Price: $399.

00

SAP EAM / Plant Maintenance

Best Practices

Reliabilityweb.com Reliability Roadmap

Asset Management White Paper Series

www.reliabilityweb.com www.cmmscity.com

This independent research was conducted and the

report was written without commercial sponsorship.
We are pleased to gain the endorsement of the
enlightened sponsors listed below whos support will allow
us to distribute this report without cost to the reader
and to conduct more important research in the future.
Sponsoring Organizations

www.dts-global.com

www.ivara.com

TM

www.omcsinternational.com

www.mrgsolutions.com

Supporting Organizations

www.reliabilityweb.com

www.uptimemagazine.com

www.cmmscity.com

www.maintenance.org

Table
of Contents
4
6
9
10
11
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Executive Summary

General Information

Information Regarding Migration to SAP PM

Work Process Issues

Work Orders and Spare Parts

Planning

Use of Failure Codes

Training

Reporting

Use of Other Software Tools with SAP PM

Other Products Used with SAP PM

SAP PM User Group (ASUG) Membership

Summary

About the Authors

SAP and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks
or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries all over the world.

Figures


7
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
12
13
13
14
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
20
6
6

Figure 1: Percentage of Users at Various SAP PM Maturity Levels

Figure 2: Percentage of Users at Various SAP PM Maturity Levels vs. Satisfaction

of the Application in Managing Maintenance Activities
Figure 3: Percentage of Users Running the Current SAP Software Version
Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents that Used Consultants for Implementation
Figure 5: Comparison SAP Rating by Those Who Did / Did Not Use Consultants
Figure 6: Reasons for Migration to SAP PM
Figure 7: Did Your Company Replace Your CMMS with SAP EAM / PM?
Figure 8: Have You Changed Your Work Process to Fit SAP EAM / PM?

Figure 9: Those That Did / Did Not Change Their Work Process Compared to the

Level of SAP PM Satisfaction Handling Maintenance
Figure 10: Percentage of Work Orders Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction
Figure 11: Percentage of Spare Parts Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction
Figure 12: What Product Do You Use to Plan Maintenance Work?
Figure 13: Number of Respondents Using SAP and Excel / Project for Planning
Figure 14: Failure Codes Percentage by Who Developed the Codes
Figure 15: Failure Code Development Strategies vs. Satisfaction
Figure 16: Comparison Staff Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction
Figure 17: Comparison Maintenance Employee Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction
Figure 18: Use of SAP PM Reporting vs. Satisfaction
Figure 19: Comparison of SAP PM Report Use / Satisfaction and Staff Training
Figure 20: Use of Other Software in Conjunction with SAP PM
Figure 21: Use of Other Software with SAP PM vs. Satisfaction
Figure 22: Use of Other Software Products In Conjunction with SAP PM
Figure23: Membership in SAP User Group (ASUG)

The promises
of an integrated
Enterprise Asset
Management System
(EAM) such as
SAP include:

Executive Summary
Second only to energy, maintenance costs are a significant
portion of every companys expense budget. Recognizing this fact,
companies have implemented strategies to alter the perception
that maintenance is a necessary evil to one where maintenance
is considered a strong contributor to the companys profitability.
One of these strategies is the integration of the computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS) into the companys
information and decision-making network utilizing tools such as
SAP Plant Maintenance.
In order to gain a better and deeper understanding of the use of
SAP PM as a profitability partner, Reliabilityweb.com surveyed 700
maintenance managers and reliability professionals. This report
will provide insight into the use of SAP PM by those surveyed as
well as provide suggestions for further improvement to increase
value, not simply for the maintenance organization but for the
company as a whole.

Significant Insights
The survey results showed that 65% of the respondents felt that SAP PM
was a good to excellent tool for managing maintenance activities. This is
somewhat different than the industry perception that SAP is not a good
maintenance management tool. This will be explored further throughout
this document. The companies that have successfully utilized SAP PM in the
maintenance arena have included the following in their business strategy:
Software was aligned with the internal work processes. In many cases
this required customization which was achieved with the use of outside
consultants in order to utilize their extensive experience.
All work orders and spare parts information was included in the system
along with the elimination of legacy tools that previously supported
these processes.
Extensive training was provided both during implementation and after
deployment to enhance understanding and gain acceptance.

Visible
maintenance
processes
Standardized
maintenance
processes
Visible
maintenance
performance
metrics

 Increased understanding and utilization of reporting from within the SAP

software vs. exporting data to third-party tools such as Excel.
Inclusion of other tools and applications within the SAP PM that support
the overall maintenance effort and provide deeper and more robust
functionality in key business areas.

Action to Drive Improvement

SAP PM can provide significant business value specifically due to its integration
of financial, materials management, and other systems within a companys
business network. This can only be accomplished if action is taken to:
1. Make full use of SAP PM functionality in order to attain maximum value
from the product, the employee user base, and the associated work
processes
2. Eliminate past practices that detract from the integration capability of
the software
3. Provide ongoing training to increase understanding of the tool and
ultimately acceptance for its use.
These items and others will be addressed in greater detail in the following
chapters of this report.

