Consistent Maintenance Management Model:

Results of changes of maintenance organisation structure and processes

Jan Sailer1, Tomáš Hladík2

1Czech University of Life Sciences, Czech Republic, E-mail: [email protected]
2Faculty of Engineering, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic, E-mail: [email protected],

[email protected]

Number of asset management models, methodologies and tools are available and well known today.
However, companies in industry adopt various organizational approaches to the asset management pro-
cesses. This paper summarizes several examples of maintenance process models and presents a compar-
ison of examples (benchmark) of real maintenance organizational structures. Used examples originate
from chemical, petrochemical and automotive industries. On this background, a case study of major
maintenance organization change in Unipetrol, a central-european refinery and petrochemical group
(part of PKN Orlen), is presented and analysed. The goal of the implemented changes in the company
was to increase the overall efficiency of the maintenance organization, mainly in the areas of manage-
ment, and to achieve the set KPIs. Organizational changes were implemented on the base of the model
of a close connection between maintenance and production organizations in the form of a Multi-profes-
sion production team, named “Facility team”.
Changes in the organisational structure and asset management processes described in the paper had
finally a significant impact on the number of management positions (reduction by 25 %), roles, compe-
tences and the asset management process flow. Regarding the quantitative impacts to KPIs in areas
fulfilment of process safety requirements and efficiency after implementation of these changes, we no-
tices a positive effect in the horizon of the coming year and the impacts are also evaluated and analyzed
in the paper.

Keywords: Maintenance organization, Facility team, Maintenance KPI, Maintenance management

1 Introduction
Currently there are several asset management methodologies and tools available [1]. Even though the term
Asset Management is defined through a set of national and global norms [2, 3], in the vast majority of practical
cases we see isolated processes and methodologies; even though these are efficient as far as their application and
outputs are concerned, they mostly focus only on a single area or sub-process and are not interlinked, they do not
form any consistent whole or do not respect the needs or organizational structure of the production plant [4, 5].
This state is usually caused by the isolated development of individual methodologies, which are often commercial
products. The time plays also an important role, since individual methodologies and tools were developed in a
certain time frame and thus they logically cannot follow up on each other. For example the set of methodologies
generally called Risk Reliability Management includes the Reliability Centered Maintenance, Risk Base Inspection
and SIFpro© [6] methodologies, whose goals are to generate optimized plans for preventive maintenance based
on risk assessment. Individual methodologies generate plans for preventive maintenance but these plans ar in
different formats, completely unsuitable for automated or batch transfer to central planning maintenance systems,
where data are further processed within the planning and work implementation sub-process.
A frequent representative of such Central Maintenance Management System (CMMS) is SAP – the preventive
maintenance administration module [7, 8, 9]. Another factor which reduces the efficient implementation of modern
methodologies for asset management is their low adaptability to the organizational structure of the production
plant. The imperfect connection of asset management with the production area and with processes supporting the
asset management process (such as the purchase of spare parts and consumable material, investments, safety and
security, or HR) then leads to imperfect communication flows that reduce the organization’s efficiency and lead to
suboptimal asset management costs, reduced availability of production equipment and lower process safety. This
could lead, for instance, to imperfect fulfilment of valid legislation requirements, incorrect usage of residual service
life of production equipment or low coverage by predictive maintenance.
The facts specified above force us to view the asset management process as a consistent unit, integrated within
the organizational structure of the production plant in a manner allowing efficient communication and goal sharing
[10], whereas the real needs of the production facility, the medium- and long-term plans as well as the mission and
vision of the company all need to be respected [11, 12].
The goal of the proposed solution spans all parts of the asset management process, from entering requests,
their approval and prioritization, system of technical preparation of a job, optimal planning, transfer for imple-
mentation, feedback on implementation and final acceptance and closure of a job, whereas emphasis is placed on
efficient communication, work quality and utilization of work capacities [13, 14, 15]. Organizationally, it is ne-
cessary to setup the process in a way that will ensure that individual decision steps will be carried out on the
operator´s side and not on the maintenance´s side. On one hand, this results in an independent approval process
with respect to costs management, and on the other this leads to clearly defined priorities by the operator, who is
then forced to make decisions not only based on the current operating situation but also based on the costs and
indicators for long-term operational availability [16]. As was mentioned earlier, one of the primary tools to achieve
optimal decision-making was sharing of goals within key indicator assessment for processes, whereas the operator
shares maintenance goals such as maintenance costs, mechanical availability of devices, mean time between failures
(MTBF) and/or efficiency of the maintnance work implementor. On the other hand, the maintenance side shares
operational goals, such as operational availability, use of production facilities, energy index, or for instance variable
costs [17]. From an organizational standpoint, the solution is based on the structure of a so-called multi-professi-
onal team, where a single organizational element has representatives of all key areas required for efficient adminis-
tration and management of the entrusted production section. In practice, this means that the team includes repre-
sentatives of production, technology and maintenance, as well as other areas such as reliability and quality ma-
nagement who are responsible for the efficiency of central specialized bodies in given areas. The implementation
of a multi-profession team into the organization of maintenance and operation has become the main goal of
changes in terms of process settings.
One of the key areas that need to be emphasized is the definition of process efficiency indicators for individual
management levels, including the definition of key indicators [16]. This set of indicators contains not only basic
items such as the aforementioned fixed costs for maintenance, MTBF, or mechanical availability of equipment,
but also indicators monitoring process safety of equipment such as Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC), number
of process alarms per time unit, success rate of diagnostics of rotary machines etc.
Tab. 1 Master list of harmonized indicators [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29]

