Computerized Maintenance Management System CMMS Best Practices Study

Transcription

1 July 2011 Price: $ Computerized Maintenance Management System CMMS Best Practices Study Reliabilityweb.com Reliability Roadmap Asset Management White Paper Series Copyright 2011 Reliabilityweb.com All rights reserved

2 This independent research was conducted and the report was written without commercial sponsorship. We are pleased to gain the endorsement of the enlightened sponsors listed below whose support will allow us to distribute this report without cost to the reader and to conduct more important research in the future. Sponsoring Organizations TM Supporting Organizations

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary...5 General Information...8 Implementation...13 CMMS Use...24 Sustainability...35 Summary...46 About the Authors

4 Figures Executive Figure 1: Survey Participants Count by Company Plant Size...7 Figure 2: Survey Participants Percent by Company Plant Size...7 General Figure 3: Survey Participants by CMMS Type...8 Figure 4: Survey Participants by CMMS Type and Level of Satisfaction...9 Figure 5: CMMS Implementation Time Frame...10 Figure 6: CMMS Integration with Other Applications...11 Figure 7: CMMS Hosted Location vs. CMMS Satisfaction Level...12 Implementation Figure 8: Cost to Install vs. Satisfaction Level by Percent of Respondents...14 Figure 9: Cost to Install vs. Satisfaction Level for Single and 100+ Sites...15 Figure 10: ROI Achieved by Respondent Count...17 Figure 11: Resources Used for Implementation by Respondent Count...18 Figure 12: Critical Features for Implementation Top 50%...19 Figure 13: Critical Features for Implementation Bottom 50%...19 Figure 14: CMMS Workflow Customization (2005 vs. 2011)...21 Figure 15: CMMS Software Customization (2005 vs. 2011)...22 Figure 16: Pre-Implementation Training by Satisfaction Level...23 CMMS Usage Figure 17: Features of Importance Top 50%...25 Figure 18: Features of Importance Bottom 50%...25 Figure 19: Excellent Performance Level Top 50% of Features...27 Figure 20: Excellent Performance Level Bottom 50% of Features...27 Figure 21: Top 10 Features vs. Satisfaction Level of CMMS...29 Figure 22: Work Orders Tracked in CMMS by Percent...30 Figure 23: Work Order Count per Month per Type...31 Figure 24: Spares Tracked in CMMS by Percent...32 Figure 25: Extent of Use of CMMS by Job Type...33 Sustainability Figure 26: Annual Spending on Software, Hardware and Training...36 Figure 27: CMMS Version vs. CMMS Satisfaction Level...37 Figure 28: CMMS Integration Plans...38 Figure 29: CMMS Add On Plans vs. Level of Satisfaction...39 Figure 30: New Employee Training Formal/No Training vs. Satisfaction...40 Figure 31: Post Implementation Training by Type by Satisfaction Level...41 Figure 32: Post Implementation Training (None and On The Job)...43 Figure 33: Days of CMMS Management and Hourly Training per Year...44 Figure 34: Days of CMMS Training vs. Satisfaction Level

5 The primary goal of this report is to provide the user community with a broad understanding of how computerized maintenance management systems are employed and where opportunities exist. Executive Summary Gone are the days when the majority of information we use daily in the maintenance and reliability business is performed manually. In fact, many reading this report may not have experienced this phenomenon during their careers. Nevertheless it was a fact of life and fortunately has been replaced by the computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS) currently in use today. Another common name for maintenance management software is Enterprise Asset Management (EAM). For the purpose of this report, the acronyms CMMS and EAM will be synonymous. With computerized maintenance management systems as the backbone of our work processes, it is important to understand the value that these systems add, as well as areas for future growth and improvement. Gaining that level of universal understanding is the purpose behind this survey. The primary goal is to provide the user community with a broad understanding of how computerized maintenance management systems are employed and where opportunities exist. The report addresses this issue in several parts. The first is a general section covering basic CMMS information that provides interesting insights into installation time frames, integration with other applications and where respondents host their CMMS. The second section addresses the CMMS implementation process. While the user community does not implement new CMMS every day, there are some valuable insights in this section for achieving an increased level of satisfaction with the application the next time an implementation or upgrade takes place. The third section addresses usage and performance. Some of the value-added information in this section may 5

6 encourage you to rethink how you use your CMMS and possibly how you can improve its benefit to the organization. The last section discusses sustainability. While this is the last section in the report, it is probably the most important. Even the smallest CMMS implementation is extremely expensive and no one wants to see this investment degrade or fail to deliver the value sought when it is installed. The sustainability section provides you with insight into actions that should be taken to prevent degradation. Reliabiltyweb.com conducted a CMMS survey in 2005 and had 600 responses. At that time, the CMMS survey was identified as the largest survey of its kind to date. The 2011 survey exceeds the 2005 survey results by 100 additional respondents. Furthermore, a great many responded as representatives of multi-plant CMMS users, making the number even greater. Even the smallest CMMS implementation is extremely expensive and no one wants to see this investment degrade or fail to deliver the value sought when it is installed. It should be noted that the total responses on many of the charts do not add up to the 700 total. In many cases, there were blanks (no response) that lowered the total. Some other charts add up to greater than 700 because the respondents were asked to make multiple selections for the question being asked. 6

7 Figure 1: Survey Participants Count by Company Plant Size Number of Respondents Single Plant Location 246 Multiple Plant (2-10 locations) 159 Multiple Plant (11-99 locations) Size of Organization Represented in Response 62 Multiple Plant (100+ locations) Figure 1 shows the number of respondents (701) and how they are distributed by the number of plant sites that the respondents represent. A survey of single plant locations is impressive by itself, let alone the large number of multiple plant responses included in this survey. As expected, the number of respondents decrease as the number of plants being represented increases. It is interesting to note that there is a higher percentage of responses in the 2 to 10 plant range vs. the single plant category. Also noteworthy is that 23% of the responses are from companies with 11 to 99 plant sites. The larger the population the greater the value of the information presented later in this survey. Figure 2: Survey Participants Percent by Company Plant Size 40% 35% 30% 33% 35% Percent of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 23% 9% 5% 0% Single Plant Location Multiple Plant (2-10 locations) Multiple Plant (11-99 locations) Size of Organization Represented in Response Multiple Plant (100+ locations) This figure also provides information about the respondents, with the response categories shown as percentages. It is interesting to note that there is a higher percentage of responses in the 2 to 10 plant range vs. the single plant category. Also noteworthy is that 23% of the responses are from companies with 11 to 99 plant sites. The larger the population the greater the value of the information presented later in this survey since it represents a number of sites far greater than the 701 responses. 7

