CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE

Research Summary 142-1

DESIGN FOR MAINTAINABILITY:
IMPROVING PROJECT
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Construction Industry Institute
ABB Lummus Global Inc.
BE&K, Inc.
BMW Constructors Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
Black & Veatch
Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.
Butler Manufacturing Company
CDI Engineering Group, Inc.
Chemtex International Inc.
Cherne Contracting Corporation
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
Cianbro Corporation
Day & Zimmermann International, Inc.
Dick Corporation
Dillingham Construction Holdings Inc.
Eichleay Holdings Inc.
Fisher Controls International, Inc.
Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
Fru-Con Construction Corporation
James N. Gray Company
Graycor
H+M Construction Co., Inc.
Hilti Corporation
Honeywell Inc.
International Technology Corporation
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Johnson Controls, Inc.
J. A. Jones, Inc.
Kellogg Brown & Root
Kiewit Construction Group, Inc.
Kvrner
Morrison Knudsen Corporation
M. A. Mortenson Company
Murphy Company
The Parsons Corporation
Primavera Systems, Inc.
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors
S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd.
SAP America, Inc.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Walbridge Aldinger Company
H. B. Zachry Company
3M
Abbott Laboratories
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Aluminum Company of America
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Aramco Services Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Bayer Corporation
BP Amoco Corporation
Celanese
Champion International Corporation
Chevron Corporation
CITGO Petroleum Corporation
The Dow Chemical Company
DuPont
Eastman Chemical Company
Exxon Research & Engineering Company
FPL Energy, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
General Services Administration
Intel Corporation
Eli Lilly and Company
Louisiana Pacific
LTV Steel Company, Inc.
NASA
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Ontario Power Generation
Phillips Petroleum Company
Praxair, Inc.
The Procter & Gamble Company
Reliant Energy
Rohm and Haas Company
Shell Oil Company
Solutia Inc.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Texaco Inc.
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Steel
Union Carbide Corporation
The University of Texas System
Weyerhaeuser Company
Design for Maintainability:
Improving Project Return on Investment
Prepared by
The Construction Industry Institute
Design for Maintainability Research Team
Research Summary 142-1
December 1999
1999 Construction Industry Institute.
The University of Texas at Austin.
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at
no cost to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this
work for the internal use provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.
Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or
distributed and no modifications made without prior written permission from CII.
Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible
to purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty and students at a college or
university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.
Printed in the United States of America.
Contents
Chapter Page
Executive Summary v
1. Introduction 1
2. Research Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 4
3. Findings 8
4. Applications 16
5. Conclusions and Recommendations 20
Appendix A: Case Studies 22
Case No. 1: Major Manufacturing Company 22
Case No. 2: Major Chemical Company 24
Case No. 3: Government Aerospace Center
Contractor-Implemented Program 25
Case No. 4: Large Pharmaceutical Company 26
Case No. 5: Major Automotive Manufacturing
Company 27
Case No. 6: Hospital Chiller Replacement Project 28
Case No. 7: Airport Terminal Expansion Project 29
Appendix B: Comparative Analysis of Two
Maintainability Programs 31
References 34
v
Executive Summary
Of the many trends that are forging their way onto the horizon
of project planning, design for maintainability is one that holds
great promise for improving the capital investment process. Design
for maintainability, when incorporated effectively as a best
practice, can enable less rework, smoother startups, and less costly
maintenance after project completion.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) chose design for
maintainability as a topic of research because of the concern for
more effective front-end planning, more efficient designs, and more
prudent life cycle costs. The CII Design for Maintainability Research
Team was formed to investigate the current state of maintainability
practices that impact project design and construction, and to
provide recommendations for improved processes that minimize
life cycle costs. The results of the research teams work are
summarized in this publication.
The major contribution from the team is its CII Implementation
Resource, Design for Maintainability Guidebook. That publication
(CII IR142-2) helps the reader initially by defining the five levels of
maintainability uncovered in the research. Second, the guidebook
provides a self-assessment to help identify the users current level of
maintainability. Once that is determined, the guidebook identifies
not only 22 best practices, but contains 16 different tools that can
assist the user in putting the best practices to work on actual
projects.
Emerging trends in the Information Age often lean toward the
technology end of the spectrum. Design for maintainability,
however, is decidedly different. It simply requires corporate
commitment and consideration as a best practice. Those
companies that make the commitment to establish design for
maintainability as a corporate best practice will be more likely to
have both an improved rate of return on investment and more
successful projects.
1
1
Introduction
The Case for Design for Maintainability Research
What more can be done to improve project return on
investment?
Implementing design for maintainability may offer an answer to
this question. Design for maintainability provides clear steps that
can be taken to assist owners, designers, and contractors in
exploiting additional opportunities for improving the project
delivery process. The CII Design for Maintainability Research Team
(RT 142) investigated design for maintainability and found that on a
qualitative basis, improvements in maintainability will improve
project contributions to profitability.
Historically, the typical maintenance program has been
developed after systems have been chosen and installed. In effect,
traditional owner-driven maintainability programs have been
reactive and more costly than need be. Including a design for
maintainability process in each capital project should be the first
step of an effective maintenance program.
