1. Maintenance Systems Engineering Limited (MSE) have developed an application capable of
determining the optimised cost benefit of maintenance as shown in the diagram below. This is the
point at which maintenance activities add the most value to the organisation and represents
optimisation of maintenance at the lowest cost for any particular asset.
This approach provides a unique view of why we need to carry out maintenance activities on
equipment locations within the asset. It also highlights in financial terms the critical nature of
maintaining some equipment locations over others and the contribution of their maintenance to the
organisations business goals and objectives. It also enables us to identify where a run to failure
strategy can be applied to particular equipment locations without detrimental consequences to the
asset meeting its business goals and objectives.
The diagram below shows the outcome from an actual Financial Risk Based Maintenance project.
The asset under analysis was a new build oil production and processing plant. The client had agreed
the maintenance activities to be allocate to each class and type of equipment as per a reliability data
set prepared specifically for the project. These maintenance activities were assigned to each
appropriate equipment location and then a cost benefit analysis of each activity was undertaken. As
shown below the analysis indicated that out of 40,129 man hours allocated to the maintenance of
equipment on site per year 11,441 man hours per year had a cost benefit of two or less. So for every
dollar expended in maintenance on these tasks they produced a return of lass than two dollars in risk
Total Costs
Costs of Maintenance
Lost Revenue
Optimised Cost
Benefit of
Maintenance
Costsandlosses
Level of MaintenanceReactive Proactive

2. reduction to revenue streams, secondary damage costs and the cost of carrying out the maintenance
task.
It was decided that the maintenance strategy for the asset would be optimised by deleting any
maintenance activity with a cost benefit of two or less from the final maintenance program.
This resulted in a saving on the first years maintenance budget of £228,820 (calculated using the
local man hour rate of £20/hour) from a total before optimisation budget of £802,580. This represents
a 27% saving over the first five years of operation of £1,090,466, twice the cost of the project and
an average annual maintenance crew of 11 compared to an estimated 16 before the optimisation took
place.
The same approach can be applied to a current maintenance strategy. This will enable the MSE to
identify those activities currently adding no value for the asset and will enable the client to optimise his
current maintenance activities. It may also identify equipment locations where risk is unacceptably
high because maintenance activities are not undertaken or not given enough priority.
The output from the process described above therefore gives the client a basis on which to optimise
the maintenance strategy for any asset. It also enables maintenance and operational personnel to
identify which maintenance is adding the most value for the organisation.

3. The proposed process and the application which supports it is not seen as a one-off project to
optimise maintenance strategy. Because of the cost-effective method of carrying out the analysis
once the model has been established it is seen as tool for the continued optimisation of maintenance
strategy throughout the assets life cycle based on the changing business environment.
For more information email: enquiry@maintenancesystemsengineering.com
or contact William Reynolds on 07596 163969