Overview

More than a few persons describe their maintenance planning function by how well their computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) works. Many of these persons profess that "everything will be perfect" when they fully implement their CMMS. Similarly, many persons wonder why planning "does not quite seem to be working" even though they have installed an expensive CMMS. Unfortunately, planning is not simply "using a computer" and just because a company has a computer does not mean it even has a planning function. The CMMS can be a tremendous resource for planning, but it is not planning itself.

Perhaps unreasonable expectations contribute to disappointment for many purchasers of maintenance computer systems. Larry Beck (1996) relates survey results of manufacturing executives that indicate they typically require minimal cost justification before implementing such systems. Many of these executives expect productivity gains, but may not have specific reasons why the CMMS should deliver such improvements. David Berger (1997) says that the "failure rate" of CMMS package implementation is commonly thought to be about 50%, depending on one's definition of "failure." Christer Idhammar (1998) places the "success rate" for CMMS packages at only 18%.

Companies must look at computer systems as simply another tool. They are certainly not the ultimate remedy to one's maintenance troubles. Nevertheless, a CMMS is an important tool, an information tool. Moreover, a CMMS is not a tool for just the maintenance staff; it is a tool for the entire plant or company. Thus, many companies call their computer system...