Maintainability is not a new concept, yet many companies
struggle with consistent, standardized maintenance input during the
project delivery process. Similarly, the research team initially
struggled with understanding and defining maintainability.
Developing a landscape of related concepts and patterning this
research after the successful CII constructability research both were
helpful in clarifying the research purpose and direction.
Design for maintainability, similar to constructability,
emphasizes the importance of timely integration of design and
construction knowledge into project designs at an early stage.
2
Design for maintainability follows this established procedure by
integrating operation and maintenance (O&M) experiences into the
project planning, design, and construction process.
Concepts
It is helpful to distinguish among the major concepts of facility
operation to obtain a clearer picture of what maintainability is all
about. The three major concepts are briefly explained below.
For purposes of this research, maintainability is considered as
inherent to the system design, regarding the ease, accuracy, safety,
and economy of maintenance tasks. This notion emphasizes the
ability to maintain a facility while elevating its importance as a
design characteristic. The purpose of maintainability is to improve
effectiveness and efficiency of maintenance. In addition, the CII
context of maintainability refers to a formal process to include
relevant maintenance input during all phases of the facility delivery
process.
For some industries, maintainability is a quantitative measure,
corresponding to the probability of performing a maintenance
action or repair in specified period of time using prescribed
procedures in a prescribed environment. For others, maintainability
is simply the ease in which maintenance actions can be performed.
Reliability pertains to the frequency of failure and the ability to
function as required. Issues affecting reliability include operating
practices, design, purchasing, installation, and maintenance
practices.
Availability pertains to the amount of time that machinery/
equipment will be operable when needed. Often referred to as
uptime, availability improvements translate to increased production
for manufacturing and industrial companies. Reliability is often
improperly interchanged with availability. In fact, reliability is only
a component of availability.
3
Summary
Design for maintainability is the first step of an effective
maintenance program, linking maintenance goals to the design
process. If adequate measures for cost-effective maintainability are
not integrated into the design and construction phases of a project,
the risk increases that (1) reliability will be adversely impacted and
(2) total life cycle costs will increase significantly.
Appropriate levels of maintainability seldom occur by chance.
Front-end planning, setting objectives, disciplined design
implementation, and feedback from prior projects are all required.
It is vital to identify critical maintainability and reliability issues and
integrate them into facility project designs to achieve long-term
facility owning and operating benefits.
4
2
Research Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Research Objectives
The objectives of this research were to:
1. Investigate and define existing levels of
maintainability implementation;
2. Identify best practices that improve the
maintainability of capital projects;
3. Develop a model process for implementing
maintainability; and
4. Conduct case studies to illustrate the state of
practice for maintainability.
As of this writing there is insufficient data available to perform
useful analyses of the economic benefits of design for
maintainability.
Research Scope
The scope of this research explores delivery of maintainable
equipment, systems, and facilities as it pertains to the six phases of
the design and construction of capital projects delivery process.
These six phases are:
1. Planning
2. Design
3. Procurement
4. Construction
5. Startup
6. Operations and Maintenance
5
The research surveyed a cross-section of companies engaged in
many different types of construction, ranging from general building
to petrochemical type projects. The organizations studied in this
investigation were medium to large-sized companies (i.e., annual
sales volume over $20 million) currently involved in the design/
construction industry as owners, designers, suppliers, or
contractors. As maintainability most directly impacts the owners of
capital projects, this research focused on owner organizations.
Research Methodology
The research methodology for this investigation consisted of the
following six phases, with considerable overlap between each
phase:
1. Survey of available literature
2. Interviews
3. General survey questionnaire
4. Data collection interviews
5. Case studies
6. Definition of implementation process and best
practices
7. Development of Design for Maintainability
Guidebook, IR 142-2
General Questionnaire Survey
A questionnaire survey was developed by the research team
based on information gathered from the literature survey,
interviews, and team member expertise.
The survey was developed to meet the following objectives:
1. Assess design for maintainability to refine the
research objectives and scope.
6
2. Accumulate recommendations for improving
maintainability.
3. Identify barriers impacting the implementation of
design for maintainability.
Approximately 75 surveys were distributed, and 48 surveys
were returned, a response rate of approximately 65 percent. Of
these returned surveys, 46 surveys were from owners. The surveys
that were returned had the following approximate distribution of
performing construction in the following areas:
29 percent chemical
29 percent aerospace
13 percent petrochemical
13 percent general building
4 percent steel
12 percent other
Data Collection Interviews
Structured personal interviews were the primary means of data
collection. The research team interviewed 35 organizations to
investigate the current practice of implementation of
maintainability within each company. Of these 35 interviews, 24
were formal interviews using the interview guide. Greater data
availability and maturity of maintainability efforts further pointed
the research team toward the industrial sector for investigation.
Industrial and manufacturing companies appear to have a keen
interest in increased maintainability, given its direct impact on
profitability.
