What Is Your Reactive Maintenance Percentage?

by | Aug 31, 2007 | Asset Management | 0 comments

Bill Broussard, a marketing manager in the Machinery Health Management part of Emerson’s Asset Optimization business, recently had an article published in Plant Engineering magazine. The article, Act, don’t react, for greater asset optimization, suggests a path away from operating in the world of reactive maintenance toward planned maintenance.

Process manufacturing is a very complex business with lots of things that can go wrong at any point in time. Bill describes how leading process manufacturers in highly effective maintenance programs spend less than 10% of their total maintenance responding to unexpected failures or “fire fighting” as some folks colorfully refer to it.

These leading manufacturers will spend around 80% of their time performing “planned” maintenance activities. He states more specifically, 25-35% on preventative maintenance activities, 45-55% on predictive maintenance activities, and the balance on proactive maintenance.

The analogy I’d draw is that of a car. The predictive part is responding to the intelligent sensors that provide early warning of an impending problem. The preventative part is doing the oil change every several thousand miles or kilometers. The proactive part is changing out components without embedded intelligence (like belts) at fixed mileage intervals. The reactive part is calling the tow truck when you have the hood up and smoke coming out alongside the road. I don’t know about you, but reactive is my least favorite. It means lost time, high cost, and inconvenience figuring out what to do next.

Bill makes the case that process manufacturers who spend a larger percentage of time “reacting” than the best also experience higher costs and lost revenue. In the article, he states:

This reactive nature can be illustrated by considering an everyday occurrence: an operator sees a perplexing issue on the control system console but usually cannot leave the post to investigate. Maintenance is called to check it out, and this becomes a reactive work request – new work that was unplanned. It is a wasteful and potentially expensive use of resources, which is why those who lead their industries in operational excellence operate mostly in a planned rather than reactive environment.

Bill recommends that the shift from reactive to planned maintenance begin with creating an asset optimization culture that focuses predictive maintenance on key production assets. Cultural change is not always an easy thing, so he recommends:

…bringing in asset optimization consultants to identify areas for greatest potential to improve availability and performance. Through proven methods that evaluate the base of critical production assets, experts typically develop a prioritized asset list, which later becomes a part of a larger strategic roadmap for achieving asset optimization goals.

He cites a number of process manufacturers who have reduced downtime and maintenance costs by shifting over time their maintenance programs from reactive to planned maintenance. If your reactive maintenance percentages are higher than the leading process manufacturers’ percentages, it might make sense to review the business case for change and bringing in a fresh set of eyes to help.

…Better that, than waiting for the tow truck!

Popular Posts



Related Posts

Follow Us

We invite you to follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and YouTube to stay up to date on the latest news, events and innovations that will help you face and solve your toughest challenges.

Do you want to reuse or translate content?

Just post a link to the entry and send us a quick note so we can share your work. Thank you very much.

Our Global Community

Emerson Exchange 365

The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of the authors. Content published here is not read or approved by Emerson before it is posted and does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Emerson.

PHP Code Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com