Folks, I have just read "The 7 Mistakes of CMMS/EAM - A Mea Culpa from a software enthusiast by Dave Loesch, Oracle Corp."
The seven mistakes of CMMS
Fantastic article. Well done Dave for doing this. I believe that eventually maintenance practitioners will realise the CMMS vendors are selling software that diverts maintenance department from the real task of reliability improvement. Most of the people I talk to about improvement think that purchasing a CMMS is step one - I think a CMMS is somewhere around step 4. Reliability analysis is step one. Most of the times when I say these things I get shouted at by the traditionalists and the CMMS vendors. Anyone care to comment?

The CMMS is just a tool, a big and usefull one, but just a tool. It depends on the tool user to achieve the expected results with the tool.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Eugene,

So let's hear it for some other type of maintenance software package?

Steve and I have had this discussion on other forums in the past but then he is a reliability analysis software vendor and I am a CMMS consultant

Eugene is right and as Dave Loesch himself says ...

"Mistake numero uno for EAM/CMMS designers and marketers was the software is NOT the change agent that generates return on investment (ROI). The business process has to be optimized for a particular company and even a particular maintenance crew before it saves money".

What he says above can be applied to all maintenance software applications or for that matter all software applications. But he has lumped EAM and CMMS in together. There is a big difference between these two systems. Most of the smaller companies who make up the largest part of the market place don't have EAM systems. They can however buy a decent CMMS that will do a job for them from about $1K upwards. But ... if they are incapable of using the software they will be wasting $1K.

Similarly, if they spend $$$$ on Reliability software that they are incapable of using then they have wasted $$$$. Having said that it would be highly unlikely that any company without a CMMS application in place would ever consider using complex reliability software. To say that CMMS software "diverts maintenance department from the real task of reliability improvement" is just ludicrous. Only a reliability software vendor would make this claim.


P.S. I am an independent CMMS consultant with no affiliations to any particular software vendor. There is no single product that I must promote to my clients.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bryan Weir,

Bryan, Steve,

Bryan, you are absolutely right, only the Business Process delivers the performance results.

Steve, I support your view that reliability improvements come first, with or without a CMMS/EAMS.

I think of the Business process as an iceberg, with the analysis bit sticking out of the water, and the implementation under water. Reliability and CMMS software helps in the bit above water. EAMS can help greatly in the bit below water, CMMS to a smaller extent.

Software by itself cannot improve performance, but can help lead to better decisions, greater clarity, better communication and audit trails. Used properly, a good CMMS can help empower people, reduce the number of organizational levels and enhance job satisfaction. But the operation word is 'can'. It still need a good Business Process.

If a new company is created today, and the company will establish its maintenance program I agree, the reliability analysis should come before the CMMS. In the design / definition of the business process "asset maintenance" the RCM methodology can be imbedded from start.

But looking at the much more frequent case, the company has been in business for several years, probably even before RCM methodology was drafted; the company has already a CMMS up and running. The change to a new CMMS maybe triggered by another factor (ex. current CMMS application loss support from vendor, high corporate VP of bean counters decision) not just to improve reliability.

The RCM methodology can be applied to an existing company / maintenance program as an improvement project.

Absolutely right, the implemented Business Processes deliver the performance results. The new versions have more and more functionality thus they support a wider and deeper set of processses. To gain benefit from these processes and the EAM tools, the companies have to change their behaviors.

Behavior changes take time while too often I find that the expectations for software implementations are that you load the software and everyone is performing the new behaviors almost immediately.

Instead, too often the old behaviors are carried into the new software usage and thus no benefits are obtained. I think the next version of EAM should support a phased approach to implementation so that a few processes are implemented, the behaviors are learned and mastered and then the next set of processes and EAM tools tackled.

