditions. One last thought; many organizations pursue modern Asset Management concepts (based on ISO 55000 series, EN 16646 etc.) and try to develop maintenance function/process within a broader context of Asset Management System maximizing the value of the assets with their whole life cycle. Which gives another perspective on maintenance and its role in an organization. Hence, the AM context may well need to be taken into account, as well, when determining current generation of maintenance. Best regards, Andrej
  9. Hi Raul, opening a separate topic on KPI makes a lot of sense. It would also be useful take one of the existing international standards (e.g. latest edition of EN 15341 Maintenance - Maintenance KPIs or any other one you may prefer) as a reference. I fully agree with UptimeJim that "experienced tailors who can tune into the organization's culture are needed", yet many organizations simply do not have those available - for different reasons. Hence, I believe the discussion proposed by Jim to put together a set of potential KPI's to start with, would be useful. I've seen quite a few organizations not utilizing maintenance KPI's besides budget compliance. Unfortunately. UptimeJim is absolutely right by emphasizing one size does not fit all; yet some colleagues who are sweating their path out of firefighting may still find the discussion on basic KPIs helpful. The adaptation to their specific needs which will inevitably change with the level of development of the maintenance processes (and associated IT systems) will certainly be a must. Best regards, Andrej
  10. It might be good to extend the discussion to a set of KPIs that different practitioners have best experience with. There are lots of available sources suggesting a large number of KPIs and at least for the newcomers, it can be difficult to select the ones that can bring most value and stage the others later on. It is clear that KPIs change with the maturity of maintenance processes and organization, as well as with the level of CMMS/EAM support, yet in my opinion, the topic would be helpful for many. My own belief is that it is better to have lower number of KPIs to begin with. It is more important to assure they are meaningful, make good use of them and take actions, rather than acquiring too many KPIs which dissolve at the end of the day and nothing happens based of them. Andrej
  11. Fully agree with UptimeJim. For MTBF it is really crucial to have quality data available. And as some other maintenance KPI's are normally used for monitoring maintenance performance, CMMS/EAM very often cannot provide all the necessary data. E.g. in many cases some interfaces with Operations Management IT Systems are needed for precise inputs on asset uptime/downtime, etc. On the other hand, even the top-notch IT System does not help much, if the discipline of the maintenance team is not at the required level, as the data are not dully put in the system. I've personally seen lots of issues with the latter. It may be useful to first establish handful of other maintenance KPIs before utilizing MTBF. It helps to improve the understanding of why the KPIs and why there's a need for accurate and timely data. EN 15341:2019 Maintenance - Maintenance Key Performance Indicators may provide some guidance, even though there's a huge number of KPIs in there and it is absolutely necessary to decide which ones to use and for what purpose. In some maintenance organizations it can prove to be helpful to introduce the reliability engineer, who helps others understand the importance of reliability and all the necessary activities associated to it. And, step by step, works towards meeting all the prerequisites for MTBF to be calculated correctly and, more importantly, acted upon.
