Overview

Traditional maintenance programs-those structured on a combination of PMs, overhauls, cals, and repairs-have been revolutionized by the advent of CMMSs. Maintenance planners have loaded activity identified by vendor O&M manuals and implemented them in the form of time-based activities. Where done completely-such as in nuclear power plants-the consequences were surprising.

It's always been difficult to perform all the work, work performance was often inefficient sometimes very inefficient. Direct work request input and WO generation amplified trip and coordination time. Without a method to organize, consolidate, and perform work within the utility process environment, a complex, stagnant maintenance picture emerged. Schedulers and planners were added to cope with this workload-sometimes to little avail.

Companies with billions invested in facilities often formally budget little to maintenance plan development-even though production losses from load reductions, extended outages, and unit trips translate into millions in lost sales. This can be tolerated in the regulated environment with capital investment guaranteed returns. In competitive industries-refining, chemicals, fibers, process and manufacturing-maintenance losses cannot be tolerated.

Culturally, maintenance is an unglamorous backshop where status quo has been accepted. It hasn't achieved recognition as a strategic function supporting production. Traditional accounting treats maintenance as a variable cost of production. It is required simply to keep a facility in operating condition. But if investment in production is necessary to support revenues, then maintenance is a viable production investment. Industries squeezed by cash flow have tried to cut maintenance...