All Member Open Forum

Hi - My site uses SAP PM CCMS. I am curious if anyone has advice on how to formulate a Proactive Work KPI. While it is straightforward to get counts / hours of PMs and CBM activities completed in a time period, and then to divide it be All Work to get a percentage, it is not so simple to define what body of corrective maintenance should be considered proactive. I am aware of the definitions and the tree (see below) within SMRP metrics 5.4.2 (Proactive Work) and 5.1.2 (Corrective Maintenance Hours). Specifically, I'm looking for guidance on:

1. Philosophically defining what corrective work can be considered Proactive (5.4.2 = 'stemming from a structured ID program'). So for example, do you include repairs of leaks that were detected via a scheduled inspection within your CMMS / scheduled rounds? Or should a repair of the leak prior to Breakdown be considered proactive, regardless of who and how the detection occurred? Are all repairs that are detected prior to it becoming a system failure assumed to be proactive? I see merit in this approach being YES, but I'm curious what others do here.
2. Within SAP CMMS, I was considering all RMOPs with Activity Type "INS" would be corrective-proactive. This would be the body of work orders that are "reconditioning," but not Breakdowns. I am defining Breakdown here as an event resulting a system being offline, or needing to be taken offline for repair. Possibly only reactive (emergent work interrupting weekly maintenance schedule) should be considered a breakdown here?

------------------------------
Ernest Mathews
PE, CMRP
New Hampshire
------------------------------

Hello Ernest,

My company uses SAP as well. We have a work order types setup, which differentiates corrective reactive from corrective proactive maintenance. According to that, we can have three main cases for proactive work:

1. Corrective maintenance notification (M2 in our case) which does not have a breakdown indicator. It can be a result of operators' inspection or similar observation, which has symptom only, but it has not functionally failed yet. Please note that our operator rounds are not registered in the CMMS.
2. Follow-up maintenance notification as a result of preventive or predictive work order execution. It will not have a breakdown (functional failure) as it was found during the inspection, which means it did not impact the performance of the system.
3. OEM, insurance or regulatory recommendation, technical information letter, and similar external (for the company) sources - in this case, the notification type is M1 in our case, as we do not have a symptom.

In the three cases, we are converting the notifications to corrective proactive work order (PM60), which is different from corrective reactive (PM10), preventive (PM20) or predictive (PM25). The latter two are generated from maintenance plans 100%.

If you create a similar setup, it is then easy to calculate PM60 vs. all work.

---------------

Georgi Kirilov

------------------------------
Georgi Kirilov
The AES Corporation
Indianapolis IN
------------------------------

Hi Ernest,

You ask a great question and I would simply say that I agree with Georgi on the strategy he is using to calculate Pro-active Maintenance. First, the strategy is very simple and straightforward. Second, it is easy to understand. Easy to understand not only for you but easy for the organization to understand. But striving to know the allocation of labor within a maintenance organization is a good management practice. 

The one thing I would add is you should always calculate these percentages based on labor hours and not on numbers of work orders. Many companies struggle with this as they use a payroll system that has no linkage to their CMMS system. When this is the case, the margin of error for the actual labor hours that get posted to work orders is usually much larger than if the situation is reversed and their is some linkage. And the warning here is to not demand for workers to account for every labor hour that they are getting paid for, documented against a work order. That is, if they work a 12-hr shift, the expectation is that they post 12 hours of labor to work orders. This only creates an even larger margin of error on labor reported to work orders. A reasonable accounting of payroll labor hours to the total labor hours reported on work orders for the same time period is 90%. This is a good check and balance to see where gaps in reporting are occuring and will direct you to where those problems exist in the organization ..... if they do exist. In most of the companies I come in contact with, this is an area for improvement.  

------------------------------
Terry Taylor
Taylor Reliability Consulting
St. Johns, Florida
ttaylor@taylorreliability.org
919-537-2812
------------------------------

Earnest,

This is a great discussion.  Outside of the technical was to calculate with SAP, I just want to give you a heads up on the use of these metrics.