SAP PM
This report refers to the popular and past name for the SAP Plant
Maintenance (PM) module. The term SAP EAM is the current form.
In this report - the use of SAP PM is synonymous with SAP EAM.

About This Report

This report is an independent survey of 700 maintenance managers and
reliability engineers on their implementation experiences and utilization of
SAP Plant Maintenance. The survey was conducted by Reliabilityweb.com, an
online community of over 50,000 maintenance and reliability professionals
worldwide. The survey was not sponsored by any commercial organization
and all information regarding the respondents is confidential.
Copyright 2010 Reliabilityweb.com.
All rights reserved. Duplication is prohibited.
Reliabilityweb.com, PO Box 60075, Fort Myers, FL 33906 USA

Give people
data and they
will use it.
Provide
communication
and it knocks
down walls.

General Information
Figure 1: Percentage of Users at
Various SAP PM Maturity Levels
(Note: Those respondents not using SAP PM are excluded from this chart.)

Percent of Respondents (N= 586)

100%

80%

Laggards thought
they were simply
installing a
software tool.

60%

44%

42%

1 - 5 years

More than 5 years

40%

20%

14%

0%

Less than 1 year

Based on the survey data, the majority of the respondents were mature SAP
PM users with 86% using the application for more than one year, and almost
half of the survey respondents using SAP PM for more than five years.

Figure 2: Percentage of Users at Various SAP

PM Maturity Levels vs. Satisfaction of the
Application in Managing Maintenance Activities
(Note: Those respondents not using SAP PM are excluded from this table.)
Overall Rating SAP PM Managing Maintenance

The Percentage of
Respondents Using
SAP By Year

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

>5

28%

58%

1 to 5
<1

2%

4%

7%

Leaders used SAP

implementation
as an opportunity
to re-engineer
and standardize
maintenance
reliability best
practices.

1%

Often user maturity level does not guarantee that the application
adequately supports maintenance management activities. To clarify the
relationship between maturity and use, the respondents were asked
about the ability of SAP PM to manage maintenance. Fifty-eight percent
of the mature respondents, and an additional 8% using the application
less than one year, rated the system either good or excellent in support of
maintenance. This high rating of the application in support of maintenance

activities is significant! Nevertheless, 34% rated SAPs ability to support

maintenance in either the fair or poor category. This will be explored
deeper in the Training and Work Process sections of this report.

Figure 3: Percentage of Users Running

the Current SAP Software Version

Percent of Respondents (N= 644)

100%

80%

63%
60%

37%

40%

20%

0%

Yes

No

Another area of general interest is the question of whether or not the user
community is staying current with the vendors software releases. This is
important on two fronts. First, new releases provide improved functionality
which enables the application to address the needs of the users in their
performance of the work. Second, new releases often provide patches to
correct issues discovered in the current release either by the vendor or the
user community. Both of these benefits make staying current an attractive
alternative to not staying current. The issues that often delay the migration
to the most current release are the time it takes to integrate what is being
delivered into the current work process, training the users in the new
functionality, and last but not least, testing the release to make certain that
when deployed it will not cause problems. It is encouraging to see that the
survey indicates that 63% of the respondents are using the current version
of the application which indicates that these issues are being addressed.

Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents

that Used Consultants for Implementation

Percent of Respondents (N= 502)

100%

80%

75%

60%

40%

25%
20%

0%

Used Consultant

Did Not Use Consultant

The companies that

have successfully
utilized SAP PM in
the maintenance
arena have included
the following in their
business strategy:
Software was aligned
with the internal work
processes. In many
cases this required
customization which was
achieved with the use
of outside consultants
in order to utilize their
extensive experience.
All work orders and
spare parts information
was included in the
system along with the
elimination of legacy
tools that previously
supported these
processes.
Extensive training was
provided both during
implementation and after
deployment to enhance
understanding and gain
acceptance.
Increased
understanding and
utilization of reporting
from within the SAP
software vs. exporting
data to third-party tools
such as Excel.
Inclusion of other
tools and applications
within the SAP PM that
support the overall
maintenance effort and
provide deeper and more
robust functionality in key
business areas.

From the above chart, 75% of the respondents utilized a consultant

company to support their implementation and possible work process
enhancement. Twenty-five percent, or 102 respondents, did not, and
worked with internal resources. This raises an interesting question. Did
those who did not utilize a consultant have more or less satisfaction with
SAP PM as a maintenance management tool compared to those who used
the services of a consultant during their implementation process? Figure 5
addresses this question.

Figure 5: Comparison SAP Rating by

Those Who Did / Did Not Use Consultants
SAP Rating Good / Excellent
SAP Rating Fair / Poor

353

Number of Respondents (N= 477)

250

200

353

240

150

100

50

68%

124
77

113
47

62%

Used Consultant

Did Not Use Consultant

Did consultant support actually add value? The data is inconclusive (68%
used a consultant, while 62% did not) and really does not answer this
question. While those who felt satisfied with SAP as a maintenance tool
and did not use a consultant in the process may feel satisfied, the following
questions need to be addressed to clarify the issue:
Did the effort without a consultant in a support role take longer and
actually cost more internal dollars than the cost of the external support?
Were all of the work processes addressed and modified using best
practices? While internal resources may have a firm understanding of
these practices, external consultants have a broad range of experience
and can add value possibly not even considered internally.
Was the training of high quality and did the students learn the tricks
of the trade? These tricks, or best methods, to utilize the software are
things that internal resources would not know since they would have no
prior knowledge of the software. Consultants, on the other hand, bring
this experience to the table.
If the answers to the above questions were not yes, then the rationale for
consultant use in a software work process implementation effort is sound.
While the survey did not answer these questions, the data indicating that 68%
(353) of those surveyed employed consultant support validates the approach.