7
The detailed interviews had the following approximate
distribution among the following project roles:
68 percent owner
11 percent designer
11 percent supplier
10 percent contractor
Case Study Investigations
Based on the interviews, the research team chose additional
firms for in-depth case study. The research team conducted seven
case studies to illustrate projects that emphasized maintenance and
maintainability during the facility delivery process. The case studies
describe the unique challenges and opportunities for
maintainability on each project, and each case study illustrates
several of the best practices contained in the maintainability model
process. In addition, a comparative analysis of two case studies was
developed dealing with owner-led versus contractor-led
maintainability programs. Full documentation of the comparative
analysis and the seven case studies can be found in the Design for
Maintainability Research Reports, RR142-11 and RR142-12.
Definition of Best Practices and Implementation Process
In its final phase, the research team organized the findings and
synthesized the data into maintainability best practices, a model
process, and practical applications. When the maintainability best
practices were arranged in a logical order, the model process was
achieved. Two intensive reviews by the research team helped
achieve final definition and validation of the model process. This
work was incorporated into the Design for Maintainability
Guidebook.
8
3
Findings
The research team observed results in the following categories:
Levels of maintainability
Approaches to implement maintainability
Attributes of a successful maintainability program.
In addition, the research team developed a model process for
implementing design for maintainability.
The results of the 24 owner companies interviewed showed that
six had a formal process available to incorporate maintainability
knowledge and experience into the project delivery process. Of
these, only one company required it for all projects. Five out of six
of these formal processes were undergoing significant expansion,
adding detail as experience was gained.
It appears that industry-wide maintainability implementation is
inconsistent and lacks a recognized standard process. Despite the
lack of an organized process, maintainability programs are
emerging on a more formal basis.
Levels of Maintainability Implementation
The concept of levels of maintainability comes from the
interview data, which clearly indicate that coincident degrees of
formality in maintainability implementation share common
attributes. The attributes can be logically and sequentially
organized into five levels of maintainability implementation, with
each new level being more formal than the previous. Figure 1
shows the sequential, building block aspects of increasing formality.
Starting with Level 1, each succeeding level increases the
opportunity for additional benefits through a more formal and
systematic approach towards implementing maintainability.
9
Figure 1. Levels of Maintainability
Continuous
Improvement and
Benchmarking
Level 1
Designer
Experience
Barriers
Awareness
Corp Sponsor
Corp
Procedures
Formal Policy
Maintainability
Required
Lessons Learned
Corp
Standards
Corp
Standards
Benefits
Awareness
Barriers
Awareness
Corp Sponsor
Corp
Procedures
Corp
Standards
Benefits
Awareness
Formal Policy
Maintainability
Required
Lessons Learned
Barriers
Awareness
Corp Sponsor
Corp
Procedures
Corp
Standards
Benefits
Awareness
Ad hoc
Experience
Ad hoc
Experience
Ad hoc
Experience
Ad hoc
Experience
Ad hoc
Experience
Level 2
Corporate
Standards
Level 3
Emerging
Program
Level 4
Formal
Program
Level 5
Comprehensive
Process
10
Ultimately, Level 5 is defined as a comprehensive, ideal process, or
the model process.
The levels provide an overall description of the state of
maintainability practices found by the research team. They are
useful as a benchmark to determine the level of maintainability
implementation, and to set objectives for improvement to the next
level. Attributes, which could be policies, procedures, or processes
that most positively affect maintainability implementation and are
more widely used among the companies studied, were considered
as maintainability best practices. These best practices formed the
basis of the model process.
Level 1 relies on designer experience to implement design for
maintainability. Level 2 enhances this experience with the
development of effective corporate maintainability design
standards. Level 3 represents a significant advance in formality with
the corporate level recognition of benefits of maintainability and
the barriers to successful implementation of design for
maintainability. These are supported by development of corporate
procedures for design for maintainability and the creation of a
corporate maintainability sponsor/champion. Level 4 continues the
progression of formality with the development of a corporate policy
statement that requires design for maintainability be used on
projects and the development of a lessons learned file. Level 5 links
design for maintainability to continuous improvement processes
within the corporation.
Approaches to Implement Maintainability
Two basic approaches are available to implement design for
maintainability, the stand-alone process and the combined process.
The stand-alone maintainability process is specifically focused on
achieving project maintainability goals. Resources and procedures
are dedicated solely to implementing appropriate levels of
maintainability on the project. The other basic approach is the
combined maintainability process. In the second approach,
11
maintainability implementation is combined with other project
improvement initiatives such as reliability improvement,
constructability, value engineering, or process hazard analysis.
These two basic approaches include some if not all of the
following specifics:
Standard Design Practice Maintainability is accomplished
through designed-in features such as equipment
accessibility, standardization, modularization, maintenance
friendliness, and design around preferred suppliers.
Contract Specifications Effective specifications include
maintainability objectives, thorough operation and
maintenance documentation and training needs, and
maintenance management system requirements.
Cross-Functional Involvement Input from maintenance
personnel is incorporated into the maintainability planning
and design of the project.
Pilot Maintainability Program Small-scale program
identifies benefits and costs of maintainability that can be
tested with minimal risk.
Integration into Existing Programs This approach
identifies maintainability best practices that can be
integrated into existing programs such as reliability analysis,
process hazard analysis, and front-end planning with
minimal cost and effort.
