9. Alan Tait. Asset Management KPIs and Benchmark Data

Alan Tait

Pragma Africa

[email protected]

Physical Asset Management Benchmarking

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%


• 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


• 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



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





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





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

9. Alan Tait. Asset Management KPIs and Benchmark Data

Documents