See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242165496

The maintenance management

framework

Article in Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering · May 2009

DOI: 10.1108/13552510910961110

CITATIONS READS

47 1,892

5 authors, including:

Adolfo Crespo Marquez Mónica A. López-Campos

Universidad de Sevilla Universidad Técnica Federico Sa…
146 PUBLICATIONS 1,350 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adolfo Crespo Marquez on 04 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications – Martorell et al. (eds)
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48513-5

The maintenance management framework: A practical view to

maintenance management

A. Crespo Márquez, P. Moreu de León, J.F. Gómez Fernández, C. Parra Márquez & V. González
Department Industrial Management, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Spain

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to define a process for maintenance management and to classify
maintenance engineering techniques within that process. Regarding the maintenance management process, we
present a generic model proposed for maintenance management which integrates other models found in the
literature for built and in-use assets, and consists of eight sequential management building blocks. The different
maintenance engineering techniques are playing a crucial role within each one of those eight management build-
ing blocks. Following this path we characterize the ‘‘maintenance management framework’’, i.e. the supporting
structure of the management process.
We offer a practical vision of the set of activities composing each management block, and the result of the
paper is a classification of the different maintenance engineering tools. The discussion of the different tools can
also classify them as qualitative or quantitative. At the same time, some tools will be very analytical tools while
others will be highly empirical. The paper also discusses the proper use of each tool or technique according to
the volume of data/information available.

1 THE MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT
PROCESS
The maintenance management process can be divided
into two parts: the definition of the strategy, and the
strategy implementation. The first part, definition of
the maintenance strategy, requires the definition of
the maintenance objectives as an input, which will be
derived directly from the business plan. This initial
part of the maintenance management process condi-
tions the success of maintenance in an organization,
and determines the effectiveness of the subsequent
implementation of the maintenance plans, schedules,
controls and improvements. Effectiveness shows how
well a department or function meets its goals or com-
pany needs, and is often discussed in terms of the
quality of the service provided, viewed from the cus-
tomer’s perspective. This will allow us to arrive at
a position where we will be able to minimize the
maintenance indirect costs [3], those costs associated
with production losses, and ultimately, with customer
dissatisfaction. In the case of maintenance, effective-
ness can represent the overall company satisfaction
with the capacity and condition of its assets [4], or
the reduction of the overall company cost obtained
because production capacity is available when needed
[5]. Effectiveness concentrates then on the correctness
of the process and whether the process produces the
required result.
The second part of the process, the implementation
of the selected strategy has a different significance
level. Our ability to deal with the maintenance man-
agement implementation problem (for instance, our
ability to ensure proper skill levels, proper work prepa-
ration, suitable tools and schedule fulfilment), will
allow us to minimize the maintenance direct cost
(labour and other maintenance required resources). In
this part of the process we deal with the efficiency
of our management, which should be less impor-
tant. Efficiency is acting or producing with minimum
waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. Efficiency
is then understood as providing the same or better
maintenance for the same cost.
In this paper we present a generic model proposed
for maintenance management integrates other mod-
els found in the literature (see for instance [6,7]) for
built and in-use assets, and consists of eight sequential
management building blocks, as presented in Figure 1.
The first three building blocks condition maintenance
effectiveness, the fourth an fifth ensure maintenance
efficiency, blocks six and seven are devoted to main-
tenance and assets life cycle cost assessment, finally
block number eight ensures continuous maintenance
management improvement.

669
 Effectiveness Effectiveness
Phase 1:
Phase 3:
Definition of the Phase 2: Phase 2: Phase 3:
Immediate Phase 1:
maintenance Assets priority Criticality Failure Root
intervention Balance
objectives and and maintenance Analysis Cause Analysis
on high impact Score Card
KPI s strategy definition
weak points (CA) (FRCA)
(BSC)

Improvement Phase 4:
Phase 8:
Continuous
Design of Improvement
the preventive Phase 8:
Improvement Phase 4:
maintenance Total Productive
and new Reliability-
plans and Maintenance
techniques Centred
resources (TPM),
utilization Maintenance
e-maintenance
(RCM)

Phase 7: Phase 6: Phase 5:

Asset life cycle Maintenance Preventive plan,
analysis execution schedule Phase 6:
and replacement assessment and resources Phase 7: Reliability Phase 5:
optimization and control optimization Life Cycle Analysis (RA)
Cost Analysis & Critical Path Optimization
(LCCA) Method (RCO)
Assessment Efficiency (CPM)

Assessment Efficiency
Figure 1. Maintenance management model.