8 General Information Figure 3: Survey Participants by CMMS Type Number of Respondents Most Popular Others & Most Popular While it is evident that Maximo and SAP represent a large market share, it is also evident that there are a considerable number of companies using other applications to address their CMMS requirements. Figure 3 depicts the CMMS applications employed by respondents. As expected, SAP and Maximo account for 24% and 21%, respectively or 45% of all of the responding companies. Also of interest are several other items: Seventy-six or 11% of the responding companies use one-off applications. This appears to be a very large number for single applications. Some may have been counted as single applications due to spelling differences since respondents were asked to identify their application if it was not listed. 24% of the companies, while their CMMS applications are not one of the Most Popular, are using applications shared by 10 or less of the other respondents. CMMS in-house created applications rank fourth in the Most Popular list or 4%. Respondents with no CMMS ranked eighth on the Most Popular list. This information points to further examination on how these applications rate by level of satisfaction among the user community. While it is evident that Maximo and SAP represent a large market share, it is also evident that there are a considerable number of companies using other applications to address their CMMS requirements. 8

9 e # 4 (Survey Par0cipants by CMMS Type and Level of Sa0sfac0on) Figure 60% 4: Survey Participants by CMMS Type and Level of Satisfaction Percent of Respondents SAP / Maximo / Infor EAM Most Popular Ex SAP / Maximo / Infor EAM 50% One Off / Not Most Popular 48% In House 45% 40% 40% 38% 34% 35% 36% 30% 27% 20% 18% 18% 17% A small percentage of respondents rate their CMMS satisfaction level as excellent, regardless of the CMMS they had in place at their plant sites. 10% 8% 12% 8% 10% 6% 0% Poor Fair Good Excellent Sa@sfac@on Level with the CMMS In Figure 4, we delve deeper into the applications in use and the level of reported satisfaction with the various CMMS categories identified in the chart. Note that the sum of the percentages for each application type totals 100%. Of interest are the following points: A small percentage of respondents rate their CMMS satisfaction level as excellent, regardless of the CMMS they had in place at their plant sites. SAP, Maximo and Infor EAM receive a good rating from almost 50% of the Maximo/SAP/Infor EAM respondents, which should be expected from these state-of-the-industry applications. The in-house CMMS users rated their satisfaction level uniformly across the fair and good categories. However, the in-house statistics have low value as indicators since there are less than 2% of the survey population that fit this category. The one-off and not Most Popular applications also were rated better than one would expect from CMMS applications that have very few installs across the respondent survey data. 9

10 Figure 5: CMMS Implementation Time Frame Number of Respondents Maximo SAP Other This speaks well of the recognition of CMMS in supporting the effectiveness and efficiency of the maintenance function Period in Which CMMS Was Implemented This chart depicts the period in which the CMMS applications covered in the survey were installed. The data shows the two largest applications in the survey, Maximo and SAP, and all of the others as a single number. Separate data bars show each application within a date range. It can be concluded from the data that even though the date ranges are rather broad, virtually all organizations have upgraded their CMMS from the application or a version they had in place prior to This speaks well of the recognition of CMMS in supporting the effectiveness and efficiency of the maintenance function. It is also of interest to see the large number of Maximo and SAP installs provided by the survey - greater than one third of the total between 1990 and 2010 and 100% growth between the 1990s and the 2001 to 2010 period. 10

11 Figure 6: CMMS Integration with Other Applications Number of Respondents As an organization matures and shifts from reactive to proactive work practices, we should expect the number of integrated systems to increase in the future. 0 When asked about the integration of the respondents CMMS with other asset health and asset performance management systems, only 111 or 16% of the survey population indicated that their CMMS was in fact integrated. There are several possible reasons for this: While there is recognition of the value that an asset health management system can provide if integrated, the non-integrated organizations may not have matured to the level that purchasing the software and making the connection can be justified. The current CMMS application is providing the proper level of asset health management support and addressing the business needs so it is believed there is no need for integration. The practice of asset health management has not yet been recognized and consequently there is no interest in moving in this direction at the present time. In any case, as an organization matures and shifts from reactive to proactive work practices, we should expect the number of integrated systems to increase in the future. 11

12 Figure 7: CMMS Hosted Location vs. CMMS Satisfaction Level Percent of Respondents per Category 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 64% 63% 61% 62% 31% 33% 29% 31% 5% 8% 6% 7% Poor Fair Good Excellent Installed on a corporate server Installed on a local plant server Hosted by the CMMS/EAM vendor A Computerized Maintenance Management System is a key enabler of best practices, allowing control of the work management process while providing an effective way to initiate, plan, and schedule large volumes of work. Level of Satisfaction with CMMS Figure 7 looks at where the respondent CMMS is hosted. To gain a deeper understanding of this subject, the data has been sorted by the level of expressed CMMS satisfaction. This was done to see if any particular hosting strategy was perceived to deliver greater value than others. The data shows that the percent associated with each hosting option is virtually the same regardless of the level of satisfaction the respondents expressed about their CMMS. In addition, the majority of respondents (approximately 60%) host their CMMS on a corporate server. This is a much more efficient approach than hosting on local plant servers due to consistency of operation problems and upgrading software issues. Although low at present, vendor hosting (approximately 6%) should be expected to increase in the future as companies begin to see this approach as a more economical solution to their CMMS issues and upgrades. There are organizations that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (and in some cases millions of dollars) to acquire and implement a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and are very dissatisfied with it. There are other organizations that are satisfied with their CMMS but are failing to utilize the features that could create so much more value. A Computerized Maintenance Management System is a key enabler of best practices, allowing control of the work management process while providing an effective way to initiate, plan, and schedule large volumes of work. 12

13 Implementation Quote from CMMS responses A key to successful implementation and training is the use of both internal and vendor resources to give the training the right technical depth and company perspective. In the scheme of things, the next most important aspect of CMMS use within plant sites is the implementation process. How the CMMS is implemented has far-reaching effects on the organization far into the future. A good implementation provides a strong foundation on which to build value-added processes, procedures and an asset information system upon which sound business decisions can be made by all levels of management. On the other hand, a poor implementation has severe negative impacts on the organization and once recognized will be extremely expensive and time consuming to correct. 13