Insight
The following general
insights are pertinent to
the use of SAP PM as a
maintenance management
tool:
66% of the survey
population rated SAP
PM good to excellent in
supporting maintenance
work processes. This high
percentage of positive
feedback goes a long way
towards dispelling the
myth that maintenance
is not supported by the
application.
Two-thirds of those
surveyed are running the
current version of SAP PM.
This supports the recognition
by the user community that
there is value in staying
current with new releases.
It also supports the fact that
the software releases are
of good quality. If this were
not the case, the percentage
of users not current would
be higher. It doesnt take
the user community long to
recognize software release
quality problems and delay
upgrades.
The use of consultant
support is value-added if
handled correctly. This
is evidenced by the fact
that three-quarters of the
surveyed population used
consultant support in the
SAP PM implementation.
However, 30% of those
using a consultant still
rated SAP PM in support
of maintenance either fair
or poor. There could be a
multitude of reasons for
this result including how
the consultant support was
utilized, among others. If
a consultant is going to be
used in support of this type
of initiative, role clarity is
important. Both external
and internal resources bring
value; it is how they are
blended into an effective
work team that counts.

Information Regarding
Migration to SAP PM
Figure 6: Reasons for Migration to SAP PM
Improved integration
with financial software

225

Improved integration with

materials management

207

We have always
run SAP PM

183

Better multi-location
site management

162

Better reporting

136

Other reasons

105

Improved integration
with human resources

102
0

50

100

150

200

250

It is interesting to note that none of the responses regarding why a company

transitioned to SAP PM were because of improved functionality. That does not
mean that SAP PM did not have improved functionality when compared to the
prior CMMS being operated, but it does provide some interesting support to the
fact that companies are clearly seeing the value of integration of their computer
systems. In fact two-thirds of the reasons for replacement were integration
related. Furthermore, 29% of the additional comments provided stated that
replacement was due to the desire for standardization of software integration.

Figure 7: Did Your Company Replace

CMMS with SAP EAM / PM?
Percent of Respondents (N= 617)

100%

80%

67%
60%

40%

33%

20%

0%

No

Yes

The information provided in Figure 7 is also interesting. Two-thirds of the

respondents stated that their companies did not replace an existing CMMS
with SAP PM. This means that they have been operating SAP PM for an
extended period of time which further supports recognition of the value-add
provided by system integration. The write-in responses also provided some
valuable data. Of the 192 write-in responses, 24% replaced Maximo, 10%
replaced Datastream/Infor Products, and 10% replaced in-house systems
all non-integrated applications.
Maximo is a registered trademark of IBM. Datastream is a trademark of Infor.

10

Insight
It is clear from the
responses and from the
additional comments
provided that:
Management is
recognizing the business
value of system integration
and standardization not
only within a plant site but
enterprise-wide across
companies with multiple
plant locations. Clearly
the cost of providing
application integration is
considered by many to be a
Best of Breed approach.
The decision to migrate
from whatever system
was being used prior
to SAP PM appears not
to be a decision made
by the respondents
(maintenance managers
and reliability engineers).
This is supported by the
data in which 22% said
replacement was due to
corporate mandate, a new
owners mandate, or that
the decision was made by
another department.
With the decision to
migrate to SAP PM being
made by others, the
maintenance managers
and their constituents are
taken from the position
of decision maker to one
where they must adopt
the new system and adapt
to the manner in which
it functions. Often a
system is just as much a
part of the organizational
culture as other aspects
of the business. Change
is difficult and being
forced to move to a new
application by corporate or
other departments clearly
could explain why new
users less than one year
using SAP PM would be
evenly split in the systems
overall rating in support of
maintenance activity (see
Figure 2).

Work Process Issues

Figure 8: Have You Changed Your Work Process
to Fit SAP EAM / PM?

Percent of Respondents (N= 619)

100%

80%

61%
60%

40%

39%

20%

0%

No

Yes

Figure 9: Those That Did / Did Not Change Their

Work Process Compared to the Level of SAP PM
Satisfaction Handling Maintenance
400

Percent of Respondents (N= 589)

350
300
250

251

200
150
100
50

117

66%
135

86

61%

Changed Work Process

Did Not Change Work Process

It is to be expected that a new CMMS will require some modification to

the work process in order to accommodate the new system. However, the
maintenance work process at its basic level consists of work identification,
planning, scheduling, execution, and work order close out. The level of
work process complexity beyond this basic level will often dictate if major
process change is required. From the above charts, almost two-thirds of the
respondents had a need to modify their existing work process. However,
what we dont know is whether the existing process was poor and SAP
PM enabled improvement, or simply that the process was changed due to
system requirements imposed by the new program.
Figure 9 adds additional information. It appears that the level of SAP PM
satisfaction was virtually the same for those who did and those who did not
change their maintenance work process. This might indicate that those who
changed their process to address the functionality provided by SAP PM really
did not have one which was highly developed. If this were the case, then
changing the process along with the SAP PM implementation would provide
a higher level of satisfaction with the software. Conversely those who had
robust processes that fit the SAP PM model would equally be satisfied with
the software while not having to make process modifications.

