The Return of the Investments

snowpeaschocolateΔιαχείριση

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

62 εμφανίσεις

Jan Frånlund

Managing Director, SAMI Europe AB,

Strategic Asset Management in Europe AB


Chairman of the Swedish Maintenance Society, UTEK


Chairman of the EFNMS European Certification Committee of Maintenance Professionals


Convenor of the CEN TC 319’s Working Group for

the European Standard in Maintenance Management


Box 10231, 100 55 Stockholm, Sweden

E
-
mail: utek@telia.com or janf@samicorp.com

The Return of the Investments

in Maintenance

for the benefit of the company


Establishing the critical maintenance


performance indicators you should be using




The new European standard




Improving your maintenance and reliability


efficiency by using benchmarking




Examples of applications

?
Which

KPIs are

most

indicative



Preventive maint.



Corrective maint.



Reinvestments



Few functional disturb.



Few failures



The state of the assets



AVAILABILITY



MIN. DISTURBANCES



QUALITY



Direct hours



Indirect hours



Use of technical


resources



Direct costs



Indirect costs



External costs

COSTS

RESULTS

USED

RESOURCES

The Measurement of the Results in Maintenance

ACTIVITIES

RESULTS

EFFECT

COSTS

COST EFFICIENCY

RESULTS

RESOURCES

PRODUCTIVITY

© Copyright Jan Frånlund 2002

”That part of the total

required time during which

the technical assets

should be possible to use,

shall be as big as possible”

In other words,

you want to have high

AVAILABILITY

Availability

Reliability

Maintainability

Supportability

Seldom

a down state

of the item

Simple and fast

maintenance

activities

The right resources

at the right place

at the right time

The item is

available for use

© Copyright
Jan Frånlund 2007

Reliability

Supportability

Maintainability

Design

Production

Maintenance

70 %

20 %

10 %

70 %

10 %

20 %

10 %

20 %

70 %

What has the

biggest influence

upon the result?

Availability

?
Business

Oriented

Results

in the

Maintenance

function

Some Basic Concepts


Business goals drive decisions regarding
the use and care of equipment assets



Asset strategy is determined by operational
considerations



Maintenance and reliability are means to a
defined goal, not an end in themselves



The intent is to optimize the application of
all resources, not just maintenance

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI


Preventive maint.


Corrective maint.


Reinvestments




Direct hours


Indirect hours


Use of technical


resources


Direct costs


Indirec costs


External costs

COSTS

RESULTS

USED

RESOURCES

ACTIVITIES

RESULTS

EFFECT

COSTS

COST EFFICIENCY

RESULTS

RESOURCES

PRODUCTIVITY

PROFIT

COMPETITIVNESS

COST
-

EFFECTIVENESS

Return On

Maintenance

Investment

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT

COMPANY MANAGEMENT

SHAREHOLDERS

AND THE BOARD

The Interests for the Maintenance Activities

© Copyright Jan Frånlund 2003



Direct hours



Indirect hours



Use of technical


resources



Preventive maint.



Corrective maint.



Reinvestments



Direct costs



Indirect costs



External costs



Few functional disturb.



Few failures



The state of the assets



AVAILABILITY



MIN. DISTURBANCES



QUALITY

Cost Effectiveness

Return On Maintenance Investments (ROMI)

