Secrets of success 21 March 2014

Although computerised maintenance management systems can deliver a significant boost to maintenance efficiency and beyond, that's not always the case. Brian Tinham looks at what goes wrong and how to avoid the pitfalls.

There's no doubt that CMMSs (computerised maintenance management systems) have the potential to transform maintenance efficiency and also add value, in terms of OEE (overall equipment effectiveness), and ultimately yield, quality and profit for plants and factories alike. Whether they do, or not, is another matter. Success, mediocrity or failure depends largely on the scale of management support, technician and operator training, discipline, determination and belief.

It's a long list, but the proof of this pudding comes both from independent research and – perhaps anecdotally, but all the more convincing for that – real case studies. Taking the former first, Dennis McCarthy, partner with lean maintenance consultancy DAK Consulting, refers to a recent study involving 22 participants at three of his seminars. While conceding that his research was not designed to be statistically robust – and, clearly, delegates were attending in the expectation of improving their firms' maintenance effectiveness – he insists that its findings are indicative.

And they're not great. Just under half (48%) of CMMS-planned PM (preventive maintenance) processes met an acceptable, lean maintenance standard for ease of use, discipline and reliability, he reports. But only 16% of systems performed well, in terms of maintenance management – meaning good enough planning, recording, cost control and spares management. McCarthy suggests several reasons why so many delegates' CMMSs failed to pass muster, but adds that it was rarely down to software functionality and much more about how the systems were used.

"The most common causes included: poor definition of business processes; unclear accountabilities; lack of training and/or capability, and poor discipline," he explains. And the outcome of all that manifested itself in scheduling problems "at the point where the plan meets shopfloor reality". In particular, he says that the systems involved, and their associated processes, contrived to make capturing lessons learned – to reduce wasted effort and improve effectiveness in the future – very difficult.

"Organisations that use CMMS well are the ones that have learned how to progress from a purely technical IT perspective to one that incorporates commercial and operational perspectives," asserts McCarthy. "These companies see CMMS as an enabler for improvement and recognise that this journey can only really start once the system is in place."

Some might take issue with that, arguing correctly that the path to excellence begins considerably earlier. One key aspect commented on time and again is the importance of collecting and interpreting asset data and assigning appropriate PM routines upfront. Another is determining how operators and technicians need to work with the system – and hence the nature and location of terminals and/or mobile tablets around the shopfloor. That said, his point is well made and successful users are generally those that, after go live, systematically develop user capability.

For McCarthy, there are four key aspects to achieving excellence. First is direction setting, meaning sorting out where to improve performance and collaboration, and how to release resources for the pre- and post-go live CI (continuous improvement) activities. Second is building capability, particularly in terms of training and support for changes to roles and accountabilities. The third is working specifically to improve execution, responsiveness and flexibility of the 'plan, source, make, deliver' lean process. And the fourth is focusing on performance. For this last, he means: "Using CMMS data to learn from the past, support best practice evolution and reinforce proactive behaviours."

So much for what should be done. Now let's look at two organisations that have actually implemented CMMS and used it to successfully transform operations. One is root vegetable processing and packaging firm Huntapac, the other ready meals manufacturer Greencore – both, as it happens, Spidex Mainsaver users.

Lancashire-based Huntapac found itself having to review its maintenance strategy after failing an onsite audit by one of its largest supermarket chain customers despite what it believed to be efficient high-volume production operations. "Our jobsheet-based preventive maintenance and spares inventory management were considered not good enough," recalls Will Hunter, CMMS project manager, adding that the auditors didn't mince their words.

Having taken on board the message that the only way to manage and execute a successful PM programme was to introduce CMMS, the firm started by comparing several options before making its selection. The first takeaway was that initial process was inclusive, involving engineers, managers and production personnel, which, says Hunter, not only overcame factory floor misgivings, but also helped to flesh out real requirements.

The implementation team then created a database of plant assets and new PM schedules against each one. Hunter concedes that was a challenge, but it was essential to the project – and that's the second takeaway. But lesson three was that the team then made the entire system available to maintenance engineers and production staff alike by loading Mainsaver onto touchscreen PCs in stainless steel kiosks both in the engineering workshop and throughout the shopfloor.

Hunter says the impact after go live was virtually immediate: "Straight away, there was a substantial increase in the number of maintenance activities recorded... This was down to the presence of Mainsaver all around the plant. Each job remains visible on the outstanding work queue until an engineer closes it. Nothing is overlooked or forgotten."

And production manager Richard Gallimore puts the other side: "Mainsaver enables me to log maintenance requests with far more detail. The benefit is that engineers can now ensure they have the correct tools and spares before attending the job. As a result, the average repair time has greatly improved and non-productive time reduced."

But that's not all: CI also saw a boost. "Because Mainsaver makes it so easy to request work and we know the engineers will respond quickly, we've asked for – and had done – a number of small but significant technical enhancements on production machinery," comments Gallimore. "We're looking for improvements all the time now," he adds.