When attempting to acheive 50% of CW from Structured Work, there are cautionary items to look for.  The definition of CW from Structured Work is very important because PM inspections if loosely defined can keep your org in a reactive state.  Make sure that the work discovered when doing a PM is listed as a failure mode on the PM.  If someone finds work and it is not listed on the PM, then it should be counted as CW not from Structured.  Otherwise, a loosely written inspection can cover all finds when the technician is in the area and the org doesn't have the granularity to do continuous improvement cycle on the inspection, thus remaining in a reactive state. 

------------------------------
Matthew Meyer
Valrico FL
------------------------------

Dear Mr.Meyer,

Fantastic points made in the discussion. I would like to add that having autonomous maintenance started in the plant can yield gains by freeing up maintenance technicians from working on minor issues that the operators can handle by themselves. We have started AM on a pilot basis by providing training to the operators, which has started to give results. The operators are trained for doing minor adjustments and superficial repairs on the equipment by themselves.The operators are given two types of tags- white and red. The tags are tied to the equipment where the defects are noted and serve as a visual cue for rectification of the defect. The white tags are the defects that can be corrected by the operators and the red tags are the defects that need to be corrected by maintenance. So, any person taking an inspection round on the equipment can see visually that there are pending defects that need to be attended to. Also, we have placed a "tag tree" in the shop floor. The tags for the defects that get solved are tied to the tag tree. This represents the number of defects that were identified & removed from the equipment. 

These tactics will aid to maintenance improvement as the maintenance team will have more time for doing value adding maintenance work.

Regards,

Srihari

Manager-Asset Management

Thyssenkrupp India

------------------------------
Srihari R ramasubramanian.srihari@gmail.comManager
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-18-2023 02:52 PM
From: Matthew Meyer
Subject: How to Define Corrective Proactive Maintenance

Earnest,

This is a great discussion.  Outside of the technical was to calculate with SAP, I just want to give you a heads up on the use of these metrics.

When attempting to acheive 50% of CW from Structured Work, there are cautionary items to look for.  The definition of CW from Structured Work is very important because PM inspections if loosely defined can keep your org in a reactive state.  Make sure that the work discovered when doing a PM is listed as a failure mode on the PM.  If someone finds work and it is not listed on the PM, then it should be counted as CW not from Structured.  Otherwise, a loosely written inspection can cover all finds when the technician is in the area and the org doesn't have the granularity to do continuous improvement cycle on the inspection, thus remaining in a reactive state. 

------------------------------
Matthew Meyer
Valrico FL
------------------------------

Hi Ernest,

Great replies so I have little to add.

Functional failure is not meeting design therefore when there is any loss of production the corrective work is reactive. I have had many NO created as proactive because the equipment was still online however production was reduced.

Early in our SAP years at a former company, we generated a general WO to capture all hours no tied to specific WO. This created two problems and I am adding to Terry's comments.

1. Inflation of hours on jobs which falsely decreased wrench time. Tavel, meetings and training were some of the hours captured. No maintenance was performed but the WO was a maintenance type and affected the wrench time calculation.

2.Many hours of small jobs such as tightening a leaking flange or changing absorbent pads under a leaking valve were placed under the general WO so not captured in the historical record of specific equipment creating a better than true historical record. Your question does not imply you are using a general WO. This is so all may learn from our mistake.

------------------------------
Larry James
Lockout Larry
1. Personnel 2. Environment 3. Equipment 4. Revenue
Reno NV
------------------------------

Thanks to all who gave thoughtful and detailed replies! Definitely helps me to see where the gaps are in putting work into these bins.

------------------------------
Ernest Mathews
PE, CMRP
Dover NH
------------------------------

This is how we categorize our corrective work. PMA type codes. You can see there are a lot of proactive categories to chose so we can see how well the predictive maintenance is working.

COR or CBO or SAF are the only reactive choices.

 

------------------------------
Mark Schuettpelz CMRP
HVAC Maintenance Planner
Kohler Co
Kohler, WI
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-03-2023 12:52 PM
From: Ernest Mathews
Subject: How to Define Corrective Proactive Maintenance

Thanks to all who gave thoughtful and detailed replies! Definitely helps me to see where the gaps are in putting work into these bins.

------------------------------
Ernest Mathews
PE, CMRP
Dover NH
------------------------------