11

Insight
For those who are planning
an SAP PM implementation,
the above information
provides an important
work process redesign
insight. Every maintenance
organization has a work
process. Prior information
in this report has indicated
that the decision to move
to SAP PM was determined
outside of the maintenance
arena. Therefore the
process in place needs
to adjust to the SAP PM
functionality. If you have a
highly developed process,
then most likely it will fit
the SAP PM work process
model. The question is:
What if you dont have a
robust process? Software
can be a powerful enabler
of change. New software
should give you the
opportunity to create a
new upgraded process
and use the software
implementation to support
it. Failure to put a new
process in place leads to
dissatisfaction with the
software when in reality it is
the process that is flawed.
This may account for
those who are dissatisfied
with the software and
changed their process
after implementation and
those who tried to maintain
the legacy process within
the context of improved
functionality.

Work Orders
and Spare Parts

Insight

Figure 10: Percentage of Work Orders

Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction
50%
45%

45%

Poor-Fair

Percentage of Respondents
Tracking Work Orders in SAP

40%

Good-Excellent

35%
30%
25%
20%

18%

15%

12%

10%

7%

6%

4% 4%

5%

4%

0%
100%

<75%

<50%

<25%

Percentage of Work Orders Tracked in SAP PM

It is critical to the success of any CMMS, especially one that has integrated
functionality, that all work orders are tracked within the system. Failure to
do so reduces the value of the software integration and the overall ability
to plan, schedule, and manage maintenance work activities. Additionally,
important historical information is lost along with the ability to conduct
reliability-centered analysis.

12

Figure 10 shows that a total

of 63% of the respondents
track all of their work
orders within SAP PM. This
accounts for two-thirds of
those surveyed and includes
18% who only rated their
satisfaction level in the poor
to fair range. Obviously
there is recognition across
the maintenance community
of the value of having all
work order information
within the CMMS. This is
further supported by those
who track 75% or less of
their work orders in their
CMMS. In these cases the
satisfaction level (those
satisfied or dissatisfied)
was essentially the same
indicating that tracking less
than 100% did not add any
perceived value to the use
of SAP PM.

Figure 11: Percentage of Spare Parts

Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction
40%

36%

35%

Poor-Fair
Good-Excellent

30%

Percentage of Respondents
Tracking Spares in SAP

Insight

25%
20%

16%

16%

15%
10%

7%

7%

9%

7%

3%

5%
0%
100%

<75%

<50%

<25%

Percentage of Spares Tracked in SAP PM

The data related to the tracking of spares within the CMMS is somewhat
different than that of work orders. Only 51% of those surveyed track all
of their spares in SAP PM, and only 36% have expressed good to excellent
satisfaction with the systems ability to manage maintenance. This raises
some significant questions: How and where is the data related to spare
parts tracked and stored? How do those who do not use SAP PM to track
spares acquire life cycle cost or reliability data for their assets? Clearly
information gaps of this nature can be serious leading to less than adequate
reliability analysis along with the possibility of making wrong business
decisions, each of which can seriously impact a companys bottom line.

Best Practice
A CMMS/EAM cannot support enhanced maintenance performance
or productivity without complete and accurate information. Imagine
the chaos created by a similar lack of detail in your company
accounting information system.
You must track 100% of your maintenance activity and 100% of
maintenance and repair spares in the CMMS/EAM to get the
greatest return.

13

There may be reasons for

this apparent low level of
spares integration to SAP
PM. Regardless of the
reason, a strong business
case can be made for making
spares and general stock
information part of the
integrated system. Not only
is there significant benefit
for maintenance but also
for materials management
and finance as well. An
organization can spend
as much as one-third of
the maintenance budget
on parts, and therefore
it is imperative that the
historical usage information
be available across the
many organizations that use
this data for analysis and
cost control. This can only
occur if the majority of the
parts are tracked within the
CMMS.

Planning

Insight

Figure 12: What Product Do You Use

to Plan Maintenance Work?

The high level use of Excel

(34%) and Microsoft Project
(25%) and the framework of
the survey question imply
that these applications may
be used independently of
SAP PM or through the
downloading of data in
conjunction with the primary
software.

Chart shows number of respondents per product.

Some respondents use multiple products.
SAP

482

Microsoft Excel

209

Microsoft Project

155

Primavera

61

No formal planner

59

Other

Figure 13 drills deeper into

this question. It appears
that those who have ranked
SAP PM good or excellent
in its ability to support
maintenance use Excel or
Project in conjunction with
SAP PM far less than those
who have ranked SAP PM in
the fair to poor category.

