Hi every body
Supose you are going to implement a PM program in a plant.
How much reduction of break down percentage you will expect if the program considered to be implemented 100% efficient.
In other words I want to know that how much percentage of the equipment break downs will depend on preventive maintenance and how to calculate?
Any idea ,article or just exrerimental values?
OR AM I JUST ASKING A WRONG QUESTION?

For a 100% efficient PM Program my boss would expect 100% breakdowns reduction after a year !!!

That's O.K Eugene
THEN Kindly ask your boss
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SOURCES FOR EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWNS?
For example:
Impropper use/proccess or design which is not related to the PM efficiency.

More seriously, to be called "efficient" or "effective", the PM has to show its impact on break downs prevention. I would say tha an improvement of 20 to 25% minimum should be seen after first year. It all depends, the root causes distribution of break downs varies from plant to plant:
* wrong or lack of PM
* incorrect PM frequency
* process/operator errors
* equipment not installed or used as designed
* ...

Hi Ali and others,
The basic principles of asset management are that all equipment has inherent performance levels which depend on design and the way each is operated. The objective of PM is to attain these levels of performance within some determined method of assessing economics and to a lesser extent, risk.
Now if you are interested in increasing the performance of the asset beyond what is inherent, then you need to modify something – this something may be the equipment design or it may be the material you are using, or it may be that you spend some time modifying the skills of the operators through training.
Before I go into all the “depends” which there are many, research (ours and others) indicates that if a company is in breakdown mode, it can reduce its breakdowns by one third through the application of the correct PM. Two thirds of the improvement is caught in the design and the process.
Now if you are going to look for improvements, you might say based on this information that a better approach than PM would be to focus on the design and the process. Unfortunately, this approach is only useful in the short term where you can find some easy targets. In the longer term, if you do not get your PM sorted out, the breakdowns you continue to get will be mostly caused by poor maintenance. At that point, your maintenance will still be out of control and the easy targets are gone. In the scale of things you have only managed to improve about 10% of the opportunity. You may have got good feedback in the early days, but start looking for another job because the performance you now have is where you are going to be in 12 months unless you go back and get the PM right.
As far as targets for availability improvements are concerned, the “depends” are to do with the robustness of the plant and the amount of redundancy. Some plants I know have breakdowns but never lose availability due to standby equipment.
The correct way to assess your inherent level is to do either an RCM or PMO review. We recommend if you have existing plant that you use PMO but you need to be selective about which PMO you use. The PMO you should use not only reviews your current PM program (there will be an informal one in existence even if you don’t think there is) but it will review your breakdowns and look for failures that may occur but have not happened yet. One process that does this is PMO2000™.
That is about it for now. I have plenty of other info if there is more interest in this thread.
Our company, OMCS International specialises in Planned Maintenance Optimisation. We conduct reviews of company’s PM programs and have been doing this for over a decade. We have a lot of research and information in this area if people are interested.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Turner:
Before I go into all the “depends” which there are many, research (ours and others) indicates that if a company is in breakdown mode, it can reduce its breakdowns by one third through the application of the correct PM. Two thirds of the improvement is caught in the design and the process.

Do you expext that a efficient PM Program reach that 33% of breakdowns reduction in the first year?

Eugene,
The short answer is definitely yes but there are a number of proviso's. Here are the most important two:
1. Companies wont get there by using SAE Standard RCM (or at least if they try they will be putting a lot of things at risk and likely to fail)... In mature operation, RCM takes too long and sucks too much company resource. Companies need to use a PM Optimisation approach - six times faster to create the same maintenance program - if you chose the right PMO that is.
2. Companies need to consider that reliability is a culture not a department. How quickly they can change culture from being breakdown tolerant to have a zero tolerance to “unexpected breakdown” determines how quickly they get the results.
Notes:
1. When I say unexpected breakdown I don’t mean zero breakdown since we expect to have some breakdown in most of our equipment – some is expected and some is unexpected.
2 For those who don’t know my background or my current vocation – I have worked with RCM for 25 years first in military aviation. My company has developed a PMO program which we promote - We did this after applying RCM on several assignments in mature operations over a decade ago. I need to admit this interest to readers.

I have often heard it said that 80% of all breakdowns are random in nature.

Hi Dataware,
For those who don't collect proper data, they will all appear random (100% will appear random). There was a good discussion on this forum about failure patters earlier this month if you are interested in why I say that.
Rgds
Steve