In case of any queries, do mail me at shreya.anand.98@gmail.com

1. MAINTENANCE
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
An Maintenance Management
Project
By:
Shreya Anand
Vanshika Thakur

2. WHAT IS MAINTENANCE
EVALUATION?
• Analysis of current organizational
maintenance framework to asses the
required potential improvements to
achieve best possible Maintenance
Practice. [1] [2]
1. Dhillon, B. (2002). Engineering Maintenance – A Modern Approach. London; New York;Washington D.C: CRC Press. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from
http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/sabdelall/files/2010/02/Engineering_Maintenance_a_modern_approach.pdf
2. Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited. Retrieved March 24, 2019

3. NEED OF EVALUATION[1] [2]
1. Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited. Retrieved
March 24, 2019
2. Galar, D., Parida, A., Kumar, U., & Stenstrom, C. (n.d.). Maintenance Performance Metrics: A State of the Art Review. Retrieved March 25,
2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/65d3/5c09f9ccd068dafae30bc222b2c5fab9a3e1.pdf
Resources utilization
Effectiveness and Efficiency of
Maintenance.
Resource requirement of
manpower, equipments.
Comparison of maintenance
functions within and to other
organizations.

4. OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION[1]
1. Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited. Retrieved
March 24, 2019
Avoiding overstaffing and understaffing
Setting standards for different types of work in
advance
Skill of the maintenance personnel
Spare part requirement
Maintenance type needed for a particular
equipment / system
Finding out the problems being faced by
management.

5. BENEFITS OF MAINTENANCE
EVALUATION [1]
1. Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited. Retrieved
March 24, 2019
Performance
Improvement
Reduction in Delay
Reduction in Equipment
Downtime
Improvement in
Preventive Maintenance

6. TYPES OF EVALUATION[1]
Through Reports
• The evaluation is
done on the basis
of reports which
are prepared at
fixed time intervals.
• Evaluation
depends upon the
accuracy of the
reports.
Subjective
Evaluation
• Qualitative type of
evaluation.
• Evaluation
depends upon the
expertise of the
subject,
qualifications of the
personnel and
training.
Objective Evaluation
• Qualitative
Evaluation
• Assess the
maintenance
costs.
• Indicate the
performance of
maintenance
personnel.
• Recognises
equipment
availability.
Work Auditing
• Total time of non-
availablity of
equipment and
time taken to
attend the fault is
analysed .
• Step by step
progress of
randomly selected
job is recorded to
highlight the delays
caused.
• Enables to identify
the weak points ,
where
improvements are
possible and
corrective actions
are initiated
accordingly.
Job Card Analysis
• Gives the detail of
time taken for each
job element and
deviation/delay
from the scheduled
time in starting or
in doing the job.
1. Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited. Retrieved March
24, 2019

7. MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION FACTORS
Evaluation
Factors
Plant
Availabi
lity
MTTF/M
ean time
to
Failure
MTTR/
Mean
Time to
Repair
MWT/M
ean
Waiting
Time
MTBF
/Mean
time
before
Failure
OEE
/Over-all
equipme
nt
effective
ness
Cost of
Mainten
ance
Effective
ness of
Maintena
nce
Planning
Backlog
Econo
mic

8. MTTF / MEAN TIME TO FAILURE [1]
• Measure of reliability used for non-repairable systems.
• Represents the length of time that an item is expected to last in
operation until it fails.
• Refered to as the lifetime of any product or a device.
• Calculated by considering number of the same kind of items
over an extended period of time and seeing what is their mean
time to failure.
1. Christiansen, B. (2018, August 10). MTTR, MTBF, or MTTF? – A Simple Guide To Failure Metrics. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from
Limble CMMS: https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-failure-metrics/

9. MTTF / MEAN TIME TO FAILURE[1]
1. Christiansen, B. (2018, August 10). MTTR, MTBF, or MTTF? – A Simple Guide To Failure Metrics. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from
Limble CMMS: https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-failure-metrics/

10. MTTR / MEAN TIME TO REPAIR [1] [2]
• Average time required to
repair failed equipment and
return it to normal operating
conditions.
• It generally does not take into
account lead-time for parts.
• Reflects how well an
organization can respond to a
problem and repair it.
1. FIix. (n.d.). What is mean time to repair? Retrieved March 25, 2019, from Fiix: https://www.fiixsoftware.com/mean-time-to-repair-maintenance/
2. Christiansen, B. (2018, August 10). MTTR, MTBF, or MTTF? – A Simple Guide To Failure Metrics. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from Limble
CMMS: https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-failure-metrics/

