Maintenance Productivity and Performance Measurement
There are several examples when lack of necessary and correct maintenance activities have resulted in disasters and accidents with extensive losses.
It is important that the performance of the maintenance process be measured,
so that it can be controlled and monitored for taking appropriate and corrective actions to minimize and mitigate risks in the area of safety, meet societal responsibilities and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the asset maintained.
Requires cascading down the corporate objectives into measurable targets up
to shop floor level.
A measure commonly used by industries is the maintenance performance for
measuring the maintenance productivity.
Improvement in maintenance productivity can be achieved through reduction
in maintenance materials as well as reductions in projects, outages and overhaul savings. The performance measurement can be viewed along three dimensions
(1) effectiveness: satisfaction of customer needs,
(2) efficiency – economic and optimal use of enterprise resources and
(3) changeability – strategic awareness to handle changes.
Maintenance productivity aims at minimizing the maintenance cost dealing
with the measurement of overall maintenance results/performance and
maximizing the overall maintenance performance.
Some of the important measures of maintenance productivity are:
• Total cost of maintenance/total production cost;
• A (availability) = (planned time - downtime)/planned time;
• P (production rate) = (standard time/unit)x(unit
produced)/operating time; where; operating time = planned time – downtime;
• Q (quality rate) = (total production – defective quantity or
number)/total production;
• Mean time to repair (MTTR) = sum of total repair time/number of
breakdowns;
• Mean time between failure (MTBF) = number of operating
hour/number of breakdowns; • Maintenance breakdown severity = cost of breakdown repair/number of breakdown;
• Maintenance improvement = total maintenance manhours on
preventive maintenance jobs ÷ total manhours available;
• Maintenance cost per hour = total maintenance cost/total
maintenance man hours;
• Man power utilization = wrench time/total time;
• Manpower efficiency = time taken/planned time;
• Material usage/work order = total material cost/number of
work order; and
• Maintenance cost index = total maintenance cost/total
production cost. Kaizen Refers to the philosophy of continuous improvement. Kaizen involves all levels of an organization—both management and workers. Kaizen focuses on processes rather than results. Organizations that practice Kaizen establish a culture in which workers have an awareness of areas for improvement and are not afraid to identify them. Kaizen vs Innovation • Kaizen change is gradual; innovation is abrupt. • Kaizen involves many workers in an organization; innovation involves only a few. • Kaizen promotes group thinking; innovation typically relies on individualism. • Kaizen improves; innovation replaces with new. • Kaizen requires little initial effort followed by a larger effort to maintain; innovation requires a large initial effort followed by a smaller effort to maintain. Process-Oriented Versus Results-Oriented Contrast between P-criteria and R-criteria can be found in how organizations establish and conduct their employee suggestion system or where used, quality control circles (QC circles). In companies practicing Kaizen, QC circles are essentially a group form of the employee suggestion process. A process-oriented approach will establish goals and rewards that focus on the parameters that lead to success. These parameters relate to effort—for example, the number of staff involved, frequency of the meetings, and so on. A results-oriented approach, by contrast, will look primarily at the outcome of the suggestion process of QC circles in terms of bottom line performance indices. Management in a company that practices Kaizen will be actively engaged in evaluating and rewarding the staff at all levels. Kaizen Implementation Examples The Topy Ayase Works is a 600-worker facility that manufactures automobile wheels. In the 1980s, management began to focus on improving the reliability of the 800 production machines used in the factory. The main elements of the program were 1) expanding PM activities to be the responsibility of production workers, not just maintenance staff, 2) improving maintenance workers’ problem- solving skills, and 3) improving production engineering in areas of tool design and replacement procedures.
Extensive in-house training of production staff in the areas of basic
maintenance skills. Next, a rigorous housekeeping effort was launched. The benefits of improved housekeeping include expanded opportunities to detect equipment degradation during the cleaning tasks and ease of detecting degradation due to increased cleanliness. A side benefit of the housekeeping effort was increased safety and worker respect for the equipment. Breakdowns causing production line stoppage decreased from 1000 to 200 incidents per month. Oil leakage was reduced by a factor of five. Labor productivity increased by 32%, cost of defective parts decreased by 55%, and tool replacement time was reduced by over 50%. Maintenance staff was now able to devote time to higher-level activities such as diagnostics and leveraging their skills by conducting training of the machine operators.