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 who’s 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 Executive Summary

6 General Information

9 Information Regarding Migration to SAP PM

10 Work Process Issues

11 Work Orders and Spare Parts

13 Planning

14 Use of Failure Codes

16 Training

17 Reporting

18 Use of Other Software Tools with SAP PM

19 Other Products Used with SAP PM

20 SAP PM User Group (ASUG) Membership

21 Summary

22 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
6 Figure 1: Percentage of Users at Various SAP PM Maturity Levels

6


Figure 2: Percentage of Users at Various SAP PM Maturity Levels vs. Satisfaction
of the Application in Managing Maintenance Activities

7 Figure 3: Percentage of Users Running the Current SAP Software Version

7 Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents that Used Consultants for Implementation

8 Figure 5: Comparison – SAP Rating by Those Who Did / Did Not Use Consultants

9 Figure 6: Reasons for Migration to SAP PM

9 Figure 7: Did Your Company Replace Your CMMS with SAP EAM / PM?

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

10
Figure 9: Those That Did / Did Not Change Their Work Process Compared to the
Level of SAP PM Satisfaction Handling Maintenance

11 Figure 10: Percentage of Work Orders Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction

12 Figure 11: Percentage of Spare Parts Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction

13 Figure 12: What Product Do You Use to Plan Maintenance Work?

13 Figure 13: Number of Respondents Using SAP “and” Excel / Project for Planning

14 Figure 14: Failure Codes – Percentage by Who Developed the Codes

15 Figure 15: Failure Code Development Strategies vs. Satisfaction

16 Figure 16: Comparison Staff Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction

16 Figure 17: Comparison – Maintenance Employee Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction

17 Figure 18: Use of SAP PM Reporting vs. Satisfaction

17 Figure 19: Comparison of SAP PM Report Use / Satisfaction and Staff Training

18 Figure 20: Use of Other Software in Conjunction with SAP PM

18 Figure 21: Use of Other Software with SAP PM vs. Satisfaction

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

20 Figure23: Membership in SAP User Group (ASUG)

4
 The promises
of an integrated
Enterprise Asset
Management System
(EAM) such as
SAP include:
• Visible
maintenance
processes
Executive Summary • Standardized
maintenance
Second only to energy, maintenance costs are a significant processes
portion of every company’s expense budget. Recognizing this fact,
• Visible
companies have implemented strategies to alter the perception
that maintenance is a necessary evil to one where maintenance maintenance
is considered a strong contributor to the company’s profitability. performance
One of these strategies is the integration of the computerized metrics
maintenance management system (CMMS) into the company’s
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.

5
• Increased understanding and utilization of reporting from within the SAP
software vs. exporting data to third-party tools such as Excel.
Give people
• Inclusion of other tools and applications within the SAP PM that support
the overall maintenance effort and provide deeper and more robust data and they
functionality in key business areas. will use it.
Provide
communication
Action to Drive Improvement and it knocks
SAP PM can provide significant business value specifically due to its integration down walls.
of financial, materials management, and other systems within a company’s
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

6
 General Information Leaders used SAP
implementation
as an opportunity
Figure 1: Percentage of Users at
Various SAP PM Maturity Levels to re-engineer
and standardize
(Note: Those respondents not using SAP PM are excluded from this chart.)
maintenance
100%
reliability best
practices.
Percent of Respondents (N= 586)

80%
Laggards thought
they were simply
60%
installing a
44% 42% software tool.
40%

20% 14%

0%
Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years More than 5 years

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

Poor Fair Good Excellent

Respondents Using

>5
The Percentage of

SAP By Year

28% 58%
1 to 5

<1 2% 4% 7% 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

7
activities is significant! Nevertheless, 34% rated SAP’s 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. The companies that
have successfully
Figure 3: Percentage of Users Running utilized SAP PM in
the Current SAP Software Version the maintenance
100% arena have included
the following in their
business strategy:
Percent of Respondents (N= 644)

