Measuring Maintenance Performance

Key performance indicators for maintenance management

Summary

This document reviews the purpose of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and advocates a
structured approach to their establishment within the maintenance department.
Representative examples of maintenance KPIs are provided, and the relationship between
KPIs and benchmarks is discussed. Examples of maintenance metrics are given that are freely
available in the public domain, along with more potential sources of detailed data.

SKF @ptitude Exchange MB02011 Rev. A

SKF U.S.A. Inc., Stephanie Passig
5271 Viewridge Court 13 pages
San Diego, CA 92123 Published May, 2015
United States Revised March, 2016
tel. +1 858 496 3400

fax +1 858 496 3511

email: [email protected]
Internet: www.aptitudexchange.com

® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016

The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
1. Introduction key business areas, the maintenance function
must be subject to continual review in search of
Over recent years, the field of Maintenance
Management became a breeding ground for
three letter acronyms (TLAs). KPI, or Key performance improvement. It is in this respect
Performance Indicators, is probably one of the that Key Performance Indicators play their most
most widely used acronym. Despite the vital role.
apparent familiarity with which the maintenance
community embraces the idea of performance 2. What are KPIs?
measurement, these indicators are frequently
misunderstood and misapplied. [1]
Key Performance Indicators are defined as:
 “A set of key metrics or indicators used to
KPIs are not the same as benchmarks.
track critical aspects of a business. For
Benchmarking involves more than measuring
example, key maintenance reliability
best performance. [2]
performance indicators are overall
equipment effectiveness (OEE) and
KPIs are not a management stick with which to
percentage return on asset value (% RAV).
beat individuals or groups who aren’t pulling
[3]”
 “A performance indicator is a qualitative or
their weight. Indeed, when properly applied,
KPIs are the opposite, as they provide a highly
quantitative measure equipped with
effective tool to motivate the maintenance
baselines and realistic targets that generate
workforce. In general, individuals like to
a quantified value. It should be sufficiently
understand how they are measured to feel that
and essentially capable of providing a
they have some control over how management
realistic indication of a referral’s level of
perceives them. Careful selection and application
performance with respect to a given field of
of KPIs can make a significant contribution
reference of the process concerned. The
towards a positive working environment.
indication should eventually facilitate
prognostic and/or diagnostic processes, and
KPIs are not comparative measures designed
thus justify associated decisions and
simply to demonstrate the need for
subsequent actions at appropriate levels in
improvement by showing one organization is
the process hierarchy. It must address the
much better than another. Indeed, complacency
appropriate thing in a sensible manner
is not an option for any business that seeks to
within an appropriate time period and in an
survive.
applicable environment along with the
constraints confronted. [4]”
Organizations cannot afford to remain static in
today’s increasingly global and competitive KPIs then, provide a means of monitoring a
market. Processes of continuous improvement process to alert users to process improvement
are key to survival. Efficiency or otherwise can opportunities. Key performance indicators relate
make a significant impact upon an organization’s to a defined objective in a manner that is
total performance. So, in common with other relevant to the process under scrutiny. They

® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016

The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
highlight trends and help identify the nature of managers with key information to effectively
the required improvement. control their specific contribution to the overall
business result.
The second definition given above includes some
key points that the simpler definition omits. A The logical starting point for defining KPIs is to
KPI facilitates comparison with past ensure the business satisfies the stakeholders or
performance, and the performance of other shareholders. The critical success factors
organizations. However, the KPI should also impacting stakeholder satisfaction must be
provide some prognostic and diagnostic identified and used as the basis for corporate
information. This article argues that a single KPI KPIs (typically financial in nature). All employed
will probably not meet this need. Thus, an KPIs should ultimately relate to the corporate
organization needs to formulate a family of goal. Therefore, the setting of organizational
relevant and inter-related KPIs that operate at KPIs is a “top-down” process.
various levels of hierarchy to meet the total
needs of the business. When organizations employ a “balanced
scorecard” [5] approach to corporate
management, metrics relevant to corporate
3. KPI Structure
performance goals are already decided. Thus,
lower level KPIs used to monitor individual
All businesses have corporate objectives. The departments and processes assume improved
function of management is to monitor and relevance and understanding if they are
control the organization to ensure goals are derivatives of corporate indicators.
achieved. Success in this area requires a
number of effective and efficient functions, each
of which contribute their part to the total. For
4. Maintenance KPIs
this reason, there isn’t a single, global indicator
of corporate performance that provides Similar to all other areas of the business,
management with sufficient diagnostic maintenance KPIs should be directly related to
information to enable them to fully control the overall business objectives.
business.
Some argue that essentially all maintenance
Similarly, each department within an managers perform the same tasks. For example,
organization comprises a number of diverse they all have to control a variety of activities.
processes that must function successfully to These include:


