9. alan tait. asset management kpis and benchmark data
TRANSCRIPT
Outline
• Multi-year benchmarking studies
• North American Reliability and Maintenance benchmark study
• Benchmarked data versus actual data from multi year studies
• Conclusion
Multi-year benchmarking studies
UK’s AMIS benchmarking and improvement process
• In 1987 the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) established that its industry plant performance and availability levels were below foreign companies
• The DTI sponsored the establishment of a Asset Management Information Service (AMIS) and since 1988 regular surveys has been conducted offering comparatives between countries and industry
North American Maintenance and Reliability benchmarks
• University of Tennessee, Centre of Reliability and Maintenance conducted its first benchmark study in 1991
• The comparative study as conducted in 1991 was then repeated in 2008 providing 17 years of historical insight.
• In addition to the historical perspective , additional insight gained into coming 10 years
References
• Physical Asset Management Handbook: Metrics/Measures of performance, John S Mitchell and others
• University of TennesseeReliability & Maintainability Center, North American Reliability and Maintenance benchmarking study Klaus M. Blache, Ph.D.
• Asset Maintenance Management, A guide to developing strategy and improving performance, Dr Alan Wilson
Benchmarking study
• 217 companies surveys
• Market sectors included:
– Manufacturing accounted for 70% of responses
– Assembly
– Process
– Distribution
– Consultants and other
Improvements from 1991 to 2008
• Reactive maintenance declined from 54.6% to 34.1%
• Maintenance expenditure as a percentage of plant and machinery investment cost declined from 15.5% to 9.7%
• Maintenance expenditure as a percentage of sales declined from 5.5% to 4.9%
Improvements from 1991 to 2008
• Most significant impact on improvements from 1991 to 2008:
– More reliable equipment and machinery
– Improvement in understanding of maintenance and reliability management
– Better technology available
• Lesser impact and hence greatest opportunity:
– Design-in maintainability
– More involvement from operators
Improvements from 1991 to 2008
• The best performing companies:
– Identified more reliable machinery and equipment as the biggest impact on improvements
– Identified design-in maintainability and operator involvement as the bigger potential to impact improvements
Level of R&M maturity versus maintenance cost
• Average of all responses for each level of R&M maturity
Level of R&M maturity
% of maintenance cost to original asset value
1 14.8%
2 10.8%
3 5.2%
4 4.2%
Level of R&M maturity versus maintenance cost
• Average of all responses for each level of operator involvement
Level of operator involvement
% of maintenance cost to original asset
investment
1 14.8%
2 8.4%
3 10.0%
4 6.0%
Major contributors to R&M change in coming
10 years
• People and cultural improvements (26%)
• Design-in reliability and maintainability (20%)
• More data driven processes and tools (19%)
• Maintenance process improvements (16%)
• Maintenance specific improvements (13%)
• Better sensors and timely feedback (6%)
Most important maintenance metrics in coming 10 years
• Performance (30%)
– MTBF, MTTR, OEE
– % availability, downtime
• Schedule compliance (16%)
– % Preventive and Predictive compliance
– % backlog
• Cost (14%)
– Maintenance cost to unit produced, replacement value and sales
Most important maintenance metrics in coming 10 years
• Maintenance type (12%)
– % preventive
– % predictive
– % reactive
– Ratio of proactive to reactive
– Ratio of corrective to preventive
• Miscellaneous (28%)
Benchmarked data versus Actual data from multi-years surveys
Linkage of metrics through the organisational levels
• Return on net assets
• Return on capital employed
Strategic/
Shareholder level
• Industry performance• E.g. % cost of asset investment
• Operating performance• E.g. OEE, asset utilisation
Company Operations level
• Reliability management
• E.g. MTBF, MTTR
• Maintenance process efficiency• E.g. % backlog, % overtime to total time
Equipment and execution level
Benchmark data – Planned maintenanceMEASURE BENCHMARK ACTUAL
John S Mitchell (2002)
UK AMIS surveys (2000)
NorthAmerican M&R
benchmarks (2008)
Total maintenance cost to manufacturing cost
10-15% - -
Maintenance cost to replacement asset value
<= 3% 3% -
Maintenance cost to originalinvestment cost
- - 5.2%
Maintenance cost to turnover - 4.1% 4.4
Benchmark data – Planned maintenance
MEASURE BENCHMARK ACTUAL
John S Mitchell (2002)
UK AMIS surveys (2000)
NorthAmerican M&R benchmarks (2008)
Planned to total maintenance > 85% - -
Planned and scheduled maintenance hours to total
85-95% 63% -
Reactive maintenance < 15% - 34.1%
Maintenance cost to turnover - 4.1%
Benchmark data – Maintenance strategies
MEASURE BENCHMARK ACTUAL
John S Mitchell (2002)
UK AMIS surveys (2000)
NorthAmerican M&R benchmarks (2008)
PM hours to total ~ 20% 34% 52%
CBM hours to total ~ 50% - 12%
Planned reactive hours to total
~ 20% 30% 34.1%
Reactive emergency hours to total
~ 2% - -
Reactive non-emergency hours to total
~ 8% - -
Benchmark data – Plant performance
MEASURE BENCHMARK ACTUAL
John S Mitchell (2002)
UK AMIS surveys (2000)
NorthAmerican M&R benchmarks (2008)
Availability > 97% 88% -
OEE - 74% 12%
Conclusion
• All industries showed consistent improvements and direct correlation of R&M maturity to quantum of improvement
• Historical reflection - Require sustained focus on areas which had the most impact over past 10 years and added focus on design-in reliability operator involvement
• Future view – In addition to the historic factors, added focus on people and culture, process improvements and continued measurement