Business Oriented Results

Overall

Equipment

Efficiency

Safety

Health

Environment

Protection

Asset

Preservation

© Jan Frånlund, Sweden 2003

Levels of indicators
Family of indicators
O11 O12 O13
O14 O15 O16
O17 O18 O19
O20 O21 O22
O23 O24 O25
O26
O9 O10
O1 O2 O3 O4
O5 O6 O7 O8
Organizational
Indicators
T8
T9 T10
T11
T12
T13 T14
T15 T16 T17
T18 T19 T20
T21
T6
T7
T1 T2 T3
T4
T5
Technical
Indicators
E15 E16 E17
E18 E19 E20
E21
E22
E23
E24
E7 E8 E9 E10
E11 E12 E13
E14
E1 E2 E3 E4
E5 E6
Economical
indicators
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Levels of indicators
Family of indicators
O11 O12 O13
O14 O15 O16
O17 O18 O19
O20 O21 O22
O23 O24 O25
O26
O9 O10
O1 O2 O3 O4
O5 O6 O7 O8
Organizational
Indicators
T8
T9 T10
T11
T12
T13 T14
T15 T16 T17
T18 T19 T20
T21
T6
T7
T1 T2 T3
T4
T5
Technical
Indicators
E15 E16 E17
E18 E19 E20
E21
E22
E23
E24
E7 E8 E9 E10
E11 E12 E13
E14
E1 E2 E3 E4
E5 E6
Economical
indicators
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
CEN
-

Comité Européen de Normalisation

EN 15341

© Jan Frånlund, Sweden 2007

Examples of Key Performance Indicators

Economical Key Indicators

E1

Total Maintenance Cost / Assets Replacement Value

E3

Total Maintenance Cost / Output of operations

E6

Availability related to maintenance / Total Maintenance Cost

Technical Key Indicators

T1

Total Operating time / Total Operating time + Down time due to maintenance

T2

Achieved up time during required time / Required time

T5

Number of injuries for people due to maintenance / Calendar time

O1

Number of internal maintenance personnel / Total internal personnel

O5

Planned and scheduled maintenance man hours / Total maintenance


man hours available

O8

Internal maintenance man hours used for continuous improvements /


Total internal maintenance personnel man hours

Organisational Key Indicators

© Jan Frånlund, Sweden 2007

N
F
P
V
U
T
E
K
D
D
V
A
E
M
D
K
I
N
B
E
M
A
S
A
I
M
A
N
N
V
D
O
A
F
I
M
A
P
M
I
M
E
E
T
A
M
F
S
K
P
Y
T
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

F
e
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

S
o
c
i
e
t
i
e
s
D
V
S
H
D
O

I
A
M
A
E
M
A
F
I
M
A
I
M
A
N
A
P
M
I
B
E
M
A
S
D
D
V
D
K
I
N
D
V
S
H
D
O
I
A
M
K
P
Y
M
E
E
T
A
N
F
P
V
N
V
D
O
M
F
S
U
T
E
K
S
S
U
P
M
S
S
p
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
l
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
C
r
o
a
t
i
a
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
N
o
r
w
a
y
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a

(
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
r
)
P
o
l
a
n
d

(
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
r
)
T
h
e

M
e
m
b
e
r

S
o
c
i
e
t
i
e
s
P
M
S
S
S
U
ČSPÚ

PN
-
TTE

GFIN

The Member Societies

AEM

AFIM

AIMAN

APMI

BEMAS

DDV

DVS

GFIN

HDO

IAM

KPY

MEETA

MFS

NFPV

NVDO

UTEK

SSU

DOTS

ČSPÚ

PN
-
TTE

MFA


Spain

France

Italy

Portugal

Belgium

Denmark

Slovenia

Germany

Croatia

Great Britain

Finland

Ireland

Switzerland

Norway

The Netherlands

Sweden

Slovakia

Serbia

Czech Republic

Poland

Austria

DOTS

MFA

www.efnms.org

Results from the EFNMS workshops on maintenance indicators, by Tom Svantesson,

based on contribution from 12 companies from Slovenia, Croatia, Ireland and Denmark.