Figure 2. Sample of techniques within the maintenance

management framework.
2 MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK

In this section, we will briefly introduce each block Maintenance

and discuss methods that may be used to improve each Cost Effectiveness
building block decision making process (see Figure 2).
Regarding the Definition of Maintenance Objec-
tives and KPI’s (Phase 1), it is common the operational Maintenance cost (%)
per unit produced (7%)
objectives and strategy, as well as the performance
measures, are inconsistent with the declared over-
all business strategy [8]. This unsatisfactory situation
can indeed be avoided by introducing the Balanced Maintenance
Scorecard (BSC) [9]. The BSC is specific for the planning Quality Learning
organization for which it is developed and allows the and scheduling
creation of key performance indicators (KPIs) for mea-
suring maintenance management performance which PM Accomplishment
Data integrity
Compliance of criticality analysis
are aligned to the organization’s strategic objectives (95%)
(98%) (Every 6 months)
(See Figure 3).
Unlike conventional measures which are control
oriented, the Balanced Scorecard puts overall strategy Figure 3. From KPIs to functional indicators [2].
and vision at the centre and emphasizes on achiev-
ing performance targets. The measures are designed
to pull people toward the overall vision. They are qualitative techniques which attempt to provide a sys-
identified and their stretch targets established through tematic basis for deciding what assets should have
a participative process which involves the consul- priority within a maintenance management process
tation of internal and external stakeholders, senior (Phase 2), a decision that should be taken in accor-
management, key personnel in the operating units dance with the existing maintenance strategy. Most of
of the maintenance function, and the users of the the quantitative techniques use a variation of a concept
maintenance service. In this manner, the performance known as the ‘‘probability/risk number’’ (PRN) [11].
measures for the maintenance operation are linked to Assets with the higher PRN will be analysed first.
the business success of the whole organization [10]. Often, the number of assets potentially at risk out-
Once the Maintenance Objectives and Strategy are weighs the resources available to manage them. It is
defined, there are a large number of quantitative and therefore extremely important to know where to apply

670
 +

-
4
F

C
B
r
e 3 1 2 1 3 Critical
q
u Semi-critical
e 2
n 4 2 Non-critical

A
c

B.C

Maintainability
y

A.B
M
1 3

M
M
C
A
10 20 30 40 50

B.C

A.B

Reliability
R
Consequence

R
R
C
A
Figure 4. Criticality matrix and assets location.

B.C

A.B
D

Delivery
D
D
available resources to mitigate risk in a cost-effective

C
and efficient manner. Risk assessment is the part of the
ongoing risk management process that assigns relative

Working
C
priorities for mitigation plans and implementation. In

Time
A.B

W
W
professional risk assessments, risk combines the prob-
ability of an event occurring with the impact that event
would cause. The usual measure of risk for a class of

B.C
events is then R = PxC, where P is probability and C

Quality
Q
A

Q
is consequence. The total risk is therefore the sum of
the individual class-risks (see risk/criticality matrix in
B.C
Figure 4).

Safety
Risk assessment techniques can be used to pri-

S
A

S
oritize assets and to align maintenance actions to
business targets at any time. By doing so we ensure that

Environment
B.C

maintenance actions are effective, that we reduce the

E
indirect maintenance cost, the most important mainte-
A

nance costs, those associated to safety, environmental

risk, production losses, and ultimately, to customer
dissatisfaction.
The procedure to follow in order to carry out an
assets criticality analysis following risk assessment
techniques could be then depicted as follows:
1. Define the purpose and scope of the analysis;
2. Establish the risk factors to take into account and
their relative importance;
3. Decide on the number of asset risk criticality levels
to establish;
4. Establish the overall procedure for the identifica-
tion and priorization of the critical assets.
Notice that assessing criticality will be specific to
each individual system, plant or business unit. For
instance, criticality of two similar plants in the same
industry may be different since risk factors for both
plants may vary or have different relative importance.
On some occasions, there is no hard data about his-
torical failure rates, but the maintenance organization
may require a certain gross assessment of assets prior-
ity to be carried out. In these cases, qualitative methods
(see example in Figure 5) may be used and an initial
Figure 5. Qualitative criticallity assessment [2].
assets assessment, as a way to start building mainte-
nance operations effectiveness, may be obtained. Once
there is a certain definition of assets priority, we have
to set up the strategy to be followed with each category
of assets. Of course, this strategy will be adjusted over
time, but an initial starting point must be stated.
As mentioned above, once there is a certain rank-
ing of assets priority, we have to set up the strategy
to follow with each category of assets. Of course, this
strategy will be adjusted over time, and will consist
of a course of action to address specific issues for
the emerging critical items under the new business
conditions (see Figure 6).
Once the assets have been prioritized and the main-
tenance strategy to follow defined, the next step would
be to develop the corresponding maintenance actions
associated with each category of assets. Before doing
so, we may focus on certain repetitive—or chronic—
failures that take place in high priority items (Phase 3).