45

Prometheus

13
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

SAP PM Ranking

Figure 13: Number of Respondents Using SAP

and Excel / Project for Planning
The Excel / Project data differs from Figure 12.
Figure 13 only shows companies using both products collectively.
500

Also Used for

Planning
Excel

Project

Good to
Excellent

335

28%

22%

Fair to Poor

141

37%

25%

476

SAP
450

Excel

400

Project
335

350
300
250
200
150

Number
Using SAP for
Planning

149

141
96

100

53
50

115
79

36

0
FairPoor

Excellent Good

Total

Planning is a critical part of the maintenance work process. Without

planning and scheduling of the work, there is lack of direction and suboptimization of the maintenance resources. Figure 12 shows that 80% of
those surveyed use SAP PM for their planning activities. This is encouraging
since the planning process drives all other aspects of maintenance activity
and ultimately, through job completion, returns costs and analytical data
back into the system. This is beneficial for maintenance, but due to the
integrated aspect of the software, it is also beneficial to other organizations
that have alternative uses of the work order data.

14

Possible explanations for the

higher use of supplementary
applications for planning
could be 1) insufficient
change management during
implementation causing
continued reliance on old
processes and legacy tools,
or 2) insufficient training
not just during deployment
but on a continuous basis as
new employees are exposed
to SAP PM. Each of these
issues can be corrected by
forcing increased use of SAP
PM in the planning effort and
reducing applications that are
used as crutches in lieu of SAP
PM.

Use of Failure Codes

Figure 14: Failure Codes
Percentage by Who Developed the Codes

Percent of Respondents (N= 589)

100%

A good set of
failure codes,
if used, can
provide insight
to reliability
issues.

80%

Failure codes were

developed by/for
the user companies
the majority of the
time (57%).

60%

46%
40%

29%

20%

12%

13%

Consultant
Developed
Codes

Other
See Note

0%

Codes
Developed
In-House

Used SAP
Standard
Codes

It is interesting to note that 41% of the respondents either used SAP PM

standard codes or had the codes developed for them by a consultant
organization with experience in this area. This is in comparison to 46% that
developed the failure codes in-house. The recognition that failure codes are
an important part of the maintenance process, which enables analysis and
improves asset reliability, is important; however, a great many respondents
indicated that they have difficulty using them.
A good set of failure codes, if used, can provide insight to reliability issues.
The three approaches identified each bring value. Consultant-developed
codes bring the experience of the consultant, which has often been finetuned over many years and many work engagements. SAP PM standard
codes have been created with this same level of industry knowledge by the
vendor interacting with their customers and the user group. The in-house
developed codes can have the same value as the others; however, they are
influenced by those in-house who may not have as broad an experience
base as the former two sources for the codes. The important factor in the
process of obtaining good value is the use of the codes.
Figure 15 further explores the question of SAP PM satisfaction related to
the strategy employed in failure code creation.

15

This highlights
the need for
improved tracking
and reporting
mechanisms to
enable some of
the advanced
reliability
tools and
techniques.

Figure 15: Failure Code

Development Strategies vs. Satisfaction

Insight

(Note: Results in the Other column are excluded from the discussion since in
the majority of the cases failure codes were not developed or not used in the
maintenance process.)
300

Number of Respondents (N=589)

250

200

186
150

100

50

82

69%
114

60

65%
45
26

Codes
Developed
In-House

Used SAP
Standard
Codes

}63%

Consultant
Developed
Codes

41
35
Other
See Note

SAP Rating Good / Excellent

SAP Rating Fair / Poor

16

Figure 15 shows that user

satisfaction in the good to
excellent range was almost
identical regardless of how
the failure codes were
developed. This does not
seem to support the belief
that consultant or SAP PM
developed codes would be
of higher value. What the
survey does not reveal is the
quality or the extent of the
use of the failure codes, both
as part of the work order
process or subsequently in
analysis of asset reliability,
either of which may have an
impact on the above chart.

Training

Insight

Figure 16: Comparison Staff Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction

Overall Rating SAP PM

Percentage of the Maintenance Staf f

Receiving Training - Past 12 Months

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

100%
>75%

13%

36%

22%

29%

>50%
>25%
>5%
0

Training in the use of a CMMS tool is not a one-time event. It is a continuous

process. After all, how do the second, third, and future generations of
users learn to use the application without ongoing training? The answer, a
dangerous one, is that they are trained by those whose jobs they are filling.
If you consider that 15% of the knowledge of how to use the software is lost
by each successive generation, it is clear that this is not a sound approach.
Ongoing training is the answer.

Figure 17: Comparison Maintenance

Employee Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction
Overall Rating SAP PM

The Number of Days / Year of

Training Provided to
Maintenance Employees

Poor
>5
2-5
1
0

Fair

1%
33%

Good

Excellent

8%

Figure 16 clearly makes the

case for ongoing structured
training. In the case where
more than 50% of the staff
received training in the past
year, the level of satisfaction
with SAP PM in the good to
excellent range (36%) was
three times higher than those
who expressed dissatisfaction
(13%), but had the same level of
training. Furthermore, for those
that received very little training
over the past year, there was
little difference between those
satisfied or dissatisfied with the
software.

