Robust reliability and maintainability process reduces costs

A more robust and understood reliability and maintainability process can reduce costs and improve competitiveness in companies of all types. With only 38% of companies doing business using RandM specifications, it’s a good indication of how much these methodologies are actually being used. As shown in Fig. 1, increasing levels of RandM resulted in lower maintenance expenditures. Each point represents the average for all North American companies that responded in that RandM level.

Also, North American companies that had more production operator PM involvement had reduced maintenance costs. Each point in Fig. 2 represents the average for all North American companies that responded in that level of production operator PM involvement.

Changes are coming

All of the company responses were categorized into the six most frequently mentioned areas. The five most representative items for each of the six R and M areas was also compiled.

People and cultural improvements (26%)

Improve the culture (management, operator, maintenance)

More production operator involvement

Hire full-time reliability and maintainability engineers

Training (RCM, cross-training, R & M)

More involvement by all employees

More design-in reliability and maintainability (20%)

More design-in reliability and maintainability

Standardized components on equipment

Standardized controls architecture

Component reliability improvements

Better use of R & M in decision-making

More data-driven processes and tools (19%)

Better use of predictive tools

Better use of data to drive KPIs

Better data on the lifespan of critical components

Improve OEE

Better integration of SPC and R & M metrics

Maintenance process improvements (16%)

Implement full TPM process

Dedicated resources for R & M tasks

Better CMMS use and capability

Less reactive maintenance

More timely repairs

Specific maintenance improvements (13%)

Better inventory/spare parts control

Better lubrication program

More kaizen events

More reliable electrical/electronics

Better system components (i.e., water quality)

Better sensors and timely feedback (6%)

More machine self-monitoring/feedback

More/better error-proofing

Improved sensors and data acquisition

More equipment troubleshooting/diagnostics

More real-time feedback/corrections

Most important maintenance metrics — All of the company responses were categorized into the five most frequently mentioned areas. Again, the five most representative items for each of the five metric areas were also compiled.

Performance (30%)

MTTR

MTBF

OEE

Critical equipment uptime %, equipment availability %

Maintenance Downtime %

Schedule Compliance (16%)

% PM compliance

% Predictive Maintenance compliance

% PM compliance on critical equipment

% PM work order compliance

% Backlog

Cost (14%)

Maintenance cost/unit produced

Maintenance cost/replacement asset value

Maintenance cost/sales

Cost of repairs

% Budget Compliance

Maintenance Type (12%)

% Preventive

% Predictive

% Reactive

Proactive/reactive ratio

% Corrective repairs from PMs

Miscellaneous (28%)

% Lubrication performed

Pareto analysis of failures, top 10 downtime reasons

Spare parts usage

Customer Satisfaction

Tool Life.

Additional Findings:

“Perceived world class’’ maintenance expenditure/original machinery and equipment investment is highest at 12.3% in small companies (less than 100 employees) and lowest in large companies (more than 1,000 employees) at 5.4%

“Actual” maintenance expenditure/original machinery and equipment investment is highest at 12.5% in small companies (less than 100 employees) and lower in larger companies (7.8% in medium size companies with 101-1000 employees and 8.6% in companies with more than 1000 employees)

In response to “What has positively impacted maintenance in the last five years?,” large and medium size companies selected “Better management understanding of maintainability/reliability” as the most significant. Small companies selected “More reliable machinery and equipment” as being most helpful

The largest opportunity was identified as both, “Better technology available” and “More designed-in maintainability” for small companies. Medium and large companies had “More involvement by operators” as their greatest opportunity. Also compared was “Maintenance expenditure/original machinery and equipment investment (%),” for companies that rated the impact of “Better management understanding of maintenance/reliability over the last five years” as high. These companies, on average, performed about 10% better than the 2008 North American average of 9.7% maintenance expenditure/original machinery and equipment investment

“Production operators performing PM checks or repairs” was 44.7% for small companies, 43.4% for medium size companies and 18.1% for large companies.

In summary, a robust reliability and maintainability process can result in significant operational improvements and cost reductions.

A copy of this and additional information can be obtained at the University of Tennessee — Reliability and Maintainability Center Website at the end of July by going to www.engr.utk.edu/mrc .

Do you have experience and expertise with the topics mentioned in this content? You should consider contributing to our CFE Media editorial team and getting the recognition you and your company deserve. Click here to start this process.