Steve Shores

Brian,
Thanks for your perspective on this. Makes the forum interesting!
As you have labelled my statement ludicrous, I shall respond and stand up for my beliefs – its a free world and I am entitled to my opinion!
I honestly think the world of maintenance is been fed false propaganda by people who are academics or been taught (brain washed) by them (a provocative statement I know)
Brian, you seem to base your argument on a belief that Reliability Analysis requires complex software. This is totally incorrect (in my view) and I believe a widespread misconception. I have been in the reliability business for 27 years and never used anything more complex than a spreadsheet to perform reliability analysis. There is simply no need to get complex software to do reliability analysis or to get reliability in your organisation started.
If organisations want to see their plant improve and they do not have a CMMS then they can instil processes and cultures that promote reliability. They can start collecting data on logbooks and tally sheets if they want to, or they can create simple spreadsheets or databases if they think they need these.
They should start with a quick review of the assets and document a maintenance strategy based on RCM principles (I am not a traditionalist and would not recommend RCM according to the SAE standard for almost all industrial plant but his is another topic) so that they have a good preventive and predictive program to execute.
This is what I refer to as Step 1. Step 1 is not installing a CMMS. CMMS to my way of thinking comes when this is done - and just one pre-emptive statement here – Step 1 should be done area by area and with the CMMS following closely behind. But the point is behind not in front of.
On the lighter side, in my original post I said that “Most of the times when I say these things I get shouted at by the traditionalists and the CMMS vendors”... so folks you can see that I am not making up this statement… lol
And one further clarification if I may; I do not regard myself as a reliability software vendor – never have. Our company works on simplicity and understanding. Eight years ago in the absence simple software to manage information about reliability, we started developing enterprise level software programs which you can buy... but they will not work unless your organisation cares about reliability.
I can talk for a long time on this subject and have lots of information etc. If the thread continues then I will be happy to continue. As you can probably gather, this issue is one that I am passionate about.

Steve

Steve / Guys,

Thanks for starting this thread. I also have a great interest in this area. I enjoyed the article and it goes without saying that I am in agreement with the basic tenents of the argument being laid out here.

But I would like to add a twist if I can.

I have seen a great many companies spend an absolute fortune on Business Processes. SOmetimes they were a good thing but often they created overly-bureaucratic (I always spell that wrong) hard to manage, behemouths that are not focussed on the reality of what we are trying to accomplish in this area.

For example, I have seen companies take to the creation / maintenance and quality assurance of the asset register with an almost fanatical zeal! Yet they don't spend any time on the other more powerful areas of asset management efficiency, nor do they even consider the processes that we are refering to here!

So the twist is this, yes business process is the driver, but it must be the processes that will drive effective asset management, in the most efficient manner. (Or.. the right processes!)

First understand the subject such as maintenance & reliability management, then computerize the system. If the users do not understand the subject first, no amount of computerization will help. However, if the users understand the subject, the business can be done at the speed of light as per Bill Gates.

Having said that, if the organization is on the process of undertstanding the subject to some extent and is having or buying a software which is collectively programmed by those who understand the subject beforehand, then using and understanding the functionalities of the software itself will help them to progress in their quest for better performance.

Of course the aim for organizations is to use some standard tools for everyone to learn & use, not just by one or two experts. A good practice is considered as the best practice if it is easily worth-duplicating across the organization. And one way to easily duplicate knowledge is through computerization.

I remember in one reliability assessment exercise, the scale was focusing in written procedures rather than what is being practiced at site. Therefore, a practice such as RCA being used by all departments but not in written procedures is being considered still at its humble beginning. And a computerized system is a written procedure.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josh,

Good debate, but now for my view of the harsh reality.

Many small companies cannot even contemplate using the more complex methods of maintenance analysis. The fact is that they do not have the skills or resources to do this. Training someone properly could cost thousands of pounds. Taking them off a shift to do so could mean paying someone overtime rates to cover (that is if anyone was available). To many companies like this maintenance is often a matter of fire fighting and they don't have any effective PM systems in place.

Bringing in a consultant is also out of the question because of cost. If a maintenance manager goes to an accountant and says that he wants to spend a few thousand quid on a three letter acronym we all know what the accountant's reply will be in the majority of cases.

If a maintenance manager can scrape enough money together to purchase a low cost CMMS system (£1K?) he/she can immediately start to get his systems better organised. They do not need any consultant to assist with this. If the software is good enough it will guide them through the process.

When critical assets are registered in the system a suitable planned and ad hoc maintenance system can be organised. After a period of time this will yield results provided that they stick to the task. One year down the line they should have statistics that help them to highlight improvement areas, etc.

They will also have PM data that can be fine tuned to gain further improvements in equipment performance. If they do things right they will be able to start moving away from PMs to planned inspections.

Did the CMMS do this? The answer is no, the maintenance manager did it. But what it did do was provide him/her with an out of the box set of tools to facilitate it. That is my experience of the smaller companies that I deal with in the real world. They understand what CMMS is for and appreciate that it can make their life easier in the long run.

Hi bryan,

I hope all is well up there in Scotland.

[quote]Many small companies cannot even contemplate using the more complex methods of maintenance analysis. The fact is that they do not have the skills or resources to do this. Training someone properly could cost thousands of pounds. Taking them off a shift to do so could mean paying someone overtime rates to cover (that is if anyone was available).[quote]

I Just dont but it Bryan. I agree that many companies are in this situation, and I agree that they are tight and don't have the foresight to look at something like this.