That change in culture has contributed to what he describes as a marked downward trend in major breakdowns. "A few years ago we were suffering two or three total production stoppages every week," recalls health and safety manager Colin Sigsworth. "Now, we haven't experienced one for months. It's a massive step forward."

What's more, the CMMS is putting robust data behind capex decisions, as Huntapac managing director Warren Hunter explains. "Previously, we were inclined to rely on gut feeling if we needed to make a decision, for example, on whether it would be more cost-effective to replace an item of plant than to keep repairing it. Now we have all the information we need."

Impressive? Certainly, but Huntapac is not alone. Martin Tranmer, engineering controller at Greencore Prepared Meals, says that his installation of Mainsaver CMMS has helped to transform PM to the point where he depends on this system more than any other. He explains that the Warrington-based plant runs 20/7, with a four-hour shutdown overnight for factory-wide cleaning and maintenance. "So there's not much opportunity for preventive maintenance, which is why Mainsaver is so important for scheduling the work and getting the right people with the right equipment, tools and parts available at the right time with the minimum fuss."

Making that work, he says, was about two things: ensuring that CMMS coverage of site assets was very inclusive and not limited only to production equipment; and implementing a real-time, online, system, not one only capable of generating reports retrospectively. "This is where so many CMMS projects fail," insists Tranmer.
"Doing very detailed asset register work at the front end is paramount. We went right down to light switches in some cases – anything where a job could involve cost – so that we would be able to assign parts and labour to specific locations, not some blanket field.

"Also, going real time, meant our engineers would be able to see all the plant issues live, and respond appropriately and in a timely manner. And engineering activities would be much more visible, too. Everyone would be able to see what's going on right across the site – including the production teams and operators."

Put those together and it's clear that, not only would the system underpin a robust PM and repair regime, responsive to the needs of the plant, but it would also enable two invaluable types of analysis. On the one hand, engineering management would get the information required to make good capex versus repair versus PM frequency decisions. On the other, eyes would be opened to potential for CI – right down to the micro level of, for example, motors being fit for purpose.

Looking in a little detail, Mainsaver now holds the entire asset and associated PM records, as well as engineers' training and competence data, so that when a job is logged the system makes sure it is allocated to the right skill set. "When we were setting up the system, we took into account who would be entering engineering requests, too. So we didn't offer operators options such as 'inverter malfunction'. Instead, they have half a dozen options specific to each machine that are meaningful to them – such as 'belt not running' – and a free text box, if they want to add detail."

With thousands of assets, it's easy to see that setting up this way would take a long time. However, Tranmer is adamant it's been well worth it, because the right people, properly prepared, arrive at line side within a predetermined timeframe, depending on the severity of the call. Also, management can search on any asset and see trend, interventions and cost data to help drive decision making.

"If the operator indicates that a belt is not driving, then the system defaults to an electrical engineer, who will go and assess the job. If it is electrical, he can crack on, but if it turns out to be mechanical and he's not multi-skilled, then it gets passed on to the mechanical team. Throughout, the system ensures that they have the correct checklists for lock-out, tag-out, etc. And everyone can see the whole picture in real time, on screen: who created the job, when the engineer attended, when the job was passed over, etc."

And much the same applies to sourcing parts, with Mainsaver providing historical data for technicians and managers on components used per machine. However, that's where Greencore's process currently leaves the CMMS. The firm runs a separate management system for permits to work and risk assessments – although those are set to come under Mainsaver soon. But with the parts received and tools captive to the area, technicians effect the repair, using P&IDs, wiring diagrams etc, as required, accessed from the plant touchscreen terminals. They then do the checks and take the interlocks off, before handing machines back to production or hygiene, depending on the area involved and the level of intervention.

It's a similar story for PM, with the system again providing the correct paperwork, but also kit lists, all sourced from bonded areas. If technicians judge that additional attention is required, they either carry it out and document the work or, if time won't allow, raise another job on-screen.

From then on, it's much as you might expect. Greencore effectively divides plant 'ownership' between its four engineering teams, each of which takes responsibility for PMs on their patch in the short windows allotted – with frequency tailored to captured experience from around the site. Depending on the scale of job, team leaders get the heads-up potentially a month early, enabling production and engineering to plan against expected timeframes.

"I absolutely love this system," enthuses Tranmer. "Not only does it make engineering efficient and transparent, it also gives me so much meaningful information to work with... I reckon it's helped us to achieve a 10-15% reduction in stores value, partly by helping with standardisation,but also by revealing, for example, high-value parts that don't move – which we were able to pass out to other group plants. I couldn't put a figure on OEE uplift, but what I can say is that engineering downtime is no longer one of our top five problems."

Brian Tinham

This material is protected by MA Business copyright
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.