make the required contribution to the corporate
Statutory checks

result.
Breakdowns
 Time-based maintenance

Therefore, effective KPIs require a structured
Life-cycle based maintenance

approach to their formulation. Likewise, effective
Condition monitoring (subjective/objective)

business monitoring demands a well-defined
Safety issues

combination of KPIs that operate at various
Environmental issues

levels of the corporate and departmental
hierarchy. These KPIs must provide individual Inventory control
® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016
The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
 4.2 KPIs for overall maintenance
However, corporate goals affect the relative performance
priorities assigned to these (and other)
maintenance activities. For this reason, it is In pursuance of financial goals, a maintenance
impossible to arrive at one standardized set of manager needs to assess the quality and
maintenance KPIs that would be applicable in all efficiency of service he provides to the
situations. Therefore, with higher-level organization.
corporate KPIs as a starting point, it is necessary
for each maintenance organization to derive its Performance measures commonly applied
own structured set of KPIs to ensure alignment include various analyses of machinery
with corporate objectives. availability or downtime, such as:

4.1 Financial KPIs for maintenance  Available production capacity per unit of
time
Financial indicators relevant to the maintenance  Uptime as percentage of total hours
function might include some of the following [1]: operation
 Unscheduled downtime as a percentage of
 Total maintenance cost total downtime
 Maintenance cost per unit of production  Cost of breakdown work as a percentage of
 Maintenance cost as a percentage of total total maintenance costs
operating costs  Maintenance re-work hours as percentage
 Maintenance cost as a percentage of sales of total maintenance hours
turnover  Value of spares inventory vs. total annual
 Maintenance inventory value as a spares cost
percentage of estimated replacement value
 Value of asset maintained per maintenance Again, only those measures that are directly
employee relevant to higher-level, financial KPIs should be
employed.
Given the diversity of modern manufacturing
organizations it is not possible to construct a Many companies employ Overall Equipment
definitive KPI list that is applicable in all Effectiveness (OEE) measurements. OEE is the
situations. Only use measures that directly product of plant availability, plant performance
support the corporate goal. In some cases it is rate, and product quality rate. Although this
necessary to define other performance parameter is rooted in the concept of Total
measures that are not included in the list above. Productive Maintenance (TPM), it is increasingly
common for companies to utilize it as an overall
Maintenance cost expressed as a percentage of measure of maintenance performance,
estimated asset replacement value (% ERV) is a irrespective of their adoption of a formal TPM
financial maintenance KPI featured in a growing approach. Perhaps one reason for this is OEE’s
number of organizations. comprehensive nature and the availability of
comparative data through documented
experience gained in TPM application.

® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016

The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
4.3 Maintenance process KPIs  Hours of maintenance performed by
operators as a percentage of total
If correctly applied, overall performance maintenance hours
indicators provide timely warning that scope for  Hours of maintenance performed by
improvement exists. However, these parameters operators as a percentage of total operator
do not provide the details necessary to identify hours worked
the particular aspects of maintenance that need
management’s attention. Inventory:

The maintenance function comprises various  Requests filled on demand as a percentage

activities and processes that may interact in of total requests
various ways. For example:  Emergency purchase orders raised as a
percentage of all purchase orders raised
 Increasing the level of planned maintenance
may require an increase in stores inventory If the organization is embracing TPM as a core
to support the activity maintenance philosophy, then OEE parameters
 Increased operator involvement in probably sit more accurately at this level, as
maintenance may result in generation of TPM implementation is one of the processes
additional maintenance work orders within the maintenance function that needs
 More effective condition monitoring may discrete monitoring.
reduce the need for planned maintenance
routines, and may have an adverse effect on 4.4 Functional KPIs for maintenance
inventory KPIs
A well-structured set of process KPIs provides
The role of the process KPI is to provide an management with early indication of particular
overall performance measure for each individual activity within the maintenance process where
process within the maintenance function, as there is room for improvement. A further level
illustrated by the following examples [1]. Once of functional KPIs is required to identify specific
again, this is not a complete list, and the KPIs improvements for individual activities. The mix
selected for a particular application are only of activities that comprise the maintenance
those directly relevant to their overall process for a particular organization is diverse,
maintenance performance parameters. and may include:

