See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235305214

World-class maintenance using a computerised maintenance management

system

Article  in  Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering · March 1998

DOI: 10.1108/13552519810207470

CITATIONS READS

107 1,524

1 author:

Ashraf Labib
University of Portsmouth
132 PUBLICATIONS   2,601 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashraf Labib on 07 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JQME
4,1 World-class maintenance
using a computerised
maintenance management
66
system
Ashraf W. Labib
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST),
Manchester, UK

Introduction
With the increasing demand on productivity, quality, and availability, machines
have become more complex and capital intensive. Developing and
implementing a maintenance programme is a difficult process that suffers from
many problems. It often suffers from lack of a systematic and a consistent
methodology. In addition, since the process of developing the programme
relates to different parties with interests in maintenance, it becomes difficult to
achieve all round satisfaction of these parties, and at the same time achieve the
objectives of the company. Developing a maintenance programme is an iterative
process that involves different decision makers, who may have conflicting
objectives. In deriving these objectives maintenance managers usually try to
achieve multiple, and sometimes, conflicting objectives such as maximising
throughput, availability, and quality subject to constraints on production plan,
available spares, manpower, and skills.

World class
World class can be defined as a tool used to search for and allow a company to
perform at a best-on-class level. It is useful to use the plant as the level of
analysis because, although world-class manufacturing (WCM) is a strategic
approach, many of its measurable improvements initiatives have occurred at
the plant level (Flynn et al., 1989; Mackenzie, 1977). Strategic considerations
and operational decisions are influenced by other corporate functions such as
production, finance, quality, and human resources. It is true that the
information gathered by these systems at the operational level and actions
taken are in fact strategic – improved asset availability, productivity, and
quality, as well as resource management, inventory control, planning, and so on.

Maintenance and CMMS

Journal of Quality
It is believed that an available CMMS (computerised maintenance management
in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 4 No. 1, 1998, pp. 66-75
system) is not an aim by itself, but rather a platform for decision analysis that
© MCB University Press, 1355-2511 can lead to the development of the world-class model. This coincides with the
view presented by Olafsson (1990) regarding TPM implementation, where it is World-class
emphasised that maintenance
… an early prerequisite for TPM implementation in a company, is the development of a CMMS
for collecting and recording the data for TPM implementation.
However, experience gained by the author in developing computerised
maintenance management systems (CMMS) in several automotive industries 67
(Labib, 1996; Labib et al., 1996a, b; 1997a) has shown that managers rely on such
systems for data collection and data analysis, but seldom for decision analysis.
A data collection system that can gather relevant data is prerequisite for world-
class status. It is advantageous to have a data collection system that is real-time,
and that can handle data related to frequency and duration of maintenance
breakdowns as well as spare parts costs, while enhancing and utilising
knowledge of operators and maintenance engineers. A practical example of
such a system is the breakdown recording system developed at Meritor (UK)
(Labib et al., 1997b) where data are collected systematically in a real time basis,
and analysed accordingly. The two objectives of this paper are to demonstrate a
practical methodology for adding value to data collected through offering
decision analysis, as well as facilitating the link between preventive
maintenance and emergency maintenance in an adaptable and dynamic
approach.

Model implementation
The first step towards minimising emergency maintenance was to analyse
breakdowns through dividing the time spent for a breakdown into phases. The
second step was to develop solutions that could minimise each of the identified
phases. Although each of those solutions was relatively a simple improvement
idea, however, the total outcome was a substantial improvement. Different
phases and their corresponding solutions are illustrated in Figure 1. In general,
downtime was categorised into three main phases; response phase, diagnostics
phase, and repair phase.
Response phase is the time between the occurrence of a breakdown and the
attendance of a maintenance engineer. It passes through sub-phases of
realisation by production operator, to reporting to the CMMS, and finally to
logging on by maintenance technician. It is considered purely a wasted time
that ought to be not just minimised but eliminated totally. Solutions that have
been implemented were to network the CMMS between production and
maintenance departments, and to link the CMMS to alarms and bleepers via a
PLC (programmable logic controller).
Diagnostic phase is considered to be the time spent in identifying the cause
of breakdown and means of rectifying it. It is often the case in advanced
machinery that this phase consumes the majority of time taken to deal with
breakdown problems. In order to minimise this phase, solutions were
implemented to address two main requirements; improve skills, and provision
of knowledge regarding past maintenance actions done for the machine in
JQME How Did We Get Here?
4,1 Breakdowns have been reduced by 80% and Corrective
Actions by 60%.
Downtime
Waste Time Diagnostic Repair
Skills Skills
68 and Spares

