-
Subscribe to Blog:
SEARCH THE BLOG
CATEGORIES
- Aerospace
- Asset Maintenance
- Automotive
- Blog
- Building Products
- Case Studies
- Chemical Processing
- Consulting
- Food & Beverage
- Forestry Products
- Hospitals & Healthcare
- Knowledge Transfer
- Lean Manufacturing
- Life Sciences
- Logistics
- Manufacturing
- Material Utilization
- Metals
- Mining
- News
- Office Politics
- Oil & Gas
- Plastics
- Private Equity
- Process Improvement
- Project Management
- Spend Management
- Supply Chain
- Uncategorized
- Utilities
- Whitepapers
BLOG ARCHIVES
- September 2024 (1)
- August 2024 (5)
- July 2024 (6)
- June 2024 (3)
- May 2024 (3)
- April 2024 (4)
- March 2024 (3)
- February 2024 (4)
- January 2024 (5)
- December 2023 (2)
- November 2023 (1)
- October 2023 (6)
- September 2023 (3)
- August 2023 (4)
- July 2023 (2)
- June 2023 (3)
- May 2023 (7)
- April 2023 (3)
- March 2023 (3)
- February 2023 (5)
- January 2023 (6)
- December 2022 (2)
- November 2022 (5)
- October 2022 (5)
- September 2022 (5)
- August 2022 (6)
- July 2022 (3)
- June 2022 (4)
- May 2022 (5)
- April 2022 (3)
- March 2022 (5)
- February 2022 (4)
- January 2022 (7)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (5)
- October 2021 (3)
- September 2021 (2)
- August 2021 (6)
- July 2021 (2)
- June 2021 (10)
- May 2021 (4)
- April 2021 (5)
- March 2021 (5)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (3)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (3)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (3)
- June 2020 (5)
- May 2020 (3)
- April 2020 (3)
- March 2020 (4)
- February 2020 (4)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (2)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (2)
- August 2019 (4)
- July 2019 (3)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (4)
- March 2019 (4)
- February 2019 (5)
- January 2019 (5)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (2)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (2)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (3)
- April 2018 (3)
- March 2018 (2)
- February 2018 (2)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (1)
- November 2017 (2)
- October 2017 (2)
- September 2017 (1)
- August 2017 (2)
- July 2017 (2)
- June 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (3)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (2)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (3)
- August 2016 (6)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (4)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (3)
- March 2016 (4)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (4)
- December 2015 (3)
- November 2015 (3)
- October 2015 (1)
- September 2015 (1)
- August 2015 (4)
- July 2015 (6)
- June 2015 (4)
- May 2015 (7)
- April 2015 (6)
- March 2015 (6)
- February 2015 (4)
- January 2015 (3)
CONNECT WITH US
Tag Archives: CMMS Technology
The preventive maintenance methodology has become industry standard. An estimated 80% of asset and facilities stakeholders now leverage preventive workflows, while approximately half take advantage of predictive maintenance tools meant to further enhance such forward-thinking processes, per research from Advanced Technology Services and Plant Engineering. Why are so many businesses embracing this approach? The return on investment can be immense. Some see maintenance savings of between 12% and 18% percent, on top of the revenue-generating performance improvements that naturally unfold as a consequence of machine uptime increases, according to Transcendent. Companies on the outside looking in on the emergence and solidification of the PM model typically view these developments with considerable envy and race to keep up with the competition. However, firms attempting to play catch-up at hyperspeed often encounter roadblocks — most notably, the perceived cost of implementation.
Redesigning existing maintenance workflows is neither easy nor expense-free. These essential backend processes support production activities that directly affect the bottom line, and changing them, even incrementally, might seem risky, especially for organizations with thinner margins. However, the long-term costs that come with hanging on to reactive maintenance methodologies could very well outweigh the expenses incurred as a product of PM implementation and the shop floor disruption that could accompany such a move. Organizations looking to embark on this transition would be wise to unpack the entire cost equation and determine the potential ROI.