14 Figure 8: Cost to Install vs. Satisfaction Level by Percent of Respondents Percent of Respondents 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 6% 6% Satisfaction = Fair to Poor 8% 10% 4% 6% 9% 10% Satisfaction = Good to Excellent 7% 10% 6% 9% 5% 4% A conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that the amount of money spent is not overly related to CMMS satisfaction level. 2% 0% 5,000+ 1,00 to 5, to 1, to to to 25 Less then 5 Cost to Install CMMS ($X1,000) Figure 8 examines the cost of the CMMS implementation with a reference to expressed satisfaction levels noted by the respondents. Initially one would suspect that the more money spent the higher the level of satisfaction with the install. From the above chart, that does not appear to be the case. The difference in those satisfied or dissatisfied with their CMMS in the various spending categories is not significantly different from one another. A conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that the amount of money spent is not overly related to CMMS satisfaction level. As we shall see in other charts within this section, there are other aspects of the installation process that respondents felt were far more important. Direct Cost of a CMMS Software licensing Consulting services Hardware/Network Implementation services Internal resources Data cleansing Data entry Training Help Desk Additional Costs Considerations Software maintenance Hardware updates Labor support Data support MRO catalog service Custom reports Related conferences and user groups Ongoing training 14

15 Figure 9: Cost to Install vs. Satisfaction Level for Single and 100+ Sites 120% 5,000K$ + 1,000 to 5,000K$ 500 to 1,000K$ 100 to 500K$ Less than 100K$ Respondents with 100+ Sites 120% Respondents for Single Sites How the CMMS is implemented has far-reaching effects on the organization far into the future. Percent of Respondents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 25% 31% 25% 7% 10% 7% 21% 38% 21% 14% Fair - Poor Good - Excellent Percent of Respondents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 4% 4% 11% 8% 12% 13% 15% 17% 59% 58% Fair - Poor Good - Excellent Satisfaction Level with CMMS Satisfaction Level with CMMS s Respondents for Single Sites 120% 31% 7% 10% 38% Percent of Respondents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 4% 11% 8% 12% 13% 15% 17% 59% 58% 14% Excellent 0% Fair - Poor Good - Excellent S Satisfaction Level with CMMS To further explore the cost aspect of CMMS installation, the above charts were developed. The first chart above shows the spending level for those respondents representing companies with 100+ plant sites and the above chart represents single sites. Both are divided by satisfaction level either fair to poor or good to excellent. 15

16 As expected, the majority of single site installations were less than $100,000. This occurred in almost 60% of the cases, with the larger costs being relatively the same at the higher implementation expenditure levels. Since about one third of the respondents represent single site companies, this is to be expected. Also expected are higher levels of spending for more sophisticated installs such as Maximo and SAP. The data from the 100+ sites provides more insight about these larger company responses as follows: As expected, the majority of single site installations were less than $100,000. Those who spent less than $100,000 had a higher level of dissatisfaction with their CMMS. For respondents representing companies with 100+ sites, this makes a great deal of sense. Those who spent greater than $5 million had a higher rate of satisfaction but not significantly greater. This further supports the conclusion drawn in Figure 8 that higher costs are not a major driver of satisfaction. Those spending between $100,000 and $5 million when added together represent 53% with fair to poor satisfaction levels and 55% with good to excellent. Once again, spending does not seem to be a differentiator between satisfaction levels. 16

17 Figure 10: ROI Achieved by Respondent Count No ROI Created ROI NOT Achieved A successful CMMS install and use is very dependent on the work process and other plant issues that go far beyond the functionality of the software. ROI Achieved Count of Respondents in Each Category From looking at Figure 10 one would conclude that return on investment (ROI) is not a key component of management s decision to install a company CMMS. However when you consider Figure 5, almost two-thirds of the CMMS have been installed in the last 10 years. This would lead one to presume that the reason no ROI was created was that the applications were being upgraded vs. those that would be considered new installations. Respondents who did report on ROI could account for those companies that were installing new CMMS applications or were upgrading from a simpler system to one of the majors Maximo or SAP. If this is the case, it is interesting to note that more respondents reported that ROI was not achieved compared to those who achieved it. There may be a reason for this, although it was not captured within the survey data. A successful CMMS install and use is very dependent on the work process and other plant issues that go far beyond the functionality of the software. In fact, the software is more of an enabler of improved processes as it is a stand-alone cost benefit to a company. Nevertheless, senior management often requires that a ROI for software be created. This is done so that the acquisition can be justified and funded as a project. The problem is that this ROI is often far from measurable and consequently may explain the 190 respondents that stated their ROI was not achieved. Cost Benefits From Effective CMMS Use Increased production due to asset uptime Reduced material use Reduced inventory value Reduced labor Improved safety and environmental compliance Regulatory compliance Better management of capital projects Energy savings Ongoing continuous improvement process Paper savings 17

18 Figure 11: Resources Used for Implementation by Respondent Count Internal Maint Resources 501 CMMS Vendor Supplied 362 IT or Other Internal 218 3rd Party Training 188 Web Based Training 109 CD ROM or Computer Based Training 87 Other, Please Specify Number of Respondents Quote from CMMS responses You must develop your own in-house experts in order to get what you desire from your CMMS. A consultant will never fully understand your needs as well as you and your team. Getting the right people for implementation is very important. Note Many respondents used multiple sources and as a result the total of all responses on this chart is in excess of the total survey population. Quite often companies do not have internal maintenance resources available to handle a CMMS implementation. A key reason is that work of this nature is a full-time job that can last for several years. For this reason, companies have relied on their CMMS vendors or third party consultants to support their CMMS implementation efforts. As shown in Figure 11, the IT department often plays a major role under the assumption that a CMMS is an IT responsibility. There is a need for a blended approach since each of the top four groups identified on the chart can provide one of many critical components of a successful install. The maintenance organization truly needs to own the effort since they will be the primary users and need to be part of the implementation. The CMMS vendor understands their application better than the company purchasing it and can provide, based on their experience, valuable insight into its development and configuration. IT needs to own the systems part of the effort and therefore needs to be a part of the install. The other critical role they fill is the seamless migration of data from the former system to the new. Third party vendors, usually consultants, also have a great deal of experience in installing the CMMS in a wide variety of companies. As a result, they can add their unique value to the effort. The results in the above chart indicate that in a great many installations, this multi-faceted approach was taken. It is also interesting to see the number of web-based and CD-ROM responses. These are emerging approaches for delivering information to the user as the technology for this form of delivery improves. However, it should be used to supplement, not replace personal and team involvement. 18