671
 Initial RCM
Reach optimal reliability, Phase Implementation phase
A maintainability and
RCM
availability levels team Operational
conformation context Functional
Function Failure modes

Maintenance strategy
definition failures
Criticality and asset
Asset category

Analysis selection FMEA

(level?) Failure Mode and Effect of
Ensure certain Effects Analysis failure modes
B equipment availability Tool to answer the first 5
levels RCM Questions

Tool to answer Application of

the last 2 the RCM
RCM Questions logic

Sustain – improve
C Final Maintenance
current situation plan
Phase documentation

Figure 6. Example of maintenance strategy definition for Figure 7. RCM implementation process.
different category assets [2].

Equipment
Finding and eliminating, if possible, the causes of status &
Optimality
those failures could be an immediate intervention pro- Criteria
functional
dependencies
viding a fast and important initial payback of our
maintenance management strategy. The entire and
detailed equipment maintenance analysis and design Failure
could be accomplished, reaping the benefits of this Dynamics
intervention if successful. Monte Carlo PM
There are different methods developed to carry out Model Schedule
this weak point analysis, one of the most well known Preventive
being root-cause failure analysis (RCFA). This method Maintenance
consists of a series of actions taken to find out why a Plan
particular failure or problem exists and to correct those System
causes. Causes can be classified as physical, human or constraints Work in process
latent. The physical cause is the reason why the asset
failed, the technical explanation on why things broke Figure 8. Obtaining the PM schedule.
or failed. The human cause includes the human errors
(omission or commission) resulting in physical roots.
Finally, the latent cause includes the deficiencies in the and the maintenance/replacement interval determina-
management systems that allow the human errors to tion problems, mid-term models may address, for
continue unchecked (flaws in the systems and proce- instance, the scheduling of the maintenance activities
dures). Latent failure causes will be our main concern in a long plant shut down, while short term models
at this point of the process. focus on resources allocation and control [13]. Mod-
Designing the preventive maintenance plan for a elling approaches, analytical and empirical, are very
certain system (Phase 4) requires identifying its func- diverse. The complexity of the problem is often very
tions, the way these functions may fail and then high and forces the consideration of certain assump-
establish a set of applicable and effective preventive tions in order to simplify the analytical resolution of
maintenance tasks, based on considerations of sys- the models, or sometimes to reduce the computational
tem safety and economy. A formal method to do this needs.
is the Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM), as in For example, the use of Monte Carlo simula-
Figure 7. tion modelling can improve preventive maintenance
Optimization of maintenance planning and schedul- scheduling, allowing the assessment of alternative
ing (Phase 5) can be carried out to enhance the scheduling policies that could be implemented dynam-
effectiveness and efficiency of the maintenance poli- ically on the plant/shop floor (see Figure 8).
cies resulting from an initial preventive maintenance Using a simulation model, we can compare and dis-
plan and program design. cuss the benefits of different scheduling policies on the
Models to optimize maintenance plan and sched- status of current manufacturing equipment and sev-
ules will vary depending on the time horizon of eral operating conditions of the production materials
the analysis. Long-term models address mainte- flow. To do so, we estimate measures of performance
nance capacity planning, spare parts provisioning by treating simulation results as a series of realistic

672
 CAPEX OPEX
Capital Costs Operational Costs
Conventional Maintenance E-maintenance
Development Investment Operation
costs costs costs
Top Management Top Management
Acquisition
Acquis tion
Corrective Maintenance + Security, Environment, Production = Reports
Design Non Reliability Costs = Risk

Operation + Planned Maintenance Costs. Middle Management Middle Management

Investigation
Precise &
Reports Login to
Concise
iScada Information
Maintenance Dept Maintenance Dept
Construction Remove
Time (years) Inspections/Complaints

