1ST ASIAN MINING CONGRESS

16-18 January, 2006, Kolkata, India

The Mining Geological and Metallurgical Institute of India (MGMI), Centenary

MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: THE NEED

OF THE HOUR FOR THE MECHANIZED MINING INDUSTRY
Uday Kumar & Aditya Parida

ABSTRACT

For many mining companies with high degree of mechanization, the spending on maintenance accounts
for a significant part of the operating budget but “service and maintenance areas” is still considered as
a minor element of strategic thinking. This has given a new dimension to the problem of effective
management of the maintenance in mining sector. The cost of maintenance and its influence on the total
system effectiveness is too great for mine engineers and mine managers to ignore. The modern day mine
managers need to know the relationship between the outputs from the investments in the maintenance
in terms of total contribution to the business goal and the inputs to maintenance processes. In addition,
without any formal measures of performance, it is difficult to plan, control and improve the maintenance
process.

This presentation will focus on the issues and challenges associated with development and
implementation of maintenance performance measurement system and use maintenance indicators for
effective management of mine maintenance

INTRODUCTION Furthermore, the operational paradigm of mining

Modern day mining industry has become less physical
and more cognitive as manual labour is gradually being
replaced by machine operation. Such machines are
expected to perform round the clock. However, due to
design problems these systems are not able to meet
customers’ requirement in terms of performance and
effectiveness. This is often due to poor designed reliability
and maintainability characteristics combined with poor
maintenance and product support strategy, which often
lead to unscheduled stoppages (failures).
industries is shifting from “optimal profit for the financial
stakeholders” to a new concept compatible with
sustainable development ethics: “maximise economic and
social returns at the local, national and global levels, while
avoiding negative environmental impacts” (Christmann
and Jantin, 2003). International competition and demand
for increased productivity with optimised cost of mining
have increased the levels of automation and extensive
utilization of equipments. These have necessitated that
the mining equipments deployed should be highly reliable
with better maintainability. The modern equipments used