11. INCLUDES: [1]
Notification Time
Diagnostic Time
Fix Time
Wait Time
Reassembly
Alignment
Calibration
Test Time
Back to Production
MTTR /
MEAN
TIME TO
REPAIR
1. Christiansen, B. (2018, August 10). MTTR, MTBF, or
MTTF? – A Simple Guide To Failure Metrics. Retrieved
March 24, 2019, from Limble CMMS:
https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-

12. 1. Christiansen, B. (2018, August 10). MTTR, MTBF, or MTTF? – A Simple Guide To Failure Metrics. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from Limble
CMMS: https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-failure-metrics/
MTTR / MEAN TIME TO
REPAIR[1]

13. OVER-ALL EQUIPMENT
EFFECTIVENESS[1]
• Gold standard for measuring manufacturing productivity.
• Identifies the percentage of manufacturing time that is truly
productive.
• Measuring OEE is a manufacturing best practice, for overcoming
the underlying losses.
• Helps improve manufacturing process.
1. Vorne. (n.d.). What is Overall Equipment Effectiveness? Retrieved March 27, 2019, from OEE.com: https://www.oee.com/

14. OVER-ALL EQUIPMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
• An OEE score of 100% means the company is
manufacturing only Good Parts, as fast as possible,
with no Stop Time. [1]
1. Vorne. (n.d.). What is Overall Equipment Effectiveness? Retrieved March 27, 2019, from OEE.com: https://www.oee.com/
100% Quality- Good
Parts
100% Performance-
As Fast as Possible
100% Availability-
With no Stop Time

15. Arruda, C. H. (2006). Maintenance Evaluation & Benchmarking. Chile: MAPLA. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from
http://www02.abb.com/global/clabb/clabb151.nsf/0/0b220da6e2e7ff65c12571f000643ea7/$file/maintenance+evaluation+&+benchmarking_MAPLA+presen
tation+version+r0.pdf

16. MTBF /MEAN TIME BETWEEN
FAILURES (SHUTDOWNS) [1]
• It is a measure of how reliable a product or component is.
• For most components, the measure is typically in thousands or
even tens of thousands of hours between failures.
• The MTBF figure can be developed as the result of intensive
testing, based on actual product experience.
1. Rouse, M. (2011, March). MTBF (mean time between failures). Retrieved March 25, 2019, from WhatIs.com:
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/MTBF-mean-time-between-failures

17. 1. Christiansen, B. (2018, August 10). MTTR, MTBF, or MTTF? – A Simple Guide To Failure Metrics. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from Limble
CMMS: https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-failure-metrics/
MTBF /MEAN TIME BETWEEN
FAILURES (SHUTDOWNS) [1]

18. MWT / MEAN WAITING TIME
• It is the application of probabilistic models to measure waiting
time problems, to compare two or more different service patterns.
[1]
1. Rosenberg, L. (1968). Mean Waiting Time as A Measure. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2682020.pdf

19. FAILURE RATE[1]
• It is the anticipated number of times that an item fails in a
specified period of time.
• Calculated value -provides a measure of reliability for a product.
• Number of failures/ Total operating Hrs.
• Expressed as failures per million hours / failures per billion
hours.
1. ELSEVIER. (2004). Failure Rate. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from ScienceDirect: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/failure-rate

20. OTHER PARAMETERS[1] [2]
1. Vorne. (n.d.). What is TEEP? Retrieved March 25, 2019, from OEE.com: https://www.oee.com/teep.html
2. Fiix. (n.d.). Planned Maintenance Percentage. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from FIIX: https://www.fiixsoftware.com/advanced-cmms-metrics-
planned-maintenance-percentage/
• Time for which equipment
ran/time equipment was
available to run.
Equipment
Utilization-
• Total Man hr produced/Total
Man hr available.
Man Power
Efficiency
• Total Hr. spent on
emergency jobs/Total hrs.
worked on all the jobs.
Emergency
Repair %

21. Total Available Hours - Total Down-time
• Plant Availability = -------------------------------------------------------
Total Available Hours
• Backlog - Estimated man hrs for all jobs/Actual hrs available to schedule. [1] [2]
1. Dhillon, B. (2002). Engineering Maintenance – A Modern Approach. London; New York;Washington D.C: CRC Press. Retrieved
March 24, 2019, from http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/sabdelall/files/2010/02/Engineering_Maintenance_a_modern_approach.pdf
2. Crenger. (n.d.). Plant availability analysis demystified. Retrieved March 27, 2019, from http://www.crenger.com/paa.html

22. MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE
INDICES[1]
• These are criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance
called MEI (Maintenance Effectiveness Index)
• Quantitative based fixed criteria which consider a defined level of
maintenance functions and achieved objective.
• Helps to assess the level of effectiveness of the maintenance.
• Vary at different levels of maintenance department and industry.
1. Dhillon, B. (2002). Engineering Maintenance – A Modern Approach. London; New York;Washington D.C: CRC Press. Retrieved
March 24, 2019, from http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/sabdelall/files/2010/02/Engineering_Maintenance_a_modern_approach.pdf

23. KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS[1]
KPIs indicate
• what Maintenance is doing
• what it is achieving for the business
• what more it can do to improve operational performance
1. Sondalini, M. (n.d.). Useful Key Performance Indicators for Maintenance. Australia. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from http://www.lifetime-
reliability.com/free-articles/maintenance-management/Useful_Key_Performance_Indicators_for_Maintenance.pdf

24. 1. Sondalini, M. (n.d.). Useful Key Performance Indicators for Maintenance. Australia. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from http://www.lifetime-
reliability.com/free-articles/maintenance-management/Useful_Key_Performance_Indicators_for_Maintenance.pdf

25. Galar, D., Parida, A., Kumar, U., & Stenstrom, C. (n.d.). Maintenance Performance Metrics: A State of the Art Review. Retrieved March 25,
2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/65d3/5c09f9ccd068dafae30bc222b2c5fab9a3e1.pdf

26. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF
PERFORMANCE[1]
• Available information (past) is analysed for creating indices for
maintenance evaluation.
• Data considered – 6 months (more)
• Helps find out time lost in undesired activities
1. Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Retrieved March 24, 2019

27. COST OF MAINTENANCE
EVALUATION[1]
• Cost of personnel employed for the evaluation
• Idle time cost of the maintenance workers for answering the
queries of the evaluation team
• The increased recurring maintenance costs due to revision of the
wage structure on account of the introduction of the new job
evaluations.
• Cost of maintaining the job evaluation team.
1. Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Retrieved March 24, 2019

28. CASE -1[1]
1. Chen, F. L., & Chen, Y. C. (2010). Evaluating the Maintenance Performance of the Semiconductor Factories Based. American Journal
of Applied Sciences, 1-7. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.903.3003&rep=rep1&type=pdf

29. PROBLEM STATEMENT
• Maintenance being important in semiconductor factories because of
costs, need for the uninterrupted operation of semiconductor
equipment, and time and expense required for maintenance.
• If maintenance procedures were not performed properly, the
equipment would have low efficiency or break down, production
capacity would decrease and the company would incur extra costs.
• Therefore, the evaluation of maintenance performance had become
a critical issue in semiconductor industries.

30. APPROACH
• This study evaluated maintenance performance by using the
i. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP),
ii. Grey Relational Analysis (GRA)
iii. Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS).
The weight of maintenance indicators was derived by AHP method,
which were input to the GRA and TOPSIS method for evaluate the
performance of Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) and Time-
Based Maintenance (TBM) strategies.

31. RESULT
• Actual data was provided by a well-known semiconductor factory in
Taiwan.
• This study evaluated and compared the performance of different
maintenance strategies implemented in semiconductor companies.
• Indicated that the CBM strategy had better maintenance
performance than the TBM strategy in semiconductor companies
• Maintenance indicators which should be improved were also
identified.

32. CONCLUSION
• The feasibility of the maintenance evaluation method was
demonstrated through an actual scenario, to help managers
make decisions objectively and distinguish the advantages and
disadvantages of the maintenance strategy.

33. CASE STUDY - 2[1]
1. Oliveira, M., Lopes, I., & Rodrigues, C. (2016). Use of Maintenance Performance Indicators by Companies of the Industrial Hub of Manaus.
The Sixth International Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production (CARV2016), 52, 157-160. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827116308708

34. OBJECTIVE OF THE CASE
Objective of this research is to study the utilization of maintenance indicators
and the factors that hinder, encourage or facilitate its use.
To identify and analyze the use of maintenance performance indicators adopted
by companies of the industrial hub of Manaus in Brazil.
To identify behaviours of companies concerning the use of performance
indicators of the maintenance area (using questionnaire).
To identify dependence on the number of equipment, maintenance staff size,
Total Productive Maintenance adoption and Computerized Maintenance
Management utilization.
To observe Different behaviours concerning performance evaluation.