19 Figure 12: Critical Features for Implementation Top 50% User Friendly Software (1) Ease of software use (2) Top management support (3) A fully defined maintenance work process (4) The ability to customize the software (5) Tracking KPI's (6) Input from planners & schedulers (7) Top management support is a critical success factor. Senior management must be heavily invested in the support of the effort. Input from craft people (8) 377 The number of reports available (9) A well defined CMMS specification/bid document (10) Number of Respondents Figure 13: Critical Features for Implementation Bottom 50% The amount of features in the software (11) Web based access (12) The cost of the implementation (13) Input from IT department (14) Defining an ROI for the CMMS project (15) The reputation of the software vendor (16) The cost of the training (17) Input from accounting/finance (18) 201 The cost of the software (19) 146 The size of the software vendor (20) Number of Respondents Figures 12 and 13 identify features that respondents felt were critical for a good implementation and ultimate value-added delivery of the CMMS. From the top 10 responses, it is clear that the survey respondents are maintenance and reliability professionals. Had the responses been from senior management, materials management or IT, one would suspect the results may be somewhat different. Nevertheless, since the maintenance organization is the primary user, these responses are very revealing: In the past, not all software was user-friendly or easy to use. This created a problem as the maintenance organization struggled to use the CMMS provided. Often this led to Excel or Access one off development so that those within the maintenance organization could effectively and efficiently execute their jobs. This led to other problems associated with personal databases and the inability to make information available across the system. Fortunately this is improving. Top management support is a critical success factor. Senior management must be heavily invested in the support of the effort. In addition to money, they need to provide resources, time and understanding that CMMS installs are far from simple tasks and require a lot of work. 19

20 Without this level of support, the result is failure, or at the minimum, the inability to achieve the value that a good implementation can provide. Having a well developed work process is also very important. Installing a CMMS focused on planned and scheduled work into a reactive work environment is useless since the process and the CMMS will be at odds with one another from the start and the process will win out rendering the CMMS of little use. Maintenance professionals recognize this and consequently have identified it as a high priority item. The bottom 10 items show the maintenance bias since they address cost, input from others outside the maintenance arena and software vendor information that would normally be important to those orchestrating the bidding process. Nevertheless, even though they are not in the top 10 they are important and should not be overlooked. Quote from CMMS responses The software is only 25% of the solution; without good business processes, trained people and good data it will not succeed. 20

21 Figure 14: CMMS Workflow Customization (2005 vs. 2011) Percentage of Respondents 80% 2011 Changed WorkFlow 70% 70% 2005 Changed WorkFlow 61% 60% 50% 40% 39% 38% 30% 20% Quote from CMMS responses Any customizations you pay for will have to be paid for again when you upgrade. Keep it as out of the box as possible. 10% 0% No Yes Figure 14 looks at whether respondents customized their workflow when installing their CMMS. Additionally, there is data available from the 2005 survey for comparison. This data is interesting since the degree of customization is virtually the same even after 10 years. There are two possible reasons for the high degree of customization. The first is that companies have customized their workflows to move away from a reactive approach to maintenance to one that is more proactive. This would support customizing the workflow, which prior to the CMMS install was reactive in nature and not compatible with CMMS applications that are planning and scheduling focused. Customization of this sort is value added to the maintenance work process. The other less desirable reason is that companies customized the workflow, so even though they were working in a planned and scheduled work environment, the redesigned workflow would fit the software being purchased. This is not a recommended approach since it reduces the effectiveness of what may have been a very efficient way of conducting maintenance. With the flexibility of today s CMMS applications, there are sufficient user-defined fields that eliminate the need for altering a viable workflow to fit the software. 21

22 Figure 15: CMMS Software Customization (2005 vs. 2011) Percentage of Respondents 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 2005 Customized CMMS 2011 Customized CMMS 38% 30% 62% 70% Having a well developed work process is also very important. Installing a CMMS focused on planned and scheduled work into a reactive work environment is useless. 0% No Yes Figure 15 examines the customization of the software. It is hoped that the respondents to this question answered it with reference to the customization of the user-defined fields and not the customization of the CMMS software code. The former is the way current CMMS applications are designed, the latter is dangerous because modified code requires extensive re-work each time the client company wants to accept a vendor-developed upgrade. The belief, absent of additional data, is that the question was answered with reference to the user-defined fields. The reason for this assumption is that the level of customization has increased between 2005 (62%) and the current 2011 survey (70%). This change seems to align with the increase in user-defined fields currently provided by today s software vendors. 22

23 Figure 16: Pre-Implementation Training by Satisfaction Level 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Excelent Good Fair Poor Formal CMMS training handled by the internal maintenance organization led to the highest level of satisfaction. 0% Internal maintenance resources provided training CMMS vendor supplied training 3rd party training IT or other internal company training CD ROM or Computer Based Training Web Based Training Note Since the training process often includes more than one approach, the percentages represented exceed the number of respondents. Another important aspect of the implementation process is training. A poor training program that fails to properly address both the functionality of the software and the supporting maintenance work process has the potential to cause serious problems even before the go live of the application. The Figure 16 chart shows each of the training approaches identified in the survey and the percentage of responses in each category by satisfaction level expressed with the CMMS. Since there are many alternatives for training the workforce in both the software and the associated work process, it is important to recognize the best option that respondents felt delivered the greatest level of user satisfaction. Clearly this is the approach handled by the internal maintenance organization, with training by the CMMS vendor not far behind. The problem with the latter is that most often the CMMS vendor knows its software but not the workflow specific to the site in which the application is being installed. This is supported by the fact that those who employed vendor-supplied training had a low percentage in the excellent category. The other item of note is the high level of CMMS dissatisfaction from those who used a CD-ROM or web-based training approach. That is not to say this approach does not have merit, but it should not replace the other higher scored methods for educating the user community. 23

24 CMMS Use Once the CMMS is properly installed, the next important aspect is how it is used, including the value it delivers to the user community. A really good installation has very little value if the CMMS is not properly used to drive improved maintenance effectiveness and efficiency. Business Drivers for More Effective CMMS Use High equipment downtime High percentage of reactive maintenance work High cost of maintenance work Poor preventive (PM) program Low reliability/mtbf Poor relationship between Operations and Maintenance Poor MRO inventory and purchasing control Poor maintenance records and history Poor management of safety for maintenance staff High overtime and staffing levels 24

