Reports are just too good to be true

Monthly reports show that asset performance is good – availability is high, but output, is disappointing. Asset availability is often reported by maintainers using their own work order management system. Data in those systems are often flawed and can be misleading. Availability as reported by maintenance is based on hours in the shop, not hours in the field. The two measures can be far apart. Some maintainers consider “scheduled” downtime to be required and therefore an exception from reporting. Availability can be dramatically overstated in those cases.

That report of availability may also mask other problems. Repairs completed quickly don’t always make a big impact on availability, but the disruption to operations from the breakdowns that led to them can be huge.

Maintenance performance is often measured in percentages of planned work, scheduled work, schedule compliance, and proportion of work that is proactive. All of those are subject to interpretations that can also mislead. We often find reports tend to paint a good picture, even if the underlying reality isn’t so good. Sometimes that is done intentionally to meet targets, particularly if compliance with performance targets has been emphasized over the identification of the need for improvements.

Your internal specialists may struggle to spot these problems, especially if they have a long history in your company and its ways of working. Digging into what is really going on usually requires an independent assessment by experts in the field.

We have assisted companies since 1995 and know the challenges you face. We have literally written the books on maintenance and reliability that others quote. The big consulting firms call on us because, like you, they can’t afford to get it wrong. We help with assessments, business cases, and the implementation of changes. Payback is usually less than a year.

Let’s talk. Experience the confidence of having a true subject matter expert as your personal advisor.