Preventive maintenance:  Preventive Maintenance (PM)



Predictive Maintenance (PdM)
Number of preventable breakdowns as a  Statutory compliance
percentage of total number of breakdowns  Computerized Management System (CMMS)
 Operator Driven Reliability (ODR)
 Tasks completed as a percentage of tasks  Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)
scheduled  Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)
 Inventory and purchasing
Operator involvement:  Staff development

® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016

The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
Functional KPIs should be directly relevant to degree of disruption to which the PdM
the activity under scrutiny and responsive to program is subject.
changes in the level, effectiveness, or quality of  The number of work orders resulting from
that activity. Furthermore, surrounding predictive activities versus the total number
maintenance activities should not influence the of work orders raised. This parameter
KPI. arguably gives a measure of the
effectiveness of the monitoring program.
 Cost savings that result from early detection
of developing faults. This is the ideal
parameter to monitor the effectiveness of a
Relevant functional KPIs for some of these predictive monitoring program. However,
activities are also listed [1]. The lists intend to be KPIs need to be applicable and practical.
neither definitive nor complete. Data collection is difficult, as data is usually
not readily available, and often difficult to
4.5 Preventive maintenance KPIs objectively quantify.

Preventive activities undertaken on a planned 4.7 KPIs for CMMS systems

basis are often disrupted to react to plant
breakdowns or other distractions. Different KPIs may be applied, depending upon
the individual situation and relevance to higher-
 The number of work order resulting from level KPIs.
planned inspection activity, expressed as a
percentage of the total work orders issued.  The number of equipment items that exist
This parameter offers a measure of the within the CMMS database, expressed as a
thoroughness (or otherwise) with which the percentage of the total number of
activity is carried out. equipment items on site. This is a good
 The number of PM routines completed, monitor of the implementation rate for a
expressed as percentage of total PM activity CMMS, and is also an indicator of system
scheduled. This parameter monitors the utilization.
level of disruption to planned activities  Maintenance hours recorded in the system,
expressed as a percentage of total
maintenance hours worked. This is another
4.6 Predictive maintenance KPIs means of monitoring system utilization.

PdM activities are often subject to the same 4.8 Inventory management
disruptive influences as other planned
maintenance activities, and may be monitored KPIs involved in the measurement of
using similar parameters. maintenance inventory management often
parallel KPIs employed for management of other
 The number of PdM inspections completed inventories (i.e. raw materials, work in progress,
versus the number of PdM inspections or finished goods). However, corporate KPIs
scheduled. This parameter monitors the applicable to the maintenance function may
dictate that different KPIs have relevance to the
® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016
The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
maintenance situation. Therefore, it may not be objective of a benchmarking exercise is to
appropriate to employ KPIs used to monitor identify the practices behind the metrics. [2]
inventory management in other business areas.
When a performance indicator can be clearly
4.9 Personal development KPIs and unambiguously aligned with best practice, it
becomes a benchmark that may be employed as
 Training hours per maintenance employee a process improvement goal. Benchmarking
 Training expense as a percentage of total projects require performance improvements
maintenance expense tracking through KPIs.

Unfortunately, many documented metrics of

4.10 Operator-driven reliability (ODR) KPIs public domain data sources relate to higher-
level KPIs. Although they may be helpful when
Some KPIs relevant to an ODR program may assessing an improvement scope, they rarely
include: provide diagnostic details to identify specific
process improvements.
 Percentage completion rate of scheduled
operator performed activity 6. Measurement accuracy
 The number of maintenance work orders
raised in direct consequence of ODR Like any other monitoring process, effective use
activities

of KPIs requires a clear and accurate
The incidence rate of “spurious alarms” measurement process. KPIs should to provide
generated by the ODR activities

management with timely warning of the need to
The amount of stoppages / production loss implement process improvements through
caused by faults that should be picked up by monitoring trends. If data varies due to
OPM activity