25 Figure 17: Features of Importance Top 50% Work Order Management (1) Reporting (2) Spare Parts Management (3) Planning Function (4) Scheduling Function (5) 77% 73% 72% 71% 91% Work order management is cited by 91% of respondents as the most important feature of a CMMS. KPIs (6) 59% Budget/Cost Analysis (7) Document Mgt (8) Condition Monitoring(PdM) (9) RCM (10) Worker Productivity (11) 48% 43% 39% 36% 34% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Respondents Figure 18: Features of Importance Bottom 50% Planning Library (12) Web Browser Based Access (13) Root Cause Analysis (14) 31% 33% 33% Warranty Tracking (15) 28% Project Management (16) Managing Suppliers (17) Managing Contractors (18) 24% 24% 23% Bar Code Readers (19) Portable Data Collectors (20) Wireless Function (21) 17% 16% 19% ASP/Software Rental (22) 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Percentage of Respondents Figures 17 and 18 depict the top 50% and bottom 50% of CMMS related features and their related importance to those who responded to the survey. As expected, the top five correspond to the major steps of the maintenance process and obtaining reports in order to ascertain if the work process is proceeding according to plan. 25

26 The next six, the balance of the top 50%, address supporting processes: KPIs, budget, document management and others that one would expect should have a higher percentage of responses related to importance. Among them: Condition monitoring (39%) is a reliability related feature. It may have a low score due to the less than optimum manner this feature is often addressed. You will notice that in Figure 20, condition monitoring is ranked 20 of 22, very near the bottom of CMMS excellence features, which may support this conclusion. RCM (36%) is also a reliability related feature associated with the identification of equipment failure causes. It may be rated low not because the CMMS has poor features in this area, but rather entering these codes is not a functioning part of the work process. Another reason may pertain to the development of these codes during the implementation phase. If done poorly or not at all may correlate to the low rating of this feature. It is also interesting to note that workforce productivity (34%) is ranked 11 out of a possible 22 in the feature performance ranking. This may be explained by the difficulty of a CMMS to accurately track productivity (the estimated time/the actual time expended) on a work order since the input is often inaccurate. Short of workforce productivity studies, this information is not highly ranked in importance because of its inaccuracy. Features ranked in the bottom 50% are often items not well used in a CMMS, or the CMMS typically does not provide adequate functionality. CMMS users are not expecting integrated functionality for asset health management. 26

27 Figure 19: Excellent Performance Level Top 50% of Features Work Order Management (1) Preventive Maintenance (PM) (2) Spare Parts Management (3) Planning Function (4) 20% 19% 33% 34% Only 34% rated work order management as excellent in their existing CMMS. Scheduling Function (5) 18% Web Browser Based Access (6) 17% KPI (7) 13% Connectivity to Doc Mgt (8) Warranty Tracking (9) Budget/Cost Analysis (10) Worker Productivity (11) 10% 9% 9% 9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Percentage of Respondents Figure 20: Excellent Performance Level Bottom 50% of Features Planning Library (12) 9% Software as a service (13) 8% Managing Suppliers (14) Bar Code Readers (15) 7% 7% Wireless Function (16) RCM (17)) Project Management (18) Managing Contractors (19) Condition Monitoring(PdM) (20) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Portable Data Collectors (21) Root Cause Analysis (22) 5% 5% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Percentage of Respondents Figures 19 and 20 take a different look at CMMS features. These charts represent the stated performance level of each CMMS functionality component segmented into the top and bottom 50%. Of the four performance levels in the survey (poor, fair, good, excellent), we have chosen the excellent category for this analysis. After all, with the CMMS being the backbone of the maintenance system, one would hope that the various components listed in the survey would be rated highly in terms of feature and functionality delivery. It is encouraging to see that the top performance features are those that essentially represent the maintenance work process. However it is not very encouraging to see that respondents felt these features did not perform at a higher percentage level. 27

28 Importance to Respondents Excellent Performance Level Work Order Management 91% Work Order Management 34% Spare Parts Management 73% Spare Parts Management 20% Planning Function 72% Planning Function 19% Scheduling Function 71% Scheduling Function 18% KPIs 59% KPI 13% Budget/Cost Analysis 48% Budget/Cost Analysis 9% Document Mgt 43% Document Mgt 10% Condition Monitoring(PdM) 39% Condition Monitoring(PdM) 6% RCM 36% RCM 6% Users offered low rating of their ability to use their CMMS to plan and schedule maintenance. To take a more detailed look at the top 10 features of importance to respondents, the above table compares them side by side with the percentage ratings in the category of excellent performance. This table is very revealing and somewhat discouraging. Work order and spares management, along with planning and scheduling, are critical components of an effective and efficient maintenance management process as evident by their high ranking in the left hand column showing importance. Yet when we match these up to the opinion of respondents as to whether or not they provide excellence in the respective features, the percentage scores are low with work order management being the highest at 34%. Although this survey cannot draw conclusions supported by highly accurate data; the responses are opinions from those who responded, so this information should be seriously evaluated by the various software vendors to determine the root cause of the misalignment. 28

29 Figure 21: Top Ten Features vs. Satisfaction Level of CMMS Number of Respondents High Level of Need Satisfaction (Excellent- Good) Satisfaction (Fair - Poor) There is a significant disconnect between feature/function level of need and user satisfaction. This would indicate large opportunities for enterprising software engineering and publishing professionals. Work Order Mgt Reporting Spare Parts Mgt Planning Function Scheduling Function KPIs Budget Cost Analysis Document Mgt Condition Monitoring RCM Figure 21 carries this analysis one step beyond the prior charts and table. This chart looks at the top 10 features of importance to respondents and compares them to the respondents satisfaction level in terms of the CMMS performing these functions. Rather than use percentages, it was felt that actual respondent counts would be more revealing. Also note that the reporting feature does not have an associated satisfaction level since it was not a distinct element in the question providing this data. The work management feature, which respondents felt was most needed, has an associated CMMS satisfaction level that one would expect to see. Looking at the chart, 687 of the approximately 700 respondents felt a work order management feature was highly important and 580 felt that its delivery supported a very high level of CMMS satisfaction. Unfortunately the level of satisfaction with the CMMS related to other features decreases and when we reach the element of KPIs, the level of dissatisfaction with the overall CMMS is higher than satisfaction. Again, as in the table, this data shows that software vendors need to conduct further analysis to determine the root cause of the above data discrepancies. 29

30 Figure 22: Work Orders Tracked in CMMS by Percent Percentage of Respondents 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 10% 10% 16% 41% 23% For a CMMS to provide optimum value, it is important to track all work orders within the system. 5% 0% under 25% 25%-50% 50%-75% 75%-95% 100% Percentage of Work Orders Tracked in CMMS For a CMMS to provide optimum value, it is important to track all work orders within the system. Failure to do so leaves a company open to missing data and an inhibited ability to make data driven value-based decisions. In the above chart, only 23% of the respondents track all of their work orders in their CMMS. This leaves 77% of those who responded with less than 100% of their work orders in their CMMS, and to varying degrees, information gaps that cannot be easily overcome. There are all sorts of possible explanations for this data, but whatever the reason, 100% of work orders in the CMMS should be the rule. Where this is not happening, plans should be implemented to close the gaps. 30