Assets / Assets /
Figure 9. Life cycle cost analysis. Information Source Information Source

experiments and using statistical inference to identify Figure 10. Implementing e-maintenance (http://www.
devicesworld.net).
reasonable confidence intervals.
The execution of the maintenance activities—once
designed planned and scheduled using techniques
described for previous building blocks—has to be are considered to be of higher impact as a result of the
evaluated and deviations controlled to continuously previous steps of our management process. Regard-
pursue business targets and approach stretch values for ing the application of new technologies to mainte-
key maintenance performance indicators as selected nance, the ‘‘e-maintenance’’ concept (Figure 10) is
by the organization (Phase 6). Many of the high put forward as a component of the e-manufacturing
level maintenance KPIs, are built or composed using concept [14], which profits from the emerging infor-
other basic level technical and economical indica- mation and communication technologies to implement
tors. Therefore, it is very important to make sure a cooperative and distributed multi-user environment.
that the organization captures suitable data and that E-Maintenance can be defined [10] as a maintenance
that data is properly aggregated/disaggregated accord- support which includes the resources, services and
ing to the required level of maintenance performance management necessary to enable proactive decision
analysis. process execution.
A life cycle cost analysis (Phase 7) calculates the This support not only includes etechnologies (i.e.
cost of an asset for its entire life span (see Figure 9). ICT, Web-based, tether-free, wireless, infotronic tech-
The analysis of a typical asset could include costs nologies) but also, e-maintenance activities (opera-
for planning, research and development, production, tions or processes) such as e-monitoring, e-diagnosis,
operation, maintenance and disposal. Costs such as e-prognosis . . . etc. Besides new technologies for
up-front acquisition (research, design, test, produc- maintenance, the involvement of maintenance people
tion, construction) are usually obvious, but life cycle within the maintenance improvement process will be
cost analysis crucially depends on values calculated a critical factor for success. Of course, higher lev-
from reliability analyses such us failure rate, cost els of knowledge, experience and training will be
of spares, repair times, and component costs. A life required, but at the same time, techniques covering the
cycle cost analysis is important when making decisions involvement of operators in performing simple mainte-
about capital equipment (replacement or new acqui- nance tasks will be extremely important to reach higher
sition) [12], it reinforces the importance of locked levels of maintenance quality and overall equipment
in costs, such as R&D, and it offers three important effectiveness.
benefits:
• All costs associated with an asset become vis-
ible. Especially: Upstream; R&D, Downstream; 3 CONCLUSIONS
Maintenance;
• Allows an analysis of business function interre- This paper summarizes the process (the course of
lationships. Low R&D costs may lead to high action and the series of stages or steps to follow)
maintenance costs in the future; and the framework (the essential supporting structure
• Differences in early stage expenditure are high- and the basic system) needed to manage maintenance.
lighted, enabling managers to develop accurate A set of models and methods to improve maintenance
revenue predictions. management decision making is presented. Models
are then classified according to their more suitable
Continuous improvement of maintenance manage- utilization within the maintenance management pro-
ment (Phase 8) will be possible due to the utilization cess. For further discussion of these topics the reader
of emerging techniques and technologies in areas that is addressed to a recent work of one of the authors [2].

673
REFERENCES
[1] EN 13306:2001, (2001) Maintenance Terminology.
European Standard. CEN (European Committee for
Standardization), Brussels.
[2] Crespo Marquez, A, (2007) The maintenance manage-
ment Framework. Models and methods for complex
systems maintenance. London: Springer Verlag.
[3] Vagliasindi F, (1989) Gestire la manutenzione. Perche
e come. Milano: Franco Angeli.
[4] Wireman T, (1998) Developing performance indica-
tors for managing maintenance. New York: Industrial
Press.
[5] Palmer RD, (1999) Maintenance Planning and
Scheduling. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[6] Pintelon LM, Gelders LF, (1992) Maintenance man-
agement decision making. European Journal of Oper-
ational Research, 58: 301–317.
[7] Vanneste SG, Van Wassenhove LN, (1995) An inte-
grated and structured approach to improve mainte-
nance. European Journal of Operational Research, 82:
241–257.
[8] Gelders L, Mannaerts P, Maes J, (1994) Man-
ufacturing strategy, performance indicators and
674
View publication stats
improvement programmes. International Journal of
production Research, 32(4): 797–805.
[9] Kaplan RS, Norton DP, (1992) The Balanced Score-
card—measures that drive performance. Harvard
Business Review, 70(1): 71–9.
[10] Tsang A, Jardine A, Kolodny H, (1999) Measur-
ing maintenance performance: a holistic approach.
International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 19(7): 691–715.
[11] Moubray J, (1997) Reliability-Centred Maintenance
(2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
[12] Campbell JD, Jardine AKS, (2001) Maintenance
excellence. New York: Marcel Dekker.
[13] Duffuaa SO, (2000) Mathematical models in main-
tenance planning and scheduling. In Maintenance,
Modelling and Optimization. Ben-Daya M, Duffuaa
SO, Raouf A, Editors. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
[14] Lee J, (2003) E-manufacturing: fundamental,
tools, and transformation. Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 19(6): 501–507.