collection inconsistencies, the degree of change
The hours spent by operators doing needs to be greater before it assumes
corrective / preventive work significance, which causes timeliness to be
impaired.
5. KPIs and benchmarking
This is particularly relevant in situations of
Benchmarking is a continuous improvement objectively quantifying (i.e. to assess) subjective
process through which an organization attempts facets of maintenance performance. For
to identify “world class” or “best in class” example, attempting to rate a group’s attitude
practices with the objective study of other toward an aspect of maintenance by asking an
organizations and their procedures. assessor to provide a value on a scale of one to
Benchmarking projects cannot be quantified ten gives variable results. If it is not possible to
unless performance is measured and identify a hard objective measurement for a key
improvements are tracked [7]. However, there is issue, inject some logic into the assessment
more to benchmarking than just metrics. In fact, process by specifying definite conditions relative
an over emphasis on metrics may cause to values recorded.
benchmarking to loose focus, as the real
For example:
® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016
The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
 . 7.1.1 Overall equipment effectiveness data
 If condition A exists, then 1
 If conditions A & B exist, then 2 Experience shows that an OEE of around 95
 If conditions A & B & C exist, then 3 etc. percent is representative of world-class
performance for a plant engaged in continuous
When making data comparisons with outside process manufacture. For a plant engaged in
sources, particular care needs to be taken to bath production (or “discrete” production), the
ensure the validity of any conclusions that are representative world class OEE figure is 85
drawn. For example, accounting practices such percent. [9]
as guidelines on capitalization of maintenance .
costs may differ from company to company, or 7.1.2 Maintenance cost vs. ERV (%ERV)
site to site. Similarly, comparisons between KPIs
relating to estimated replacement value (ERV) The average for the pulp and paper industry is
should be approached with some caution, as 4.2 percent. [4]
variations may exist in the means of ascertaining
the ERV employed in the metric. [8]

7. Sources for maintenance metrics

After establishing a regime of appropriate KPIs,

the next task is to establish alert levels. In some
cases, this may be based on historical data or
degree of change rather than absolute value.
However, circumstances arise when need exists
to compare KPI data with an external reference
source. This is commonly the situation in a
benchmarking environment.

Some maintenance performance metrics are

available in the public domain (i.e. websites and
publications) although, sometime access to this
data is on a fee-paying basis. However, high
quality data exchange is a matter of private and
confidential arrangements between participating
organizations.
.
7.1 Data freely available in the public domain

Some examples of performance metrics

gathered at no charge from public domain
sources are given below.
.
® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016
The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016
The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
 7.2 Limitations of published metrics

Most metrics currently available at no charge in

the public domain tend to fall into the category
of “KPIs for overall maintenance performance.”
Viewed in isolation without supporting data from
process and functional KPIs, they provide little
information regarding how best performance
was achieved.

Furthermore, the anonymous nature of such

data sources makes it impossible to verify
comparison validity, as little is known about the
organization supplying the data or the bases on
which any inherent financial calculations were
made.

Clean data sources are required for effective

benchmarking; thus, inability to verify the
7.14 Maintenance costs validity of data limits its use.

Examples of maintenance cost metrics for 7.3 Metrics by subscription

selected industries are given in Table 2.
A number of organizations provide databases of
business and reliability information as a service
to their subscribing members. Examples of such
services include:

 Offshore Reliability Data Handbook

http://www.oreda.com/

 Process equipment reliability Database

(PERD) maintained by the American Institute
of Chemical Engineers.
http://www.aiche.org/

The DIALOG service, accessible via the Internet,

holds an extensive collection of general business
information, and can be a useful means of
locating general best-practice information and
contacts. http://www.dialog.com/

® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016

The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
The Safety and reliability database (the SRDA),
which is supported and managed by Serco
Assurance. http://www.the-srda.net/

Many independent engineering consultants are

active in the field of benchmarking. They are
complemented by the emergence of internet-
based benchmarking organizations. These are a
good source of data and offer a medium through
which best practice partners may be identified
and contacted. Examples are:

 The International Benchmarking

Clearinghouse http://www.apqc.org/
 The Benchmarking Exchange
http://www.benchnet.com/ Please note that the survey related to
benchmarking data in general, and was not
Some of these organizations maintain databases focused specifically on maintenance metrics.
of benchmarking survey results. They also
provide a neutral medium through which
8. KPIs in action
organizations may conduct their own surveys in
pursuance of specific metrics. Another valuable
service that they may provide is facilitation of After establishing the required regime of KPIs
person-to-person contact for the purpose of and configuring the business processes to
data exchange. collate the required data, results should be
subject to regular review and analysis.
Other potential sources of data and personal Numerous tools are available to aid tracking and
contacts are trade / industry associations and interpretation of KPIs. Not all of them may be
professional societies. familiar to the maintenance management team
but they may be familiar to people who are
In 1994, Coopers and Lybrand conducted a regularly involved with statistical data and
survey of benchmarking activity in the United continuous- improvement activities. If the
Kingdom. Participants were questioned about organization has such a team it may be worth
their data sources. The Table 3 shows data seeking their advice.
sources ranked according to the percentage of
participants using them. [13] Simple, easily-understood KPI graphical can
dispel suspicions about the reasons for data
collection, and may have a positive motivational
effect. Such displays help individuals understand
the contribution made by them towards the
corporate result.

9. Conclusion
® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016
The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
Measurements of OEE, and maintenance cost as
a percentage of estimated replacement value (%
ERV) are becoming widely accepted as the
maintenance industry’s standard means of
quantifying maintenance performance in an
overall sense. Given the caveat outlined in
section 6 regarding the need for a thorough
understanding and accuracy of the
measurement process, these parameters can
provide good comparative data. However, when
viewed in isolation they do not give any insight
into the means by which performance excellence
is achieved (or, conversely the possible reasons
for underperformance).

In isolation, no single key performance indicator

provides a complete picture of maintenance
performance. If you follow the hierarchical
approach suggested here it will be realised that
the high level corporate KPIs give rise to a much
larger number of functional KPIs at the lower
levels. The challenge for management is to
structure a concise program of KPIs that
ensures alignment of individual processes to
long term corporate goals, yet provides timely,
clear, and unambiguous warning of
opportunities for process improvement. These
warnings should be supported by information
that indicates the nature of the required
changes.

® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016

The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.
10. References 12. Bendell, T Boulter, L and Gatford, K; “The
Interactive Benchmarking Workout” Services
Publications Ltd, ISBN 0 273 62635 3 (1997).
1. Wireman, T; “Developing Performance
Indicators for Maintenance Management”
Industrial Press, Inc., ISBN 0 8311 3080 6
(1998).
2. Barratt, M; ”Benchmarking Overview”
@ptitudexchange 2002.
http://www.aptitudexchange.com
3. McKenna, T and Oliverson, R; “Glossary of
Reliability and Maintenance Terms”, Gulf
Publishing Company, ISBN 0 88415 360 6
(1997).
4. Liyanage, J P and Kumar, U; “VBM & BSC –
An adaptive Performance Measurement System
using the Balanced Scorecard”, Maintenance &
Asset Management, Vol 16 No 2 (2001).
http://www.balancedscorecard.org
5. Barratt, M; ”Operator Driven Reliability
(ODR)”, @ptitudexchange 2002.
http://www.aptitudexchange.com
6. Barratt, M; ”Benchmarking for Best Practice”
@ptitudexchange 2002.
http://www.aptitudexchange.com
7. Idhammer, C; “Current Best Practices I” Pulp
& Paper Magazine, June 2001.
8. Process Industries Center for Manufacturing
Excellence; “Report on the Competitiveness of
the UK Process Industries 2001”
http://www.picme.org
9. Dunn, R L; “Composite maintenance
benchmark Metrics”, Plant Engineering
magazine, (January 1 1999)
http://www.manufacturing.net/ple
10. Plant Maintenance resource Center,
http://www.plant-
maintenance.com/benchmarking.shtml
11. Hansen, RC; “Overall Equipment
Effectiveness, a Powerful Production /
Maintenance Tool for Increased Profits”
Industrial Press, Inc, ISBN 0 8311 3138 1 (Nov
2001).
® SKF is a registered trademark of the SKF Group. © SKF Group 2016
The contents of this publication are the copyright of the publisher and may not be reproduced (even extracts) unless prior written permission is granted. Every care has been taken to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained in this publication but no liability can be accepted for any loss or damage whether direct, indirect or consequential arising out of the use of the information
contained herein.