Maximo Reporting

Session Content:

The webinar on “Maintenance Cost Analysis” will provide insights to make strategic & tactical decisions related to the cost of asset maintenance by leveraging data captured in the CMMS like Maximo & SAP PM. It will cover topics such as

- Maintenance Spend Analysis
- Repair V/S Replace Decisions
- Labor & Spares cost
- Asset life cycle cost analysis & total cost of asset ownership
- Forecasting maintenance and capital cost for planning & budgeting
- ROAI computation
- Maintenance budget monitoring
- Downtime cost estimation & monitoring

Join this webinar and learn how to achieve visibility & control on the cost factors for managing Assets.

You can avoid some expensive burn-outs if you opt for preventive maintenance and not reactive maintenance

WE will cross the bridge when it comes. That’s a nice philosophy to have in life.
But not in a plant. Certainly not with machines.
Every machine comes with a suffix called maintenance attached to it.
That’s why the term called AMCs (Annual Maintenance Contracts) is a highlight of many a sales negotiation talk too.
And yet, maintenance is orphaned once the machine gets out of the crib.
The crying baby gets the milk. So is the approach we often take with maintenance too.
But, maintenance is not just strutting about with some nuts and bolts to be used when something screeches, or howls or makes a noise.
Its scope is broad and deep and that’s probably why we still don’t embrace the right approach to maintenance.

Maintenance Approaches:
Maintenance can be broken into categories – Proactive and Reactive. Proactive is further divided into two classes- Preventive and Predictive while Reactive can be split into – Corrective and Emergency.
Reactive maintenance, the easiest approach, the oft-used approach, the out-of-sheer-habit approach. But look closer and you will find that the worst thing that a company can do is spend a lot of time in reactive maintenance.
Reactive approach includes a lot of unplanned downtime in contrast to planned downtime.
Often many reasons incline a company towards reactive way of maintenance. Like:
1. High pressure environment
2. Rigorous production schedules
3. Heavy targets
4. Top Management’s attitude
5. Poor record-keeping making proactive approach infeasible
6. Lack of automation in production-records and scheduling documents
7. Lack of awareness of means and methods of non-disruptive maintenance
8. Ease of application and out of regime
But, this kind of a company is not always a world-class company. Because world-class companies only apportion about 5 per cent of maintenance time to the reactive approach. The major part is done the preventive way. The reasons for doing that are born out of a long-term mindset, focus on sustainability, regard for safety, well-planned direction and a clear vision.
Why Reactive Maintenance costs a lot?
If a plant takes on the routine of repairing only when a problem occurs, it has to bear many outcomes of this neglectful approach:

1. Disruptions in schedules (Example- the way Japanese companies in Electronics and Automotive OEM industry are struggling with capacity-issues and inventory lags)
2. Loss of production man-hours
3. Impact on productivity and quality
4. Greater defects and market pull-outs of products with consequent impact on company image
5. Safety threats ( and associated issues with worker morale and confidence)
6. Over utilization of energy and bad environmental practices
7. Internal supply chain spill-over
8. Resulting
9. Inadequate leverage of AMC benefits

Ways to ensure Preventive Maintenance
It is not that difficult to take the preventive recipe and have planned downtimes. It’s much more beneficial and has a very positive long-term effect, not to mention environmental and sustainability contributions that come as a bonus when a machine is maintained at regular intervals. The ways to do it are simple:

1. Allocate planned hours from night-shifts or evening-or holiday-hours for planned shutdown or a machine outage
2. Automate and organize production records and schedules so as to allow preventive maintenance in an environment of clarity, non-overlap, transparency and control
3. Accumulate certain level of inventory for planned production interruption in advance.
4. Ensure administration of AMC personnel as per time and repair requirements
5. Use redundancies and back-up options for maintaining mission-critical equipment (example- in a turbine or a nuclear reactor or a steel furnace)

Choosing Preventive over Reactive maintenance is a major difference between an average company and a world-class firm.
Which side you want to be is ultimately your choice.
Yes, you can always cross the bridge when it comes but it would not hurt if you have a spare tire and a car in good order. Won’t it?

When built into management processes, performance metrics become a system which will generate organizational behaviors that comply with what is measured, i.e., “you are what you measure.” Hence, this will encourage behaviors which help present a good score for the individual or for the department.

This may or may not, however, help to achieve strategic goals. Therefore, when building performance metrics, we must begin with the end result in mind. We need to focus on what we want as outcomes of our work processes. This presents a dilemma, as we do not work as a set of isolated departments, but in collaboration with others. Processes that begin with an individual are continued or completed by others. So, how do we effectively measure outcomes when a single individual or group is not controlling all the key steps?

Several basic frameworks have been proposed to build intelligent metrics that help form sets of composite measures to simplify this problem. For example, the SMART (see accompanying section “Building and Testing Performance Indicators”) test is frequently used to provide a quick reference to determine the quality of a particular performance metric. But these do not, however, address how the measures will interact to stimulate an effective network of key processes. How can individuals see what the effects of their improvements are, if these get lost in the noise of company management reports?

One problem is that business processes are segmented, and many departments are collecting silos of information that produce metrics used only for the sake of measurement. These silos then reinforce divergent opinions of company performance and limit a common understanding of what new behaviors are needed. So, a major factor in implementing performance measurement is changing the way performance is measured and reported and how people view success within their own processes.

For many organizations, this is “where the rubber hits the road:” How can we build realistic, practical metrics which drive change? How can we articulate company objectives through enterprise-wide metrics in an integrated measurement system?