North American Maintenance & Reliability Benchmarks Revisited Part One of Two

Transcription

1 North American Maintenance & Reliability Benchmarks Revisited Part One of Two Klaus M. Blache, Ph.D., University of Tennessee Reliability and Maintainability Center Production throughput and being cost competitive are as important as ever. Understanding what is attainable and implementing reliability & maintenance (R&M) best practices can provide that opportunity. This benchmarking study is a repeat of a similar effort performed in It will be published in two parts. Part One will be a comparison of 1991 versus 2008 results and some additional findings. Part Two will be an analysis of trends, impacts of variables (such as size of company and operator involvement), most important maintenance metrics used and a summary of anticipated changes in reliability & maintainability over the next 10 years, and more. The definitions remained the same. Predictive maintenance refers to compiling and analyzing machine condition data to warn of impending failure and identify defective parts (examples include vibration and motor current analysis, infrared thermography, and oil analysis).

2 Preventive maintenance uses scheduled routine inspections and improvements to intercept failure (examples are time-based adjustments, replacements, lubrication, and refurbishments). Reactive maintenance refers to emergency breakdowns and related repairs. Responses were compiled from 217 companies across North America. About 70% of the responses were from Manufacturing companies, with the remainder being almost equally split between the remaining categories. The responses were categorized into five areas. Below are examples of the types of companies included in each category. Manufacturing automotive stampings (small & large), plastic parts, locomotive parts, machinery, sound systems, conveyor systems, fasteners, ceiling tile, air tools, aircraft, batteries, signs, transmission components, truck accessories and shipping racks. Assembly small instruments/equipment, CMM machines, tools, sunroofs, electrical products, automation equipment, automobiles, welding & assembly equipment and automotive components. Process steel, chemicals, precious metals and mining.

3 Distribution safety products, pumps, instruments, valves, tapes/adhesives, hardware parts and metal products. Consultants & Other consultants, hydraulic component repair, tool & die, construction, filtration services, equipment repair services and research & development facilities. The intent was to collect current Actual and Perceived World Class data, two ratios expressed as a percent (maintenance expenditure to original investment in machinery and equipment, and maintenance expenditure to sales volume in dollars), and several other (R&M) questions. The original study (1991) can be summarized by Figure 1, which depicts Maintenance Expenditure (as % of Machinery & Equipment Investment) versus Proactive Maintenance (Predictive + Preventive). It shows the data area where most plants were at, where the best plants were at, and a trend line of the better plants. Figure 2 shows that there was significant improvement made by North American companies from 1991 to Percent Reactive Maintenance declined from 54.6% to 34.1% and Maintenance Expenditure as % of Machinery & Equipment Investment went from 15.5% to 9.7%. Figure 3 shows a like plot with Maintenance Expenditure as % of Sales improving from 5.9% to 4.4%. This trend was further supported by responses to the question How would you rate your maintenance process now, 5 years ago and 10 years ago? The

4 responses, were based on a 10 point scale (5=average, 10=world class). In all industry groups, the average values have shown ongoing improvement (Figure 4). Figures 5 to 10 chart responses to the question What has positively impacted Maintenance in the last 5 years? (weighted by high, medium & low responses and normalized to 100%). For North American Companies (Figure 5), the largest opportunity is in More Designed-In Reliability and More Involvement by Operators. Breaking out Manufacturing Companies by themselves (Figure 6) paralleled North America. Assembly Companies (Figure 7) shows the same two opportunities, with More Involvement by Operators having even a larger potential for improvement. Process Companies (Figure 8) had the same two largest opportunities, but also depicted Better Management Understanding of Maintainability/Reliability as having the greatest positive impact (highest of all company groups). Distribution Companies (Figure 9) had More Involvement by Operators as the largest opportunity and Better Technology Available as having the largest positive impact. Figure 10 shows Consultants and Other Companies, which had Better Management Understanding of Maintainability/Reliability and More Involvement by Operators as the largest opportunity. At first glance, I thought that possibly the Consultants strongly influenced the Better Management Understanding response. With further investigation, it was actually the Other Companies

5 that more significantly influenced the results. Figure 11 is the top 20% of Manufacturing and Assembly Companies based on Manufacturing Expenditure/Original Machinery & Equipment Investment (%). It s noteworthy that the companies with the best performance selected More Reliable Machinery & Equipment as having the greatest positive impact in the last 5 years. They also selected More Designed-In Maintainability and More Involvement by Operators as having the largest opportunity. Figure 12 again illustrates that from 1991 to 2008 Reactive Maintenance decreased and Proactive Maintenance (Predictive + Preventive) increased. It appears that Predictive Maintenance remained at about 13%, while Preventive Maintenance increased from 32.5% to 52.8%. Note (Figure 13) that 2008 Perceived World Class Maintenance for Reactive was 12.3%, Predictive was 26.3% and Preventive was 61.5%. Figure 14 illustrates that Perceived World Class Maintenance values from 1991 to 2008 decreased for Reactive (17.6% to 12.3%) and Predictive (35.2% to 26.3%), while Preventive increased (from 47.4% to 61.5 %). In Figure 15, the Actual and Perceived Maintenance Percents from the North American average were compared to the Top 20% performing Companies (based on Maintenance Expenditure/Investment in Machinery & Equipment). Note that both Actual and Perceived World Class Reactive Maintenance were lower for the Top 20% Performing Companies (Figure 15). Figure 16 illustrates Breakdowns by

6 Percent Predictable and Random for both North American Companies and the Top 20% Performing Companies showing Random Breakdowns at about 60%, which can influence the strategies to be used. In conclusion of Part One, it s good to see that Maintenance practices are improving. However, where I feel that most companies need to focus more on is in establishing a robust Reliability process. Reliability will be further analyzed and discussed in Part Two.