The structure of monitored indicators is based on a classical pyramid logic, where the number of monitored
items becomes smaller in the direction towards top management [15, 23].
The primary contribution is the creation of an asset management model which will ensure improvement of
mutual communication and coordination between individual company bodies [24], improvement of availability
indicators for production equipment, optimization of costs for the implementation of maintenance activities, im-
provement of process safety indicators such as LOPC or number of process alarms. The author intends to de-
monstrate these improvements based on a real-life implementation of the proposed process solution.
For creation of such an asset management model, it is vital to reflect current problems and trends in main-
tenance organizational structures. There are two basic forms of maintenance organizational structures: decentrali-
zed (area) and centralized. In case of decentralized organization, work control is delegated to individual production
areas. On the other hand, in central organization all work orders are controlled from a central shop. (Maynard,
2001) [26]. For smaller maintenance organizations it is typical to use central form, for larger organizations decen-
tralized shop concept is widely used. Combination of both concepts (area - central) might be used for multilevel
maintenance, where specialists are assigned to specific areas, maintaining the key equipment. Skills which are not
needed on a daily basis are ensured from the central shop when needed.
Organizational structure can be partly described by the maintenance organization ratio and ordinarily it is about
15:1. However this ratio must be set carefully with respect to the skills and daily agendas of supervisors, machine
shop dispositions and to the form of production [25].

2 Examples of maintenance process models and maintenance strategy development

One of the main factors for the maintenance organization are the characteristics of the maintenance needs that
are generated by the assets.
A possible scenario of a production plant for chemical products can serve as an example.
Originally all the repair works arising out of the maintenance needs (or demand) of the plant were undertaken
by local maintenance department personnel. After a major decrease of 40 % in production output due to lack of
demand, it was decided by management to reduce the numbers of production and maintenance personnel. The
further investigation resulted in two main options to choose between: either completely outsource the maintenance
function, or outsource as much as possible. For practical reasons it was decided that a maximum of 50 % of the
work had to be done by maintenance department and 10 % by operators undertaking first line maintenance work.
So, 40 % of all work was outsourced, in particular all work on building services installations and all the utility
equipment. [26]. Scheme of possible organisation is presented on Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Possible organization of the maintenance department for a production plant [26]

Another example of maintenance strategy development is provided by company which decided to create a
maintenance model based on the centralized management, as shows Fig. 2. The model helps to avoid the chaos of
diverse demands that can arise in maintenance from day to day. It provides guidance, organisation and sense of
importance for the company.
 Fig. 2 Example of a maintenance strategy development [27]

Regardless of the organization formal structure and the position of maintenance within the structure, there
exist certain generally accepted principles, see example on Fig. 3. Employees must know what they are responsible
for and whom they report to. Managers are required to know who is responsible for setting goals and all other
activities needed for their success. The organization structure represents these responsibilities in the simplest and
obvious way. The organization structure is clearly perceived on the level where business policy is formulated in the
organization, however, it is essential that the organization structure is clearly understood on the level of work
execution too [28, 30].
 Fig. 3 Example of organization structure of combined maintenance [29]

3 Examples of real maintenance organizational structures

Useful tool for determination which organizational structure should be used, is benchmarking of maintenance
structures. Basic benchmarking of 5 similar maintenance organizations in automotive industry was conducted for
comparison. It should be considered, that organization structure is strongly affected by the level of outsourcing,
scale of operation and technology type. This assumption was generally confirmed by the results of the
benchmarking presented in following Tab. 2 and diagrams.
Tab. 2 Benchmarking of five similar maintenance organizations in automotive industry
Automotive industry Manager/Staff
Cars/day # shifts Total headcount Level of outsourcing
maintenance Ratio
Assembly line A 1 000 2 42 medium 14.3%
Assembly line B 1 500 3 50 medium 13.0%
Assembly line C 580 3 28 high 21.0%
Bodyshop-welding 1 400 / 48 high 12.5%
Paintshop 2 000 / 91 medium 13.2%

