POWER UP A WINNER - Plant Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

performance / SOftwARE Ready for Change Now is the time! VIBXPERT ® —A new choice for Vibration Analysis and Balancing Affordability does not have to come at the expense of quality and performance. Enjoy the benefits of free updates, low ownership cost and unlimited tech support from the proven leaders of shaft alignment technology. Watch VIDEO Online Class 1 Division 1 EX model optional. Also available online condition monitoring systems. 305-591-8935 • www.ludeca.com Turn on www.PlantServices.com/cmmS_Review The Plant Services CMMS/EAM Software Review is designed to allow you to compare packages across a comprehensive range of capabilities. It offers the option of weighting capabilities to reflect their importance in your application and receiving a calculated ranking of the software offerings according to your specifications. As the “Introduction” screen explains, you can use the review to simply browse the results of our verified vendor survey data, compare products and find further information on particular packages and vendors. Or, you can have the system rank packages according your customized and advanced criteria. Clicking on “Software Aspects” lets you weight them individually so the Introduction screen comparison engine can calculate scores and present packages according to how well their strengths match your weightings. Clicking on an individual software aspect in the “Introduction” screen brings you to a “Priorities” screen, which shows the exact survey questions used to establish the package score for that aspect. Exercising your option to rank a question less Priorities screen than “very important” factors its score so it has less weight in the calculated comparison. You can hand-pick packages and compare them for various aspects, or enter weightings and priorities and click “calculate” to bring you to the comparison Comparison screen screen. Here, you’ll see a sideby-side comparison detailing the level of functionality for each capability. The site also offers articles, white papers and resources to help you increase your familiarity with CMMS/EAM software, solve problems and get the most from your existing or future implementation. mittee: To ensure the key stakeholders are well represented when selecting the CMMS/EAM vendor and software, it’s important to establish a vendor selection committee. This committee is best kept to approximately 7-12 people for greater efficiency and effectiveness. You always can supplement the process with additional stakeholders by inviting specialists to various activities during the selection phase. For example, you might want to have a few technicians and their supervisors attend when the vendors are demonstrating their mobile solution, or people from purchasing during demos of the spare parts procurement process. Determine short-list evaluation criteria: In the first meeting of the 28 APRIL 2009 www.PLANTSERVICES.com
vendor selection committee, consensus must be reached on what criteria will be used to short-list proposals. Obviously, it’s futile to evaluate proponents at a detailed level without using or at least seeing the package, and meeting the vendor. But just like short-listing a stack of resumes, more general criteria can be used to fairly evaluate the written material received. The survey for the aforementioned “10 Pitfalls …” white paper asked users to rank 21 CMMS/EAM selection criteria in terms of importance to their organization, then in terms of how well their current CMMS performs them. The results, which are detailed in the paper, offer a perspective on selection criteria that may make sense for your organization. Table 2 provides a sample breakdown of selection criteria and associated weightings. By adding columns for each vendor proposal, the vendor selection committee can use such a table to rate, score and compare vendors. Note that the weighting and scoring of the evaluation criteria is a subjective process. Different stakeholders have varying opinions on what is important, and this is why it’s critical to build consensus. Try to finalize the table before receiving any vendor responses to avoid any prejudice. Read through the proposals: Each vendor selection committee member should read through the proposals to get an overall feeling for how the vendors responded. Ratings shouldn’t be attempted in the first reading, however, notes should be made on each proposal, otherwise you’ll forget your initial impressions. Rate the proposals: Each vendor selection committee member should, on their own, attempt to short-list the proposals. This is best accomplished by completing the rating table. The many ways to rate vendors all have a lot of of subjectivity. One suggested approach is to read through only the sections relevant to a given selection criterion for the proposals. As you read through the relevant section of each proposal, physically rank the proposals. Thus, if there were 15 proposals submitted, at the end of the performance / software read-through on, say, the first selection criterion (Company Profile), you’ll have a pile of 15 proposals sitting on your desk with the uppermost proposal being the best and the proposal at the bottom of the pile being the worst response to the first selection criterion. Then, each proposal must be rated with the highest score possible being equal to the weighting, and the lowest score zero. Two or more proposals might receive the same score for a given selection criterion. You don’t have to give any proposal a perfect score (i.e., a rating equal to the weighting) if you feel none deserve it, because the rating process is strictly a means of determining relative scores. This physical ranking followed by rating of the proposals is repeated for each selection criterion. When rating the cost-effectiveness category, an easy way is to assign the cheapest solution the highest rating and the most expensive solution the lowest rating. The difference is then apportioned for the balance of respondents. Final rating of vendors: The vendor selection committee reaches consensus on the ratings for each of the proposals. One way is to have the person best qualified to evaluate the proposals on a given criterion begin the discussion by stating the highest score and who received it. Discussion might ensue, but eventually the group will agree on a winner(s) and their score. This process is repeated for the lowest score for the same criterion, followed by the rest of the proposals. It’s critical to be accurate on the relative ratings but not as critical to be accurate on the absolute value of any given score. Short-list vendors: Eventually, the group will complete the table with agreed-upon scores, and extract a short list. If at all possible, only two or possibly one vendor should be short-listed to maximize the opportunity to analyze in detail their software solution(s) before a firm contract is in place. Follow-up to short-listed vendors: Some of the vendors who don’t make the short list might request a postmortem on their proposals. Retain the rating table Looking for CMMS/EAM Software that Works Your Way You Found It! Contact us SOMAX® (770) 518-1514 x12 WWW.SOMAX.COM www.PLANTSERVICES.com APRIL 2009 29
Page 1 and 2: WWW.PLANTSERVICES.COM PERFORMANCE |
Page 3 and 4: COMPRESSEDAIR&GAS Ultra-Filter Sup
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS APRIL 2009 / VOL.
Page 7 and 8: from the editor paul studebaker, cm
Page 9: PS0901_01_Cover.indd 1 WWW.PLANTSER
Page 12 and 13: up & Running Automation and Power J
Page 14 and 15: UP & RUNNING ABB technology can red
Page 16 and 17: what works Crack Troubleshot Over W
Page 19 and 20: HUMan CAPitaL Tom Moriarty, P.E., C
Page 21 and 22: asset manager david berger, P.Eng.
Page 23 and 24: Technology Toolbox Sheila Kennedy A
Page 25 and 26: Table 1. On tap at www.PlantService
Page 27: performance / software What organiz
Page 31 and 32: Compressor Power Is Not Measured by
Page 33 and 34: Efficiency / Compressors When amps
Page 35 and 36: Properly sealed piping systems are
Page 37 and 38: Reliability / Piping the stub-end.
Page 39 and 40: SKILLS / INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS A
Page 41 and 42: SkILLS / Instruments and Controls a
Page 43 and 44: For the Pacific Northwest Martin Ka
Page 45 and 46: our group of experts and provide an
Page 47 and 48: product picks Stainless solenoid va
Page 49 and 50: KwikBond_Ad.pdf 12/5/07 11:58:45 AM
Page 51 and 52: Short-term maintenance never sticks

POWER UP A WINNER - Plant Services

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?