CMMS Implementation. The sale of Ferrybridge Power Station along with its sister station Fiddlers Ferry meant that both stations had to replace their existing Computerised Maintenance Management System (CMMS).
What were the client goals and aims? The new system selected was Mainsaver, from Spidex with a separate system (Sun Financials) being selected as the financial system. It was decided that Mainsaver would be the ‘master’ system with all receipts, purchase orders, and invoicing matching being performed within it. A customised interface would have to be written to allow financial information to be transferred to Sun from which all payments would be made.
The implementation of the new system was to run in parallel at both stations had to be achieved in time for the outage, with the intent that Mainsaver and MIMs (the existing CMMS) would be run in concurrently for approximately six weeks. A ‘Go-live’ date of 1st May was selected, allowing just twelve weeks for implementation. The short implementation timescale meant that it was not possible to fully test the system before go-live and a number of the problems encountered immediately after go-live at Ferrybridge can be attributed to this.
What were the client’s needs and challenges? At Ferrybridge the Mainsaver database was populated electronic with the following amount of information:
- 38,000 plant items transferred into a hierarchical asset register
- 25,000 stock items transferred (value of £8.5 million reconciled to £58 on transfer)
- 200+ employee records transferred
- 1,000 + SWI’s and Planned Preventive Maintenance routines transferred (these have 10,000+ spares attached)
During Implementation, it was identified that the time taken to completely process a Work Order (i.e. from raising a Work Order through planning and eventually closing) was reduced by 50% and entry of a Work Order now requires just six ‘mouse’ clicks.
Streamlining of the business processes has to lead to a reduction in the number of process steps in the Maintenance, Finance, Procurement and stores process maps of 21%. A proportion of these steps have been removed by the combining of process maps, however, it is estimated that there is a 10% saving in the number of processes due to process improvements.
The implementation was slightly hampered on ‘Go-live’ by the station network being upgraded to a Windows 2000 operating system. An interim solution was to use Cytrix Meta frame, however, this created some problems with data retrieval and Work Order printing. When the Windows 2000 rollout is completed these problems will be eradicated in the meantime workaround solutions to these problems were found.
In general, given the large amount of data transferred, the level of customisation and the short implementation timescales the implementation of the system can be said to be very successful.
How did MCP satisfy the needs and meet the goals? Workflow diagrams and process maps were developed from information collected during a series of workshops held with representatives from teams across the site and from MVI technology. Building upon the process maps for business processes interfacing with MIMs new maps were developed that streamlined the processes and ensured that these were accurately modelled within Mainsaver.
A number of the original processes remained unchanged, however, improved functionality by Mainsaver will ensure that benefits are still gained in these areas. The asset criticality modelled within Mainsaver was developed from the information contained in the Engineering Risk Assessment. Where information was not available criticality categories were cascaded either from or to the parent equipment. The results of the criticality assignments were reviewed by AEP staff and generally found to be correct.
System codes were developed in conjunction with AEP staff at a number of workshops. The codes developed reflected station requirements and current best practice. These codes were then distributed to the station teams for verification with a final check being performed during the Conference room pilots.
Analysis of the workflows and the organisational roles and responsibilities, outlined in the maintenance strategy, ensuring that system outputs (Reports suite) were developed in support of station requirements. Station staff reviewed the suggested reports and a definitive document produced from which the reports were written.
MVI technology produced data mapping templates in MS Excel, data was extracted from MIMs, manually verified of manipulated and then transferred into the templates in preparation for transfer by MVI staff. All data was verified before and after transfer by AEP staff to ensure its validity.
- Process Mapping
Existing processes for maintenance workflow, stores, procurement, finance and HR were developed in management workshops. These processes were then mapped and the maps examined to identify unnecessary stages and interface points with the CMMS and other systems. Analysis in this way allowed an overall reduction of 21% in the total number of stages. The cost-benefit of this is best illustrated by the differences in the corrective maintenance workflow:
– Number of stages in workflow reduced by 35 (96 to 61) giving a 32% saving
– Analysis of workload shows that on average 35 jobs per day were completed in 2001. If each stage of the workflow takes an estimated 1 min (conservative), the saving is 4,000 man hours, pa. This represents a saving of £ 80,000 at an average of £20 per hour.
- Criticality Assessment
All 38,000 assets in the asset register have been assigned a criticality rating. The ratings used are A, B, C & D, ‘A’ being the most critical. The ratings were based on the results of the Engineering Risk Assessment. Where equipment was not analysed during the risk assessment the results were cascaded from parent equipment. By doing this electronically and using logical algorithms for the cascading of results all 38,000 assets were assigned a criticality in just five days.
- Data Mapping & Transfer
At Ferrybridge the CMMS implementation was replacing an old system, this meant that data was available electronically in the database. This data was extracted, verified and used to populate the new system. The transfer was electronic which allowed the new database to be populated with the following amount of information:
– 38,000 plant items transferred into a hierarchical asset register
– 25,000 stock items transferred (value of £8.5 million reconciled to £58 on transfer)
– 200+ employee records transferred
– 1,000 + SWI’s and Planned Preventive Maintenance routines transferred (these have 10,000+ spares attached)
Data extraction, verification and transfer were completed within 12 weeks.
- System Codes
System Codes also developed for:
- Work Group
- Work Class
- Work Type
- Work Order Status
Asset Group codes defined. These group codes were assigned fault codes and attached to the assets within the asset register. Fault, Cause remedy codes, were created and relationships between the codes defined
Spreadsheets were created with code macros that enabled the data tables containing the full Fault, Cause, remedy hierarchy structure. These tables were then exported to the new database, this methodology allowed the 120,000+ possible relationship links to be generated and entered into the CMMS in just one day.
- Management Reports
A suite of management reports was developed to monitor and improve asset care performance. In broad terms the reports can be grouped under three main headings:
- General Performance Reports
– Provide information that will be used within the process workflows.
– E.g. No of open Work Orders
- KPI Reports
– Provide information that will be used To drive improvements
– E.g. No repeat failures
- Exception reports
– Used to monitor the correct use of the system
– E.g. Number of work orders that have no actual hours reported
The actual reports were then written by the CMMS vendors and included in the final ‘go live’ version of the CMMS.