In maintenance operations, the focus is often on efficiency – either achieving more with the same level of effort (the maximum principle) or maintaining outcomes with reduced effort (the minimum principle). While this focus is important, it can overshadow a more fundamental question: Are the selected measures actually effective, and do they contribute to higher asset availability and reliability?
Asset performance management as the key to more effective maintenance
Asset performance management (APM) offers a powerful approach to enhancing both the efficiency and effectiveness of maintenance strategies. According to the research firm Gartner, APM is defined as follows:
“Asset performance management (APM) encompasses the capabilities of data capture, integration, visualization and analytics tied together for the explicit purpose of improving the reliability and availability of physical assets. APM includes the concepts of condition monitoring, predictive forecasting and reliability-centered maintenance (RCM).”
At the core of APM is a focus on maximizing the reliability and availability of technical systems. The key enabler is the comprehensive utilization of existing data. This data-driven approach is brought to life through a range of operational concepts, all of which emphasize two central dimensions.
Dimension 1: Evaluating asset criticality
Every shop floor features a diverse array of machines, systems, vehicles, and tools – each fulfilling a distinct purpose. However, their contribution to value creation varies widely. For instance, the failure of a handheld air impact wrench may cause a minor disruption, while a breakdown of the central conveyor belt could paralyze the entire production process.
The first step in asset performance management (APM) is to evaluate the criticality of potential failures for each asset. A practical method for this is using a risk matrix based on two key dimensions:
- Probability of failure: How likely is the asset to malfunction?
- Severity of consequences: What is the potential impact of a failure?
This structured approach ensures that assessments go beyond operational downtime, also considering broader consequences like employee safety and environmental risks, laying the groundwork for informed maintenance prioritization.
Dimension 2: Evaluating maintenance measures
Once critical assets have been identified, the next step is to evaluate the effectiveness of current maintenance strategies. Based on our experience from numerous projects, we find that many maintenance teams still rely heavily on manufacturer-recommended procedures. While these guidelines may be suitable for individual machines, they often fail to account for the specific operating environments and usage conditions of each organization – ultimately limiting the effectiveness of the overall maintenance approach.
To move beyond generic recommendations, it is valuable to apply structured methods that assess and optimize maintenance based on real-world operating contexts.
Two proven methodologies include:
- Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM)
- Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM)
RCM aims to ensure the reliability of technical systems while minimizing overall maintenance costs. This is accomplished by applying a targeted mix of corrective, preventive, and predictive maintenance strategies, carefully balanced to account for safety considerations, environmental impacts, and long-term follow-up costs.
The RCM process begins by clearly defining the intended function of each critical asset and the performance standards it is expected to meet. Equally important is establishing criteria for when a function is considered unfulfilled or when performance levels are deemed insufficient.
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a structured method used to determine which potential failures could prevent an asset from fulfilling its intended function or meeting the required performance level. This analysis not only identifies possible failure modes but also evaluates their consequences and the likelihood of occurrence.
Three key performance indicators are operationalized:
- Significance of the error sequence
- Probability of occurrence
- Probability of detection
By combining the values for severity, probability of occurrence, and detectability, FMEA generates a Risk Priority Number (RPN). This numerical value enables a structured and prioritized assessment of risks across assets or systems. Based on the RPN, organizations can formulate targeted actions – either to reduce the likelihood of a failure occurring or to improve the chances of early detection.
Implementing effective maintenance strategies
The insights obtained from both methods support the identification of potential system failures and the selection of appropriate maintenance strategies. These may include preventive actions, corrective interventions, or improvement measures in line with DIN 13306.
Recommended actions must be operationalized and continuously reviewed for their effectiveness. Key performance indicators such as Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) and Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) are essential for evaluating the impact of preventive maintenance.
Ideally, effective preventive maintenance will significantly reduce or eliminate unplanned failures associated with specific damage patterns. If this outcome is not achieved, the scope and frequency of preventive tasks should be reassessed and optimized accordingly.
However, excessive maintenance efforts can also arise – for example, when routine inspections are performed without subsequent actions like component replacement. In such cases, it is advisable to critically assess the necessity of these tasks and consider reallocating resources more effectively.
Prioritizing effectiveness over efficiency
In conclusion, optimizing the reliability and availability of technical systems starts with assessing the effectiveness of maintenance strategies. The central question is: Are we implementing the right measures in the right way?
The next consideration is efficiency: Are we performing these tasks in the most efficient manner? While saving five minutes per month during maintenance may be efficient, a more effective approach could be to extend the interval from monthly to every six months – provided that system reliability and availability are maintained.
SAP Asset Performance Management serves as a valuable IT solution for managing both effectiveness and efficiency, enabling data-driven evaluations and continuous improvement.
Turn your vision into reality: Female Digital Impact
