This is an archive of the Maximo Yahoo Community. The content of this pages may be a sometimes obsolete so please check post dates.
Thanks to the community owner Christopher Wanko for providing the content.
Recognize that reactive maintenance adds an additional cost to your maintenance budget (actuals) which could have been prevented provided you had a plan to reduce or eliminate.
Failure analysis enables you to identify recurring failures.
The MTBF calculation helps to identify assets with recurring failures.
But what exactly is that formula buried inside the Maximo report?
It is probably looking at the Status field to make sure this is completed work.
Hopefully it is looking at the Problem code.
And, it is most likely evaluating the Worktype field.
But what if
1) The maintenance staff is not always filling in the problem code.
2) The worktypes are too many, and confusing. And what if it is too hard to distinguish repair work from modification work? And what if some "admin" work is marked as CM?
3) The maintenance staff is unclear as to who is really responsible for accuracy of this record at work completion and assigns the wrong asset number (or just a location record)
4) No one in the O&M organization (and engineering staff) is responsible for failure analysis. Further, there are no analytical reports and staff assigned to running them.
5) And back to the original point, has anyone really looked at the MTBF algorithm buried inside the vendor's failure report? Or should we just assume
.
w/br
John Reeve
Manager, Practice Leader Maintenance and Reliability Solutions
Cell: 423 314 1312
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-reeve/11/644/9b2