Pharmaceutical business
-
Maintenance average values based on 12 companies

Workshop results
-
October/November 2005

Unit


I:01 Maintenance costs as a % of Plant replacement valu
e

3,2

%


I:02 Stores investment as a % of Plant replacement value

0,9

%


I:03 Contractor costs as a % of Maintenance costs

29,2

%


I:04 Preventive maintenance costs as a % of Maintenance
costs

36,9

%


I:05 Preventive maintenance man hours
as a % of
Maintenance man hours

35,6

%


I:06 Maintenance costs as a % of Turnover

2,2

%



I:07 Training man hours as a % of Maintenance man hours

4,6

%


I:08 Immediate corrective maintenance man hours as a % of
Maintenance man hours

18,4

%


I:09 Planned and scheduled man hours as a % of Maintenance
man hours

60,0

%


I:10 Required operating time as a % of Total available time

78,5

%



I:11 Actual operating time as a % of Required operating time

87,2

%


I:12 Actual operating ti
me / Number of immediate corrective
maintenance events

176,2

Hours


I:13 Immediate corrective maintenance time / Number of
immediate corrective maintenance events

2,6

Hours


T1
Ava
i
lability
related to maintenance

96,0

%



T2 Operational availabil
ity

95,3

%




Results from the EFNMS workshops on maintenance indicators, by Tom Svantesson,

based on contribution from 8 companies from Slovenia, Croatia, Ireland and Denmark.



Food business
-
Mainten
ance indicators based on 8 companies

Workshop results
-
October/November 2005

Unit


I:01 Maintenance costs as a % of Plant replacement value

2,8

%


I:02 Stores investment as a % of Plant replacement value

1,2

%


I:03 Contractor costs
as a % of Maintenance costs

31,1

%


I:04 Preventive maintenance costs as a % of Maintenance costs

40,8

%


I:05 Preventive maintenance man hours as a % of Maintenance
man hours

34,9

%


I:06 Maintenance costs as a % of Turnover

4,3

%



I:07
Training man hours as a % of Maintenance man hours

1,8

%


I:08 Immediate corrective maintenance man hours as a % of
Maintenance man hours

23,6

%


I:09 Planned and scheduled man hours as a % of Maintenance
man hours

49,0

%


I:10 Required oper
ating time as a % of Total available time

57,5

%



I:11 Actual operating time as a % of Required operating time

89,7

%


I:12 Actual operating time / Number of immediate corrective
maintenance events

45,9

Hours


I:13 Immediate corrective maint
enance time / Number of
immediate corrective maintenance events

2,1

Hours


T1 Avalabillity related to maintenance

94,4

%



T2 Operational availability

96,7

%






Today’s environment requires measurements that can predict


outcomes, not just measuring outcomes themselves




More importantly we must be able to assess the sustainability


of new initiatives




There has been a long debate over how maintenance process


should be measured




Two major types of indicators (quantitative)


-

Leading or Process



-

Lagging or Outcome




There is seldom consideration of how the actions of people


relate to change

Some perspectives upon today’s situation

© Copyright SAMI Europe AB 2006

Establishing an Effective Measurement System Is Fundamental
to Improving the Maintenance Management Process

Lagging Indicators

Maintenance cost / replacement
asset value ratio

Wrench time

Emergency work ratio

Equipment availability

Re
-
work

Equipment history quality

Material / equipment stock
-
outs

Inventory turn
-
over
©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Leading Indicators

Work request quality

Work approval effectiveness

Priority system effectiveness

Planned work ratio

Job estimating accuracy

Inventory accuracy

Maintenance work conducted by
operators ratio

Craft to supervisor ratio

Total backlog

Preventive and predictive ratio

Failure analysis
Maintenance Management Leading Indicators

Performance Indicators
Measurement
Best in Class
1
SAMI
Experience
2
Inventory Accuracy
Percent of Items Actually Found
During Physical Inventory
90
-
95%
99%
W/O Count of Maintenance Work
Done by Operators
Maintenance Work
Conducted by Operators
Ratio
15%
>25%
Total Maintenance W/O
Craft to Supervisor Ratio
# Maintenance Hourly
# of Maintenance Supervisors
15 : 1
10
-
15 : 1
Total Backlog
Number of Calendar Weeks to
Complete All Planned
Maintenance Work Using Straight
Time
5 Weeks
5 Weeks
Preventive and Predictive
Maintenance Ratio
Maintenance Hours Worked on
PM/PDM Work
Total Completed Work Order Hours
40%
30
-
35%
Failure Analysis
Percent Work Orders Reviewed
for Root Cause
60
-
70%
40
-
50%
©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