Formal Maintainability Program Developed, supported,
and resources committed from the corporate level of the
organization. Maintainability roles and responsibilities are
clearly identified. A structured work process is provided to
facilitate implementation of maintainability.
Comprehensive Tracking Methods exist to capture,
document, archive, and share project maintainability
lessons learned.
12
Attributes of a Successful Maintainability Program
The research team found that successful maintainability
programs contain these attributes:
Corporate Commitment Demonstrated by setting aside
resources to establish the maintainability program,
development of a policy statement establishing the
maintainability program, and designating a corporate-level
champion to oversee the program.
Program Supports Demonstrated by having a dedicated
corporate and project staff to implement the program and to
develop written procedures, track progress, and develop and
maintain a maintainability lessons learned database.
Maintainability Planning Demonstrated by work processes
that review lessons learned, establish project maintainability
objectives, and activity and resource planning to integrate
maintainability into the project.
Maintainability Implementation Demonstrated by project
cross functional teams including maintenance staff, project
meetings dedicated to maintainability, and specific project
design reviews for maintainability.
Program Updating Demonstrated by continuous program
evaluation, updated maintainability lessons learned, and
integration of innovative maintenance technologies into the
project design.
Maintainability Implementation Model Process
The current state of practice for design for maintainability lacks
a recognized standard for implementation. Using the data at hand,
the research team responded to this need. The best maintainability
practices that emerged during the data collection phase were
organized into an overall model process that serves both the
13
corporate level and project level of any organization. In simplest
terms, a benchmark standard has been created by assembling the
best of the observed best practices into a logical and sequential
model that others can easily follow. The model process was
developed to provide an ultimate goal for the planning,
development, and implementation of maintainability at both the
corporate and project levels. A diagram of the model process is
shown in Figure 2.
The model process contains six milestones:
1. Commit to Implementing Maintainability Supported by
developing management awareness of maintainability,
performing a self-assessment and defining barriers,
recognizing the benefits, and developing an
implementation plan.
2. Establish Maintainability Program Supported by
identifying a corporate maintainability champion,
developing corporate procedures and staff, and
developing a lessons learned database.
3. Obtain Maintainability Capabilities Supported by
establishing project level maintainability responsibility,
orienting project team, and developing resources for
project maintainability reviews.
4. Plan Maintainability Implementation Supported by
forming cross-functional teams, defining maintenance
strategies project maintainability objectives, and integrat-
ing appropriate maintenance technology.
5. Implement Maintainability Supported by conducting
formal maintainability meetings, applying maintainability
concepts in design and procurement, recognizing
construction impact on maintainability, monitoring and
evaluating program effectiveness, and conducting
maintenance training and providing documentation.
1
4
Figure 2. Maintainability Model Process
Corporate Program
Project Process
Develop upper
management
awareness
Perform self-
assessment and
identify barriers
Assess and
recognize
benefits
Develop
implementation
plan
Identify
corporate
maintainability
sponsor
Develop
corporate
procedures
and functional
support network
Develop lessons
learned database
Establish
project-level
maintainability
responsibility
Orient project
management,
designer, and
suppliers
Develop
resources for
maintainability
reviews
Form cross-
functional project
teams to include
O&M
Define
maintenance
strategies
Define project
maintainability
objectives
Integrate
computerized
maintenance
management
system
Conduct
formalized
maintainability
meetings
Apply
maintainability
concepts during
design
Recognize
procurement and
construction
impact on
maintainability
Monitor and
evaluate project
program
effectiveness
Conduct
maintenance
training and
provide
documentation
Evaluate
corporate
program
effectiveness
Revise
organization and
procedures
Update lessons
learned database
6
Update
Maintainability
Program
5
Implement
Maintainability
Process
4
Plan
Maintainability
Implementation
3
Obtain
Maintainability
Capabilities
2
Establish
Maintainability
Program
1
Commit to
Implementing
Maintainability
15
6. Update Maintainability Program Supported by
evaluating the corporate program effectiveness, revising
program organization and procedures, and updating the
lessons learned database.
Each milestone is supported by respective maintainability best
practices that further define the details of the milestone. Each user
should assess the appropriateness of milestone steps and the entire
model process for adaptation within their organization.
16
4
Applications
The direct and practical application of the research findings is
the Design for Maintainability Guidebook (CII IR142-2). The major
features of the guidebook are the:
Maintainability self-assessment
Best practices
Model process
Tools for implementation of the best practices
The guidebook is intended to provide a comprehensive
approach to establishing or improving any design for
maintainability process in as wide a set of circumstances as possible
at the corporate and/or project level.
The purpose of the guidebook is fourfold:
To enable the user to determine current corporate or
project status with respect to levels of maintainability.
To acquaint the user with maintainability best practices.
To benchmark a model process.
To assist the user in achieving the model process through
the application of a comprehensive set of tools designed
to help implement maintainability best practices.
A brief description of the principle features of the guidebook
follows.