  12. Jim, thank you. You put it very nicely - lots of maintenance / engineering professionals (including myself) have invested a lot of effort into technical scope of projects. For me, it took many years to recognise the technical aspects are not sufficient for success, when a change in a day-to-day practice is required. Consequently, I started searching for what had actualy been missing. It was definitely a human side of the change and, quite often, inadequete sponsorship. Then I started to look into different CM methodologies. Finally, Prosci's approach resonated very well with me - in their PCT Model they emphasise the importance of Leadership/Sponsorship, Project Management and Change Management for a project to meet its objectives and ROI. There's a good explanation at: https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/project-change-triangle-overview And I absolutely agree with you on the need for focusing on understanding why we do what we do and how to use this information to make a positive change. This is but a prerequisite to address the Awareness and Desire, the first two phass of individual change within the ADKAR model: https://www.prosci.com/adkar/adkar-model. I am not advocating the use of Prosci methodology as the only plausible one, I'd simply like to draw the attention of maintenance managers on CM when improving / optimizing maintenance processes and organisation, or introducing any other changes. Whatever the methodology they opt to use, it can significantly improve the chances of success. Finally, as there are surely many other important aspects - several of them mentioned within this topic - I will personally never again leave CM out of the equation :). Best regards, Andrej
  13. Jim, you raised some execellent points. And it is also my experience that many executives talk about having many good maintenance practices in place, while reality may show a very different picture. Some of your points are in line with what I would consider focusing on the basics, and many of them may well fit into my understanding of a proper Change Management process. I trully believe the latter is essential for introducing the improvements into the day-to-day maintenance practices. WIthout changing the way maintenance personnel do their job, the outcomes of any improvement projects will be hard to realize. Best, Andrej
  14. Hi Raul, Thank you for your feedback. While I agree with your observation that poor training and knowledge management contribute to the inadequate WO information, let me suggest some more potential reasons: We should all understand that it is generally not realistic to expect from maintenance techs to start filling in all necessary information into the WO when the system is initially put in place. This is human. For that purpose, the change (and resistance!) have to be managed properly - which is not the case very often. If MOC was not utilized when implementing a WO system and the whole process has never been fully implemented, the change in the way maintenance crews do their jobs never gets entirely in place. Hence, not all necessary functionalities of the WO are used as initially planned. The WO process and associated roles may not be defined well enough and people are not completely aware of the stardards they should comply with. The approval points of either supervisors or maintenance managers within the WO workflow are either not in place or are not executed properly. Those approvals should assure that all the necessary information has been put into the WO prior to execution and after it. If not, the supervisor/manager should return the WO for update. This approach normally gives good results and with the time helps setting the standards. If the links to or data from the warehose are not established properly within CMMS, it is not realistic to expect that the spares will be planed and recorded appropriately.
  15. I agree with all what UptimeJim has said and would like to add a few more thoughts: I. FOCUS ON THE BASICS & STAGE It is crucial to start with the basics and focus on Wildly Important Goals (see e.g. https://www.franklincovey.com/Solutions/Execution/4-disciplines.html). You may want to use some assessment tools to help you prioritize the steps. Terry Wireman puts it very nicely in several of his books that the Preventive Maintenance Program should be a fundament, enabling all other methodologies to be built upon. Wireman’s maintenance management pyramid is also useful for that purpose. The staging of the maintenance processes improvements needs to be realistic and well managed. Some suggested steps to start with: · Develop a PM program, or refine the existing one using a simplified risk matrix, “bad actor” Pareto analysis etc. · When the PM tasks are updated, cleaned up and put into the CMMS work on planning and scheduling. · Strongly focus on concise Work Ordering Process. There are at least three good reasons for that: firstly, a WO should define and enable control of LOTOTO and HSE requirements, and, secondly, a WO is a key information vehicle in maintenance. Without a good history, it is hard to make any analyses, KPI calculation and tracking etc. In many cases, WO can provide useful inputs for RCAs. Thirdly, only a solid WO process enables the right prioritization and gatekeeping which also affect reliability. · As RCA/defect elimination comes to play, together with all the lessons learned from the WO execution, the feedback loop/continual improvement goes back to the PM program and so on. In many cases it is advisable that improving housekeeping practices in parallel with the above gives an additional signal that the change is real and can be one of the quick wins. The fact of the matter is that the plants with poor maintenance very often show poor housekeeping practices. II. PREPARE A BUSINESS CASE Without a solid Business Case or at least a good Cost-Benefit Analysis “showing the money” to the Board, maintenance remains perceived as a pure cost generator – instead of becoming a value adder in an organization. And it is hard to expect proper sponsoring of top-level executives if they do not recognize the economic outcomes. Some good and useful concepts can be found in a book Value Driven Maintenance: https://www.mainnovation.com/vdm-xl/. III. MANAGE CHANGE Way too many maintenance managers have never had a chance to receive training in Change Management. True, they are not expected to be solely responsible for CM in this kind of projects. But without their understanding of the need for CM, of its principles and without factoring them into the implementation of new methodologies of maintenance management, the chances for success are very slim. Many improvement projects in maintenance requiring changes in the way people do the work do not get fully implemented and/or are not delivering the expected outcomes. A common denominator for most of them seems to be the lack of CM. Lots of useful CM resources and training can be found at https://www.prosci.com/
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and use of We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..