80%

63% • Software was aligned

60%
with the internal work
processes. In many
cases this required
40% 37% customization which was
achieved with the use
of outside consultants
20% in order to utilize their
extensive experience.
0%
• All work orders and
spare parts information
Yes No
was included in the
system along with the
Another area of general interest is the question of whether or not the user elimination of legacy
community is staying current with the vendor’s software releases. This is tools that previously
important on two fronts. First, new releases provide improved functionality supported these
which enables the application to address the needs of the users in their processes.
performance of the work. Second, new releases often provide patches to • Extensive training was
correct issues discovered in the current release either by the vendor or the provided both during
user community. Both of these benefits make “staying current” an attractive implementation and after
alternative to not staying current. The issues that often delay the migration deployment to enhance
to the most current release are the time it takes to integrate what is being understanding and gain
delivered into the current work process, training the users in the new acceptance.
functionality, and last but not least, testing the release to make certain that • Increased
when deployed it will not cause problems. It is encouraging to see that the understanding and
survey indicates that 63% of the respondents are using the current version utilization of reporting
of the application which indicates that these issues are being addressed. from within the SAP
software vs. exporting
data to third-party tools
Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents such as Excel.
that Used Consultants for Implementation
100%
• Inclusion of other
tools and applications
within the SAP PM that
support the overall
Percent of Respondents (N= 502)

80% 75%
maintenance effort and
provide deeper and more
60%
robust functionality in key
business areas.
40%

25%

20%

0%
Used Consultant Did Not Use Consultant

8
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
Insight
worked with internal resources. This raises an interesting question. Did The following general
insights are pertinent to
those who did not utilize a consultant have more or less satisfaction with the use of SAP PM as a
SAP PM as a maintenance management tool compared to those who used maintenance management
the services of a consultant during their implementation process? Figure 5 tool:
addresses this question.
• 66% of the survey
population rated SAP
Figure 5: Comparison – SAP Rating by PM good to excellent in
Those Who Did / Did Not Use Consultants supporting maintenance
work processes. This high
SAP Rating Good / Excellent percentage of positive
feedback goes a long way
towards dispelling the
SAP Rating Fair / Poor
myth that maintenance
353 is not supported by the
353 application.

}
250
• Two-thirds of those
surveyed are running the
current version of SAP PM.
Number of Respondents (N= 477)

200
240 This supports the recognition
68% by the user community that
there is value in staying
150
current with new releases.
124 It also supports the fact that

}
the software releases are
100 of good quality. If this were
77 62% not the case, the percentage
113 of users not current would
50 be higher. It doesn’t take
the user community long to
47 recognize software release
0 quality problems and delay
Used Consultant Did Not Use Consultant upgrades.
• The use of consultant
Did consultant support actually add value? The data is inconclusive (68% support is value-added if
used a consultant, while 62% did not) and really does not answer this handled correctly. This
question. While those who felt satisfied with SAP as a maintenance tool is evidenced by the fact
and did not use a consultant in the process may feel satisfied, the following that three-quarters of the
surveyed population used
questions need to be addressed to clarify the issue: consultant support in the
SAP PM implementation.
• Did the effort without a consultant in a support role take longer and However, 30% of those
actually cost more internal dollars than the cost of the external support? using a consultant still
• Were all of the work processes addressed and modified using “best rated SAP PM in support
practices”? While internal resources may have a firm understanding of of maintenance either fair
these practices, external consultants have a broad range of experience or poor. There could be a
and can add value possibly not even considered internally. multitude of reasons for
this result including how
• Was the training of high quality and did the students learn the “tricks the consultant support was
of the trade”? These tricks, or best methods, to utilize the software are utilized, among others. If
things that internal resources would not know since they would have no a consultant is going to be
prior knowledge of the software. Consultants, on the other hand, bring used in support of this type
this experience to the table. of initiative, role clarity is
important. Both external
If the answers to the above questions were not “yes,” then the rationale for and internal resources bring
consultant use in a software work process implementation effort is sound. value; it is how they are
While the survey did not answer these questions, the data indicating that 68% blended into an effective
(353) of those surveyed employed consultant support validates the approach. work team that counts.