17
Maintainability Self-Assessment
The self-assessment is introduced early in the guidebook to
provide the user with a sense of how their current situation
measures up to the state of the practice of maintainability. The self-
assessment uses 10 questions that are scored numerically and the
total score is compared to a thermometer scaled for the levels of
maintainability. Once the score is established, a maintainability
matrix is referenced to determine in finer detail ones exact position
at a particular level or provide additional guidance about the
characteristics of the next levels. The self-assessment tool was
designed to be completed in 20 minutes or less and to be completed
in collaboration between owner, contractor, and/or engineer to
assist in the alignment process for the project.
Maintainability Best Practices
The research team developed 22 design for maintainability best
practices that provide examples of policies, procedures, and
methods contained in a leading maintainability process (see
Table 1). The best practices can be applied to the corporate level
and the project level of any organization. It is also intended that the
users own practices can be compared and contrasted with the
identified best practices as part of an internal benchmarking
exercise.
18
BP-1 Understanding
Maintainability
BP-2 Self Audit
BP-3 Return on Investment
Impact
BP-4 Corporate Policy
BP-5 Maintainability
Sponsor
BP-6 Maintainability
Procedures
BP-7 Maintainability Team
BP-8 Lessons Learned
Database
BP-9 Project Maintainability
Sponsors
BP-10 Project Maintainability
Orientation
Table 1. List of Maintainability Best Practices
BP-11 Project Resource
Commitment
BP-12 Cross-Functional Teams
BP-13 Maintainability Goals
BP-14 Maintenance Strategy
BP-15 Operational Integration
BP-16 Formal Maintainability
Meetings
BP-17 Design Checklists
BP-18 Project Metrics
BP-19 Project Lessons Learned
BP-20 Maintainability Metrics
BP-21 Implement Lessons
Learned
BP-22 Corporate Lessons
Learned File
Maintainability Tools
The guidebook contains 16 tools (see Table 2) to aid the
corporate or project level user in implementing design for
maintainability. They were designed to be easily adaptable to a
variety of organizations, situations, and projects. These tools were
the extension of techniques observed during the research process as
well as the direct contribution of personal expertise by the team
members.
19
No. 1 - Corporate Management Proposal Outline
No. 2 - Maintainability Cost-Benefit Checklist
No. 3 - Corporate Policy Statement
No. 4 - Corporate/Project Maintainability Champion Charter
No. 5 - Corporate Maintainability Procedures Checklist
No. 6 - Support Organization Diagram
No. 7 - Corporate/Project Lessons Learned Database Forms
No. 8A - Project Partnering Agreement
No. 8B - Project Maintainability Orientation Checklist
No. 9 - Project Maintainability Resource Checklist
No. 10 - Project Team Factors Checklist
No. 11 - Project Maintainability Objectives Checklist
No. 12 - Project Maintenance Strategies Checklist
No. 13 - Project CMMS Data Check Sheet
No. 14A - Project Maintainability Milestone Schedule
No. 14B - Project Maintainability Partial Progress Design Review
Checklist
No. 15 - Project Design Review Maintainability Checklist
No. 16 - Corporate/Project Metrics for Maintainability
Table 2. List of Tools
20
5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The research team has developed the following major
conclusions:
Design for maintainability is an emerging process with
inconsistent implementation.
Design for maintainability is an owner driven process, but
there are ample opportunities for contractors and
designers to lead the process.
Full corporate commitment is essential for this process to
succeed.
In addition, the research team has developed the following
minor conclusions:
The levels of maintainability describe the current state of
maintainability practice.
Design for maintainability data can support existing CII
best practices such as pre-project planning and
constructablilty. Both require maintenance and
maintainability data input.
Life cycle cost analysis is an effective technique in
implementing design for maintainability.
Recommendations
The research team recommends that:
Design for maintainability should be considered as a best
practice.
Obtain Design for Maintainability Guidebook, IR142-2.
21
Complete the self-assessment in collaboration with your
contractor/engineer to determine your current corporate
or project status with respect to formal implementation of
design for maintainability.
Obtain the corporate commitment to implementing
design for maintainability
Begin implementing maintainability best practices as
soon as practical.
Further research is needed to define the relationship
between operability and maintainability, and to quantify
the impact of project system improvements on
maintainability.
22
Appendix A
Case Studies
A summary of each of the case studies is included because the
research team felt that a description of the process used by a
number of firms could be useful in benchmarking the readers
current circumstances and requirements with successful examples
of ongoing programs. These case studies present qualitative data
and real life examples of the maintainability best practices used in
the project delivery process. Insight is also gained on why and how
design for maintainability programs were established within the
following companies.
Case No. 1: Major Manufacturing Company
This case investigates the development of an owner corporate
level maintainability program along with project level
implementation. This company acknowledged the importance of
life cycle costs to achieving the goal of improved long-term
production availability by emphasizing maintainability throughout
the project delivery process. This results in projects being planned
and designed with a long-term vision. At a corporate level, the
company developed a dedicated program to maintenance
awareness. The maintainability program focused on equipment. The
maintainability program has four key elements: (1) cross-functional
teams, (2) alignment of goals, (3) maintainability reviews, and (4)
evaluation of process.
The facilities group was dedicated to develop the maintenance
awareness aspect of facilities engineering. The program is made
visible with various promotions and other items featuring the
program logo. The program has clear written goals and objectives
dealing with designed in reliability and run time, team building/
ownership of the project, and startup ready projects. However, the
maintainability program is not yet a required mandate beyond the
corporate commitment to the concept.