There’s A System To This…


The premise is to measure both leading (Process) and
lagging (Outcome) indicators

It must be done in some context, an overall process
that integrates with your direction

We call such a process the

Managing System


There are other factors at work other than numbers

This forms the basis for integrating people and
processes within a common performance and
behavior framework
©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Gauging Work The Management Process

Proactive Work Capacity index (PWCi)



PWCi = (Schedule Compliance) x (Resource Load) x (Wrench Time)



World class levels would be:


PWCi (World Class) = (0.90) x (0.90) x (0.65) = 0.53




This index should be calculated weekly and trended over time

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

?
Benchmarking Against
Industry Leaders


To be as good as …

or

To be better than …

Is maintenance efficiently executed?


Many companies say that the maintenance activity is under
control and ok.


Our experience indicates something else. Following is quite
typical:


Half of the work orders should be executed a.s.a.p.


Most of the work is reactive


Work planning is done after issuing the WO (work order) to the
technician (…
our technicians are skilled and trained. They know
what they are doing …)


PM is inefficient (100% WOs issued out to techs


㘰% 獩杮敤e潦o
慳⁨慶楮朠扥b渠摯湥n


㌰%慣瑵慬ty 摯湥n


Typical case: complex production environment with 6 600 PM
tasks. After study 50% were revised, 40% were removed, 10% left
intact. Results: critical failures
-
90%, reworking after corrective
maintenance
-
63%, work requests
-
80% as result of better targeted
PM

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Company Team Work

for World Class

achievements

The Basic Activities

in place and in proper use

Analytical Procedures

for Betterment

in place and in proper use

Changes

in behaviours

for the Future

The

Leading

Star

What is the Goal?

The
SAMI
Asset Healthcare Triangle

Maintenance

of the asset

for best

performance

Preventive
Maintenance
MANAGING
SYSTEM
CMMS/Metrics
Work Identification/
Prioritization
Planning &
Scheduling
Turnaround
Management
Work Execution/
Review
The fundamental activities for the basic maintenance function

This includes the development, implementation and sustainability of

the basic activities to achieve fully control of the maintenance function

Equipment
History
Condition Based
Maintenance
Craft Skills
Enhancement
Failure
Analysis
Asset Strategies/
SRCM
Asset
Integrity
Next step of development

This step consists of development, implementation and sustainability of such

activities which will allow control of the assets

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Maturity Ranking*

(Stages 1
-
3 excerpted from Asset Healthcare)

Low Performing Compete
nt
High Performing
Stage
Class
Low Performing Compete
nt
High Performing
Stage
Class
Stage 1
Planned
Maintenance
Stage 2
Proactive
Maintenance
Stage 3
Organizational
Excellence
Stage 1
Planned
Maintenance
Stage 2
Proactive
Maintenance
Stage 3
Organizational
Excellence


