Effective working practices of Maintenance Team

To perform gap analysis, relative rankings of different facilities (sites) need to be captured:

  1. Parts and Materials in Store Room
  2. Computerized Maintenance Management Software (CMMS) utilization
  3. Criticality of assets ranked and maintained
  4. Planning and Scheduled work
  5. Work order system
  6. Effectiveness of Preventative Program (PM)
  7. Maintenance Management Duties, Tactics and Best Practices
  8. Number of Technical Training Days/Men
  9. Overtime needed every month on average
  10. Maintenance Planner’s Duties, Tactics and Best Practices
  11. Trades’ Duties, Tactics and Best Practices
Breakdown Analysis Maintenance

Example of Overall Assessment: Reactive Breakdown Maintenance Prevails

  • Parts: Deficient tracking & control
  • CMMS: Tool not effectively leveraged
  • Asset Criticality: Not established
  • Planning: Generally not practiced
  • Work Orders: Systems lacking
  • PM: Schedules not adhered to
  • Behaviour: Focus on fixing breakdowns, not preventing them. Firefighting is rewarded
Rewarding Reactive Maintenance will lead to constant firefighting and would not improve OEE

Leadership Support of the EM Process

When visiting the sites, ask about EM status:

  • Number of Breakdowns (Baseline vs. actual)
  • Number of Breakdowns analyzed and documented
  • % Improvement in Breakdowns
  • Parts Inventory (Baseline cost, number of line items)
  • Parts stocked but not used in 6 months, one year, two years)
  • Status of  the PM program (number of equipment with at least a PM procedure attached (100% of type “A” most critical equipment)
  • % of available man-hours documented in a work order program ( > 95%)

Example of findings. Parts

  • Lack of SOPs & KPIs
  • Incomplete Parts attributes
  • Poor Housekeeping
  • Inventory value and number of line items unknown
  • No routine analysis of parts usage
  • Poor parts tracking – suppliers leveraging us
  • Parts Issuing not linked to WOs/assets
  • Inventory accuracy not frequently monitored

How Findings affect EM:

  • Critical Parts not available when needed
  • Many Purchase orders with single items
  • Good and bad parts mixed
  • Duplication of Inventory
  • Higher cost to expedite parts needed
  • Equipment Breakdowns longer than necessary
  • Increased cannibalization of parts/assemblies
  • Incomplete Maintenance cost

Corrective Actions “in Progress”:

  • Stockroom Re-organization
  • Preparing operating procedures
  • Establish & set parts attributes for stock items
  • Establishing Performance Indicators
  • Where possible, closing the stockroom
  • Condensing the number of stock locations
  • Using the CMMS to manage parts

Example of findings. CMMS

  • Discipline is not in place for to use of the tool
  • Analysis of “data entered” often non-existing
  • Imputed data not monitored for effectiveness
  • The system has not expanded across the plant
  • An incomplete record of parts issued, where, when
  • An incomplete record of labour consumed by the equipment
  • Lack of standard system

How Findings affect EM:

  • Undocumented Costing
  • Lack of info to justify equipment improvements
  • Difficulty in knowing where budgets will be used
  • Excess Spare Parts Inventory  and growing
  • High stockouts on Parts
  • Cumbersome queries and info tracking
  • Lack of “I have a hunch” supporting data

It broke therefore we must fix it, …..but we must ask “why it broke in the first place”?

Corrective Actions “in Progress”:

  • Preparing operating procedures
  • Re-establishing minimum functionality
  • Purging/Cleaning of present data
  • Training of Users
  • Expanding to include all assets maintained
  • Shifting to Trades using the PC for knowledge gain, documentation, and troubleshooting

Example of findings. Asset Criticality

  • No Asset criticality list was developed or maintained
  • Maintenance work independent of asset’s importance, level of redundancy or work priority
  • Preventive or Predictive Maintenance Costs  not linked to equipment  improvements
  • Purchasing and stocking of parts not ranked by “most critical” first, or where is used

How Findings affect EM:

  • Resources available are spent on non-critical assets. Not prioritized
  • Less effective use of the Maintenance budget
  • Labour usage not maximized
  • Increased costs expediting non-critical Parts
  • Increased bonding to Reactive Maintenance
  • Unneeded effort spent on low usage, low production, low-risk assets, redundant assets