These goals and objectives are supported by corporate
standards dealing with standardized parts modularization, self-
performing maintenance, accessibility, installed on-line monitoring,
expedited repair/replacement characteristics, training/
documentation, and cross-functional teamwork.
Other characteristics of the corporate level program are
elements designed to help implementation of project
accountability, establishing project acceptance criteria, establishing
effectiveness criteria dealing with documentation on the
maintenance management system, formal project maintainability
reviews, and a continuous improvement process. An important
factor that contributed to effective implementation is that all these
elements and characteristics are documented in written program
procedures that formalized the maintainability work process. The
written program procedures, contained in a program manual, not
only describe and explain maintainability, but also provide project
teams with implementation tools. The most significant tool was the
maintainability review checklist. The maintainability review
checklist was used extensively during project design reviews,
facilitating timely considerations and appropriations for
maintainability.
In the project example involving a 7500 square-foot clean
room, specific maintainability criteria were part of the project goals.
In executing the work, the project team had cross-functional
membership that established mutually acceptable criteria in
aligning project/team/corporate goals, referred to the
maintainability manual, used review checklists, developed
maintenance procedures, and loaded data into a maintenance
management system. The maintenance management system was
also used to track performance after startup and provided data for a
project benefit analysis.
This manufacturing company achieved the six milestones of the
model process in establishing its maintainability program. As
maintainability awareness and project implementations increase,
24
the maintainability program will gain improved effectiveness. The
future success of the maintainability program depends upon
continued corporate support along with full recognition and
implementation by project teams.
Case No. 2: Major Chemical Company
This case study presents maintainability implementation
performed by an owner organization in the chemical industry. A
prominent characteristic of this companys capital projects is early
consideration of end objectives of the project. Effective
maintenance and operations are two such end objectives. The front-
end planning of maintenance considerations contained: all
maintenance tasks; reliability-centered maintenance analysis;
maintenance management system considerations; proper
equipment commissioning; proper parts inventory; continuous
improvement processes; maintenance best practices; and
maintenance strategies. Clearly the focus of this program is on
equipment. The addition of maintenance to the front-end planning
process on capital projects is championed by a corporate
maintenance team.
Front-end planning was adopted and supported as a corporate
best practice to increase capital effectiveness and investment
turnover. Front-end planning is manifested by the structured
identification and execution of project evaluations, tasks, or
activities as early as possible in the project cycle to optimize project
execution and return. In this case the front-end planning process for
maintainability utilized existing project process that shared support
systems. This increased the efficiency of including maintainability
in the overall process and increased acceptance by the project
participants.
By integrating maintainability into front-end planning, the goal
becomes to reduce costs. Anticipated project benefits from
including maintenance in front-end planning are reduced cycle
25
time, reduced costs, reduced life cycle costs, more efficient startup,
reduced change orders, optimized facility performance, and
support for continuous improvement practices. Intuitively, all of
these elements contribute to lowering project costs.
In the project example involving a wastewater treatment plant,
the project team used many of the corporate program elements. Full
adoption of the corporate program is not mandatory. The project
team had members dedicated to addressing and championing
maintainability issues. They played a major role in determining
equipment selections, building the maintenance management
system database with baseline equipment performance data, and
applying maintainability lessons learned from previous projects.
Case No. 3: Government Aerospace Center Contractor-
Implemented Program
This case study presents an overview of a contractor
organization implementing a maintainability program into the
project delivery process for facilities at an owner site. The
contractor provides design, construction, and operations and
maintenance (O&M) service for a large government aerospace R&D
center. The owner delegated responsibility to the contractor to
implement a design for maintainability program. The owner
provided maintainability guidelines through policy statements,
facilities management manuals, and project management manuals
that were part of the contract requirements. The contractor then
implemented a maintainability program to satisfy the contract
requirements. To do this the contractor developed a project delivery
process that identified maintenance needs as part of the project
design process. The principle features of this program are the
opportunities to include maintainability elements in design,
maintainability design reviews, inspection, consideration of O&M
data for project turnover, and an evaluation process for program
improvement.
26
Another important feature is the owner-driven facility activation
process that provided a structured transition from construction to
facility operation. This process includes maintainability design
reviews, management of equipment warranty issues, and
development of baseline equipment data for maintenance purposes.
The contractor provides a facility activation plan for each project.
Results. The outcome of this process served to involve O&M
personnel early in the project design phase for the duration of the
project. The project involvement included cross-functional teams
that improved communications between project staff and O&M
staff. Overall, this resulted in more efficient project startup and
more effective maintenance. The maintenance staff had access to
baseline equipment performance and warranty data much earlier in
the project delivery process. This was the major contributor to
smoother project startup. Maintainability considerations are clearly
integrated into this project delivery process.
Case No. 4: Large Pharmaceutical Company
This case study presents maintainability implementation at an
owner company in the pharmaceutical industry. The scope of this
study is at the manufacturing plant level, where the owner included
maintainability in design and an installation projects pilot program.