This table sums up the following graphics:

Automotive, Assembly line A

Production: 1 000 cars/day, 2 shifts operation, Total headcount: 42, Level of maintenance outsourcing: medium
Automotive, Assembly line B
Production: 1 500 cars/day, 3 shifts operation, Total headcount: 50, Level of maintenance outsourcing: medium

Automotive, Assembly line C

Production: 580 cars/day, 3 shifts operation, Total headcount: 28, Level of maintenance outsourcing: high

Automotive, Bodyshop – welding

Production: 1 400 cars/day, Total headcount: 48, Level of maintenance outsourcing: high

Automotive, Paintshop
Production: 2 000 cars/day, Total headcount: 91, Level of maintenance outsourcing: medium

4 Maintenance organization change in Unipetrol

The decentralized (area) maintenance model was applied over a long period for individual production plants in
Unipetrol in the past. It was during times when the company had its own in-house executive maintenance including
workshops and machinery. Change occurred in the nineties, when the company underwent privatisation and almost
all service activities were split off and further used in the outsourcing form. At that time, changes in the organi-
sational structures of maintenance were also accelerated, it was necessary to adapt to a different model of operation.
Over next fifteen years many changes occurred, when organisation of maintenance settled on the decentralized
model with a specific small role played by centralised services which constituted the basic service for individual
maintenance operations. The central part included technical diagnostics, cost reporting and basic administration
of the maintenance process. No central technical engineering existed existed at that time as well as no system of
uniform strategic management, for example in the field of reliability, inspection, risk management, planning and
strategy for preventative maintenance. The interconnection with the field of production differed for various pro-
duction units. This model of maintenance management required a large number of management employees and
ensured only minimal option for unified management of maintenance strategy.
In 2014, the company decided to implement the organisational model of Facility Teams across the board for
management in the field of production. This concerns a multi-professional team which is responsible for compre-
hensive management of a defined production unit and which also allows the close connection with organisation
of maintenance.

Fig. 4 Facility Team

Apart from the position of production technologist and energy technologist, the Facility Team is made up of a
Reliability Engineer, Main Maintenance Engineer, Operations and Maintenance Coordinator and Scheduler Fig. 4.
Thanks to these positions the close interconnection with organisation of maintenance and its suppliers is ensured.

Fig. 5 Pyramid

In order to ensure that responsibilities and communication between in-house production and maintenance are
clearly defined, transition to Facility Teams required a change in the organisational structure of maintenance Fig.
5. These changes were at the same time used to ensure more complex changes in organisation of in-house main-
tenance, whereas centralisation occurred in the executive part of maintenance and the level of technical engineering
was created, allocated to departments according to technical expertise Fig. 6.
 Fig. 6 Organisational chart

5 Evaluation of the change – impact to KPIs

Changes in the organisational structure described above had an impact on the number of employees in manage-
ment positions, bringing a reduction in their number from 12 to 9, i.e. by 25 %. However, the reason behind these
organisational changes was not reduction of the number of jobs, but increase in the specialist abilities in the field
of technical engineering and setup of organisation in such a way that competences and flow of information are
clearly defined within the framework of interconnection between organisation of production and organisation of
maintenance. Within one year from implementation in 2014, the implemented changes began to have a positive
effect on the trends of key indicators of the process safety and planning effectivity, as can be seen on Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 Trends of maintenance KPIs after organisational change implementation in 2014