31 Figure 23: Work Order Count per Month per Type Number of Respondents It is encouraging to see the high number of planned and preventive maintenance work orders, further indicating a shift from a reactive to a proactive work culture. 0 Emergency repair Planned repair Preventive Predictive Capital The above chart showing the work order count by type and month is also very revealing. While emergency work orders are expected, the majority of respondents indicated that this count only ranges from 0 to 100 per month. In a reactive work culture, this number very easily could be much higher. Without any additional data, it is possible that companies are becoming more proactive and consequently the number of emergencies are decreasing. It is encouraging to see the high number of planned and preventive maintenance work orders, further indicating a shift from a reactive to a proactive work culture. In the predictive category, a high count in the 0 to 100 work orders per month group also is encouraging. If organizations are truly becoming more proactive, then they are identifying equipment problems before they become serious. In these cases, one would not expect a high number of work orders each month and this is what is shown by the chart. Capital work orders typically are created to track costs of various capital projects active in the plant. These work orders usually cover specific aspects of each project and the high number of work orders in the 0 to 100 range appears to validate this assumption. 31

32 Figure 24: Spares Tracked in CMMS by Percent Percentage of Respondents 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 25% 8% 13% 33% 22% Without 100% tracking, there are significant gaps in the understanding of the costs associated with materials required to maintain the plant. 5% 0% under 25% 25%-50% 50%-75% 75%-95% 100% Percentage of Spares Tracked in CMMS The information about spares tracked in the respondents CMMS applications appears to have the same type of problem as identified in the chart depicting work orders tracked in the CMMS. Without 100% tracking, there are significant gaps in the understanding of the costs associated with materials required to maintain the plant. Additionally, there are other significant aspects missing including: Lack of spare part information Inability to track usage and cost Inability to optimize purchasing of materials Tracking of orders and deliveries Vendor information Quality (QA/QC) tracking Avoidance of duplication As with work order tracking, spare tracking less than 100% is a serious problem and an initiative should be put into place to close the gap. 32

33 Figure 25: Extent of Use of CMMS by Job Type Maintenance Planning and Execution Planners Maint Management Supervisors Materials Management 45% Workforce 30% 69% 62% 48% If 100% of the work orders and spares are not tracked, then it would stand to reason that the maintenance organization would not be fully engaged with their CMMS. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% In the area of maintenance planning and execution, one would expect a high percentage of use by planners and the maintenance management organization. Considering this fact, it appears that 69% and 62%, respectively for these two job functions is somewhat low. Since these two groups are the primary users, a percentage in the 90% to 100% range would be more appropriate. The supervisors and materials management functions also appear somewhat low. A possible explanation could be explained by Figures 22 and 24 which provide insight to the number of work orders and spares tracked by the CMMS. If 100% of the work orders and spares are not tracked, then it would stand to reason that the maintenance organization would not be fully engaged with their CMMS. The low percent of use by the workforce would be expected and only be higher if the workforce was more self-directed than the standard model. Maintenance Other Reliability Inspection Maintenance Projects Turnarounds 35% 33% 30% 27% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% This data is what one would expect from these departments. Typically CMMS applications have not addressed these areas in a very comprehensive manner in the past and consequently these organizations have adopted their own software to handle their phase of the work. As the CMMS applications become more adept at these rather selective tasks, organizations would need to decide whether to migrate their data to the CMMS, integrate or interface their system to the CMMS, or worst case scenario, maintain a stand-alone system with the associated asset data integrity problems. 33

34 Non-Maintenance Plant Staff Finance Operations Capital Projects Safety Environmental 8% 12% 23% 18% 31% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% It stands to reason that what is referred here as non-maintenance departments also would have a low usage level of the CMMS since the CMMS is more directed towards managing the maintenance functions related to planned and scheduled work. Quote from CMMS responses You will not get the full benefit from a CMMS unless planners, plant management and others understand what it can do for you, agree on the standardized maintenance process, live by that process, measure that process and then all are held accountable to perform. 34

35 Sustainability Every person working in the maintenance and reliability arena can recall initiatives that were started successfully but over time degraded to the point of being of low value or completely useless. Sustainability is the third step of the process related to a company s CMMS. It is true that a good implementation is important because it sets the stage for optimum use; the second element in getting the greatest benefit from your CMMS. However, how you sustain the effort is critical to long-term success and long-term benefits. Every person working in the maintenance and reliability arena can recall initiatives that were started successfully but over time degraded to the point of being of low value or completely useless. That is what happens with a lack of sustainability. In addition, when a problem is truly recognized, it is usually too late to save the initiative short of expensive and time consuming measures. This section addresses the concept of sustainability and drills down into the responses to determine whether respondents have addressed this critical subject related to their CMMS. 35

36 Figure 26: Annual Spending on Software, Hardware and Training Number of Respondents Software Upgrades Software Maintenance Training Under 5 5 to to to to 1,000 1,000 to 5,000 5,000+ Annual Spending (X $1000) Sustainable and effective use of CMMS requires forecast and budgeting for: Software upgrade Maintenance upgrade Hardware upgrade Dedicated training Figure 26 examines three key areas of sustainability: software upgrades, software maintenance and employee training from the perspective of annual spending. The majority of respondents indicated that their companies spend under $5,000 per year for any one of the three categories. In fact, as shown in the chart, the spending level for each of these categories is virtually the same for each level of annual spending. A key part of any sustainability effort is investing in the CMMS that you have spent a considerable amount of time and money installing in the plant. The reported low levels of spending, without any additional data, presents some level of concern for long term CMMS sustainability. 36

37 Figure 27: CMMS Version vs. CMMS Satisfaction Level Percent of Respondents 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Recent Version = Yes Recent Version = No 78% 57% 69% 54% 43% 46% 31% 22% Poor Fair Good Excellent Satisfaction Level with CMMS It is of interest to note that for those expressing a poor level of satisfaction with their CMMS, 57% are not running the recent version. Conversely 73% who rated their CMMS excellent are running the current version. The graph examines the version of the CMMS installed compared to the overall level of CMMS satisfaction. Each of the satisfaction categories on the x-axis shows the percent of respondents running the current version and the percent running an earlier version. Together, each of these categories totals 100%. It is of interest to note that for those expressing a poor level of satisfaction with their CMMS, 57% are not running the recent version. Conversely 73% who rated their CMMS excellent are running the current version compared to 22% who are not. The two middle categories also show similar results. A conclusion can be drawn that running the current version adds to the level of satisfaction, which in turn promotes use and sustainability of the CMMS. 37

