Shipyards & Container Ports

REM – effective centralised approach to maintenance management

Background

Question – How do large, integrated production facilities cut the cost of downtime to prevent this major factor affecting the cost-effectiveness of the group as a whole?

Review of Equipment Maintenance (REM)
The client has an extensive range of asset classes which are maintained by either in-house or specialist maintenance service providers.
A Computerised Maintenance Management Software (CMMS) package is used to plan, issue and collect completed work requests; this includes preventive maintenance. The work order system is paper-based and there is a proposal to replace the CMMS within the next two / three years.
A previous consultancy project identified approximate job times for maintenance tasks and these results were used as the basis for reducing employee numbers. However, it is believed that this research did not reflect the full workload and there is scope for improving the preventive maintenance requirements.

Solution

The existing CMMS system was populated with a wide range of electronic data, but the regions operated in silos which resulted in a lack of consistency in the data and system use.

MCP recognised that there were pockets of excellence across the regions with subject matter experts dispersed across the wider group. However, there was no one central repository for quality information or document control.

It was known that the existing Planned Maintenance (PM) plans were deficient with few policy documents in place that defined the activity strategy. There was a significant opportunity for the development of a library of standardised PM plans which could then be controlled by a newly formed Centre of Excellence (CoE).

The client indicated that the current maintenance strategy and PM plans were the result of the ‘best endeavours’ of the regional management and a large amount of the maintenance undertaken has evolved from previous experience. The REM project offered the opportunity to create a library of meaningful PM plans that would deliver the right maintenance, at the right time, by the right people and for the right reasons.

How did MCP satisfy the needs and meet the goals?

Stage one – Existing information
The first stage of the process was to obtain the existing asset information from the CMMS system. Initially, the client indicated that they were confident in the data, which they felt was 80% correct. However, it quickly became clear that the asset information was far from complete.

High multiple assets, such as bollards, marine safety equipment, etc., had previously been grouped but showed obvious regional differences in the way these high multiple assets were categorised. It became clear that the data required cleansing prior to processing.

Stage two – REM strategy
MCP applied a REM project strategy – REM has been utilised previously for many of MCP’s clients in various sectors across the globe. The asset criticality assessment was amended to be sector relevant. The client defined the classifications and maturity levels, which were required to provide a consistent assessment across all ports within the group.

The asset criticality assessment was undertaken and an ‘Asset Importance Factor’ applied to each asset. This data was then taken forward to the maintenance review phase.

The Mainsaver information for maintenance frequency, discipline, task-time and PM plan was assessed and challenged according to the previously defined ‘Importance Factor’. Once understood, the process was challenged again. The maintenance engineers and technicians were involved to ensure that best practice and engineering knowledge was applied to baseline maintenance activity.

Stage three – Review phase
In the review process, the assessment of existing PM plans was completed. This led to the categorisation of the PM plans dependant upon their state – absent, deficient or satisfactory.

Where required, MCP created new PM plans, revised existing, deficient PM plans and updated satisfactory PM plans to ensure a consistent matrix was produced. This led to a library of PM plans, which are centrally owned and controlled by the Centre of Excellence (CoE).

Stage four – Final phase
The final phase of the REM process was to understand the variance in maintenance activity between the current maintenance undertaking and the future, proposed, state.

This also allowed for a proposal relating to skill requirements and labour loads.

Outcomes

The outcomes of the REM project so far have assisted:

1. Asset Criticality / Asset Importance
CMMS information for 15,484 assets was provided, which lead to a total of 9,412 assets (59%) being assessed after the data was cleansed and prepared for analysis.

Of those assessed, the ‘Importance Factor’ distribution was 233 High (2.5%), 609 Medium (6.5%) and 8574 Low (91%). This provided a high level of opportunity for the reduction in Planned Maintenance hours as the output indicated that many assets were over maintained.

2. Review of Equipment Maintenance
The existing PM information, taken from the CMMS system, was analysed. It was calculated that to fulfil the current Planned Maintenance – 100% complete – a total of 55,381 annual hours was required. Analysis of the 10 years of data indicated that the average number of annual planned maintenance hours recorded consistently fell short of this figure.

Upon completion of the REM process, it was calculated that the hours required for planned maintenance could be reduced to 19,891. One region indicated that there was as much as a 79% of the potential reduction in maintenance hours with the remaining regions averaging a 30% potential reduction.

The hours were subcategorised by region and discipline to provide a proposal for each maintenance team.

3. Maintenance Plans
Maintenance plans for all planned maintenance activity, across the ports, which have been assessed so far, have been provided in a standard format. These can be implemented without the need for a CMMS system or imported into the current CMMS system. In addition, these will be integrated into the new CMMS system, currently being implemented.

All planned maintenance plans proposed have been accepted by the regions and are awaiting implementation.

4. Group Policy Information
Throughout the process, MCP noted the inconsistent application of policy requirements. It was found to relate to the format and tabulation of the policy data. MCP proposed a revised policy matrix, which will provide a clearer format for the maintenance teams to interpret.

Find Out More

To find out more information, please call us on +44 (0)121 506 9032

Contact Us