Don’t Procrastinate…Innovate!: De-Cluttering Maintenance Management

By Ken Bannister, Contributing Editor

As a member of the slide-rule generation, I witnessed the advent of electronic calculators, punch-card mainframe computers, personal computers and the birth of Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) programs. Despite all this technological progress, one thing hasn’t changed: I continue to see extensive “hoarding” behavior in the amassing of data.

Hoarding can largely be attributed to people’s natural reluctance to discard things—regardless of value—on the off chance they might be useful in the future. Yet the problem is not just a human condition. Many maintenance departments also embrace a “double clutter” strategy. Using their lack of trust in CMMS or EAM data as a rationale, they store all of their completed/closed paper work orders in boxes. (Sound familiar?)

Data vs. information

Data is often mistakenly referred to as “information.” That leads many to believe that collecting and storing any and as much of it as possible will produce a management system. This notion is a grave misconception, as real “Information” is derived from the discriminate collation of relatable or valued data that can be used to make a management decision.

Indiscriminate capture and storage of data invariably results in a clogged management system in which it is difficult to distinguish and extract valued data (that’s expressed as relevant and relatable) from non-valued data. For example, a typical PM job task may instruct the maintainer to collect and record a series of gauge readings on the work order that are, in turn, entered verbatim into the CMMS or EAM. While this is a common and simple-enough job task, the collected data will have little or no value: The readings won’t be immediately relatable to any operating parameter (i.e., hi-low operating boundary limits) unless the maintainer is skilled and experienced enough to recognize a potential problem from the readings and the visual equipment state.

If the PM is performed by a semi- or non-skilled person (more likely today and in the near future as we lose our skilled-trades base), the readings may simply be recorded and entered in the system with little or no action taken, based on the idea that the data can be extracted and analyzed later by a more experienced person. Unfortunately, CMMS and EAM history files are full of such data, which can be difficult to isolate, extract and relate to similar data for trending purposes after the fact. I compare it to “MUD.” It sticks to everything, is difficult to work with and eventually slows or “chokes” its environment. In addition, what better acronym than “MUD” can there be for meaningless unrelated data? Since it has little or no value, this type of data is undesirable in a management system.

Making your CMMS or EAM system work effectively—to provide information based on asset life-cycle objectives and goals and expectations set for your department—may require innovative surgery to “de-clutter” the database. This type of procedure can turn “fat and lazy” work-order systems into “lean and mean” management-information systems.

For a CMMS or EAM to qualify as a true management tool, it must be able to efficiently deliver informational reporting based on pre-determined needs. To do this, seven conditions must be met.

1. Management reporting requirements must be understood and listed.

2. There must be sufficient flexibility in the system to configure/reconfigure its code management. The code management component acts as a series of macro data collation search filters used to efficiently dissect and categorize data.

3. The work-order format must be configurable for recording the required code-management data.

4. The job task database must be “MUD-free” in its setup.

5. The asset data must be as concise and complete as possible. This means the equipment register must be up to date and accurately reflect all equipment and facility assets currently being maintained. In addition, all labor and material usage for work performed must be accurately recorded at the equipment-asset level for every job task completed, including external contracted work.

6. The inventory section must be operational and set up for use.

7. The CMMS or EAM user(s) must have access and training to mine and collate the data (through use of the data-filter codes) and convert it into meaningful queries and reports that can be trusted for making informed management decisions.

A CMMS or EAM that doesn’t meet these seven conditions is probably operating as nothing but a work-order system.

De-cluttering tactics

Tactic 1: If your CMMS or EAM system has become “orphaned” due to customization updates that can no longer be supported or allow you to make necessary changes, consider a complete reinstall of the latest upgraded version of the software. The legacy system can still be used while the new system is being set up in a de-cluttered manner. The new system should be set up selectively, and not rely on straight data migration to populate the equipment register. Legacy data can be migrated into a spreadsheet and selectively ”scrubbed” and updated prior to moving into the new software. Once a new system is set up for use, the legacy system should be used through controlled access for history-reporting purposes only.

If a software maintenance fee is paid regularly, upgrades should come at no cost. If the fee payments have lapsed, upgrades can usually be obtained for a fraction of the cost a new user would pay.

Tactic 2: Develop meaningful, value-based PM tasks. For example, adopt a “Minute Maintenance” approach with a Go/No-Go exception-based PM check methodology that sets up inspections based on control parameters (see “Minute Maintenance Part 2,” MT, March 2014) and only enters relevant findings into the CMMS or EAM. Using the example above, gauges can be set up with upper and lower control markers, and a maintainer only enters a No-Go finding (exception) when a marker is out of its operating parameter range.

Tactic 3: Many maintenance departments are guilty of over “PM-ing” their assets. Using a Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) approach to determine the consequence of failure for all your equipment, identify and focus your PM efforts on your critical equipment. This will significantly reduce the amount of PM tasks in the system. It also makes the system easier to manage and the workload easier to schedule and analyze for effectiveness (a concept that will be covered in the July 2014 installment of this column).

Tactic 4: Many code-management setups fall victim to enthusiasm: A plethora of non-relevant/value codes may be entered early on because the maintenance department doesn’t know what it wants the system to report. Confirm that you use all your current codes, and document how each adds value and in what type of report you use it. 

Tactic 5: Investigate if your company has a documentation Classification and Record Retention Schedule (CARRS) requirement for paper work orders. Follow the requirements and keep only legally mandated documents, if any!

These are just a few examples of how to de-clutter your CMMS or EAM system. If you have others, please share them with us. And if your system is unable to accommodate the de-cluttering tactics listed here, it’s probably time to look into a new software package—one that meets your newly defined needs. Good luck!  MT

kbannister@engtechindustries.com