38 Figure 28: CMMS Integration Plans Number of Respondents Not Planning Integration 162 Planning Integration Referencing Figure 6, which shows the low number of respondents whose CMMS is integrated to asset health management systems, this chart shows that the majority of respondents have no future plans to integrate their CMMS with asset health management tools or any others. It is understandable that in the current economy those funds may not be available for this type of effort. However, when one thinks about sustainability, integration is highly important to eliminate duplicate databases of asset-related information and the associated problems with data-driven decision making they may cause. The majority of respondents have no future plans to integrate their CMMS with asset health management tools. CMMS/EAM systems are only one part of the decision support system to create a high reliability organization. An integrated asset health management or asset performance management system is in place at many high reliability organizations. The above information leads one to believe that duplication of effort and of asset-related information is something that is not going away any time in the future. 38

39 Figure 29: CMMS Add On Plans vs. Level of Satisfaction Percent of Respondents per Category 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% No Planned Add Ons Planned Add Ons 67% 63% 33% 37% 65% 35% 61% 39% The software vendor creates add-ons to allow the user community to expand the use of the tool. 10% 0% Poor Fair Good Excellent Satisfaction Level with CMMS Figure 29 looks at add-on functionality. At all levels of CMMS satisfaction, the results are the same across the board; two thirds have no plans for any add-on functionality. As with the integration chart, the failure to grow the CMMS through additional functionality and CMMS capabilities has the potential to cause sustainability issues. The software vendor creates add-ons to allow the user community to expand the use of the tool. Failure to do so creates the potential of stagnation and the development of alternative nonconnected user-developed applications that are detrimental to the success of improved work process and CMMS usage. 39

40 Figure 30: New Employee Training Formal/No Training vs. Level of Satisfaction Poor Fair Good to Excellent 199 New employee training is another key to sustainability. Number of Respondents No Formal Training 7 Formal Training Provided New employee training is another key to sustainability. If new employees are correctly trained in how to use the CMMS, there is a high likelihood that they will use it properly and express satisfaction with the tool in support of maintenance activities. For those who rated their CMMS in the good to excellent category, there is almost an exact number of respondents who did and did not provide formal new employee training. There is no clear reason why respondents who did not provide formal training still felt a high level of satisfaction with the software. It is possible that in many cases the informal training was such that the new employees were educated in the proper use of the CMMS. However, when you look at the number who felt the CMMS performed either fair or poor, there is a much higher number of respondents whose new employees were not formally trained (217) vs. those who received formal training (95). This confirms that a lack of formal training for new employees has a high likelihood of leading to poor CMMS performance over time since these employees struggle to maximize the use of a tool for which they have not been adequately trained. 40

41 Figure 31: Post Implementation Training by Type by Satisfaction Level Note The percentages for each level of satisfaction with the training across the eight charts each add to 100%. The charts are designed to show how each level of satisfaction is divided across training methodologies. The charts represented in Figure 31 show the various methodologies employed in post implementation training and correlates these methods to the expressed level of satisfaction with the CMMS. There are several interesting pieces of information contained in these charts. 41 If you want the CMMS to be sustained and improved, you need full-time trainers in the post implementation phase who know the software and the maintenance process.

42 A large percentage of post implementation training, regardless of the level of satisfaction, was handled by internal maintenance personnel. Since there is a separate on-the-job training category it can be assumed that the personnel in this category are dedicated trainers. This is an important point in the area of sustainability. If you want the CMMS to be sustained and improved, you need full-time trainers in the post implementation phase who know the software and the maintenance process. CMMS vendor and third-party training received low percentage scores across all levels of satisfaction. The reason behind this low percentage of use is most likely the cost associated with bringing these outside companies in to conduct training that, unlike go live training, is intermittent. It is also of interest to note that IT post-implementation training had a higher percentage of dissatisfaction. A likely reason for this is that while IT understands how the software works, they may not have a sound understanding of the maintenance process and how the software is applied. It also appears that web-based training and CD-ROMs have some emerging value since a larger percentage of respondents expressed a high level of CMMS satisfaction associated with their use. In the categories of on-the-job training and no training, the charts show that those who employed these techniques had higher levels of dissatisfaction with their CMMS. This stands to reason since training of the organization in the post-implementation world is seriously lacking. In the categories of on-the-job training and no training, the charts show that those who employed these techniques had higher levels of dissatisfaction with their CMMS. 42

43 Figure 32: Post Implementation Training None and On-the-Job Level of Satisfaction with the CMMS Excellent Good Fair 18% 21% 19% 1% 4% 1% On the Job Training No Training Provided Training on a continuous basis related to a CMMS must be ongoing and cannot be left to chance. Poor 21% 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percentage of Respondents Looking further at on-the-job or no post-implementation training, Figure 32 shows these two aspects vs. the satisfaction level expressed with the CMMS. The results reveal that 21% of those who expressed a poor satisfaction level with their CMMS and 19% of those who gave it a fair rating received on-the-job training. The percentages for no training are somewhat lower but indicate a very important point when discussing sustainability. Training on a continuous basis related to a CMMS must be ongoing and cannot be left to chance. Ongoing training is also necessary for people who don t use the software on a day-to-day basis but still have a need to use it. Continual users also need training as the work process improves and the software is upgraded. These types of formal training enable the CMMS and the work process to continuously improve. On-the-job or no training breaks down the continuous improvement cycle and ends in a CMMS that is either misused, misunderstood, or not used at all. 43

44 Figure 33: Days of CMMS Management and Hourly Training per Year Percentage of respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 64% 60% % Mgt Responses % Hourly Responses 32% 27% Without continuous training how can you ever expect the CMMS and work process to be optimally employed within your company? 10% 9% 8% 0% >5 Number of Days per Year CMMS Training is Provided Let s drill down deeper into the very important subject of post-implementation or sustainability training. The above graph shows that for both management and hourly employees, two thirds of the respondents indicate there is between one day and no CMMS training provided over the course of a year. For these firms, the question that begs to be answered is, Without continuous training how can you ever expect the CMMS and work process to be optimally employed within your company? The results in this graph are supported by Figure 26, which shows that this same percentage spend less than $5,000 per year on training. On the other hand, the remainder of the respondent group does perform post-implementation training with a clear recognition of the value that this training adds to the maintenance effort. 44