Fires

determine priorities

Breakdowns frequent

Maintenance equates to repair

Ineffective work orders, plans,
controls

Stores service levels low

Poor operator/maintenance
relationships

Unable to meet production budgets

Most work planned, scheduled

PM implemented, defects identified &
corrected

Trades competent at most repairs

CMMS implemented

Stores service levels support
operation

Operators prep for repairs

Maintenance goals & KPI

s in place,
reported

All work prioritized, scheduled w/
production

PM hours/
WOs
exceed repairs

CMMS fully utilized

Parts kitted for jobs, 2x annual
turns

Operators inspect, create
WOs

Long
-
range scheduling
implemented

T/As well planned & executed


Fires

determine priorities

Breakdowns frequent

Maintenance equates to repair

Ineffective work orders, plans,
controls

Stores service levels low

Poor operator/maintenance
relationships

Unable to meet production budgets

Most work planned, scheduled

PM implemented, defects identified &
corrected

Trades competent at most repairs

CMMS implemented

Stores service levels support
operation

Operators prep for repairs

Maintenance goals & KPI

s in place,
reported

All work prioritized, scheduled w/
production

PM hours/
WOs
exceed repairs

CMMS fully utilized

Parts kitted for jobs, 2x annual
turns

Operators inspect, create
WOs

Long
-
range scheduling
implemented

T/As well planned & executed

Equipment history unusable

RCFA infrequent, ineffective

PM

s don

t match equipment / need

Inspections don

t get done

Equipment criticality based on
emotion

Condition monitoring sporadic,
ignored

No comprehensive asset care
program

Equipment history is accurate & used

Critical assets have clear prevention
plans

High percentage of PM compliance

Inspections yield
WR

s
, scheduled &
done

Condition monitoring widely used,
trusted

Trades competent at most repairs

RCFA system established & effective

Asset healthcare program for all
equipment

PdM
techniques minimize losses

RCFA done for >80% of failures

RCFA

s
results implemented
routinely

CBM based on cost & risk

Prevention mentality is
imperative

Trades design out failures

Equipment history unusable

RCFA infrequent, ineffective

PM

s don

t match equipment / need

Inspections don

t get done

Equipment criticality based on
emotion

Condition monitoring sporadic,
ignored

No comprehensive asset care
program

Equipment history is accurate & used

Critical assets have clear prevention
plans

High percentage of PM compliance

Inspections yield
WR

s
, scheduled &
done

Condition monitoring widely used,
trusted

Trades competent at most repairs

RCFA system established & effective

Asset healthcare program for all
equipment

PdM
techniques minimize losses

RCFA done for >80% of failures

RCFA

s
results implemented
routinely

CBM based on cost & risk

Prevention mentality is
imperative

Trades design out failures

Training unconnected to work
practice

Supervisors lack authority /
accountability

Unclear roles & responsibilities

Skills flexibility in contract, not
implemented

Operators don

t basic maintenance

No individual performance
targets/goals

Supervisors have clear roles &
accountability

Operators inspect/lube/prep
equipment

Work is directed by a priority system

Natural work teams effective at
routine maintenance

Service contract exists btw O & M

Craft multi
-
skilling
and flexibility
implemented

Work teams flexible, self
-
directed

Supervisors coach & advise

Continuous improvement
embraced & effective

Clear priorities established for
work

Reward/Recognition support
best practices

Skills predominate over functions

All staff systems competent

Training unconnected to work
practice

Supervisors lack authority /
accountability

Unclear roles & responsibilities

Skills flexibility in contract, not
implemented

Operators don

t basic maintenance

No individual performance
targets/goals

Supervisors have clear roles &
accountability

Operators inspect/lube/prep
equipment

Work is directed by a priority system

Natural work teams effective at
routine maintenance

Service contract exists btw O & M

Craft multi
-
skilling
and flexibility
implemented

Work teams flexible, self
-
directed

Supervisors coach & advise

Continuous improvement
embraced & effective

Clear priorities established for
work

Reward/Recognition support
best practices

Skills predominate over functions

All staff systems competent
©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Company Team Work

for World Class

achievements

The Basic Activities

in place and in proper use

Analytical Procedures

for Betterment

in place and in proper use

Changes

in behaviours

for the Future

The

Leading

Star

What is the Goal?

There are two

important facts

in benchmarking:

1.

The same definitions

2.

Fully comparable data

The European Standard in

Maintenance Terminology


CEN EN 13306

MAINTENANCE

Preventive Maintenance

Corrective Maintenance

Deferred

Immediate

-

Inspecting

-

Measuring

-

Controlling

-

Cleaning

-

Lubrication

-

Coating

-

Adjustment

-

Replacement

-

Cleaning

-

Lubrication

-

Coating

-

Adjustment

-

Joining together

-

Replacement

No actions

for the moment

Condition

monitoring

Failure Preventing

actions

-

Function check
-
out

-

Fault diagnosis

Restoring and/or

Repair actions

-

Function check
-
out

Before a detected fault

After a detected fault

Scheduled,

continuous

or on request

Condition Based

Maintenance

Predetermined

Maintenance

Scheduled

Condition

OK?