9
Information Regarding Insight
Migration to SAP PM It is clear from the
responses and from the
additional comments
provided that:
Figure 6: Reasons for Migration to SAP PM • Management is
Improved integration recognizing the business
225
with financial software value of system integration
and standardization not
Improved integration with
materials management
207 only within a plant site but
enterprise-wide across
We have always companies with multiple
183
run SAP PM
plant locations. Clearly
Better multi-location
162
the cost of providing
site management application integration is
considered by many to be a
Better reporting 136
Best of Breed approach.
Other reasons
• The decision to migrate
105
from whatever system
Improved integration was being used prior
102
with human resources to SAP PM appears not
to be a decision made
0 50 100 150 200 250 by the respondents
It is interesting to note that none of the responses regarding why a company (maintenance managers
transitioned to SAP PM were because of improved functionality. That does not and reliability engineers).
mean that SAP PM did not have improved functionality when compared to the This is supported by the
data in which 22% said
prior CMMS being operated, but it does provide some interesting support to the
replacement was due to
fact that companies are clearly seeing the value of integration of their computer corporate mandate, a new
systems. In fact two-thirds of the reasons for replacement were integration owner’s mandate, or that
related. Furthermore, 29% of the additional comments provided stated that the decision was made by
replacement was due to the desire for standardization of software integration. another department.
• With the decision to
Figure 7: Did Your Company Replace migrate to SAP PM being
CMMS with SAP EAM / PM? made by others, the
100% maintenance managers
and their constituents are
taken from the position
Percent of Respondents (N= 617)

80%
67% of decision maker to one
where they must adopt
60%
the new system and adapt
to the manner in which
40% 33% it functions. Often a
system is just as much a
20% part of the organizational
culture as other aspects
0% of the business. Change
No Yes is difficult and being
The information provided in Figure 7 is also interesting. Two-thirds of the forced to move to a new
respondents stated that their companies did not replace an existing CMMS application by corporate or
other departments clearly
with SAP PM. This means that they have been operating SAP PM for an could explain why new
extended period of time which further supports recognition of the value-add users – less than one year
provided by system integration. The write-in responses also provided some using SAP PM – would be
valuable data. Of the 192 write-in responses, 24% replaced Maximo, 10% evenly split in the system’s
replaced Datastream/Infor Products, and 10% replaced in-house systems – overall rating in support of
maintenance activity (see
all non-integrated applications. Figure 2).
Maximo is a registered trademark of IBM. Datastream is a trademark of Infor.

10
Work Process Issues Insight
Figure 8: Have You Changed Your Work Process For those who are planning
to Fit SAP EAM / PM? an SAP PM implementation,
100% the above information
provides an important
work process redesign
Percent of Respondents (N= 619)

80% insight. Every maintenance

organization has a work
61%
60%
process. Prior information
in this report has indicated
that the decision to move
39%
40% to SAP PM was determined
outside of the maintenance
arena. Therefore the
20%
process in place needs
to adjust to the SAP PM
0%
functionality. If you have a
No Yes
highly developed process,
then most likely it will fit
Figure 9: Those That Did / Did Not Change Their the SAP PM work process
Work Process Compared to the Level of SAP PM model. The question is:
Satisfaction Handling Maintenance What if you don’t have a
robust process? Software
400 can be a powerful enabler

}
of change. New software
350 should give you the
Percent of Respondents (N= 589)

300
opportunity to create a
new upgraded process
250 251 66% and use the software

}
implementation to support
200
it. Failure to put a new
150 135 61% process in place leads to
dissatisfaction with the
100 software when in reality it is
50
117 the process that is flawed.
86
This may account for
0 those who are dissatisfied
Changed Work Process Did Not Change Work Process with the software and
changed their process
It is to be expected that a new CMMS will require some modification to after implementation and
the work process in order to accommodate the new system. However, the those who tried to maintain
maintenance work process at its basic level consists of work identification, the legacy process within
planning, scheduling, execution, and work order close out. The level of the context of improved
work process complexity beyond this basic level will often dictate if major functionality.
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 don’t 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
Work Orders Insight
and Spare Parts Figure 10 shows that a total
of 63% of the respondents
track all of their work
orders within SAP PM. This
Figure 10: Percentage of Work Orders accounts for two-thirds of
Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction those surveyed and includes
18% who only rated their
50% satisfaction level in the poor
45% to fair range. Obviously
45% there is recognition across
the maintenance community
Poor-Fair of the value of having all
40%
work order information
Good-Excellent within the CMMS. This is
35%
Tracking Work Orders in SAP
Percentage of Respondents

further supported by those

30% who track 75% or less of
their work orders in their
25% CMMS. In these cases the
satisfaction level (those
20% 18% satisfied or dissatisfied)
was essentially the same
15% 12% indicating that tracking less
than 100% did not add any
10% 7% perceived value to the use
6%
4% 4% 4% of SAP PM.
5%