(Breakdown Production Maintenance Maintenance

Starts) Log On Log On Log Off
(Breakdown
Minimised By: Finishes)

• Networking • Alarm • TPM • Automate

Figure 1. • Bleep • Operator ordering
Downtime phases and help menus • Failure mode
solutions implemented of previous faults analysis
• MCDMG.

question. Solutions included the provision of past maintenance actions during

logging on by maintenance, as well the provision of multi-levelled analytic
reports examining failure mode trees using a prioritisation mathematical tool
called the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Labib et al., 1998) that is related to
TPM schedules.
The repair phase is the time taken to implement rectification of the
breakdown problem. This phase often needs the provision of adequate tools and
spare parts, in addition to the skill needed to carry out the action. This phase
was minimised by the development of a maintenance spare parts ordering
system that automated ordering spares as well as monitoring suppliers. In
addition a decision making grid (DMG) was developed to help in monitoring
performance of machines and suggesting appropriate actions. This solution is
the subject of the remaining part of the paper. The effect of the DMG helps in the
repair phase and, more importantly, it helps in minimising and preventing
breakdowns from occurring in the first place.
The main idea of the model is to transfer data collected from an existing
computerised maintenance system, such as the data shown in Figure 2, into
decision analysis for management using a “decision making grid” as shown in
Figure 3.
The first step is to extract the worst performing machines based on different
criteria. This is shown in Figure 2, where the top ten worst machines according
to both downtime and number of calls are presented. As shown, according to
the downtime criterion, 89 per cent of the problems originated from ten
machines out of total 130 machines available. As for the frequency of calls
criterion, 81 per cent of the problems originate from ten machines.
The next step is to subdivide both criteria, downtime and frequency, into
high, medium and low values. For example, downtime is considered low if less
 Criteria: Downtime Frequency
World-class
maintenance
Name Downtime Name Frequency
(hrs) (No. off)
Machine [A] 30 Machine [G] 27
HIGH Machine [B] 20 Machine [C] 16 HIGH
Machine [C] 20 Machine [D] 12 69
Machine [D] 17 Machine [A] 9
MEDIUM Machine [E] 16 Machine [I] 8
Machine [F] 12 Machine [E] 8 MEDIUM
Machine [G] 7 Machine [k] 8
LOW Machine [H] 6 Machine [F] 4
Machine [I] 6 Machine [B] 3 LOW
Machine [J] 4 Machine [H ] 2
Sum of Top 10 138 Sum of Top 10 9797 Figure 2.
Sum of All 155 Sum of All 120 Criteria evaluation
Percentage 89% Percentage 81%

than 10 hours, high if more than 20, and medium if between 11 and 19. The
same applies to the criterion of frequency but using a different scale. The
objective is to try to cater for the ten worst machines under both criteria.

Decision rules
The final step is to place the machines in the “decision making grid” shown in
Figure 3, and accordingly, to recommend maintenance decisions to
management. This grid acts as a map where the performances of the worst
machines are placed based on multiple criteria. The objective is to implement
appropriate actions that will lead to the movement of machines towards the
north-west section of low downtime, and low frequency. In the top-left region,
the action to implement, or the rule that applies, is OTF (operate to failure).
The rule that applies for the bottom-left region is SLU (skill level upgrade)
because data collected from breakdowns – attended by maintenance engineers
– indicate that machine [G] has been visited many times (high frequency) for

DOWNTIME
Low Med. High
10 20
Low 0.T.F. T.P.M. C.B.M.
FREQUENCY

[H] (When?) [F] [B]

