SKF Reliability Systems - Library

Vol 23 No 3 AMMJ
USE OF METRICS TO DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
Following the initial benchmarking of a businesses asset performance metrics with a decision to improve
performance taken the question then becomes how to measure if the improvement plans are working.
Management expect to see results and require regular reports on progress towards the improved business
objective targets. Improvement plans will typically contain a series of actions that if successfully implemented
will result in a positive change in the business. These actions will span multiple business results areas e.g.
maintenance planning, equipment reliability, materials management, and contractor management. In order
to prepare an improvement plan it is important to understand the relationship between leading and lagging
metrics and then to develop a project schedule
that contains achievable targets for delivery of
improved results.
The Asset Performance Index suite of metrics
presented in this paper is an example of a suite of
metrics spanning multiple business results areas
containing both leading and lagging indicators.
The terms leading indicator and lagging indicator
describe those metrics that are either outcomes
of (lagging) or influential in (leading) achieving
a certain business objective. For example,
unless the reliability of the equipment improves
the percentage of breakdown/emergency
work will not reduce. Unless the percentage
of breakdown/emergency work reduces, craft
technician productivity will not increase. Unless
craft productivity increases, the total labour cost
of maintenance will not reduce. Unless the total
labour cost of maintenance reduces, the overall
business objective of reduced production cost
per unit will not reduce. Any metric can be a
leading or lagging indicator of another with the
understanding of the relationships and logic
between each critical to improvement planning.
The model in Figure 2 describes the logical
relationship between metrics. Process metrics
measure the performance of work processes.
Results metrics measure the results achieved
from our work processes. It will usually require process metrics to improve in several work areas in order to
generate a sustainable improvement in a result metric. When our results areas are strategic to our business
objectives then the financial performance of the business, as measure by the business metrics, is positively
impacted. The API suite presented in this paper contains both process and results metrics. Process metrics
dominate since they are direct measures of the various work process performances that are the targets for
the step change improvement programs that often result from a benchmarking initiative. Table 3 illustrates the
linkage between the API metrics in both logic and time sequencing when preparing a business improvement
plan.
Work Process
Control
KRA API METRIC
LEVEL 1
Aug
51
LEVEL 2
Oct
An API In Benchmarking Assets
Figure 1 Results presentation for API assessment
Figure 2 Relationship between lead and lag metrics.
TARGETS
LEVEL 3
Dec
LEVEL 4
Feb
LEVEL 5
Apr
8 16 24 32 40
% Work Order Discipline 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
% Daily Schedule Compliance
Current
Result
Week Number
Not
applicable
35% 50% 65% 80%
% of Planned Work 30% 50% 70% 80% 90%
Craft Technician Productivity 30%
Not
measured
HS & E Work Process Control MRO Organization Management
Contractor Management Reliability Availability
Table 3 Example of improvement plan with targets set for metrics over 40 week period
Asset Performance Improvement Metrics
40%
Not
measured
Frequency &
Status
Bi-Weekly
Active
Daily
Active
Bi-Weekly
Active
Provided
by
CMMS
Excel
Daily
Schedule
CMMS
Total Maintenance
Calculation Method
Total Labor-Hours
Charged to Work
Orders divided by
Total Work Hours
Paid
Total Hours Worked
as Scheduled divided
by Total Scheduled
Hours
Planned Labor Hours
Worked divided by
Total Work Hours
Paid
50% 2 month Study Work Sampling