Texas A&m Univ - Asset Performance Management Study - Report

Asset Performance Management Study
MAYS BUSINESS SCHOOL
Asset Performance Management
Study

Beth Koufteros, Ryan Zimmerman and John Verghese
Study conducted by researchers at
Mays Business School
Texas A&M University

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SURVEY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
GENERAL SURVEY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
APM: Measuring Performance for Success ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9
APM: People, Processes and Technology ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14
DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Maintenance Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Risk Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Training Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Organizational Culture Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
SURVEY RESULTS BY QUESTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 81
Table 1: SELF-REPORTED LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY ............................................................................................................................................ 81
Table 2: LIST OF COMPANIES ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 3: SELF-REPORTED TITLES. ................................................................................................................................................................................. 83
Table 4: INDIVIDUAL/COMPANY BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................... 84
Table 5: FINANCIAL SPENDING AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................................................................. 85
Table 6: FINANCIAL SPENDING AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................................................................. 86
Table 7: WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY'S/ SBU'S RETURN-ON-ASSETS ....................................................................................................................... 87
Table 8: 2 YRS CHANGE IN PRODUCTION HOURS (%) .............................................................................................................................................. 88
Table 9: ONE YR CHANGE IN CAPITAL BUDGET (%) ................................................................................................................................................ 89
Table 10: ONE YEAR CHANGE IN OPERATING BUDGET (%) ................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 11: SAFETY: What is the number of cases involving job transfers or restricted work activity? ............................................................................... 91
Table 12: SAFETY: What is the number of fatalities? ........................................................................................................................................................ 92
Table 13: SAFETY: What is the number of first aids? ........................................................................................................................................................ 93
Table 14: KEY METRICS USED TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................................. 94
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95
Appendix A: MESSAGE SENT VIA E-MAIL THROUGH QUALTRICS ....................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix B: SEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR DATABASE 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix C: SOURCES FOR SURVEY ITEMS ................................................................................................................................................................ 97
Appendix D: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ..................................................................................................... 99

SURVEY OBJECTIVES

This study on Asset Performance Management was conducted by researchers from the Mays Business School at Texas A&M
University, and commissioned by Meridium, Inc. The research project was designed to examine how companies in asset intensive
industries maximize Return on Assets (ROA) and Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), reduce risk, and improve safety. The
survey asked end users to characterize the status of their reliability initiatives, the drivers behind them, how they were implemented,
what worked, what didn't work and the metrics employed. Survey respondents included engineers, managers or coordinators,
operations managers, maintenance managers, technicians or planners, facilities managers, and C-level decision makers from a variety
of industries. The majority of respondents had considerable experience with the company in which they are employed with an average
of 19.1 years.
Support Level of Responsibility Time with Current Company

13% 36‐40 years 1‐5 years
Executive
Engineer 13% 1% 10%
31‐35
2% years 6‐10 years
Director
Supervisor 23% 18%
14%
16%
11‐15 years
Manager 26‐30 years 16‐20 years 13%
44% 8% 16%
21‐25 years
11%
See Table 1 See Table 4

The on-line survey was administered between June 16 and Sept. 2, 2010. E-mails were sent to individuals inviting them to participate
in the study (see Appendix A). Initially a sample of twelve individuals was selected to test the process. Then, three databases totaling
2,638 contacts were used.
A message to the first group was sent on July 6, 2010 to an initial list of 2204 valid industry contacts, and sent to a second group on
July 8, 2010 to a list of 214 valid contacts (provided by Meridium). The survey was sent to a third group on July 22nd to list of 210
valid contacts which was developed using the database MintGlobal. From this database, large companies with operating revenue
exceeding $25 million were targeted in the mining, chemical/petrochemical, pulp & paper, oil & gas, pharmaceuticals, power/utility,
and transportation industries. (See Appendix B for the search methodology employed.)
A reminder was sent on July 20, 2010. On July 29 and August 26, reminders were sent, including an incentive of a drawing for ten
$50 gift certificates. The survey was closed on Sept. 2 and analysis began.
Number of people employed in Size of Maintenance
Company or SBU 100‐ Organization Less than 25
< than 100 499 10%
Don't Know 1% 9% 25‐49
Don't Know
1% 4%
500‐999 3% 50‐100
>100000 4%
17%
34%
100‐199
200+ 7%
1000‐9999
38% 72%
See Table 4 See Table 4

Industry
Pharmaceutical Aerospace
Petrochemical 9% 3%
11%
Chemical
Paper Goods 16% Consulting
2% 3%
Oil & Gas Utilities
20% 16%
Metals &
Minerals
18%
Materials
2%
See Table 2

