Of course there are many studies that prove planned work is significantly less expensive than unplanned work. In addition, a work mix more heavily weighted toward PdM will drive costs down, as the following chart summarizing one study shows:
In addition, a well-planned work order provides ample time for an experienced and skilled craftsperson to perform a precision repair that should result in more reliable operation once the machine is restored to service. A second lesson learned from the top performers is that a holistic approach to changing practices, recognizing that the benefits cannot be unlocked by attacking individual components of the entire strategy, must be employed. If only the Maintenance people are involved in the process, it won’t drive results. The entire organization must be involved to unlock the benefits. And, all aspects of the strategy must be addressed simultaneously. You cannot piecemeal your way to prosperity. For example, planning and scheduling cannot improve if we don’t fix the work identification system. We can’t identify work objectively and early (before collateral and catastrophic damage occurs) without extensive use of PdM and condition monitoring. “Results” work orders will never be slotted into the schedule unless the operators understand and trust the technology. This is just a small example of how every aspect of the strategy acts as a link in the chain. If any link is missing, or broken, the entire strength of the chain is compromised.
A third, and perhaps critical lesson we take from the success stories, is that the culture change required to accomplish success is recognized early as a significant impediment to success, and the top performers incorporated all kinds of tools and methods to address culture change, including awareness training, consistent measurement systems, alignment of performance to rewards, etc. In fact, the top performers believe that the most challenging part of their journey was the “softer side” of the problem. If we think in terms of people, process and technology (which many companies do today), not surprisingly it is the people aspect that is the most challenging. Despite our intuition that this is true, most companies fail to dedicate the proper amount of attention and resources to this aspect. Many companies complain that their CMMS system has not delivered the promised results, but the CMMS alone cannot deliver reliability. Concentrating primarily on the process and technology does not result in sustainable higher performance.
So the key catch phrases for top performers include:
- More predictive and less preventive
- PdM used broadly and applied deeply into the asset base
- Objective and early work identification
- Planning & Scheduling the PM/PdM Results
- Integrated, holistic approach – you can’t piecemeal your way to prosperity
- Culture change is more than half the battle
Performance Yet to Achieve:
Despite the success stories that should guide us with their consistent practices, even the successful companies that have achieved great results have done so in individual plants or business units. None of the case studies for success have demonstrated uniform elevation of these practices enterprise-wide, at every single plant. In addition, the success that is evident is still somewhat (if not highly) dependent on influential leaders without whom the performance is not sustainable. In other words, in some of these companies, the changes have yet to be institutionalized for sustainable performance and continuous improvement. This of course takes time, resources and perseverance, and it should be pointed out that some of the companies recognize this and are actively addressing it.
If we are looking for a parallel to guide us in institutionalized and sustainable change across the entire enterprise, we need look no further than the area of safety. Those of us who are old enough can remember a day when safety was a responsibility of a limited number of people in a department. Today, safety is knitted into the fabric of every industrial company, and it is everyone’s responsibility. It is part of the way we do business. Safe working practices are enabling other business performance improvements that would not be possible otherwise. It is worth referring here to the chart below showing the remarkably direct correlation that has been established between Injury Rate and Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), presented some time ago by Ron Moore of The RM Group, Inc.
I have been preaching for quite a few years that reliability needs to become knitted into the fabric of our companies much like safety has. Why do I believe this? Every corporate improvement initiative, whether it is related to Lean Manufacturing, TPM, Six Sigma, Quality Circles, Supply Chain Optimization, Market Share Increase, Cost-of-Goods Reduction, Value-added Services, Increase in Sales, Asset Utilization Leverage – no matter what it is - it is my belief that success in these initiatives is either directly or indirectly enabled and enhanced by the reliability, stability and dependability of our physical assets. My contention is that there are incremental benefits related to all of these programs that are “locked” without addressing a fundamental foundational aspect of our business – namely rendering our physical assets reliable – and doing so efficiently. Could the injury rates at the companies that show direct correlation have gone down to those levels without reliable assets? I say no. With particular regard to Lean, we have seen or heard of cases where significant lean principals were applied in manufacturing plants only to uncover previously hidden reliability issues. With all of the flexibility and wasted movements removed from the plant, unreliable or unstable assets result in larger production penalties because there is no flexibility to adjust and react. So I argue that business performance can actually degrade if Lean is implemented in the absence of establishing a reliable and stable asset base. In any event, if this foundation is in place, I believe that incremental benefits for the corporation can be un-locked, and the performance of the company, in whatever part of the business the “C” suite is focused on, will improve.
Gladly, the people in the executive suites of our industrial companies are beginning to understand this – partly because they have witnessed dramatic business performance improvements in the early adopter companies. The CEO of Chevron Corporation, Mr. Dave O’Reilly, said in a recent letter to employees that “Reliability, like safety, is a critical element of operational excellence and requires our constant attention.” The Vice President of Operations at Anheuser Busch, Michael Harding, said in a recent public speech to the Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, that “As goes Maintenance, so goes the business”. There are more examples of executives focusing on maintenance and reliability. If you want to develop a financial business case in your company, find out what initiative the CEO is concerned with, and I guarantee you that reliable assets will materially contribute to the results of that initiative – either directly or indirectly. This environment of increased awareness and understanding bodes well for a significant elevation of maintenance and reliability business practices.
Nonetheless, some obvious impediments stand in the way of uniform, enterprise-wide performance, including:
- Lack of Executive Initiating Sponsorship
- Lack of Executive Sustaining Sponsorship
- Lack of Defined Standards
- Lack of Consistent Basis for Measurement
- No Ties Between Performance and Compensation
- Lack of Systems to Efficiently Leverage Work Done at One Plant to Other Plants
There are others as well but these are major ones. Perhaps a good way to express what we believe is necessary within a large corporation to elevate practices uniformly across the entire enterprise, is to use the chart below. This chart shows a wide variation of maintenance spend across a fleet of plants in a typical corporation (shown by the blue curve). The goal in our view is to reduce the variation in your corporation (shown by the green curve). This would mean that there is less variation in performance from plant to plant, and, presumably, the level of performance is elevated beyond what it could be by simply attacking the opportunity plant-by-plant.
It should be noted that we know of no company in existence today that has achieved uniform elevated levels of reliability performance across the entire enterprise – fleet-wide. Several companies are vying for the notoriety, but more importantly, the business performance that will come if this is achieved.