5
Med. T.P.M. [I] T.P.M. T.P.M.
(Who?) [J] [E] (What?) [A]
10
High S.L.U. T.P.M. D.O.M. Figure 3.
[G] (How?) [D] [C] Decision making grid
CBM: Condition Based Monitoring OTF: Operate To failure (DMG)
SLU: Skill Level Upgrade DOM: Design Out M/C.
JQME limited periods (low downtime). In other words maintaining this machine is a
4,1 relatively easy task that can be passed to operators after upgrading their skill
levels.
A machine that is located in the top-right region, such as machine [B], is a
problematic machine, in maintenance words “a killer”. It does not break down
frequently (low frequency), but when it stops it is usually a big problem that
70 lasts for a long time (high downtime). In this case the appropriate action to take
is to analyse the breakdown events and closely monitor its condition, i.e.
condition base monitoring (CBM). A tool that is useful for this kind of analysis
is the MCDM system based on AHP where failure criteria and their sub-criteria
are prioritised.
A machine that enters the bottom-right region is considered to be one of the
worst performing machines based on both criteria. It is a machine that
maintenance engineers are used to seeing not working rather than performing
normal operating duty. A machine of this category, such as machine [C], will
need to be structurally modified and major design-out projects need to be
considered, and hence the appropriate rule to implement will be design out
maintenance (DOM).
If one of the antecedents is a medium downtime or a medium frequency, then
the rule to apply is to carry on with the preventive maintenance schedules.
However, not all of the mediums are the same. There are some regions that are
near to the top left corner where it is “easy” TPM because it is near to the OTF
region and it requires re-addressing issues regarding who will perform the
instruction or when will the instruction be implemented. For example, in case of
machines [I] and [J], they are situated in a region between OTF and SLU and the
question is about who will do the instruction – operator, maintenance engineer,
or sub-contractor. Also, a machine such as machine [F] has been shifted from
the OTF region owing to its relatively higher downtime and hence the timing of
instructions needs to be addressed.
Other preventive maintenance schedules need to be addressed in a different
manner. The “difficult” TPM issues are the ones related to the contents of the
instruction itself. It might be the case that the wrong problem is being solved or
the right one is not being solved adequately. In this case machines such as [A]
and [D] need to be investigated in terms of the contents of their preventive
instructions and expert advice is needed.

Industrial case study

This case study demonstrates the application of the proposed model and its
effect on maintenance performance. The application of the model is shown
through the experience of a company seeking to achieve world-class status in
maintenance. The company has implemented the proposed model, which has
had the effect of reducing total downtime from 800 hours per month to less than
100 hours per month as shown in Figure 4.
 Breakdown Trends (hrs.) World-class
1200 maintenance

1000

800 71

600

400

200
Figure 4.
Total breakdown trends
0 per month
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Company background and methodology

The company is in the automotive sector producing roof systems and is part of
one of the world leaders in the design and manufacture of automotive systems.
In this particular company there are 130 machines, varying from robots, and
machine centres, to manually operated assembly tables. Notice that in this case
study, only two criteria are used (frequency and downtime). However, if more
criteria are included such as spare parts cost and scrap rate, the model becomes
multi dimensional, with low, medium, and high ranges for each identified
criterion.
The methodology implemented in this case was to follow three steps. These
steps are: criteria analysis, decision mapping, and decision support, and are
presented in Figure 5.

Step 1: criteria analysis

As indicated earlier the aim of this phase is to establish a Pareto analysis of two
important criteria: downtime, the main concern of production; and frequency of
calls, the main concern of maintenance. The objective of this phase is to assess
how bad are the worst performing machines for a certain period of time, say one
month. The worst performers in both criteria are sorted and grouped into high,
medium, and low sub-groups. This is presented in Figure 6.

Step 2: decision mapping

The aim of this step is twofold; it scales high, medium, and low groups and
hence genuine worst machines in both criteria can be monitored on this grid. It
also monitors the performance of different machines and suggest appropriate
actions, as explained earlier. This step is shown in Figure 7.
JQME
4,1

72

Figure 5.
Steps for decision
analysis

Figure 6.
Step 1: criteria analysis
 World-class
maintenance

73

Figure 7.
Step 2: decision
mapping

Step 3: decision support

Once the worst performing machines are identified and the appropriate action
is suggested, it is now a case of identifying the cost of each action, or the
amount of money expected to be saved if the appropriate action is implemented.
This is done by multiplying the hourly rate of production hours by the number
of production operators allocated on those machines by the hours wasted in
each machine and then averaging the value for each category. This step is
shown in Figure 8.