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 11: Percentage of Spare Parts
Tracked in SAP EAM / PM vs. Satisfaction
Insight
40%
There may be reasons for
36% this apparent low level of
spares integration to SAP
35%
Poor-Fair PM. Regardless of the
reason, a strong business
30% Good-Excellent
case can be made for making
Percentage of Respondents

spares and general stock

Tracking Spares in SAP

25%
information part of the
integrated system. Not only
20%
16% 16% is there significant benefit
for maintenance but also
15%
for materials management
9% and finance as well. An
10%
7% 7% 7% organization can spend
as much as one-third of
5% 3%
the maintenance budget
on parts, and therefore
0%
it is imperative that the
100% <75% <50% <25% historical usage information
Percentage of Spares Tracked in SAP PM
be available across the
many organizations that use
this data for analysis and
The data related to the tracking of spares within the CMMS is somewhat cost control. This can only
different than that of work orders. Only 51% of those surveyed track all occur if the majority of the
of their spares in SAP PM, and only 36% have expressed good to excellent parts are tracked within the
satisfaction with the system’s ability to manage maintenance. This raises CMMS.
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 company’s 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
 Planning Insight
Figure 12: What Product Do You Use The high level use of Excel
to Plan Maintenance Work? (34%) and Microsoft Project
Chart shows number of respondents per product. (25%) and the framework of
Some respondents use multiple products. the survey question imply
that these applications may
be used independently of
SAP 482
SAP PM or through the
downloading of data in
Microsoft Excel 209 conjunction with the primary
software.
Microsoft Project 155
Figure 13 drills deeper into
Primavera 61
this question. It appears
that those who have ranked
SAP PM good or excellent
No formal planner 59 in its ability to support
maintenance use Excel or
Other 45 Project in conjunction with
SAP PM far less than those
Prometheus 13 who have ranked SAP PM in
the fair to poor category.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
SAP PM Ranking Number Also Used for
Figure 13: Number of Respondents Using SAP Using SAP for Planning
Planning
“and” Excel / Project for Planning
Excel Project
The Excel / Project data differs from Figure 12.
Figure 13 only shows companies using both products collectively.
Good to 335 28% 22%
Excellent
500 476
SAP
450 Fair to Poor 141 37% 25%
Excel

400 Project
Possible explanations for the
350 335 higher use of supplementary
applications for planning
300
could be 1) insufficient
250 change management during
implementation causing
200 continued reliance on old
141 149 processes and legacy tools,
150
115 or 2) insufficient training
96 not just during deployment
100 79
53 but on a continuous basis as
50 36 new employees are exposed
to SAP PM. Each of these
0
issues can be corrected by
Fair- Excellent - Total
Poor Good
forcing increased use of SAP
Planning is a critical part of the maintenance work process. Without PM in the planning effort and
reducing applications that are
planning and scheduling of the work, there is lack of direction and sub- used as crutches in lieu of SAP
optimization of the maintenance resources. Figure 12 shows that 80% of PM.
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
Use of Failure Codes A good set of
Figure 14: Failure Codes – failure codes,
Percentage by Who Developed the Codes if used, can
provide insight
to reliability
100%
issues.
Percent of Respondents (N= 589)

80%

60%
Failure codes were
46%
developed by/for
the user companies
40% the majority of the
29%
time (57%).
20% 12% 13%
This highlights
the need for
0%
improved tracking
Codes Used SAP Consultant Other
Developed Standard Developed See Note
and reporting
In-House Codes Codes mechanisms to
enable some of
the advanced
It is interesting to note that 41% of the respondents either used SAP PM reliability
standard codes or had the codes developed for them by a consultant tools and
organization with experience in this area. This is in comparison to 46% that techniques.
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 fine-
tuned 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
Figure 15: Failure Code
Development Strategies vs. Satisfaction
Insight
(Note: Results in the “Other” column are excluded from the discussion since in Figure 15 shows that user
the majority of the cases failure codes were not developed or not used in the satisfaction in the good to
maintenance process.) excellent range was almost
300
identical regardless of how
the failure codes were

}
developed. This does not
250 seem to support the belief
that consultant or SAP PM
Number of Respondents (N=589)

developed codes would be

200 of higher value. What the
survey does not reveal is the

}
186 69% quality or the extent of the
150 use of the failure codes, both
as part of the work order
114 65% process or subsequently in
100 analysis of asset reliability,
either of which may have an
50
82
60
45
}63% 41

35
impact on the above chart.