Yes

No

Jan Frånlund, 2000

Maintenance
Combination of all technical, administrative and managerial acti
ons
during the life cycle of an item intended to retain it in, or re
store it to,
a state in which it can perform the required function.
NOTE: See also the definition of improvement and modification.
Improvement
Combination of all technical, administrative and managerial acti
ons,
intended to ameliorate the dependability of an item, without cha
nging
its required function.
Modification
Combination of all technical, administrative and managerial acti
ons
intended to change the function of an item.
NOTE 1: Modification does not mean replacement by an equivalent
item.
NOTE 2:
Modification is not a maintenance action but has to do with cha
nging
the required function of an item to a new require
d function. The changes
may have an influence on the dependability or on
the performance of the
item, or both.
NOTE 3: Modification may be allocated to the maintenance organiz
ation.
Maintenance Influencing Factors and Maintenance Key Performance
Indicators
Levels of indicators
Family of indicators
O11 O12 O13
O14 O15 O16
O17 O18 O19
O20 O21 O22
O23 O24 O25
O26
O9 O10
O1 O2 O3 O4
O5 O6 O7 O8
Organizational
Indicators
T7 T8 T9 T10
T11 T12 T13
T14 T15 T16
T17 T18 T19
T20 T21
T5 T6
T1 T2 T3 T4
Technical
Indicators
E15 E16 E17
E18 E19 E20
E21 E23 E24
E7 E8 E9 E10
E11 E12 E13
E14
E1 E2 E3 E4
E5 E6
Economical
indicators
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Location
Society Culture
National
Labour
Cost
Laws Regulations
Sector / Branches
External
influencing
factors
Company Culture
Process Severity
Product Mix
Plant Size
Utilization Rate
Age of Plant
Criticality
Internal
influencing
factors
CEN
-

Comité Européen de Normalisation


EN 15341

© Jan Frånlund, Sweden 2007

Levels of indicators
Family of indicators
O11 O12 O13
O14 O15 O16
O17 O18 O19
O20 O21 O22
O23 O24 O25
O26
O9 O10
O1 O2 O3 O4
O5 O6 O7 O8
Organizational
Indicators
T8
T9 T10
T11
T12
T13 T14
T15 T16 T17
T18 T19 T20
T21
T6
T7
T1 T2 T3
T4
T5
Technical
Indicators
E15 E16 E17
E18 E19 E20
E21
E22
E23
E24
E7 E8 E9 E10
E11 E12 E13
E14
E1 E2 E3 E4
E5 E6
Economical
indicators
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Levels of indicators
Family of indicators
O11 O12 O13
O14 O15 O16
O17 O18 O19
O20 O21 O22
O23 O24 O25
O26
O9 O10
O1 O2 O3 O4
O5 O6 O7 O8
Organizational
Indicators
T8
T9 T10
T11
T12
T13 T14
T15 T16 T17
T18 T19 T20
T21
T6
T7
T1 T2 T3
T4
T5
Technical
Indicators
E15 E16 E17
E18 E19 E20
E21
E22
E23
E24
E7 E8 E9 E10
E11 E12 E13
E14
E1 E2 E3 E4
E5 E6
Economical
indicators
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Orsaken
till denna
skillnad
F
ö
rv
ä
ntad position
F
ö
rv
ä
ntat f
ö
rh
å
llande f
ö
r viss typ av f
ö
retag
Verkligt f
ö
rh
å
llande f
ö
r ditt f
ö
retag
EuroBench
EuroBench
UTEK:s nyckeltals
-
och
Benchmarkingsverktyg
p
å
Internet
Economical
Economical
Technical
Technical
Organisational
Organisational
The Swedish & Finnish Maintenance Societies
The Swedish & Finnish Maintenance Societies