Results
The results of implementing the decision making grid have been a continuous
reduction in total downtime, as indicated in breakdown trend in Figure 4. Notice
that although the same grid is used every month, the range of the scales differs.
Since breakdown duration has been reduced, accordingly the scale had to be
altered. For example, what used to be considered a “low” downtime (five hours
or less) is now considered a “medium” range, and what used to be considered
“medium”, is now a “high” value. When big problems are dealt with, the
attention is focused on smaller ones and they are treated as major problems.
This shows that a process of continuous improvement is being implemented. In
addition, even when the scale is tightened, there is seldom any machine in the
DOM region which shows that a total shift towards the favourable north-west
zone of the grid is being achieved.
JQME
4,1

74

Figure 8.
Step 3: decision support

Discussion and conclusion

The main objective of this paper is to emphasise the fact that the right policy to
counter any mode of failure is that which improves the life cycle profit or most
reduces the life cycle cost. The logic used throughout our derivation of the
model is aimed at reducing the cause of breakdowns in the form of identifying
and analysing different criteria such as downtime, frequency, spare parts used,
and bottle-neck status. Finding and improving the worst machines is not a new
concept, as it is the core concept of TPM. However, using a formalised decision
analysis approach based on multiple criteria and rule-based system is the
contribution of the presented model.
The decision making grid shown in the case study is considered a map where
the performances of the worst machines are monitored based on multiple
criteria, and actions are taken based on the relative position of the machines in
this grid.
It is sometimes claimed that all items in a series system with no inter-stage
store are of equal importance. This claim is based on the fact that a bottleneck
is the one controlling throughput and hence bottleneck is the sole criterion for
assessment. However, as identified by Goldratt (1986), bottlenecks often change
and when dealing with machines in terms of breakdown criticality, one reduces
their possibility of becoming candidates as bottlenecks by tackling the cause of
failure based on multiple criteria rather than one criterion.
 References World-class
Flynn, B.B., Bates K.A. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “World class manufacturing in the United maintenance
States”, Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute, New Orleans, Decision Science
Institute, USA.
Goldratt, E. and Cox, J. (1986), The Goal – A Process of Ongoing Improvement, North River Press,
Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
Labib, A.W. (1996), “Integrated and interactive appropriate productive maintenance”, PhD thesis,
University of Birmingham, UK.
75
Labib, A.W., Cutting, M.C. and Williams, G.B. (1997b), “Towards a world class maintenance
programme”, Proceedings of CIRP Int. Symposium: Advanced Design & Manufacture In The
Global Manufacturing Era, Hong Kong, 21-22 August .
Labib, A.W., O’Connor, R.F. and Williams, G.B. (1998), “An effective maintenance system using the
analytic hierarchy process”, Journal of Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9 No 2, April.
Labib, A.W., Williams, G.B. and O’Connor, R.F. (1996a), “Formulation of an appropriate productive
maintenance strategy using multiple criteria decision making”, Maintenance Journal, Vol. 11
No 11, April.
Labib, A.W., Williams, G.B. and O’Connor, R.F. (1996b), “An intelligent decision analysis
maintenance system: application of AHP and fuzzy logic”, Proceedings of The Fourth
International Symposium on AHP, Vancouver, Canada, 12-16 July.
Labib, A.W., Williams, G.B. and O’Connor, R.F. (1997a), “Deriving a maintenance strategy through
the application of an MCDM methodology”, (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical
Systems, No. 448, Multiple Criteria Decision Making), Proceedings of the 12th Int. Conference,
Germany, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Mackenzie, J. (1997), “Turn your company’s strategy into reality”, Manufacturing Mgmt, January,
pp. 6-8.
Olafsson, S.V. (1990), “An analysis for total productive maintenance implementation”, MSc thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic and State University, USA.

View publication stats