26
0
Codes Used SAP Consultant Other
Developed Standard Developed See Note
In-House Codes Codes

SAP Rating Good / Excellent

SAP Rating Fair / Poor

16
Training Insight
Figure 16 clearly makes the
case for ongoing structured
Figure 16: Comparison – Staff Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction training. In the case where
more than 50% of the staff
Overall Rating SAP PM received training in the past
year, the level of satisfaction
Poor Fair Good Excellent with SAP PM in the good to
excellent range (36%) was
three times higher than those
100%
Percentage of the Maintenance Staf f
Receiving Training - Past 12 Months

who expressed dissatisfaction

(13%), but had the same level of
>75%
13% 36% training. Furthermore, for those
that received very little training
over the past year, there was
>50%
little difference between those
satisfied or dissatisfied with the
>25% software.

>5% 22% 29%

0 Insight
In many instances the workforce
has little access to the CMMS and
Training in the use of a CMMS tool is not a one-time event. It is a continuous only receives training in the very
process. After all, how do the second, third, and future generations of specific areas in which they need
to interact. In other companies,
users learn to use the application without ongoing training? The answer, a the workforce has been enabled
dangerous one, is that they are trained by those whose jobs they are filling. to use the software as part of
If you consider that 15% of the knowledge of how to use the software is lost the job, and while they do not
by each successive generation, it is clear that this is not a sound approach. need the level of training that a
planner would receive, training
Ongoing training is the answer. is still important. In either case,
the workforce would not require
a great deal of training which
Figure 17: Comparison – Maintenance explains the low number of days
of training per year. The level of
Employee Training vs. SAP PM Satisfaction use could also explain the level of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction,
Overall Rating SAP PM the enabled organizations having
a higher regard for the software
Poor Fair Good Excellent due to their ability to use it
extensively.
The Number of Days / Year of

>5
Maintenance Employees

1% 8%
Training Provided to

2-5
Best Practice
Training is a huge area for
1 software improvement and
33% 58% gain. Training makes any system
easier to use, and if people
0
are comfortable using the
system, they are more likely to
participate in its success.
Employee training is a different story. It appears from Figure 17 that Training will teach users how to
additional training beyond one day per year did not add any significant level make the CMMS/EAM work for
of satisfaction within the workforce. The question that remains unanswered them rather than them seeing
the CMMS/EAM as extra work.
is: How much does the workforce use the software, and is ongoing training
needed? Develop a strategy for CMMS/
EAM training on a continuing
basis for improved productivity.

17
Reporting Insight
Using Figure 19, we can
explore the use of SAP PM
Figure 18: Use of SAP PM Reporting vs. Satisfaction reporting to bring another
element to the discussion –
training. The left-hand chart
Overall Rating SAP PM shows those who rated SAP
Managing Maintenance PM in support of maintenance
in the good to excellent range.
Good -
The x-axis lists the various
Poor - Fair levels of staff training year
Excellent
by year. Clearly those with
more training (>75% to 100%)
Generate Reports?

Yes 18% 46% employed SAP PM reporting

Is SAP Used to

far more than those who had

(n = 586)

less training in the use of the

software. One would suspect
No 16% 20% from this data that training
and report use go hand-in-
hand.

Within the low levels of

training (>5% through 50%)
Figure 19: Comparison of SAP PM Report Use / Satisfaction satisfaction levels with the
and Staff Training software were almost the
same. This would tend to
Using SAP PM Reports validate that lower levels
of yearly training were
Not Using SAP PM Reports not significant in driving
higher use of the reporting
functionality, even among
120 120 those satisfied with the
105 software.
100 100
In the right-hand chart – those
80 80
who rated SAP PM in the fair
60 55 53 60
to poor range – it appears
that higher levels of training
40
38
40
29
did not drive higher use of
28 27 28
26
20
26
18 18 20
the reporting functionality. In
16
20 20 14
this case, the company needs
0
to first improve satisfaction,
0
>75% to 100% >50% >25% >5% >75% to 100% >50% >25% >5%
then, with increased training,
report usage should improve.
Percent Staff Training Percent Staff Training Only a small percentage
SAP Satisfaction Level - Fair to Poor SAP Satisfaction Level - Good to Excellent (13%) mentioned BW or BO
indicating the maintenance
Figure 18 clearly shows that there is a higher level of satisfaction with SAP departments isolation from
PM as a maintenance management tool among those who use SAP reports native SAP functionality.
(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
Use of Other Software Insight
Tools with SAP PM Figure 21, which addresses the
level of SAP satisfaction where
other software tools are also
used, shows that even in
Figure 20: Use of Other Software in organizations that employ only
Conjunction with SAP PM one of these tools, there is a
far higher level of satisfaction
with SAP PM than those
Vibration Analysis 164
who did not report using the
tools. In fact, as shown in the
Oil Analysis Reports 149
table below, there are twice
as many satisfied responses
Bar Code Scanners 133
from those using 1 to 3 tools
and six times as many positive
Handheld Mobile Devices 90
responses from those using 4
or more.
Infrared Imaging 85