Division of Operation and Maintenance Engineering, Luleå university of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden
264
in the mining industry are quite complex, that cater for
the demands of large capacity, reliability, ruggedness,
efficiency and operator safety and comfort among others.
Maintenance is critical to ensure trouble free operation
and make the optimum use of the equipments over its
life span. Availability, reliability and maintainability are
significant performance measures that help to prevent
disruption to the mining operation, saving valuable
resources (Kuruppu, 2004). A study by the Swedish mining
industry shows that the cost of maintenance in a highly
mechanized mine can be 40-60 % of the operating cost
(Danielson, 1987). A similar study for USA mininmg
industry showed that the costs of maintenance and
breakdown is approximately 50 % for the mechanized
mining systems (Cambell, 1995)
The cost of maintenance and its influence on the total
system effectiveness is too great for mine engineers and
mine managers to ignore. The modern day mine
managers need to know the relationship between the
outputs from the investments in the maintenance in terms
of total contribution to the business goal and the inputs to
maintenance processes. In addition, without any formal
measures of performance, it is difficult to plan, control
and improve The main purpose of performance
measurement is to see whether system and organizations
are performing, as they should. This helps in taking
decision concerning resource allocation and subsequent
control of outcomes. One way is to compare the outcomes
measures with performance targets, etc. or benchmark
the performance with competitors. Many mining
companies (for example LKAB, BHP etc) are using
different forms and types of maintenance performance
indicators to measure the performance of their
maintenance processes. Performance indicator can be
defined as a measure capable of generating quantified
value to indicate the level of performance taking into
account single or multiple aspects. Maintenance
Performance Indicators (MPIs) show the value of the
contribution of maintenance process towards the ultimate
objective of the company as a whole. MPIs are used for
the measurement of maintenance performance, as
performance indicators are an indication of performance
(Wireman, 1998). An indicator is a product of several
metrics (measure), when used for measurement of
maintenance is called a MPI. These MPIs are to be
Maintenance Performance Management :
considered from both hierarchical and multicriteria point
of view considering both from front end processes and
back end processes to design and develop a multi criteria
maintenance performance measurement (MPM) model.
´Figure 1 shows a form of Performance indicators.
Figure 1 : Illustration of maintenance performance indicators
The paper is based on an R &D projects being
pursued at the Division of Operation and Maintenance
Engineering Luleå University of Technology, Luleå in close
cooperation with mine maintenance managers in Sweden.
The main objective of this project is to develop a generic
link and effect model to study the contribution of
maintenance to mining operation. The purpose of the
projects is to develop and implement a methodology and
suggest a framework for planning, monitoring and control
the business of maintenance by use of suitable operation
and maintenance (O&M) performance indicators.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO MEASURE
MAINTENANCE PROCESS PERFORMANCE?
Measurement of any process is inherent to that
process and the same goes true for the maintenance
process. After execution of a process, measurement is
carried out in the form of data and report, which are
analyzed and reviewed for improvement. Under
challenges of increasingly technological changes,
implementing an appropriate performance measurement
system in an organization ensure that actions are aligned
to strategies and objectives [Lynch and Cross, 1991]. In
fact, performance cannot be managed, if it cannot be
measured.
Some of the reasons for measuring the performance
of mine maintenance process can be:
• Substantial mine maintenance budget
• Increasing significance of maintenance due to
governing statutory and regulatory regime for the
health, safety and environmental (HSE) issues
Uday Kumar & Aditya Parida
• Focus on elimination of non-value added activities
and basis for optimum resource allocation
• To control and monitor the costs of considerable
maintenance work force
• Emphasis is given to monitor and control the
performance of third parties like the suppliers of
system, components and materials
While considering the development of an MPM
system the following questions are required to be
answered:
• How to develop it?
• How to implement and use it?
HOW TO DEVELOP AN MPM SYSTEM?
The first step in developing maintenance
performance metrics (indicator) is to involve the
maintenance crew who are responsible for the work to
be measured because they are the most knowledgeable
people about the work. Understanding of the maintenance
business work process is critical for development and
successful implementation of the maintenance
performance measurement (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 : Maintenance process management
The SMART test is frequently used to provide a quick
reference to determine the quality of performance metric
or indicators (Reference: DoE, USA). The SMART stands
for:
• S = Specific: clear and focused to avoid
misinterpretation. Should include measure
assumptions and definitions and be easily interpreted.
Maintenance cost/ton of ore
265
• M = Measurable: can be quantified and compared to
other data. It should allow for meaningful statistical
analysis. Avoid ”yes/no” measures except in limited
cases, such as start-up or systems-in-place
situations. (Overall equipment effectiveness) OEE
• A = Attainable: achievable, reasonable, and credible
under conditions expected.
• R = Realistic: fits into the organization’s constraints
and is cost-effective.
• T = Timely: doable within the time frame given.
Whenever we develop a system, we have to examine
the related criteria and parameters associated with the
system. These are best understood while studying the
total effectiveness of the maintenance system. The total
effectiveness of the maintenance process is given at
Figure 3.
Figure : 3 Total effectiveness, front and back end process
Once, this front end and back end processes and
parameters are defined, different hierarchical levels for
the organization is to be identified and defined.
Simultaneously, the MPM model framework is worked out
based on the multiple criteria of maintenance performance
indicators (MPIs). These will be discussed in detail in the
succeeding paragraphs.
Some of the questions needs to be answered, while
looking into the questions of developing MPM system are:
• What should be measured?
• How many measures are required?
266 Maintenance Performance Management :

• What type of data is required and how to collect it?
• What is the frequency of measurement?
• Who should be responsible for measurement &
reporting?
• How the data is going to be used and analysed?
objectives and strategy are converted to specific
measuring criteria and objectives. The specific
measurements at the functional level after performance
are measured and aggregation takes place while the data
and information moves upward to higher level, thus
increasing the subjectivity.