Insight
In many instances the workforce
has little access to the CMMS and
only receives training in the very
specific areas in which they need
to interact. In other companies,
the workforce has been enabled
to use the software as part of
the job, and while they do not
need the level of training that a
planner would receive, training
is still important. In either case,
the workforce would not require
a great deal of training which
explains the low number of days
of training per year. The level of
use could also explain the level of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction,
the enabled organizations having
a higher regard for the software
due to their ability to use it
extensively.

Best Practice
Training is a huge area for
software improvement and
gain. Training makes any system
easier to use, and if people
are comfortable using the
system, they are more likely to
participate in its success.

58%

Employee training is a different story. It appears from Figure 17 that

additional training beyond one day per year did not add any significant level
of satisfaction within the workforce. The question that remains unanswered
is: How much does the workforce use the software, and is ongoing training
needed?

17

Training will teach users how to

make the CMMS/EAM work for
them rather than them seeing
the CMMS/EAM as extra work.
Develop a strategy for CMMS/
EAM training on a continuing
basis for improved productivity.

Reporting

Insight
Using Figure 19, we can
explore the use of SAP PM
reporting to bring another
element to the discussion
training. The left-hand chart
shows those who rated SAP
PM in support of maintenance
in the good to excellent range.
The x-axis lists the various
levels of staff training year
by year. Clearly those with
more training (>75% to 100%)
employed SAP PM reporting
far more than those who had
less training in the use of the
software. One would suspect
from this data that training
and report use go hand-inhand.

Figure 18: Use of SAP PM Reporting vs. Satisfaction

Is SAP Used to
Generate Reports?
(n = 586)

Overall Rating SAP PM

Managing Maintenance

Poor - Fair

Good Excellent

Yes

18%

46%

No

16%

20%

Within the low levels of

training (>5% through 50%)
satisfaction levels with the
software were almost the
same. This would tend to
validate that lower levels
of yearly training were
not significant in driving
higher use of the reporting
functionality, even among
those satisfied with the
software.

Figure 19: Comparison of SAP PM Report Use / Satisfaction

and Staff Training
Using SAP PM Reports
Not Using SAP PM Reports

120

120

105
100

100

80

80
55

60

53

60
38

40
26
20

20

26

28

40
20

29
16

18

14

18 20

27 28

0
>75% to 100%

>50%

>25%

>5%

Percent Staff Training

SAP Satisfaction Level - Fair to Poor

>75% to 100%

>50%

>25%

>5%

Percent Staff Training

SAP Satisfaction Level - Good to Excellent

Figure 18 clearly shows that there is a higher level of satisfaction with SAP
PM as a maintenance management tool among those who use SAP reports
(46% good to excellent rating vs. 18% fair to poor rating). The indication
from this statistic is that SAP PM reports deliver the information necessary
for monitoring, analysis, and other associated tasks that require good data.
The satisfaction levels provided by those who do not use the reports is more
evenly split 20% good to excellent vs. 16% fair to poor.

18

In the right-hand chart those

who rated SAP PM in the fair
to poor range it appears
that higher levels of training
did not drive higher use of
the reporting functionality. In
this case, the company needs
to first improve satisfaction,
then, with increased training,
report usage should improve.
Only a small percentage
(13%) mentioned BW or BO
indicating the maintenance
departments isolation from
native SAP functionality.

Use of Other Software

Tools with SAP PM
Figure 20: Use of Other Software in
Conjunction with SAP PM
Vibration Analysis

164

Oil Analysis Reports

149

Bar Code Scanners

133

Handheld Mobile Devices

90

Infrared Imaging

85

Ultrasound Readings
46

GPS

33
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of Additional Elements in Use with SAP PM

Fair
Fair--Poor
Poor
SAP
SAPRating
Rating

10
32
13

25

16

Excellent
Good - Exccllent
SAP
SAPRating
Rating

10

51
51

1
0

20

Good to Excellent

1 to 3
Applications

80

168

4 to 8
Applications

11

61

The unanswered question

is: Do the other companies
that did not report the use
of these specific applications
in conjunction with SAP PM
still employ them outside of
SAP PM, or do they simply not
address these issues? The
former answer is far better
than the latter at least the
additional reliability tools
would be in use. For those
who employ the various
software tools listed outside
of SAP PM, they may find the
level of satisfaction with the
SAP PM application would
improve if they were used in
conjunction with one another.

Fair to Poor

180

Figure 21: Use of Other Software with

SAP PM vs. Satisfaction
0

Figure 21, which addresses the

level of SAP satisfaction where
other software tools are also
used, shows that even in
organizations that employ only
one of these tools, there is a
far higher level of satisfaction
with SAP PM than those
who did not report using the
tools. In fact, as shown in the
table below, there are twice
as many satisfied responses
from those using 1 to 3 tools
and six times as many positive
responses from those using 4
or more.