Ultrasound Readings 67 Fair to Poor Good to Excellent

1 to 3 80 168
RFID 46
Applications

GPS 33 4 to 8 11 61
Applications
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

The unanswered question

Figure 21: Use of Other Software with is: Do the other companies
SAP PM vs. Satisfaction that did not report the use
of these specific applications
8 0 in conjunction with SAP PM
5
still employ them outside of
Number of Additional Elements in Use with SAP PM

Fair--Poor
Fair Poor Good - Exccllent
Excellent
7 1 SAP
SAPRating
Rating SAP
SAPRating
Rating SAP PM, or do they simply not
4
address these issues? The
6 4 former answer is far better
10
than the latter – at least the
5 1 additional reliability tools
10
would be in use. For those
4 5 who employ the various
32 software tools listed outside
13 of SAP PM, they may find the
3
25 level of satisfaction with the
16
SAP PM application would
2
51 improve if they were used in
51
conjunction with one another.
1
92

0 20 40 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 Insight
Used with SAP PM Part of the customization
process often involves the
utilization of third-party
technologies (i.e., a hybrid
Figure 22: Use of Other Software Products In Conjunction with SAP PM solution) to account for
SAP PM’s perceived gaps
to meet plant needs or
requirements. A high
Microsoft Excel 436 number of the respondents
utilized secondary technology
Microsoft Project 198
in support of SAP PM.
Primavera 88 Predominant use appears
Other 46 to be with Microsoft Excel
Impress 24
and Project which we have
seen occurs frequently in the
MeridiumRCMO 23 planning and reporting areas.
Synactive GuiXT 21 However, what we have also
PMO-2000 21
seen is that the satisfaction
level with SAP PM in support
Meridium APM 18 of maintenance is far higher
Prometheus Group 17 than those who do not
OSIsoft PI 14
employ these tools. We have
also seen that staff training
Ivara EXP 14
has a lot to do with use and
Mincom LinkOne 7 satisfaction. Quite possibly,
Oniqua Maint. Analyzer 7 additional training would
enable those still dependent
24/7 Tango 6
on legacy processes
NRX Asset Hub 5 employing Microsoft tools in
Oniqua Enterprise Reliability 2 lieu of SAP PM, to abandon
them and use their primary
INOVx Asset Certainty 1
CMMS.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of Respondents

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

20
SAP User Group (ASUG) Insight
Membership There are two other possible
answers to the low number
of ASUG members identified
in the survey. First, since
Many organizations implement software and then move forward with the belief that SAP is a software tool, IT
the vendor’s only role was that of software salesman. The mature software vendors (Information Technology)
do not hold with this belief. Instead, they sponsor user groups to obtain feedback is representing the
about the tool, get input for future development, and overall maintain a partner organization within the
relationship with their clients. After all, maintenance or other major software appli- ASUG community. The
cations are not replaced often. other reason is that the
The survey asked if the respondents were members of the ASUG, the SAP user company does not feel that
group. As indicated by the chart, of the 582 respondents, only 96 indicated that membership is necessary
they were part of this user community. and hence does not
participate. In either case,
Figure 23: Membership in SAP User Group (ASUG) valuable input and value is
being lost. Through user
100% conferences, special interest
84% groups, and local chapters,
this is the method by
Perc’t of Respondents (N = 582)

80%
which the user community
can influence product
60% development. It also
provides users within one
company to network with
40%
their peers and improves
their utilization of the
20% 16% software.

