Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Centre for Industrial Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 300A, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
Open Universiteit Nederland, 6401 DL, Heerlen
a r t i c l e in fo
Keywords:
Maintenance
Performance measurement
Indicators
abstract
The performance and competitiveness of manufacturing companies is dependent on the reliability,
availability and productivity of their production facilities. To ensure the plant achieves the desired
performance, maintenance managers need a good track of performance on maintenance process and
maintenance results. This can be attained through development and implementation of a rigorously
dened performance measurement framework and indicators that are able to measure important
elements of maintenance function performance. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that
performance indicators are not dened in isolation, but should be the result of a careful analysis of the
interaction of the maintenance function with other organisational functions, most evidently with the
production function. In this paper, a conceptual framework that provide guidelines for choosing
maintenance function performance indicators is proposed. It seeks to align maintenance objectives with
manufacturing and corporate objectives, and provides a link between the maintenance objectives,
maintenance process/efforts and maintenance results. Based on this conceptual framework, performance
indicators of the maintenance process and maintenance results are identied for each category.
& 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the face of the current global competition and increasing
demands from stakeholders, there is a basic business demand to
improve manufacturing performance. The performance and
competitiveness of manufacturing companies is dependent on
the reliability and productivity of their production facilities
(Coetzee, 1997; Madu, 2000; Fleischer et al., 2006). This need to
improve the production systems performance that has brought
the maintenance function into the limelight. There is consensus
among authors (Madu, 1999; Cooke, 2000; Madu, 2000) that
equipment maintenance and system reliability are important
factors that affect organizations ability to provide quality and
timely services to customers and to be ahead of competition.
Maintenance function is therefore vital for sustainable performance of any manufacturing plant.
Maintenance is dened as a combination of all technical and
associated administrative activities required to keep equipments,
installations and other physical assets in the desired operating
condition or restore them to this condition (BSI, 1984; Pintelon
et al., 1997; Pintelon and VanPuyvelde, 2006). The Maintenance
0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Muchiri et al. / Int. J. Production Economics ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
Corporate
Strategy
Manufacturing
Strategy
Plant Lif e
Maintenance
Objective
Maintenance Cost
Ef f ectiveness
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
Maintenance Effort/Process
Maintenance Results
Corporate
Strategy
Work
Execution
Manufacturing
Perf. Requirements
Work
Identification
Maintenance
Loop
Equipment
Performance
Work
Scheduling
Work
Planning
Maintenance
Objective
Maintenance
Cost
Performance
Analysis
Performance Targets
&
Benchmarks
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Muchiri et al. / Int. J. Production Economics ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
Category
Work
Identification
Work
Planning
Work
Scheduling
Work
Execution
Recommended
Targets
75% - 80%
Percentage of
Proactive work
Percentage of
Reactive work
10% - 15%
Percentage of
%
Improvement work
Work request response %
rate
5% - 10%
Planning Intensity/Rate %
Quality of planning
< 3% of all WO
Planning
Responsiveness
Scheduling Intensity
Quality of scheduling
Schedule realization
rate
Schedule Compliance
Hours
Manpower Efficiency
Backlog size
Quality of
Execution(Rework)
80% of requests
>90%
> 80%
< 3%
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Maintenance Interest
No. of Preventive
Maintenance
Planned
Downtime
Planning
-No. of Unplanned
Maint. (Failures)
-MTBF /Failure
Frequency
Unplanned
Downtime
Availability
- Speed losses
- Minor stops
Performance
- Quality defects
- Reduced yield
Quality
Preventive
Maintenance time
Rate
Rate
OEE
Rate
Rate
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a conceptual framework that provide guideline
for choosing maintenance performance indicators, through alignment of manufacturing objectives and maintenance objectives,
has been developed. The conceptual framework provides a
generic approach of developing maintenance performance measures with room for customization with respect to individual
company needs. The aim is to ensure that the key maintenance
processes that may lead to desired results have been carried out
and evaluated.
This research demonstrates that performance indicators are
not dened in isolation, but should be the result of a careful
analysis of the interaction of the maintenance function with other
organisational functions. It seems evident that, in the overall
interest of the organization, that maintenance performance
criteria should be balanced with the requirements of the
manufacturing objectives. Further research work is recommended
on the methodological approach of choosing the right maintenance performance indicators among the given indicators listed
in literature. Since the availability of maintenance performance
frameworks and indicators may not necessarily guarantee
performance improvement, a future research should investigate
how performance measures are effectively used to drive performance improvement in practice.
References
Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Brown, I., 2005. The Practice of Making Strategy: A Step by
Step Guide, London, UK. Sage Publication.
Al-Najjar, B., 2000. Impact of real-time measurements of operating conditions on
effectiveness and accuracy of vibration-based maintenance policy: a Case
study in paper mill. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 6 (4),
275287.
Al-Najjar, B., 2002. Data coverage and quality, diagnosis and maintenance decision,
and their economic Impact on the companys prots: case studies. Proceedings
of the Conference of 16th International Euromaintenance 35 June, Helsinki,
Finland.
Al-Najjar, B., 2007. The lack of maintenance and not maintenance which costs: a
model to describe and quantify the impact of vibration-based maintenance on
companys business. International Journal of Production Economics 107 (1),
260273.
Alsyouf, I. (2004). Cost effective maintenance for competitive advantage School of
Industrial Engineering. Sweden, Vaxjo University. Doctoral report.
Arts, R.H.P.M., Knapp, G.M., Mann, L., 1998. Some aspects of measuring
maintenance performance in process industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 4 (1), 611.
BSI, 1984. Glossary of maintenance terms in Terotechnology. British Standard
Institution (BSI), London; BS 3811.
Campbell, J.D., 1995. Uptime: Strategies for Excellence in Maintenance Management. Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Coetzee, L., Jasper, 1997. Maintenance. Maintenance Publishers, South Africa.
Cooke, F.L., 2000. Implementing TPM in plant maintenance: some organizational
barriers. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 17 (9),
10031016.
Daya, B., Duffuaa, S., 1995. Maintenance and quality: the missing link. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 1 (1), 2026.
Dekker, R., 1996. Application of maintenance optimization models: a review and
analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 51, 229240.
Dunn, R., 1998. How much are you worthy? Plant Engineering 52 (2).
Dwight, R., 1995. Concepts for measuring maintenance performance. In: Martin, H.
(Ed.), New Developments in Maintenance: An International View. IFRIM,
Eindhoven.
Dwight, R., 1999. Frameworks for Measuring the Performance of the Maintenance
System in a Capital Intensive Organization, University of Wollongong,
Australia, Doctoral Report.
EN:15341, 2007. Maintenance Key Performance Indicators. European Committee
for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
Fleischer, J., U. Weismann, S., Niggeschmidt (2006). Calculation and Optimisation
Model for Costs and Effects of Availability Relevant Service Elements. In: 13Th
CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering; Proceedings of
LCE2006.
Gits, C.W. (1984). On the maintenance concept for a technical system: a
framework for design, Eindhoven University of Technology. Ph.D. Thesis.
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8
Please cite this article as: Muchiri, P., et al., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039