joint development
joint development
Key Performance
Key Performance
Indicators
Indicators
The expected situation for this type of company
The actual situation for your company
The reasons
for this
difference
Benchmarking system
Benchmarking system
Details &
Betterment
ideas
?
Do we

have

the same

philosophy

It would be nice to




achieve significant betterments


regarding the amount of quality outputs


from the assets




get betterments that really last for the future




get 30%
-

50% better profit per year




have a situation where all the efforts


to achieve these results are already


paid for within a year

?
Is

that

possible

Strategic Asset Management Benefits


An Asset Management Strategy can
produce


a
20%
-

50% reduction

in Asset
Healthcare cost and


a
5%
-

20% increase

in throughput,


with
no capital investment
.



Regulatory Compliance is
assured

and
product deviations are
minimized
.



Morale is
improved

for employees who
learn to work in a proactive culture
and
become proud

of their
achievement.



Relations with owners, regulatory
agencies, banks, insurers, and unions
are
improved
.

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

?
Are

people

ready

42

Nowadays more and more of

the top management teams of the companies

are beginning to understand

that Strategic Asset Management is

NOT AN OPTION

BUT A NECESSITY

if one want to be successful

and competitive in the future

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Some

achieved

results

!
Process Indicators
--
Work Management System Benefits

LABOR UTILIZATION

% PLANNED WORK

SCHEDULE ATTAINMENT

REACTIVE WORK

PM/TOTAL RATIO

PM COMPLIANCE

©
2006 SAMI Europe AB

Proprietary and Confidential
SAM I
©
2006 SAMI Europe AB

Proprietary and Confidential
SAM I
SAM I
Shell Petroleum Case Study

Cumulative Operating Expense Reduction
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
Implementation Month
$, M
Plan
Actual
Cumulative Production Capacity Increase
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
Implementation Month
Barrel Oil Equivalent, M
Plan
Actual
©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI


Realized annualized
Operating Expense
Reduction of $30M
(30%) to date



Created production
increase of 17.0 M
BOE, valued at more
than $600,000,000 at
today’s prices


Shell Business Case Realization Chart

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

SASOL Synfuels Case Study

SAMI Benefits - Actual vs Target
R 0.000
R 50.000
R 100.000
R 150.000
R 200.000
R 250.000
R 300.000
R 350.000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Millions
Accummulative Target
Total Benefit
Accumulative Costs
©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI


Results to date:


Material cost reduced


Overtime reduced
50%


Emergencies reduced
60%


Cost reduced 59 MM
Rand


Production increased
49 MM Rand


What is

this

betterment

process

all about

?
Strategic Asset Management

An integrated set of processes


that systematically derive the highest value from plant assets,


through a consistent philosophy, plans and objectives,


and co
-
operative involvement by everyone in the plant.

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Right

Capacity

Right

Production

Right

Maintenance

Right

Logistics

Company Management,

Designers

&

Project managers

Production

Management

Maintenance

Management

Logistics

Management

Asset

Management

The SAM Model

Strategic Asset Management

Ownership / Development / Empowerment

ENABLE

LEAD

Managing System

Strategic Planning

Information Management

Capacity
Development &
Disposition

EXECUTE

Operations
Management

Asset Healthcare
Management

Logistics
Management

Capacity

Development

& Disposition

Production

Management

Asset

Healthcare

Management

Logistics

Management

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

The
SAMI
Capacity Triangle

Having the

right asset

for the purpose

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

The
SAMI
Production Triangle

Using the asset

the right way

for the purpose

it is intended

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

The
SAMI
Logistics Triangle

Supplying


the asset

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

SAM Model Functional
Pyramid

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

56

Strategic Asset Management


is a completely alignment of resources

to achieve the business goals of the organisation

at the lowest cost.

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Give a man a fish,

feed him for a day………


Teach him to fish

& feed him for a lifetime.

Get betterments that really last for the future

©

2006 SAMI Europe AB



Proprietary and Confidential

SAMI

Thank you for listening !


Any Questions ?