The document details several auditing and rationalization case studies focusing on master data issues in various industries, primarily oil & gas and manufacturing. Key findings include inconsistent data practices, poor quality descriptions, and a lack of standardized procedures leading to duplicate line items. Recommendations emphasize the importance of proper training and documentation to maintain data integrity and reduce inventory costs.

1. Page 1 of 3
This document outlines several auditing and rationalisation case studies.
Major Oil & Gas World-wide Operator
A major oil and gas operator had been designing and building facilities for over 10 years. For each
facility they handed over a populated CMMS to the user. Once received by the user of the facility,
changes to the master data were made, but there was no recording of what had been changed, so no
lessons were learnt.
An audit by Ramsoft revealed the usual issues, i.e. inconsistent and poor data population leading to
many duplicate line items
They had no procedures or guidelines how the CMMS should be populated (equipment, PMs, Spare
Parts). Ramsoft were asked to develop procedures and guides to ensure future data quality.
Worldwide Soft Drink Manufacturer (Asia Plant)
This site had employed a Canadian specialist to cleanse the poor quality spare parts master data.
Ramsoft audited the cleansed file and summarised the cleansing as not fit for purpose and lacked a
focus on cost reduction.
The cleansing work by the Canadian consultant was carried out independent of the site
inventory/warehouse team. Cleansing remotely is impossible as site staff would need to make frequent
physical checks to validate material.
There was an excessive use of the Qualifier or Modifier as General due to having insufficient knowledge
of the material. UNSPSC comodity codes were assigned, but again they were assigned at different
indentured levels depending on detailed knowledge of the parts.
It was apparent, the consultant had no structured procedures, as the sequence of the attributes were
created inconsistently. The generic part descriptions lacked information being limited to the noun,
qualifier, manufacturer name and part name. Many of the parts only showed the OEM’s name and part
name and not the original part manufacturer.
Ramsoft after running their MRO_Strip tool identified an additional 12% duplicates over and above
what was possible from the cleansed data (bearings sample only).
Using another specialist query, Ramsoft found that for 40% of the line items, the MPN did not match
the MPN in the Part Description
Case Studies: MRO Spare Parts Master Data
Maintenance, Reliability & MRO Spare Parts Specialists

2. Page 2 of 3
Worldwide Soft Drink Manufacturer (Europe Plants)
This group of companies had upgraded to SAP from the previous Maximo system.
The migration was carried out centrally by a dedicated team.
Following on-site training in Spare Parts Optimisation and Inventory Reduction, Ramsoft offered to
conduct a brief audit of the master data.
The master data had all the usual issues:
• Inconsistend part descriptions, (some starting with a NOUN, i.e Bearing, and some starting with a Modifier,
e.g. Ball
• Many line items, only the Noun is given, so we don’t know what is the bearing type
• Bearing related to where used, e.g. Water Pump, this is bad practice
• Inconsistent use of /, -, spaces, dots, etc
• Seal information inconsistent, e.g. ZZ and 2Z.
• With generic items you do not include the manufacturer in the part description, e.g. see bearings with
SKF, INA, KOYO
• Mix of bearing suppliers specifications, e.g. 5205 NPPU is same as 5205-2RS shown as a Ball ROLLER
BEARING
Car Maker (UK)
This company was planning to implement SAP. Over 50% of the line items had part descriptions over 40
characters (some as high as 109). SAP has the limitation of 40 characters, therefore the use of
consistent abbreviation would need to be incorporated
Part descriptions were inconsistent with half written as you would say it, i.e. Flow Control Value, while
others were based on a Noun-Qualifier format
Use of Stock category was inconsistent, i.e. many were classified as Mechanical, Electrical while others
were classified as components, e.g. Bearings, Bush, etc.
The data set had all the usual issues as outlined in other case studies.
Worldwide Inert Gas Manufacturer
The data set represented 60 plants in Asia. The master data was controlled from the USA
Headquarters. Again, if we consider only bearings (as the easiest to audit). Findings were
• Poor short descriptions a mix of noun only and noun and qualifier
• Inconsistent MPN formatting
• Mix of vendor and OPM part numbers
As the issuing of stock item number was controlled from the USA company headquarters, we did not
expect to find any duplicates, but there were still 10%.
Several bearing MPNs had strange part number and physical review of these was recommended, as
were the 1000+ bearings containing only OEM P/Ns. There is a high probability that the number of
duplicates would be much higher following cleansing.

3. Page 3 of 3
Pharmaceutical Company, Ireland
An engineer from this company during one of our training workshops using our MRO_Strip tool found
many duplicate line items. The unit cost of one duplicate line item was 9,000 Euro, this this one item
paid for the cost of the course many times over.
National Oil & Gas Company, Africa
Following a rationalisation study, the number of line items for some spares parts noun, qualifier
material were reduced by 50-70%. This was achieved by:
• Standardising part descriptions and original part manufacturer’s P/Ns
• Establishing clear technical guidelines for the material incl. standardisation
• Removing duplicates
• Removing items not fit for purpose
• Combining stock in bins where appropriate
National Oil & Gas Company, Asia
The inventory list had been developed by an EPC contractor.
Following attendance of Ramsoft’s Spare Parts Optimisation and Inventory Reduction workshop, this
company were able to eliminate over 9000 line items.
General Mistakes
In all audits we have carried out, the lesson learnt is to ensure the person doing the cataloguing
understands the material’s specification and to document the standards to be adopted. We have seen
this mistake time and time again
Different manufacturers will use different terms, formats and descriptions and it is essential each
company documents how it is going to describe material in a consistent manner, in order to avoid
duplicate material.
Note the inconsistent descriptions for Timing Belts below, and this was taken from the inventory list
that had undergone cleansing by a Canadian Consultant.
Want To Know More
Want to know more, contact Ramsoft (UK) or why not attend our training covering MRO Auditing &
Cleansing and MRO Spare Parts Optimisation and Inventory Reduction
E-mail: dave@ramsoftuk.com