67

RFID

Insight

40

92
60

80

100

Number of Respondents

It is encouraging to note the number of respondents who use other software

applications with functionality that is very specific and aimed at improved
asset reliability. No one application can do it all, especially when the
organization is targeting specific areas of reliability such as vibration analysis
or infrared imaging.
In addition, the use of bar code scanners, handheld mobile devices, and
RFID functionality indicates that other initiatives are in place that focus on
efforts such as operation care and the use of bar codes to streamline many
maintenance work processes.

19

Other Products
Used with SAP PM

Insight

Figure 22: Use of Other Software Products In Conjunction with SAP PM

Microsoft Excel

436

Microsoft Project

198

Primavera

88

Other

46

Impress

24

MeridiumRCMO

23

Synactive GuiXT

21

PMO-2000

21

Meridium APM

18

Prometheus Group

17

OSIsoft PI

14

Ivara EXP

14

Mincom LinkOne

Oniqua Maint. Analyzer

24/7 Tango

NRX Asset Hub

Oniqua Enterprise Reliability

INOVx Asset Certainty

1
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Number of Respondents
Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Project are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.
Other trademarks are property of their owners.

20

450

500

Part of the customization

process often involves the
utilization of third-party
technologies (i.e., a hybrid
solution) to account for
SAP PMs perceived gaps
to meet plant needs or
requirements. A high
number of the respondents
utilized secondary technology
in support of SAP PM.
Predominant use appears
to be with Microsoft Excel
and Project which we have
seen occurs frequently in the
planning and reporting areas.
However, what we have also
seen is that the satisfaction
level with SAP PM in support
of maintenance is far higher
than those who do not
employ these tools. We have
also seen that staff training
has a lot to do with use and
satisfaction. Quite possibly,
additional training would
enable those still dependent
on legacy processes
employing Microsoft tools in
lieu of SAP PM, to abandon
them and use their primary
CMMS.

SAP User Group (ASUG)

Membership
Many organizations implement software and then move forward with the belief that
the vendors only role was that of software salesman. The mature software vendors
do not hold with this belief. Instead, they sponsor user groups to obtain feedback
about the tool, get input for future development, and overall maintain a partner
relationship with their clients. After all, maintenance or other major software applications are not replaced often.
The survey asked if the respondents were members of the ASUG, the SAP user
group. As indicated by the chart, of the 582 respondents, only 96 indicated that
they were part of this user community.

Figure 23: Membership in SAP User Group (ASUG)

100%

Perct of Respondents (N = 582)

84%
80%

60%

40%

16%

20%

0%

No

Yes

An additional factor resulting in the low participation in ASUG by maintenance reliability professionals is the apparent acquiescence of SAP EAM conference, networking
and learning space to commercial events with an SAP Plant Maintenance or SAP EAM
focus. There is an obvious need for SAP PM conferences that share case studies and
best practices. These commercial events drain attention, time, resources and revenue
from a potential audience that would normally serve to grow and support ASUG.
Further research supports the high level of interest in networking and learning related to SAP EAM based on the 4000+ Reliabilityweb.com opt-in e-mail subscribers
registering for an impendent SAP EAM publication. This is further verified by active
SAP EAM online communities and discussion groups at MaintenanceForums.com
(www.maintenanceforums.com) and the Association for Maintenance Professionals
(www.maintenance.org).
As there is a predisposition for companies that invest in SAP as an ERP platform to
support officially sanctioned software user groups, it appears ASUG has a large opportunity to assert its leadership in the maintenance reliability community where
SAP EAM market share is estimated to be between 30%-35% of all maintenance
management and asset management software systems in use. It is suggested that
ASUG can broaden its influence by offering user group conferences that add value to
SAP EAM users and ASUG as well as commercial supporters such as SAP AG and the
SAP supplier community.

Action to Drive Improvement

The recommended action item to 1) gain benefits from a partnership with the
software vendor, 2) drive software improvement, and 3) network with peers to
learn best practices is to re-evaluate the value of membership for maintenance and
reliability professions in ASUG.

21

Insight
There are two other possible
answers to the low number
of ASUG members identified
in the survey. First, since
SAP is a software tool, IT
(Information Technology)
is representing the
organization within the
ASUG community. The
other reason is that the
company does not feel that
membership is necessary
and hence does not
participate. In either case,
valuable input and value is
being lost. Through user
conferences, special interest
groups, and local chapters,
this is the method by
which the user community
can influence product
development. It also
provides users within one
company to network with
their peers and improves
their utilization of the
software.

Summary

Satisfaction with SAP

PM is influenced by a
number of factors:

Many maintenance practitioners have expressed dissatisfaction with

SAP PMs ability to support maintenance activities. There are many
possible reasons for this opinion; however, the survey results contained
in this report in many ways dispel this belief.
Change is difficult. It can be made even more difficult when an
organization such as maintenance is forced to abandon their legacy CMMS
and learn to utilize a new one, especially if they have not had a great deal
of input into the decision. This, coupled with low levels of training, can
foster resistance to the change, delaying deployment, causing frustration
in those who have to learn new ways to work, and ultimately resulting in
expressed dissatisfaction with the software. These problems can and must
be overcome not just for success in the maintenance arena, but for success
across the company.
They key is to address the implementation as a process, not a project.
The new software and its associated work processes need constant care
and feeding if you expect them to integrate into the organizations culture.
There are eight key points to consider.
They are referred to as the Eight Elements of Change.

