Maintenance management often justifies computer systems using "faith, hope, and charity" rather than quantitative methods. This approach has frequently led to hastily implemented systems that are rejected by maintenance personnel. For a system to succeed, maintenance management must be convinced of the need for the system and dedicated to its success from the outset.
Maintenance management often justifies computer systems using "faith, hope, and charity" rather than quantitative methods. This approach has frequently led to hastily implemented systems that are rejected by maintenance personnel. For a system to succeed, maintenance management must be convinced of the need for the system and dedicated to its success from the outset.
Maintenance management often justifies computer systems using "faith, hope, and charity" rather than quantitative methods. This approach has frequently led to hastily implemented systems that are rejected by maintenance personnel. For a system to succeed, maintenance management must be convinced of the need for the system and dedicated to its success from the outset.
Although many quantitative methods exist for justifying computer-
based systems in the maintenance area, many such systems are justified by what is called the “faith, hope, and charity” method. Maintenance management simply has faith that maintenance can be made more effec- tive and can be controlled better if maintenance activities and costs can be measured. Through computers, maintenance management also hopes ef- fective record keeping will preserve effective procedures and the mainte- nance department will be less vulnerable to loss of key personnel because these procedures are recorded within a computer system. The element of charity exists because the accounting or operations departments may have computers which are not fully utilized and are, thus, available for maintenance-related applications. Unfortunately, the “faith, hope, and charity” justification technique too often has resulted in installation of systems which were thrown to- gether on a part-time basis by data processing personnel and imposed on the maintenance department in the total absence of any obvious mainte- nance coverage and/or desire for such systems. The result has been im- mediate rejection of the system by maintenance personnel and a setback in the maintenance department’s acceptance of computer support of any type.
Setting up an Effective System
As previously mentioned, there are a variety of computer systems be-
ing installed in processing plants. These systems can be installed either as “stand-alone” systems or as systems which exchange data with other re- lated systems. Just where the first system is installed depends mainly on where help is most needed-or where computerization would produce the most significant benefits. With any system, however, there are certain “places to start” which are absolutely vital to system success. The maintenance department which hopes to realize benefits from computer systems must start with a convinced, dedicated management and recognize that system acceptance in the maintenance department must be earned. The manager who has a system designed and installed as “something we can try to see how it works out” has wasted a lot of company money. If the maintenance manager is not solidly convinced the contemplated system is needed and if he is not dedicated to its success, then the system