Understanding PM implementation costs
The Preventive Maintenance (PM) concept is easy to understand — focus on equipment upkeep and optimization, and address small mechanical deficiencies before they devolve into bigger problems bound to cause downtime. The idea is far more complicated in practice, however. To actually achieve PM implementation, maintenance stakeholders must navigate a multistage process that begins with program design. This initial phase normally involves establishing an overarching PM objective. Some organizations move forward with PM implementation with the sole purpose of saving money, while others want to ensure optimal shop floor performance. Choosing an end goal establishes the foundation for effective program development. Here, maintenance experts — ideally those intimately familiar with OEM requirements, Plant Engineering reported — design granular equipment management processes, including rotating and reciprocating mechanical component lubrication.
Once maintenance personnel have developed an effective PM plan, they can move forward with deployment. This normally entails scheduling mission-critical PM tasks through computerized maintenance management software and training the staff members who will execute these actions. To ensure long-term PM sustainability, stakeholders will create and release program management and communication workflows that facilitate adherence and continuous improvement. This process requires considerable effort and can come with an equally substantial price tag. According to Plant Engineering, the expense breakdown might include items like this:
- Mechanic reassignment: Businesses often find themselves reassigning top-notch mechanics to oversee PM program design. This move could disrupt maintenance operations and potentially have a material impact on production, should serious equipment issues arise.
- Ancillary component installation: PM implementation sometimes requires the purchase of smaller mechanical components or accessories — infrared scanning guns for equipment heat checks and automated lubrication for scheduled machine conditioning, for instance — that are key to PM success.
- CMMS implementation: For firms without CMMS technology, installing one of these platforms is almost essential. Pricing for CMMS software varies. Pared-down versions might cost as little as $40 per user per month, while more robust platforms featuring customized features could require larger investments, TechRadar reported.
- Vendor onboarding: PM tasks such as equipment lubrication management can become overwhelming for internal maintenance teams, which is why some organizations end up outsourcing these processes to external vendors. This improves efficiency and saves time but costs money.
These are a handful of the most common expenses organizations navigating PM implementation encounter. However, the costs sometimes do not stop here — under-the-radar expenses can materialize post launch, per researchers from Oniqua Enterprise Analytics. These extra amounts actually come from over-maintenance. This occurs when maintenance teams become overly focused on equipment optimization and establish work intervals that are far too short, meaning staff members execute upkeep activities so often that both time and resources go to waste. A surprisingly large number of firms make this mistake, according to analysts for Oniqua, who found that 80% of PM tasks unfold over a period of 30 days or fewer and that 30% to 40% of these duties are applied to equipment that has little to no impact on uptime.
Assessing PM implementation ROI
While the aforementioned costs can certainly make PM implementation seem overwhelming, the operational returns that come with embracing this approach typically make these initial expenses easier to swallow. For example, researchers for ReliaSoft estimated that organizations with reactive maintenance operations in place pay around $8 per replacement part, while those with PM strategies spend just $2 per new equipment component. Additionally, PM programs often catalyze shop floor improvements that could only be achieved through purchasing new machinery. An operation that implements such an initiative might pay $100,000 per year to maintain PM workflows that increase capacity by 25% — a gain that would require an upfront equipment investment of $500,000 and $200,000 in annual staffing and asset management work, Reliable Plant reported. Together, PM-related cost reductions and productivity boosts can generate big returns, according to Jones Lange LaSalle, which found that some adopters stood to 545% ROI.
This sort of improvement is simply too significant to pass up for most modern businesses, particularly small and medium manufacturers, many of whom are just getting by within today’s fluid marketplace. That said, pursuing PM implementation can be an immensely daunting task for all organizations, regardless of sector or size. Here at USC Consulting Group, we have been helping companies across a variety of industries navigate PM implementation for decades, leveraging proven techniques and tools that simplify change management and lay the foundation for sustainable organizational growth via continuous operational improvement.
Contact us today to learn more about our work and how we can help your business embrace the Preventive Maintenance methodology.