The long-term intention is to grow the pilot program into a full
corporate maintainability program. The goals of the pilot
maintainability program are to minimize costs and maximize
equipment availability. The maintainability process is focused on
increasing communication between the engineering and O&M
functions. This focus resulted in identifying key maintainability
issues during the design process.
Elements of this maintainability program include a direct
communication process between design engineers and
maintenance personnel, developing a guideline that identified
maintenance issues in the project design process, established a
27
maintenance representative on the project team, established a
metric (mean time to repair) to measure maintainability success,
established design reviews, made life cycle cost analysis part of the
design process, and required extensive documentation for the
maintenance database and acceptance testing.
In one small project to replace an air-handling unit, the pilot
program incorporated the maintainability elements into the project.
Maintenance issues and maintainability activities such as worker
safety and access were identified for integration into the design. A
matrix of stakeholders on the project was used to help ensure all
stakeholder viewpoints would be heard. In this manner the
maintenance staff had the opportunity to present equipment
maintenance problems that could be avoided through better
designs. The project team had formal reviews of maintenance
requirements during the design phase with specific consideration
for obtaining baseline equipment data and documenting the data in
the maintenance management system. Parts lists were also included
in the maintenance database. Finally, a condition-monitoring
process was initiated at project turnover as a basis for the plant
continuous improvement process. Overall, this process has formed
the framework for a formal design for maintainability program that
can easily be expanded beyond the pilot stage.
Case No. 5: Major Automotive Manufacturing Company
This case study of an owner organization in the automobile
industry presents the owner and supplier commitment to
maintainability combined with equipment reliability efforts. The
maintainability program focuses on the supplier/user relationship
and is part of a comprehensive quality process. This maintainability
program is manifested through owner-developed maintenance
requirements for manufacturing equipment that all suppliers must
meet. These requirements were made known through a reliability
and maintainability (R&M) policy statement and a letter to all
suppliers requiring compliance with owner R&M guidelines.
28
The program included development of an implementation plan
that included R&M goals of minimizing equipment downtime and
life cycle costs. Achieving these goals is measured by reductions in
mean time to repair data and actual life cycle cost data. Other
elements of the R&M program include the owner providing written
maintainability concepts and techniques for supplier design teams
to follow. These include concepts such as modularization,
standardization, accessibility, and simplification. The program also
requires design reviews. The process includes the use of R&M
specification matrixes to define activities, tasks, and responsibilities
and checklists as part of the implementation.
There is also a maintainability feedback element to the process.
A maintainability champion was designated to be the focal point for
all project maintainability issues. A focus group was established to
perform benchmarking and identify best practices. Specifically, they
established training requirements for the plant operating staff so
they would be thoroughly versed in O&M of the new equipment.
Finally, the team recaps the project, identifies best practices, and
monitors life cycle costs. Equipment performance is monitored after
installation and continuous improvement opportunities are
exploited. This formal process includes clearly defined roles,
responsibilities, activities, and requirements.
Case No. 6: Hospital Chiller Replacement Project
An architect/engineering (A/E) firm played a key role in
implementing maintainability on a hospital chiller replacement
project. This brief case study documents the implementation of
three maintainability best practices: (1) front-end planning of
maintenance requirements; (2) life cycle cost analysis; and (3)
maintainability design tool. The owner displayed strong commit-
ment to maintainability by involving the maintenance leader in the
project A/E selection process. This direct involvement carried over
to the inception of the design phase and on through the entire
project.
29
The A/E firm helped the owner make well-informed decisions
on achieving maximum benefit from the various design and
selection options. The front-end planning promoted early O&M
involvement to provide input throughout the project delivery
process. A value engineering study was conducted that emphasized
long-term costs including maintainability impacts. The cost analysis
included initial costs as well as life cycle costs. The design included
isometric drawings of the chilled water system that facilitated easier
bidding and installation by the contractor and rapid understanding
of system function by plant operating personnel. All project goals
were met as a result of using these three maintainability best
practices.
Case No. 7: Airport Terminal Expansion Project
This brief case study of an airport terminal expansion project
documents the implementation of two practices important to
maintainability: (1) the use of maintainability contract
specifications, and (2) the use of maintainability design concepts.
The owner clearly specified maintainability requirements in the
contract; thus, ensuring the proper execution of maintainability
activities during planning and design. The high involvement of
operations and maintenance staff in the design activity further
encouraged the incorporation of maintainability design concepts.
The strong maintainability commitment by the owner is clearly
seen by the contract specifications that included maintenance
documentation requirements and emphasized maintainability in
design. Also included was the requirement for a designated person
to oversee the operation and maintenance documentation of the
project, integrate project data into the maintenance database, and
establish operations and maintenance training requirements. The
contract also specified an operational warranty with the A/E firm.
The maintainability commitment established during the
planning phase of the project was carried over into construction,
startup, and project turnover. This was seen through the
30
optimization of baseline and equipment maintenance data. These
data were made interactive to plant operations personnel through
the computerized maintenance management system. Also, proper
O&M training for plant personnel was written into contract
requirements. The successful implementation of maintainability on
this project is attributed to the integrated teamwork of the owners
operations and maintenance staff, the A/E firm, and the contractors.