References
[1] LEGÁT V. (2009). Asset management - moderní cesta k lepší údržbě a využití majetku.
[2] ISO 55000 (2014). Overview, principles and terminology. International Organization for Standardization.
[3] ISO 55001 (2014). Management systems – Requirements, International Organization for Standardization.
[4] FLYNN B., SCHROEDER R., SAKAKIBARA S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences; 26(5): 659-692.
[5] TIONG K. L., ZAKUAN N., SAMAN M. Z. M. (2012). Quality Management Maintenance and Practices-
Technical and Non-Technical Approaches. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2012; 65(3): 688-
696. Available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042812051701/1-s2.0-S1877042812051701-
main.pdf?_tid=cf5bafaa-e396-11e5-a6f7-00000aacb362&ac-
dnat=1457267436_56e57530c80d71c58035678bdc3cd667
[6] Shell Global Solution International (2013). Introduction to Risk & Reliability Management.
[7] MOURTZIS D., VLACHOU E., MILAS N., XANTHOPOULOS A. (2016). Cloud-based approach for
maintenance of machine tools and equipment based on shop-floor monitoring. Procedia CIRP 2016; 41:
655-660. Available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2212827115011488/1-s2.0-S2212827115011488-
main.pdf?_tid=6955bd92-e399-11e5-88a7-00000aacb35e&ac-
dnat=1457268554_a1107100a41388df23e56a2c03afbc1b
[8] TAN W., STEEL A., TOLEMAN M. (2009). Implementing IT service management: a case study focus-
sing on critical success factors. Journal of Computer Information Systems; 50(2): 1-12.
[9] VALESKO S. (2010). CMMS increases efficiency, cuts downtime. The National Provisione; 224(3): 20-
23.
[10] NENIČKOVÁ H. (2011). Critical success factors for ITIL best practices usage. Economics and Manage-
ment; 16(1); 839-844.
[11] NEWIS M. (2005). M 380 – Maintenence Management MERIT. Shell Global Solution International.
[12] POLOUČEK J. (2013). Řízení změn procesů údržby.
[13] KUDA F., BERÁNKOVÁ E., SOUKUP P. (2012). Facility management in a nutshell for professionals
and lay people. Olomouc: Form Solution. 978-80-905257-0-2
[14] LEGÁT V. (2009). Plánování zdrojů v údržbě a jejich optimalizace.
[15] WIREMAN T. (2004). Benchmarking best practices in maintenance management. Industrial Press.
[16] ČSN EN 15341 (2010). Údržba – Klíčové indikátory výkonnosti údržby. ÚNMZ.
[17] ABREU J., MATINS P. V., FERNANDES S., ZACARIAS M. (2013). Business Processes Improvement
on Maintenance Management: Case Study. Procedia Technology 2013; 9: 320-330. Available at:
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2212017313001904/1-s2.0-S2212017313001904-main.pdf?_tid=2a5502a6-e394-
11e5-9a4f-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1457266301_f1f8be8b0840ac887f5676c1ad08ebe9
[18] ČSN EN: 15341 (2007). Maintenance Key Performance Indicators.
[19] EFNMS Working Group 7 (2002) Benchmarking Definitions and Indicators.
[20] KAHN J., SVANTESSON T. (2012). Maintenance and Reliability Indicator Harmonization Project.
EFNMS and SMRP.
[21] KAHN J., SVANTESSON T., OLIVER R., SANTINI F. (2008). Global Maintenance and Reliability
Indicators – Fitting the Pieces Together, 1𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 edition, EFNMS and SMRP.
[22] WILSON A. (2013). Asset Management, focusing on developing maintenance strategies and improving
performance. Conference Communication; pp 162.
[23] YOUNUS J., FAHAD M., KHAN M. A. (2016). Evaluation and benchmarking of maintenance organi-
zation and planning/scheduling at automotive industries of Pakistan. Procedia CIRP 2016; 40: 712-716.
Available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2212827116001748/1-s2.0-S2212827116001748-
main.pdf?_tid=9faa4610-e3a8-11e5-8224-00000aab0f6b&ac-
dnat=1457275087_d2820f85144a16a2a7f5c59102e4b262
[24] MARCIANO P. (2013). Cukr a bič nefungují.
[25] MAYNARD H. Z. (2001). Maynard's industrial engineering handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional. pp
2248-2250.
[26] ZAAL T. (2011). Profit-Driven Maintenance for Physical Assets. Maj Engineering Publishing. pp 216-
220.
[27] WILSON A. (2013). Asset Management, focusing on developing maintenance strategies and improving
performance. Conference Communication; pp 621-623.
[28] LEGÁT V. a kol. (2013). Management a inženýrství údržby. Professional Publishing, Pp 51-57.
[29] TERINGL A., ALEŠ Z., LEGÁT V. (2015). Dependability Characteristic – Indicators for Maintenance,
Performance Measurement of Manufacturing Technology, Manufacturing Technology Engineering Sci-
ence and Research Journal, Vol. 15, ISSN 1213-2489.
[30] LEGÁT V., ALEŠ Z., HLADÍK T. (2017). Maintenance Audit: the Tool for Maintenance Management
Quality of Manufacturing Equipment, Manufacturing Technology Engineering Science and Research
Journal, Vol. 17, ISSN 1213-2489.