Well to me the measure between Pro-active and re-active kind of work would be the hours spent working on it. In other words, if Asset "A" had a breakdown for 2 hours an PM work done for 1 hour during a certain time period, re-active % would be 66.66% and pro active 33.33% (Type of work hours / total hours worked on asset)

If you do capture labor hours, you should be able to get a KPI report going based on this, and if the data is accurate, this could be aneffective way to determine plant health.

Anton you must perform Asset Criticallity Ranking and FMEA in your factory . It is intended that you can determine what type of maintenance that are suitable for the equipment in your factory.

Do you ever made a Cost Avoidance Analysis?

Dimaz,

I haven't a clue what you are referring to. Can you shed some light on what you are referring to?

Roelof,

I dont currently measure labor hours of prev. maint, only instances, and for breakdowns, i measure production downtime only.

anton_428 posted:

Roelof,

I dont currently measure labor hours of prev. maint, only instances, and for breakdowns, i measure production downtime only.

So you count the number of occurrences? If so, I cant imagine that you would be able to get an accurate PM vs Breakdown KPI (some breakages will take longer than others.....some "greasing" might take longer than other due to external factors - but your count will still be 1 ). In any case, I would then calc it on the total (PO+PS+CM+BM)....So for PM it would be (PO+PS) / total (as a%) and for Repair (CM+BM) / Total (as a %) - All summaries based on # of occurances.

Hope this makes sense.

Yes Roelof,

you are right. So are you telling me that maint. should be measured per time? Say i have a slow worker, and he takes long to do the activity for prev. maint. wouldn't that skew your data to think that more prev. maint. is done? But then again, if i use activity, i can skew also, since if i have 30 separate grease points areas, it will be counted as 30 activities.  I do occurences, since prev. maint. is done after prod. closes off, i think time info. will give you efficiency data while occurences will give you effectiveness data. It's recently we start doing stats. on these, and i think for now effectiveness is of greater concern, maybe once i get this analysis in order, i will go further to efficiency. What are your thoughts?

HI Anton_428,

My thoughts : PM vs Repair Maint (in your case) would measure the effectiveness of Maintenance and Maintenance team (as the one goes hand-in-hand). Yes, you are absolutely right, if a worker takes longer to perform a certain job, it will be skew...but then that is the purpose of KPI...to measure and correct it. If you use occurrences, it will always be skew, and there is not much that can be done about it, but using hours, you can manage it more effectively. You could also implement another field for "estimated" time per job (especially for PM jobs), so you can measure and track if the Maint workers are effective or not, (this will also prevent the above KPI to be skew) .....this might be at a later stage in your planning. If you want to measure the effectiveness of the asset itself, you would need to use the available production hours vs breakdown and PM hours to get that going.

I hope this sheds some light...☺

For simplicity, you can divide the types of maintenance works into preventive maintenance (which proactive) versus corrective maintenance (which is reactive).

Preventive is planned eg maintenance plan in OEM manuals.

Corrective is not planned, including breakdown and run to failure on purpose.

Now, you can quantify these preventive versus corrective by 3 measures which are:

1) by number of jobs

2) by labour or manhours spent on each job

3) by total cost of doing the job.

Pls note nos. 2 & 3 have both planned and actual values in the work orders.

I think there are some things you can do in this case. For example, of improving the quality of the planning and scheduling documents you already have. Where this document hopes would be a living document that will be reviewed every year. Starting from an existing job plan, if it is appropriate and optimal, or even overlapping. Do maintenace task was appropriate and so forth. Due to the continuous improvement that is the one way to maximize the planning and scheduling is good, so that the workload can be push maximum to 80% form total work time (based on best practice) and only 20% of the total time scheduled for corrective work. You can learn about the T-week scheduling for this condition.

In addition, you may also begin to implement a local operator, in one condion monitoring activities. Because in fact, the operator is at the initial barrier that can know the early signs of the slightest damage. And the entire record notes this change, which must be in use as a data trending tool for equipment condition periodically. Because in my opinion, is not just a matter of KPI values that you think is not appropriate, but more than that is the question, why are there still a lot of maintenance work that is BM emerging. Because the work can appear suddenly without planned is one example of reliability violation, and you should avoid this.

Thanks,

Anton, you should be tracking this by time (hours). If you have a slow worker on a PM, eventually he will also do a corrective maintenance and it will eventually even out. The idea is that we need to know how many hours we spend on each type of maintenance, not just the number of occurrences so that we know where our labor is being applied the most and get to an 80% planned (minimum) threshold. Once we are devoting 20% or lees of our time to unscheduled and breakdown maintenance, we will begin to gain time for improvement efforts.