45 Figure 34: Days of CMMS Training vs. Satisfaction Level Percentage of Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 40% 34% Hourly Satisfaction Level = Fair to Poor Houlry Satisfaction Level = Good to Excellent 26% 22% 10% 7% 1% >5 Number of Days per Year CMMS Training is Provided This survey finding should be of great value for those who do not apply resources or make their organizations available for postimplementation, or what could be referred to as sustainability training. 35% 34% Mgt Satisfaction Level = Fair to Poor Mgt Satisfaction Level = Good to Excellent 30% 29% Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 8% 19% 7% 5% 2% 0% >5 Number of Days per Year CMMS Training is Provided Note all percentages for management and hourly each add to 100% Figure 34 examines the post-implementation training effort in one additional way by comparing the number of days of training with the level of expressed satisfaction with the CMMS. One would expect that the level of training in the post-implementation environment would be reflected in satisfaction over time for both management and the hourly workforce; and this is the case. For management and for hourly, the level of CMMS satisfaction grows along with the number of days per year for post-implementation training. This survey finding should be of great value for those who do not apply resources or make their organizations available for post-implementation, or what could be referred to as sustainability training. 45

46 Summary At the beginning of this report, it was stated that the CMMS is the backbone of the maintenance process, and the findings reported indicate both strengths and areas of opportunity for improving the use of this extremely valuable tool. There were 700 respondents to the survey, representing a far larger number of plant sites. Some of the identified strengths include: The large number of companies that have upgraded their CMMS over the last 10 years. The fact that almost 50% of the companies that upgraded in the 2001 to 2010 period have done so by moving to SAP or Maximo, both state of the industry systems. A large percentage of companies have hosted their CMMS on a corporate server, making upgrades and software changes and management far easier than hosting locally. The fact that a large number of respondents did not even attempt to force a CMMS implementation/upgrade through the ROI process, indicating recognition that a CMMS is an enabler of work process and reliability improvement, not a revenue generator. The use of maintenance personnel for implementation and training recognizes that those who will be using the tool to drive improved processes are best at conveying this information to their peers. The fact that most respondents recognized that the critical features associated with the CMMS were those related to the maintenance function, not other functions that do not have as great a vested interest in the tool. The recognition that allocating large sums of money at an implementation does not guarantee satisfaction with what is delivered and conversely, not providing sufficient funds can lead to long-term problems. The indication that what is really important is usability, work process support and the commitment of senior leadership to the success of the endeavor. Recognition - as exhibited by the work order count by type per week - that preventive/predictive work is far more beneficial than emergency work. The understanding that higher levels of CMMS satisfaction can be gained by staying current with the software vendor s releases. Allocating large sums of money at an implementation does not guarantee satisfaction with what is delivered and conversely, not providing sufficient funds can lead to long-term problems. 46

47 Along with the strengths come areas where respondents and others reading this report can garner improvements not just with the CMMS, but with the value that it delivers to the maintenance work process. These include: The level of integration with asset health management systems is low with no expressed indication that there will be movement in this direction in the immediate future. The level of add-ons anticipated in the future is low, limiting users from benefiting from any add-on applications offered by the vendor. The fact that only 23% of respondents track 100% of their work orders in their CMMS and only 22% of their spares. The goal should be 100%, for without this level of use, the CMMS cannot deliver on its real value. The respondents appear not to provide sufficient funding for postimplementation training. This is expressed in Figure 26, which indicates that a large number spend less than $5,000 per year for training. This information is further supported by the low number of days provided for training as shown in the other charts. The fact that while work order management is rated by 91% of the respondents as highly important, the excellence rating for this function is only at 34%. This same disconnect exists for spare tracking 73% importance with only a 20% excellence rating. This disparity is something that needs to be understood and corrected. The low level of use by planners (69%), by maintenance management (62%), by supervisors (48%), and by materials management (45%). They are critical parts of the maintenance work process and one would expect their level of usage to be much higher. As you can see, there are strengths and areas for potential improvement that emerge from this survey. As you can see, there are strengths and areas for potential improvement that emerge from this survey. It is hoped that the results contained herein have raised awareness so that additional benefits can be obtained from the strengths and initiatives can be implemented to address the weaknesses. 47

48 If you are interested in learning more about the CMMS Best Practices Survey, please feel free to Terrence O Hanlon at the address below. Reliabilityweb.com PO Box Fort Myers FL USA [email protected] Related reports: SAP Plant Maintenance Best Practices 2010 CMMS Best Practices 2005 Additional CMMS Resources CMMSCity.com Website includes articles, tips, tutorials and news on Computerized Maintenance Management. Reliabilityweb.com Maintenance reliability focused website includes articles, tips, videos, tutorials, news, etc. Uptime Magazine Bi-monthly magazine for maintenance reliability professionals. Association for Maintenance Professionals Online community with over 9,000 maintenance reliability professionals. MaintenanceForums.com Online message boards with over 20,000 maintenance reliability professionals. MaintenanceConference.com Calendar of maintenance reliability focused events. MRO-Zone.com Bookstore Online bookstore with CMMS books and DVDs. Use of this report as a reference and attribution Readers may reference various facts from this report with the following simple reference: Source: Reliabilityweb.com CMMS Best Practices Report 2011 If images or substantial portions are used, please use acknowledgement above and notify Terrence O Hanlon via at: [email protected] 48

49 Authors This report was written by Steve Thomas with additional insights by Terrence O Hanlon, CMRP Steve Thomas has 40 years of experience working in the petrochemical industry. During this time, through personal involvement at all levels of the maintenance and reliability work process, he has gained vast experience in all phases of the business. Coupled with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Drexel University and M.S. degrees in both Systems Engineering and Organizational Dynamics from the University of Pennsylvania, this experience has enabled him to add significant value to the many projects on which he has worked. In addition, he has published six books on this and other subjects through Industrial Press, Inc., and Reliabilityweb.com., the most recent being Asset Data Integrity is Serious Business and Measuring Maintenance Workforce Productivity Made Simple, both of which were published in October Terrence O Hanlon is the Publisher of Reliabilityweb.com and Uptime Magazine. He is a Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional (CMRP) and is the acting Executive Director of the Association for Maintenance Professionals (AMP). Mr. O Hanlon is also a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Association of Facilities Engineers, Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals and the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. Reliabilityweb.com is an online community of over 55,000 maintenance and reliability professionals worldwide created in A free weekly newsletter with tutorials, articles, tips and more is available online at: 49