Leadership The leaders must be visibly committed to the success of

the effort remembering that it is a process change, not a project with a
finite end point.

Work Process The work process must adapt to the new software

without loss of the value that existed in the former process, but gaining
the value offered by the new software.

Structure Where necessary, the structure may need alteration to

be able to accommodate the process changes. This is an opportunity

to leverage improved maintenance performance such as hiring full-time
planners and a separate work scheduler.

Learning As we have seen, training is critical, not just during

implementation but on a continuous basis. It improves acceptance

and use, and avoids loss of functionality as employees train their
replacements when they leave the job.

Technology Maximum use of the software (SAP PM and other

identified tools) is important to acceptance. Legacy tools such as

Microsoft Excel and Project, while they have their place, should not be
an acceptable alternative to the use of SAP PM functionality.

Communication It is important that constant communication

take place about the effort. People are afraid of change, and without
information about what is happening, they create it, often to the
detriment of the effort.

Interrelationships New software and the associated process

changes have a way of breaking the strong interrelationships among

people and departments. These interrelationships are how things get
done. Now they are going to be different. If this aspect of change is not
considered, confusion will be the result.

22

Tracking all work

Tracking all spares
Reporting mastery
Customization
modifying SAP PM and
internal plant process for
better alignment; use of
third-party technologies
to bridge the gap
Consultantsuse of
outside consultants to
drive that customization
Trainingtraining all
maintenance employees
and keeping up with
continuing education
regarding SAP PM
Moving toward Best
Practice strategies
to bridge the gap in
any of these areas
will go a long way
toward enhancing user
satisfaction which also
would be indicative of
more effective use of
SAP to support effective
maintenance processes.

 Rewards The reward when deploying a powerful new software tool

is the value it brings to the companys bottom line. If people understand

this and can see the results, they will be far more involved with trying to
make the effort a success.

If you are a current SAP PM user, we hope you can use this
information to improve your use of this very valuable tool and the other
software tools that support it. This change for the better will vastly improve
not only the use of the software, but far more importantly, your maintenance
management work processes, productivity, reliability, and ultimately the
bottom line performance of your company.
If you are interested in learning more about the SAP PM Best Practices
Survey, please feel free to e-mail Terrence OHanlon at the address below.
Reliabilityweb.com PO Box 60075 Fort Myers FL 33906 USA
tohanlon@reliabilityweb.com www.reliabilityweb.com

Authors
This report was written by Steve Thomas
with additional insights by Terry Wireman, CPMM,
and Terrence OHanlon, CMRP

Steve Thomas

has 40 years of experience working in the

petrochemical industry. During this time, through personal involvement
at all levels of the maintenance and reliability work process, he has
gained vast experience in all phases of the business. Coupled with a B.S.
in Electrical Engineering from Drexel University and M.S. degrees in both
Systems Engineering and Organizational Dynamics from the University of
Pennsylvania, this experience has enabled him to add significant value to
the many projects on which he has worked. In addition, he has published
six books on this and other subjects through Industrial Press, Inc., and Reliabilityweb.com.,
the most recent being Asset Data Integrity is Serious Business and Measuring Maintenance
Workforce Productivity Made Simple, both of which were published in October 2010.

Terry Wireman

Mr. Wireman helps organizations develop

Best-In-Class maintenance and reliability policies and practices. As
an international expert in maintenance management, he has assisted
hundreds of companies in North America, Europe, and the Pacific Rim to
improve their maintenance effectiveness. In addition, he has authored
twenty-three textbooks, numerous white papers, and magazine articles
related to maintenance management process and technology. Mr. Wireman
has been a featured speaker at conferences, technical association events
and University sponsored workshops, domestically and internationally.

Terrence OHanlon

Terrence OHanlon, CMRP is the Publisher of Reliabilityweb.com and Uptime Magazine. He is a Certified
Maintenance & Reliability Professional and is the acting Executive Director
of the Association for Maintenance Professionals (AMP). Mr. OHanlon
is also a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The
Association of Facilities Engineers, Society of Maintenance and Reliability
Professionals and the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers.
Reliabilityweb.com is an online community of over 55,000 maintenance
and reliability professionals worldwide created in 1999. A free weekly e-mail newsletter with
tutorials, articles, tips and more is available online at: http://www.reliabilityweb.com

23

SAP for Plant

Maintenance
According to the
German standard
DIN 31051, plant
maintenance comprises
all measures for
maintaining and
restoring the target
condition as well
as determining and
assessing the actual
condition of the
technical equipment
in a system.
Whereas DIN 31051
applies to the individual
parts of a system and
associated measures,
system-oriented plant
maintenance focuses
on safeguarding
the functioning of a
production system
as a whole. Plant
maintenance in this
sense belongs to system
logistics, the primary
goals of which are
planning, creating and
maintaining system
availability.
Excerpted from
SAP R/3 Plant
Maintenance:
Making It Work
for Your Business
Addison-Wesley
Professional
ISBN: 0201675323