But at the end of the day, cost effectiveness over the entire life of the asset depends on them applying effective maitnenance policies. Those are policies that deal with failures ina proactive rather than reactive manner.

Is a broad subject to go into here, I will send you an email.

Brian well said, it is up to the Maintenance Manager (or Maintenance System Enginer) not the CMMS to do it right. The thing I see missing is for the manager (or engineer) devise a way to justify in front of the accountants and upper management what more he/she can achieve if he is provided with the appropriate tools or three letters acronysms.

Daryl - I don't buy it either. Thus my comment that spending money on a CMMS and training people to use it before the foundations of reliability are established is a diversion.

quote:

I Just dont but it Bryan. I agree that many companies are in this situation, and I agree that they are tight and don't have the foresight to look at something like this.

Darrell/Steve, it is not a case of "buying it". What I am telling you is the way it is. It is not an opinion it a statement based on my actual experience over the last few years.

quote:

But at the end of the day, cost effectiveness over the entire life of the asset depends on them applying effective maitnenance policies. Those are policies that deal with failures ina proactive rather than reactive manner.

Sure, absolutely ... I am not disputing this!

As consultants we all have opinions on what people should be doing and how they should be organising their maintenance departments but the fact remains that this is NOT the way it is for many of them.

Let me explain. My business is largely based on assisting small companies to improve their maintenance organisation. The majority of the companies that contact me have less than £5K to spend. How much RCA/RCM consultancy and software will that buy them?

If I can find them a CMMS that is both within their budget and their implementation capabilities then this will help them to improve. I can sleep at night knowing that I have steered them in the right direction but at the end of the day the improvements will be driven by themselves not by any software package.

Hey bryan,

quote:

As consultants we all have opinions on what people should be doing and how they should be organising their maintenance departments but the fact remains that this is NOT the way it is for many of them.

It isnt an opinion Bryan, it is a matter of fact I would suggest.

If a company is not managing all of its critical failures, those that have undesirable consequences, in a proactive fashion, then it is lowering its cost effectiveness.

It stands to reason.

Not only that but they are risking other more serious events also. Again, this is not an opinion but a statement of fact as I am sure you will agree.

I understand that there are a lot of companies who don't have this level of foresight, but they need to have. In fact, the point needs to be made to them that if they don't they are flushing money down the drain.

As consultants, (now this is an opinion) part of our role is to be pointing this out to people.

Not as a sales excercise, but as an informing excercise. It is easy to say "yup, I can do that" and much harder to say "well, that may not be your best alternative for getting maximum value out of the asset base."

A little idealistic maybe?

So what do you charge for a few days consultancy and any necessary software that can get my clients up and running with RCM?

(There may be a couple of hundred quid left over from his £2K).

Brian,
Surely it is not about what you can buy for your money rather than what you get?

Sorry?

Brian,
Perhaps I should expand - last post was a bit abrupt - my apologies.
If the company has a small amount of money and it is clearly not enough to do much, then I would suggest they get some runs on the board, get some financial credibility and put in a budget for more money on a ROI basis. The question gets back to my original post and the topic of this thread - how do you get runs on the board? I said from the outset I would not implement RCM in its current form but I would try and have the principles understood. These principles underpin reliability and they are not difficult...which take us back to some of my earlier posts. Nice discussion Bryan, but I hope you are getting the flavour of my concerns with people shoving in a CMMS as the first step.

quote:

I hope you are getting the flavour of my concerns with people shoving in a CMMS as the first step.

Steve, implementation of RCM is not a life or death affair. It's great if you have the resources and can afford it but many companies can and do organise their maintenance activities perfectly well without it. I know this to be a fact because I have been involved.

You make "shoving in a CMMS" seem like an after thought and this is most certainly not the case. Many CMMS systems are able to drive a company's RCM effort and there are a lot of people out there who would also take the opposite view to yours. For example ...

RCM Success Starts with CMMS

* What is the lowest price you could offer for the minimum consultancy required and the software to implement your maintenance improvement methods?
* How does this price compare with the £500 upwards for which a small company can purchase a functioning CMMS system?

I have been in small companies who don't use RCM. Their decision not to use it does not compromise their operation in any significant way.

Would they be better off using RCM?
Possibly.

Will they survive effectively without it?
Almost certainly.

It is totally misleading to suggest that RCM alone is the holy grail of maintenance management. Relatively speaking there are actually very few companies who use it but those who don't can and do survive without it. RCM is not a life or death affair and it is not always appropriate.