New ways of measuring maintenance

I have long been disillusioned by the way we measure the maintenance function.

• Despite being a key beneficiary of technological advancement we fail to apply this to our metrics and KPI's.

• We seem to be permanently stuck on static figures and trending common metrics like availability and utilization.

• Our reported metrics rarely if ever contain anything diagnostic both at the strategic and tactical levels. 

For this reason I have continually tried to push the boundaries on performance management in several areas. First, by making use of modern technologies a lot better. Sometimes this is only in more advanced use of Excel, sometimes it incorporates Business Intelligence tools such as Business Objects,  QlickView, Tableau or legacy tools like Cognos and CorVu.

Second by representing and using metrics in a vastly different way. This is a pretty big theme, it crosses a range of areas from chart types, to Synergistic / Antagonistic measures, through to leading / Lagging indicators.

Changes in the Asset management Software sector

Since the last time I posted here the maintenance world has changed dramatically.

I will write a range of posts on this over the next few weeks to try to capture what has happened in our industry and where it is headed across technology, service provision, contracting and

In the past couple of weeks there have been some major shifts in the structure of the software side of our industry. I believe this is a tectonic shift that will change the systems our industry uses.

• eMaint has been purchased by Fluke for an undisclosed sum (Online CMMS)

• iSolutions was purchased by Runge Pincock Minarco (RPM) in a deal purportedly worth $8 million plus an additional $6.5 million buy out over three years based on performance (Mobile / fleet management software)

• Meridium was purchased by GE Digital in a deal worth a purported USD $495 million

In every case the impact will be determined not by the value of the product itself, but by how mid to large sized multinationals will be able to replace the drive and enthusiasm of the product developers and owners.

Asset Replacement Value as a benchmark

Benchmarking yourself against the leading companies in asset management globally is a tricky business. it is very easy to adopt something you read in a book without really understanding what the measure is actually showing. 

For example, take the very common Asset Replacement Value (ARV) measure. This is a measure of all maintenance costs as a percentage of the ARV.

My own measures of this metric are:

Best in class - 1.75%

Average - 2.3 %

Worst in Class - 5.3%

But on further analysis... is this measure really of any use?

The Age of the RCM Analyst

The RCM Analyst approach had its genesis in the Utility industry of the United Kingdom in 2002. 

When RCM was first introduced globally it was 1991, just after the Moubray first edition of RCM2. At the time maintenance departments were not as efficient or as lean as they are today. 

There were no mobile phones and we communicated via plastic devices attached to walls with cables.

There was no widely accessed internet or email, and we sent messages with markings made on bits of trees we would pass from office to office hoping they didn't get lost.

It was into this environment that team-facilitated RCM implementation was introduced. An approach focused on getting relevant stakeholders into a room, and using their collective experience to produce accurate and rigorously produced RCM analyses. 

By 2002 the world was different, and it was clear to me that this would no longer suffice. Recognised by others also, this challenge was being met by "Streamlined RCM" approaches, designed to cut into the rigour of the method.

I wasn't happy with that. While it was clear that the current implementation approach was unsustainable, there had to be another way aside from the sometimes dangerous streamlining approaches. 

The advantage of leading practices

No matter which company I work with they all have the crushing pressure of reduced operational budgets. Sometimes caused through competitive necessity  new taxes reducing bottom line earnings, or even the need to just stay in business. 

In fact, recent studies have shown that this is overwhelmingly the case for most organizations, closely followed by the need to maximise the return on assets and reduced capital budgets.

Pressures driving asset management

When confronted with these pressures most organisations fumble around in the dark trying hard to find something that sticks. Something that is able to turn unplanned downtime into planned stoppages and reduced the overall costs of ownership. 

How are they performing in relation to other asset intensive companies in their sector? How far is the gap that they need to close, which areas represent the greatest value for money, and how can they do all of this rapidly?

The good news is that this is not philosophy, this is a physical science. There are companies that are achieving best in class performance, there are methods and techniques that do deliver results, and there is a roadmap that suits their economic drivers, suits their operating environment, and doesn't come in shrink wrapped disks.