As a result, appropriate execution of the design documents with
respect to maintainability was possible through the early
establishment of maintainability requirements for the project.
31
Appendix B
Comparative Analysis of Two Maintainability Programs
Based on two of the major case studies, the research team felt it
would be valuable to compare and contrast the two principal types
of maintainability programs owner-led and contractor-led as a
prelude to decision-making on which application may be
appropriate for the readers requirements. The following analysis
presents the salient features, advantages, and disadvantages of each
program. This is also another opportunity to gain insights on
maintainability best practices that are successfully used in these two
situations. For complete details on the comparison, the reader is
referred to CII Research Reports RR142-11 and RR142-12.
This is a comparative analysis between two corporate
maintainability programs, both of which have a high level of
maintainability implementation. The first is an owner-led
maintainability program by the engineering division in the owner
organization. The owner-led program applies to equipment/
facilities in the manufacturing industry. The second is a non-owner-
led maintainability program by a design/construct organization
contracted by the owner. The non-owner-led program applies to
facilities at a government owned aerospace research and
development site. This comparison illustrates how different
organizational approaches are used to implement maintainability.
The owner-led program demonstrates the implementation of
maintainability through direct integration into its project delivery
process. Maintenance input is obtained collectively from various in-
house departments: engineering, operations and maintenance,
safety, and ergonomics. Conversely, the non-owner-led program
demonstrates a new business methodology in which the
government, as an owner, contracts out single point responsibility
32
for design, construction, operations, and maintenance functions.
The owner selected a design/construct organization to be
responsible for facilitating and implementing maintainability on its
facility site. Maintenance input is provided from both the owner and
design/construct organizations.
Results. The comparison of both maintainability programs
found key elements common in each program. The key elements
include:
A corporate commitment as evidenced by policy statements
and management sponsors of the maintainability program.
Programs supports such as designated maintainability staff,
written program procedures, program progress tracking, an
information lesson learned database, and a maintainability
orientation program for the project team.
Maintainability planning established through lessons learned
reviews, establishing project maintainability objectives, and activity
resources planning through using checklists. Maintainability
implementation through cross-functional teams, maintainability
meetings, and maintainability design reviews.
Program updating through program evaluation, updated lessons
learned, and integration of innovative technology.
In addition to common points, clear differences exist between
the two programs. As a practical matter, maintainability is an
owner-driven issue; therefore, active involvement of the owner is
essential for successful implementation. An owner-led
maintainability program most likely will be a comprehensive
program with a long-term outlook. A non-owner-led program most
likely will focus on certain phases of the project delivery process.
Additionally, the non-owner-led program is more likely to be
confined by financial limitations. Nonetheless, a non-owner-led
33
program can have the experience and capability to properly
integrate maintainability into design. While different situations
require different maintainability approaches, the basic program
concepts are applicable across various industries.
These two programs illustrate that although areas for
improvement exist, the two organizations have established most of
the basic elements for a successful maintainability program. Also,
different organizational approaches in different applications can,
essentially, establish maintainability programs with similar elements
and successful results.
34
References
The Business Stake in Effective Project Systems (1997). The
Business Roundtable, Washington, D.C.
Blanchard, B.S., Verma, D., and Peterson, E.L. (1995).
Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and
Maintenance Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Feldman, Edwin B. (1975). Building Design for Maintainability,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Mobley, R. Keith (1990). An Introduction to Predictive
Maintenance, Plant Engineering Series, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Moubray, John (1992). RCM II: Reliability-Centered Maintenance,
Industrial Press, New York, NY.
Reliability and Maintainability Guideline for Manufacturing
Machinery and Equipment (1993). Society of Automotive
Engineers and National Center for Manufacturing Sciences,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Russell, Jeffrey S., Meier, John R., and Moua, Blia (1999). A Model
Process for Maintainability Implementation, Research Report
142-11, A report to the Construction Industry Institute, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Russell, Jeffrey S., Moua, Blia, and Meier, John R. (1999). State-of-
Practice in Maintainability: Seven Case Studies, Research
Report 142-12, A report to the Construction Industry Institute,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Schuyler III, Roy L. (1996). Enabling Knowledge Based Decision
Making for Equipment in the Process Industries, Process Plant
Reliability Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Gulf
Publishing Company.
Design for Maintainability Research Team
Frank Bulbeck, Morrison Knudsen Corporation
* Richard Danks, NASA, John Glenn Research Center, Chair
Jay Holleran, U.S. Department of State
Blia Moua, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert Post, Rohm and Haas
Jeffrey Russell, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Reid Weston, Eichleay Holdings, Inc.
Mike Wittliff, CITGO
Past Members
Tom Chiles, Kvrner-John Brown
Sam Colella, Merck
Robert Cox, Texaco
John Douglas, Ontario Hydro
John Meier, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Loren Monty, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Sean Vannoy, Brown & Root
* Principal Author
Editor: Rusty Haggard
Not printed with state funds
The Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3208 Red River, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78705-2650
(512) 471-4319
FAX (512) 499-8101
Bureau of Engineering Research
The University of Texas at Austin