However, most companies fail to adequately define the role and operation of maintenance within the business enterprise. Experience suggests that in many cases, maintenance continues to be a cost of doing business, and as such, is treated like any other budget line item — it increases or decreases as a percentage with disregard to impact on operations or what is truly needed. So why should we manage maintenance as a business? The answer quite simply is because it is a business; in fact, it is a service business.

The benefit opportunities associated with sound maintenance management have been identified and documented for years. Unfortunately, few companies have realized these benefits.

Benefits are also accrued in the areas of reduced spare parts obsolescence, reduced maintenance overtime and improved quality. In a recent poll conducted by The Copley Consulting Group, CMMS users were asked to articulate the benefits of maintenance management.

Most respondents concluded it was the information that was collected which was of value. Asked what was done with all this information, there were differing views. Do the words “information overload” mean anything?

What was concluded from this exercise was the fact that the focus clearly was on implementing a CMMS and the information by-product. The benefits, however, could not be achieved without defining and implementing the requisite business processes and using the CMMS as the enabler or tool as a facilitator.

It is probably safe to say that most people think of the maintenance function as fixing things that break, keeping things looking good or keeping things from breaking.

These thoughts are not necessarily inappropriate. However, if we are to structure our maintenance business, we should ask additional questions such as:

• Do we staff and supply to only address breakdowns?
• What is the cost of equipment downtime?
• How much time is needed to perform routine recurring maintenance activities?
• Should we be focusing on activities to reduce breakdowns or should we just let the thing break?

It is interesting to debate the merits of preventive (PM) versus predictive maintenance (PDM) as to where a maintenance focus should be. It is worth noting that either one is better than none at all. There is a certain truth to the fact that a PDM program may be more cost effective due to the fact that the equipment is being maintained when it needs to be rather than when it’s scheduled.

If you accept this rationale, then why do many of us change the oil in our cars every 3000 miles rather than when an oil test would reveal when to change? The point of this example is to demonstrate that biases exist which must be addressed in order to properly determine the direction of the maintenance business.

All too often, the concept of maintenance management is thought of as synonymous with computerized maintenance management systems; that by implementing a computerized maintenance management system, results will magically appear.

Long before computer systems, there were successful businesses because attention was paid to customers and the implementation of effective business processes to provide goods and/or services to those customers. To achieve success in managing the maintenance business, identification, development and implementation of core business processes is essential.

CMMS is only a tool to support the processes. No matter how big or small the maintenance function, there is no substitute for basic process implementation.

Ask yourself, if you cannot define the basic processes, how can appropriate application software be selected?

After all, one of the basic covenants of effective maintenance planning is determining the right tools for the job based upon the work and tasks to be performed. For those who have implemented a CMMS: Which came first the system or the process?

By understanding the synergistic relationship between software and end user, we can develop intuitive and robust software solutions to address specific critical business requirements.

Managing the maintenance business presents similar challenges as operating most service type businesses. Striking the fine balance between service and cost requires those best practices be supported by the best tools. The effort required to implement a computerized system does not translate to results; effort put forth in the implementation of the right processes will yield results. In the final analysis, it’s results that count. FSM

C. Paul Oberg is president and CEO of EPAC Software Technologies, Inc., an Andover, Mass.-based developer and integrator of Computerized Maintenance Management Systems.