35. METHODOLOGY
Through a survey, data was collected about the
maintenance performance indicators adopted by the
maintenance area of companies .
Based on the obtained results, hypotheses are
tested in order to analyze if the adoption of
performance indicators is linked to companies
practices or characteristics such as size, number
of equipment, and use of a computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS),
among others

36. DATA COLLECTION
• There are approx 430 companies in the
industrial hub of Manaus.
• The questionnaire was sent to the
respective maintenance department.
• The sample had a total of 72
respondents, resulting in a response
rate of 16.74%.

40. CONCLUSION
With regard to performance indicator management, companies had many opportunities
for improving, by understanding the application of maintenance performance indicator
regardless of the sector of the company, its origin, its size, number of employees or
maintenance staff size.
Most companies that took part in the study had basic level of maintenance management,
which means that they can make improvements, become more competitive, increasing
throughput and reducing losses.
Performance indicators should be integrated and interdependent in order to provide an
overall perspective on the company’s goals, business strategies, and specific objectives.
Many companies needed a performance measurement system that pulls together all
parts of organization in a strategic model.
Maintenance performance measurement is needed for the purpose of giving quantitative
information about maintenance goals that can be reached and actions are needed to
improve the operation.

41. The frequency of use of performance indicators is low.
Also the companies do not recognize in general their low performances.
Based on hypotheses test, it was concluded that the use of performance indicators is
related with the number of equipment under maintenance responsibility, maintenance
staff size, TPM methodology adoption and CMMS utilization, varying in the same
direction.
It was also deducted that the origin of the companies influence the use and release of
performance indicators, since differences is observed on the answers to these
questions in local and international companies.
Indicators being used depends on the level of development of this area.

42. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Arruda, C. H. (2006). Maintenance Evaluation & Benchmarking. Chile: MAPLA. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from
http://www02.abb.com/global/clabb/clabb151.nsf/0/0b220da6e2e7ff65c12571f000643ea7/$file/maintenance+evaluation+&+benc
hmarking_MAPLA+presentation+version+r0.pdf
• Chen, F. L., & Chen, Y. C. (2010). Evaluating the Maintenance Performance of the Semiconductor Factories Based. American
Journal of Applied Sciences, 1-7. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.903.3003&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Christiansen, B. (2018, August 10). MTTR, MTBF, or MTTF? – A Simple Guide To Failure Metrics. Retrieved March 24, 2019,
from Limble CMMS: https://limblecmms.com/blog/mttr-mtbf-mttf-guide-to-failure-metrics/
• Crenger. (n.d.). Plant availability analysis demystified. Retrieved March 27, 2019, from http://www.crenger.com/paa.html
• Dhillon, B. (2002). Engineering Maintenance – A Modern Approach. London; New York;Washington D.C: CRC Press. Retrieved
March 24, 2019, from http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/sabdelall/files/2010/02/Engineering_Maintenance_a_modern_approach.pdf
• ELSEVIER. (2004). Failure Rate. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from ScienceDirect:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/failure-rate
• Fiix. (n.d.). Planned Maintenance Percentage. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from FIIX: https://www.fiixsoftware.com/advanced-
cmms-metrics-planned-maintenance-percentage/
• FIix. (n.d.). What is mean time to repair? Retrieved March 25, 2019, from Fiix: https://www.fiixsoftware.com/mean-time-to-repair-
maintenance/

43. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Galar, D., Parida, A., Kumar, U., & Stenstrom, C. (n.d.). Maintenance Performance Metrics: A State of the Art Review.
Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/65d3/5c09f9ccd068dafae30bc222b2c5fab9a3e1.pdf
• Mishra, R., & Pathak, K. (2013). Maintenance Engineering and Management (2 ed.). Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private
Limited. Retrieved March 24, 2019
• Oliveira, M., Lopes, I., & Rodrigues, C. (2016). Use of Maintenance Performance Indicators by Companies of the
Industrial Hub of Manaus. The Sixth International Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual
Production (CARV2016), 52, 157-160. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827116308708
• Rosenberg, L. (1968). Mean Waiting Time as A Measure. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2682020.pdf
• Rouse, M. (2011, March). MTBF (mean time between failures). Retrieved March 25, 2019, from WhatIs.com:
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/MTBF-mean-time-between-failures
• Sondalini, M. (n.d.). Useful Key Performance Indicators for Maintenance. Australia. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from
http://www.lifetime-reliability.com/free-articles/maintenance-
management/Useful_Key_Performance_Indicators_for_Maintenance.pdf
• Vorne. (n.d.). What is Overall Equipment Effectiveness? Retrieved March 27, 2019, from OEE.com:
https://www.oee.com/
• Vorne. (n.d.). What is TEEP? Retrieved March 25, 2019, from OEE.com: https://www.oee.com/teep.html

44. THANK YOU!!!