SKF Reliability Systems - Library

An API In Benchmarking Assets
Table 1b API metrics, definitions and weightings (continued)
Reliability
Availability
1 Maintenance Cost as Percentage
of Asset Replacement Value
2 PM Work Hours as Percentage of
Total Work Hours
3 Percentage of All Equipment
Documented in Master Equipment
List (MEL)
4 Percentage of All Equipment
Assigned with a Criticality Rating
Table 2 shows an example of
a completed API scoresheet
for the Work Process Control
category.
The overall results are
shown graphically in Figure
1. Quartiles shown for each
API category indicate where
the plant sits compared to
other benchmarked facilities
and indicating the scope
for improvement to reach
top quartile performance if
required.
5 Predictive Maintenance Technology Implementation
Are PdM techniques applied
widely across site?
Do All Time Based PM Tasks
Auto Trigger WO’s in the CMMS?
Number of PdM Tasks Performed
In House?
Validation of Asset Productivity Index Methodology
50 Vol 23 No 3 AMMJ
Total maintenance dollar spend as percentage of total dollar value to
replace the entire facility.
Total craft hours worked on PM work orders as percentage of all
maintenance craft hours worked.
Total number of equipment pieces documented in the CMMS MEL as
percentage of total number of pieces of equipment installed in site.
Total number of pieces of equipment with a criticality rating assigned
jointly Operations & Maintenance personnel in the CMMS as percentage
of total equipment pieces in MEL.
The Maintenance and Reliability Center (MRC) at the University of Tennessee conducted a year-long study and
validation effort in 2004 and 2005 to determine the appropriateness and validity of the Fluor API benchmarking
process and measures.
The MRC performed literature searches and analysis to determine the validity of the measures used in the
API tool. This effort enabled the MRC to determine that the metrics included in the Fluor API tool were, in fact,
the most appropriate and valid measures when assessing a maintenance organisation. Although there are
numerous other tools currently in use within industry the Fluor Asset Productivity Index is highly capable in
terms of measuring maintenance excellence and serving as a benchmark of maintenance performance.
The MRC then collected, validated and analyzed API data submitted by over 35 companies as well as from
other companies that Fluor had previously assessed. An array of statistical analyses determined the quartile
rankings of the API data collected. The quartile rankings are used by Fluor for API Index purposes and are
regularly updated as data from additional companies is included into the database.
20%
20%
20%
15%
Yes or No 10%
Yes or No 10%
Total number of different PdM technologies applied using in house
resources as percentage of all PdM technologies applied at site.
Reliability KRA Weighting = 25%
1 Run Rate Percentage Sum of actual run rates for all equipment as percentage of theoretical
maximum run rates of all equipment.
2 First Pass Yield Percentage Total volume of acceptable quality product produced during cycle/batch
as percentage of total volume put through.
3 Plant Uptime Percentage Total hours of actual run time as percentage of total available run hours
during period.
4 OEE Run Rate % x First Pass Yield % x Uptime% = OEE 25%
Availability KRA Weighting = 10%
Total KRA Weighting = 100%
Table 2 Example of completed API scoresheet
N KRA CATEGORY
WEIGHT OF
CATEGORY
(%)
II Work Process Control 20
METRIC
WEIGH
T (%)
MEASURED
METRIC
VALUE
5%
25%
25%
25%
API
INDEX
1 Work Order Discipline Percentage 20 3.98 % 0.00
2 Percentage of Breakdown/Emergency Work 10 14.68 % 1.03
3 Craft Technician Productivity (Tool Time)
Percentage
40 20.00 % 0.00
4 Percentage of Planned Work 20 24.17 % 0.00
5 Schedule Compliance Percentage 10 32.11 % 0.94
TOTAL 1.97