0%
No Yes
An additional factor resulting in the low participation in ASUG by maintenance reli-
ability 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 re-
lated 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 op-
portunity 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
Summary Satisfaction with SAP
PM is influenced by a
number of factors:
Many maintenance practitioners have expressed dissatisfaction with • Tracking all work
SAP PM’s ability to support maintenance activities. There are many
possible reasons for this opinion; however, the survey results contained • Tracking all spares
in this report in many ways dispel this belief. • Reporting mastery
Change is difficult. It can be made even more difficult when an • Customization—
organization such as maintenance is forced to abandon their legacy CMMS modifying SAP PM and
and learn to utilize a new one, especially if they have not had a great deal internal plant process for
of input into the decision. This, coupled with low levels of training, can better alignment; use of
foster resistance to the change, delaying deployment, causing frustration third-party technologies
in those who have to learn new ways to work, and ultimately resulting in
to “bridge the gap”
expressed dissatisfaction with the software. These problems can and must
be overcome not just for success in the maintenance arena, but for success • Consultants—use of
across the company. outside consultants to
drive that customization
They key is to address the implementation as a process, not a project.
The new software and its associated work processes need constant care • Training—training all
and feeding if you expect them to integrate into the organization’s culture. maintenance employees
There are eight key points to consider. and keeping up with
continuing education
They are referred to as the Eight Elements of Change. regarding SAP PM
• 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. Moving toward Best
Practice strategies
• Work Process – The work process must adapt to the new software to bridge the gap in
without loss of the value that existed in the former process, but gaining any of these areas
the value offered by the new software. will go a long way
• Structure – Where necessary, the structure may need alteration to toward enhancing user
be able to accommodate the process changes. This is an opportunity satisfaction which also
to leverage improved maintenance performance such as hiring full-time would be indicative of
planners and a separate work scheduler. more effective use of
• Learning – As we have seen, training is critical, not just during SAP to support effective
implementation but on a continuous basis. It improves acceptance maintenance processes.
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
• Rewards – The reward when deploying a powerful new software tool
is the value it brings to the company’s bottom line. If people understand SAP for Plant
this and can see the results, they will be far more involved with trying to
make the effort a success.
Maintenance
According to the
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 German standard
software tools that support it. This change for the better will vastly improve DIN 31051, plant
not only the use of the software, but far more importantly, your maintenance maintenance comprises
management work processes, productivity, reliability, and ultimately the “all measures for
bottom line performance of your company. maintaining and
restoring the target
If you are interested in learning more about the SAP PM Best Practices
Survey, please feel free to e-mail Terrence O’Hanlon at the address below. condition as well
as determining and
Reliabilityweb.com • PO Box 60075 • Fort Myers • FL 33906 USA assessing the actual
tohanlon@reliabilityweb.com • www.reliabilityweb.com condition of the
technical equipment
in a system.”

Authors Whereas DIN 31051

applies to the individual
parts of a system and
This report was written by Steve Thomas associated measures,
with additional insights by Terry Wireman, CPMM, system-oriented plant
and Terrence O’Hanlon, CMRP maintenance focuses
on safeguarding
the functioning of a
Steve Thomas has 40 years of experience working in the
production system
petrochemical industry. During this time, through personal involvement
at all levels of the maintenance and reliability work process, he has as a whole. Plant
gained vast experience in all phases of the business. Coupled with a B.S. maintenance in this
in Electrical Engineering from Drexel University and M.S. degrees in both
Systems Engineering and Organizational Dynamics from the University of sense belongs to system
Pennsylvania, this experience has enabled him to add significant value to logistics, the primary
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., goals of which are
the most recent being Asset Data Integrity is Serious Business and Measuring Maintenance planning, creating and
Workforce Productivity Made Simple, both of which were published in October 2010.
maintaining system
availability.
Terry Wireman Mr. Wireman helps organizations develop
“Best-In-Class” maintenance and reliability policies and practices. As Excerpted from
an international expert in maintenance management, he has assisted SAP R/3 Plant
hundreds of companies in North America, Europe, and the Pacific Rim to
improve their maintenance effectiveness. In addition, he has authored Maintenance:
twenty-three textbooks, numerous white papers, and magazine articles Making It Work
related to maintenance management process and technology. Mr. Wireman
has been a featured speaker at conferences, technical association events for Your Business
and University sponsored workshops, domestically and internationally. Addison-Wesley
Professional
Terrence O’Hanlon Terrence O’Hanlon, CMRP is the Pub- ISBN: 0201675323
lisher 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. O’Hanlon
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