Corrective Actions “in Progress”:

  • Developing asset criticality list in order of importance to the business
  • Publicizing the list
  • Assigning a keeper to update the list
  • Obtaining input from all and commitment from local Steering Committees
  • Beginning to manage resources by following the list order

Example of findings. Planning & Scheduling (P&S)

  • No real dedication to operating by P&S
  • None or partial Maint. Planners assigned
  • Reactivity stills control the resources
  • PM procedures not monitored for effectiveness
  • The coordinator spent much time planning jobs on the fly
  • Cancellation or delay of work w/o review of consequences
  • Each shift operates differently, with inadequate coordination, following different WOW

How Findings affect EM:

  • Labour is not used effectively, requiring an increased number each year
  • Inflated number of parts in stock
  • Not having the right part available when needed
  • Breakdowns are repeated
  • Parts/Assemblies cannibalization growing
  • Wear trends not predicted or tracked effectively

Corrective Actions “in Progress”:

  • Establishing Maint. Planners (1:15 trades)
  • Preparing PM procedures and linking them to critical assets
  • Maintaining relevant parts in stock and leveraging parts suppliers
  • Eliminating Breakdowns due to increased attention by planners

Example of findings. Work Order (WO) system

  • No / limited work order system in place
  • Parts used were not linked to a WO upon the issue
  • WOs not covering all equipment maintained
  • Labour hours are not entered on the WO
  • Entries not monitored for correctness
  • WO is used for PM work only
  • Lack of Equipment I.D. system in place
  • WO is not a whole part of the Maintenance WO workflow

How Findings affect EM:

  • Equipment history is unreliable for making $ decisions
  • Maintenance costs are incomplete or hard to track
  • Work backlog challenging to calculate and schedule
  • Every job done starts from scratch every time
  • Documentation for tracking warranties, permits, audits & inspections diminished by lack of data
  • Analysis of the history of CBM & TBM becomes impossible to perform
  • Failure trends not detected in time

Corrective Actions “in Progress”:

  • Expanding the system to all equipment maintained
  • Establishing disciplines, procedures & WO workflow
  • Using the WO module in the CMMS to more consistently track repairs, improvements, F-tags
  • Activating the work requisition function plant-wide to track, enter, and respond to work needed.

Example of findings. PM program

  • PM schedules not adhered to
  • PM procedures have details missing
  • Labor & parts not pre-planned and ready
  • No one was assigned to check PM effectiveness
  • Often not linked to pre-inspections
  • No dedicated team is in place since there is a low commitment to execute
  • “Seat of the pants” Lubrication plan

How Findings affect EM:

  • Failures repeated, new failures unpredicted
  • Cost of maintenance is 3 to 5 times higher
  • The Spare Parts inventory is twice the size
  • Minor stoppages sabotage good production runs and contribute to reactivity in EM
  • Budgets spent on equipment restoration were wasted due to discontinued or bypassed PM schedules
  • Lower MTBF due to lack of formal PM Inspections of critical assemblies

Corrective Actions “in Progress”:

  • Existing PM procedures are under review and checked for completeness
  • Newly added value procedures created
  • Scheduling PM now includes participation in Production planning
  • Planners check PMs for effectiveness before scheduling
  • Procedure creation involves operators & crafts

Example of findings. Preferred Behavioral Activities

  • Equipment failures not documented/analyzed
  • No open reviews of top failures encountered
  • All crafts resources placed on Reactive Maintenance
  • Many trades still believe that “No matter what, Production rules.”
  • Crafts have low knowledge of the cost of parts, breakdowns, repetitive failures, poor lubrication
  • Planners not utilized in proactive tasks

How Findings affect EM:

  • The seat-of-the-pants solutions are not designed to eliminate recurrences
  • Maintenance costs escalating
  • Breakdowns take more time to repair ( > MTTR)
  • Repairs are more frequent (shorter MTBF)

Corrective Actions “in Progress”:

  • EM managers re-organizing  Maintenance
  • Changing present Reactive techniques to more Proactive ones
  • Leveraging the Planners (to provide summaries and information about where resources are used & why and to track trends of repairs)
  • Establishing new working disciplines & procedures
  • Providing training to trades and capturing in Skill Matrix

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *