We all know the abbreviations – MRO, TPM, RCM, RBM, VDM and so on. But despite all the rhetoric of those learned in such tools, are we really a nation of manufacturers hell bent on maintenance best practice, or do we simply make the right noises when the auditors come around?
For decades, manufacturers have concentrated most of their attention on product output, generally ignoring the maintenance function, viewing it as a necessary evil. However, during recent years there has been a gradual attitude change in terms of how management views maintenance. So, how far have we come? Well, with 128 respondents, this WM survey provides a revealing insight into maintenance habits throughout a cross section of UK plants. But be warned, despite this nation's reputation as a setter of benchmarks and high standards, all is not perfect when it comes to maintenance management.
For instance, maintenance ought to be proactive, not reactive, right? Well, maybe in an ideal world, but alas the reality suggests many are still struggling to reduce their fire-fighting activities. Asked what percentage of maintenance is reactive versus proactive, the perhaps surprising mean values are 50.2% reactive against 49.8% proactive. This is despite the fact that proactive techniques are said to increase OEE by as much as 30% within two years, at least according to a recent UK study by Advanced Technology Services.
The potential reasons for a high reactive showing are far reaching. It's true for example, that it involves lower initial costs and generally requires fewer staff. And while, on the flip side, there are also many disadvantages, sometimes an easy win for the bottom line is the only option.
Understanding how to show a maintenance department's value will always be a challenge for those heading up this business function. The key here is to generate an understanding of your company's operation and how it makes profit. The common denominator is always pound notes. If you know for example, that a machine tool needs to operate reliably for a certain number of hours each day to produce a set amount of components, and you know the cost of the operation to produce these parts, then one way to demonstrate value is to show management the cost to the company for machine failures during component-run periods.
The spanner in the works is always 'the unexpected' and how to deal with it – and sure enough, by far the biggest challenge faced by maintenance operations is sustaining ageing plant (45%). Surely there is no more poignant sign of the times than investment plans continuing to gather dust on the shelf – there is only so long a lack of capital expenditure can be upheld before the effects filter through the organisation.
Some way down in second place (17%) is a lack of skills and training, particularly maintaining operator understanding of machinery. In fact, 40% say that operators only moderately understand the plant they are using and could be sharper on maintenance, while 45% state they have no formal maintenance training programme for the workforce. And while it is true that automation is enabling more proactive monitoring and information management with preventative and predictive maintenance strategies, technical operations and high-tech maintenance personnel remain in great demand.
Other challenges faced by maintenance operations include an ageing workforce, reliance on external repair contractors, production deadlines and the general perception of maintenance as a non-core business activity. Indeed, concerning this last point, a conclusive 59% state that maintenance costs represent less than 15% of revenue, with only 4% estimating a figure greater than 20%.
The other ramification of supporting ageing plant is that such a tactic will inevitably hog the MRO spend. This is reflected by our survey respondents who say that repairs (36%) and procurement of spares (27%) are the biggest areas of maintenance outlay. Both areas again relate heavily to reactive strategies, while more proactive-focused spend activities such as consumables and service contracts command lower mean percentage scores at 12% and 23% respectively. It is well documented that sharp management of MRO procurement and stores activity can make significant improvements in both plant efficiency and economy.
Despite the fact that reactive maintenance strategies clearly remain at large in UK factories, it isn't for want of trying. Management looking to move the maintenance function forward will often have its hands tied over issues such as ageing plant and training deficiencies, perhaps via a lack of budget, time or manpower, for example. The fact remains that 71% say they have a formal predictive maintenance management strategy in place, with a virtually identical percentage using in-house resources to carry out this activity. Of the remainder performing ad-hoc maintenance, only 27% say this is out of preference, while a significant 57% cite a lack of time and/or resource.
Insufficient resources are a sore point, after all an embedded TPM programme can take up to 24 months to develop and implement fully. Providing operators and maintenance teams with the ability to fix common problems is what drives the benefits, but the training and development of the teams needed to accomplish this takes time. Ultimately, only a teamwork approach will succeed in boosting OEE.
In contemporary markets, we can see the increasing importance of predicting and preventing failures based on the current and past behaviour of equipment, thus ensuring it's maintenance only when needed, and exactly when needed. However, pushing for a shift from reactive, through preventative, to predictive techniques demands many things, and not least is getting the costing right. And yet it appears many are missing out vital factors when crunching the numbers.
For instance, while a high percentage of respondents rightly list labour, spares and the use of external contractors as elements of the maintenance cost equation, only 52% include maintenance management and even fewer (38%) factor in unscheduled overtime. Other, even more overlooked elements include the costs associated with expedited freight, scrap, lost production time, equipment hire and tools.
One of the stand-out trends identified by the survey is the apparent slow death of the in-house maintenance team. A near-unanimous 91% say they now outsource all or some of their maintenance operations. Of the dogged 9% forming the resistance, a belief in better in-house capability, high costs and lack of third party understanding form the central reasons (in that order) for retaining this business function.
Many manufacturers are pushing their production equipment for every ounce of capacity while, at the same time, attempting to cut overhead costs. This has put a strong emphasis on the importance of quality maintenance services and tools. With regard to the latter, understanding the tools and technologies of the trade is vital when it comes to successfully deployed maintenance activities. Such tools help increase equipment reliability and reduce production downtime, raise throughput and boost the life expectancy of assets, while safety and quality conditions can also be enhanced.
Condition monitoring
Four predictive techniques are seemingly dominant among UK plants: thermal imaging (67%), oil analysis (58%), vibration analysis (41%) and acoustic emission monitoring (35%) score some way ahead of other tools. Maybe this is unsurprising to many – after all, the effective use of good forecasting tools is essential if plants are to prolong the useful operational life of equipment. Through proper application of the many and varied predictive maintenance tools available to maintenance personnel, failure patterns can be easily identified and used to foresee eventual failure with some degree of accuracy over time.
From a maintenance management perspective, software – either off the shelf or customised – is deployed by 48%, although spreadsheet-based systems still dominate at 33% of factories. Surprisingly, 8% continue to use a card or paper-based system and, alarmingly, 11% have nothing. Investment in this area appears, at best, patchy – with a 45-55% split stating their maintenance management system is less than five years old (55% say no).
Despite the apparent lack of decided commitment to maintenance best practice, a significant 42% of survey respondents say that greater than 40% of their facilities can be classed as critical equipment. Similarly, 38% state that more than 10% of the component parts within their assets have limited life or are obsolete, while an eye-opening 24% have absolutely no plan in place to upgrade or manage the components identified as obsolete. If facts such as these don't provoke a call to action, then little will.
Indeed, of those aware of the need to replace obsolete parts, only a quarter of respondents cite reduced maintenance costs as the most important factor: increased production capacity and increased production quality both score nearly as high, although decreased mean time to repair (13%) and reduced service calls (4%) are also evident.
We all know the long range benefits offered by an optimised maintenance function: overall reduction of equipment emergencies, reduction in maintenance purchasing and an improvement in warehouse activities, to name but a few.
So, with this in mind, what does the roadmap to maintenance excellence look like? Well, starting with zero maintenance, most 'best practice' graphs move up through reactive (fire fighting), preventative (scheduled), predictive and proactive (failure root cause analysis) before peaking out at self-maintenance of maintenance-free machines.
Looking at the survey results, although some are successfully navigating their passage along the roadmap, it's clear that many are still stuck in the slow lane while others have positively broken down in the lay-by. If only they had checked the oil.
Key findings
Reactive techniques still command 50.2% of maintenance activities
- Ageing plant is by far the biggest challenge facing maintenance teams
- 71% have a formal predictive maintenance strategy in place
- Lack of time/resource continues to obstruct the road to best practice
- Insufficient training and knowledge also proving restrictive
- 91% now outsource at least some maintenance operations
- 33% still on spreadsheet-based maintenance management systems
The ABC of abbreviations
- MRO – maintenance, repair and overhaul
- TPM – total productive maintenance
- RCM – reliability-centred maintenance
- RBM – reliability-based maintenance
- VDM – value-driven maintenance
- OEE – overall equipment effectiveness
Who responded?
The 128 respondents to WM's maintenance survey come from industries that include (in order of rank): food, drink or tobacco; general mechanical engineering; chemicals/pharmaceuticals; automotive; paper and board; plastics and rubber; electrical and electronic; aerospace/defence; metal foundries and processing; energy; and textiles.
In total, less than 5% of respondents work at sites with fewer than 50 employees, while 13% work at sites with more than 500 employees. Maintenance, production and factory services provide the primary job functions of 77% of survey participants.