• Who should receive the details of measures?

• Who should sponsor/own the overall measurement

process?

The important issues to be considered while

developing and implementing a MPM system are as
follows.

• Visualize contribution of maintenance to overall

business objectives.

• Identify problem areas.

• Facilitate follow-up of maintenance goals and
objectives.
• Provide basis for resource allocation and control.
• Make performance assessment possible for
individuals and teams.
Figure 4 : Multi hierarchical levels of an organization
Hierarchical aggregation is the aggregation of
performance from lower level to higher level so as to
facilitate correct decision making at tactic or strategic
levels. This is one of the most grey area exist today in
industry. The reason is mostly due to:

• Provide foundation for continuous improvement of • Data overloading

maintenance process.
• Island of information with in an organization
• Facilitate easy performance benchmarking (identify
• Unfocussed and unstructured information system.
best practices).
The information system in an organization need to
INTEGRATION OF HIERARCHICAL LEVELS provide:
IN ORGANIZATION FOR AN MPM SYSTEM • Right information (in right quality and quantity)
MPM system needs to be linked to the functional and
• In right format as per stakeholders requirements
strategic levels in a company for meaningful
understanding, effective monitoring and control of • To right people
managerial decisions concerning maintenance process
• In right time and at right place (Parida et al., 2004)
management (Parida et al., 2005). This is extremely
complex for a big organization. The link and effect model is given at Figure 5, which
shows the vertical upward and downward linkage of the
From hierarchical point of view, the top level looks at
indicators like the return on investment (ROI), health,
the corporate or strategic level on soft or perceptual
safety and environment (HSE). The effectiveness of
measures from stakeholders. In a way the strategic level
system processes coupled with competencies and
is subjective and the subjectivity reduces as we go down
relationship of the personnel at functional level when
the hierarchy and becomes more and more objective in
integrated to the entire plant leads to achieving the vision,
nature at the functional level. At functional level, the
goal and strategy of the organization.
Uday Kumar & Aditya Parida
Figure 5 : Link and effect model
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The first and foremost requirement for development
and implementation of any system in an organization is
the active involvement and total support of the
management. A holistic or total approach is required to
be adopted by an organization while developing and
implementing a MPM framework. Before start of the MPM
framework’s design, development and implementation, it
is essential to understand the maintenance process and
related issues and challenges. If link and effect model is
successfully developed and implemented, it will reflect
the true contribution of maintenance process to the over
all business result.
267
REFERENCES
1. Christmann, P and Jantin, B. M (2003), Sustainability
indicators for the mining industry: Issues and
Challenges, SDIMI 2003, 21-23 May, Milos Island,
Greece, pp. 59-66.
2. Danielson, B (1987), A study of maintenance
problems in Swedish mines (In Swedish), Study
Report, Idhammar Konsult AB, Sweden.
3. Kuruppu, M. D (2004), New technologies available
to maximizing equipment reliability, Mine Planning
and Equipment Selection-Hardgora, Paszkowska &
Sikora (eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp.
455-459
4. Lynch, R. L and Cross, K. F, (1991), “Measure up!
The essential Guide to Measuring Business
Performance”, Mandarin: London
5. Parida. A; Phanse. K and Kumar. U (2004), An
Integrated Approach to design and Development of
e-Maintenance System, VETOMAC-3 and ACSIM-
2004, New Delhi, India, Dec 6-9, 2004, pp.1141-1147.
6. Parida, A., Chattopadhyay, G and Kumar, U (2005),
Multi Criteria Maintenance Performance
Measurement: A Conceptual Model, Proceedings of
the 18th International Congress of COMADEM 31st
Aug-2nd Sep 2005, Cranfield, UK, pp 349-356.
7. Wireman, T (1998), Developing performance
indicators for managing maintenance, Industrial
Press, Inc, New York.