BACKGROUND
When a critical asset fails and production comes to a screeching halt, the cost of not preventing a maintenance, safety and/or
environmental incident becomes abundantly clear. It costs far more to react to an incident than to prevent it or predict it, as proved by
BP’s $87.9 million fine levied by OSHA following the Texas City disaster (Oil & Gas Journal, Nov 9, 2009). In the current
competitive environment and economic climate, decisions have to be made regarding how much to invest in risk management
programs. The balance between investment and savings has to be considered while safely maintaining operations. This level of risk
can be studied in relation to Asset Performance Management (APM).
In asset intensive industries such as Oil & Gas, Chemicals, and Mining, just a small increase is availability can be worth millions in
additional revenue. According to Valero CEO Bill Klesse, “Valero must focus on increasing returns on our assets … a 1%
improvement in the mechanical availability would yield ≈ $140mm operating income improvement…”
ExxonMobil’s 2006 annual report said, “Our focus on execution excellence in our daily operations results in world-class facilities that
are leaders in safe and reliable operations. We continuously work to improve our operations reliability through enhanced designs,
advances in technology, and improved maintenance and operating procedures. Reliability improvements result in a safer workplace
and a more efficient operation by lowering costs to run the business.”
Many analysts have studied Asset Performance Management and their research identifies APM as being far more than a maintenance
improvement strategy. Houghton Leroy, an analyst with the ARC Advisory Group, concluded that “APM goes beyond maintenance:
It cuts across many boundaries. The bottom line is return-on-assets [ROA].”
Alison Smith, a Senior Analyst with AMR Research, stated “All worlds come together at the asset. However, assets are viewed as
depreciable sunk costs, but they're not — they're competitive differentiators, and contribute to profit margin.”
Benchmark studies from these and other analyst firms indicate that companies that successfully drive a comprehensive APM program
across their enterprise will accelerate profitability through increased asset reliability. With APM, organizations are empowered to
develop and continuously improve asset strategies which have a positive impact on operational excellence.

Recent industrial accidents have drawn attention to APM as a way of reducing financial, health and safety, and production risk while
optimizing maintenance costs and ensuring regulatory compliance. APM touches many parts of the organization and requires constant
attention to management. Companies find it conducive to manage this process through enterprise-wide software systems.
Research points to the advantages of an APM approach, which brings together the key methodologies, technologies and best practices
under one enterprise software system to develop, analyze, and evaluate asset management plans. As opposed to “plumbing” together
many point solutions to execute the work and analyze the results, a comprehensive APM system would ideally have the following
tools all in one software platform:

• Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

• Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA)
• Risk Based Inspection (RBI)
• Safety Instrumented Systems(SIS)
• Hazards Analysis
• Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
A comprehensive APM approach using these methodologies, captures and aggregates asset performance data, and provides analyses to
decision makers about the risk to their production assets on an enterprise, plant, asset or component level. Enterprise APM enables:
• continuous improvement of asset performance
• advanced analytics and predictive modeling
• predictable production delivery
• understanding of past failures and successes
• connection to real-time data from plant systems
• elimination of cross-departmental barriers
• information that can be leveraged across the enterprise

GENERAL SURVEY ANALYSIS

APM: Measuring Performance for Success
The cornerstone of any performance improvement program is the definition and implementation of a measurement system to
document actual progress against strategic goals. In the context of an Asset Performance Management initiative, measuring the output,
costs, failure rates and compliance of production assets is key to understanding how an asset is performing relative to the overall
strategy. With clear visibility of poorly performing equipment and strategies, asset owners can implement, monitor and continually
improve best practices to optimize utilization and costs.
Bharat Nair, Senior VP & Research Director at the Aberdeen Group, noted, “You see APM talked about as focused solely on
maintenance, but that's short-sighted. When you start managing from a financial performance perspective, you're talking about the
next wave - APM. With APM, you bring in
operations and the business aspects of enterprise
strategy.” Metrics
In this survey, the respondents indicated that the
90%
following areas were measured “to a great or very
great extent” at their sites (see Metrics - MES, p30): 80%
• Availability - 82% 70%
• Uptime - 73% 60%

• Corrective maintenance costs - 73% 50%
• Overtime as a percentage of labor 40%
hours - 66% 30%
• Utilization rate - 61% 20%
• Preventative maintenance costs - 56% 10%
• Mean time between failures – 47% 0%
Availability Uptime Corrective Overtime as a Utilization rate Preventative Mean time
maintenance percentage of maintenance betw een
costs labor hours costs failures

Responses also showed that these following Key Performance Indicators are used in respondents’ organizations “to a great or very
great extent” (see Key Performance
Indicators - PI, p24):
• OSHA recordable
Key Performance Indicators
injuries - 86%
• Availability - 77% 90%
• Utilization - 74% 80%
• ROI - 70% 70%
• EBITDA - 51% 60%
• ROA - 51% 50%
• Unplanned downtime - 48% 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
OSHA Availability Utilization ROI EBITDA ROA Unplanned
recordable Dow ntime
injuries

In regards to financial performance results from an APM initiative, survey respondents indicated that they “somewhat agree, agree or
strongly agree” that (see Performance - P, p69):
• “Our asset
management
program has been
Performance
a positive
development for
our organization.” 80%
– 80% 70%
• “Our asset 60%

management
50%
program has
drastically 40%
increased our 30%
return on
20%
investment.”
– 55% 10%
• “Our asset 0%
Our asset management Our asset management Our asset management Our asset management
management
program has been a program has drastically program has drastically program has drastically
program has positive development increased our return on increased our increased our
drastically for our organization investment competitive position profitability
increased our
competitive position.” – 52%
• “Our asset management program has drastically increased our profitability.” – 49%

When asked why companies chose to adopt an APM initiative, respondents indicated that they “agreed or strongly agreed” that their
company implemented APM practices because they can improve performance (73%) and because APM practices can lead to a
competitive advantage (63%). (see Adoption Pressures - AP, p.48)
• “We implement APM

practices because they can
lead to a competitive
Adoption Pressures
advantage.” – 63%
• “We implement APM
practices because they can
74%
improve performance.” – 73%
72%
70%
68%
66%
64%
62%
60%
58%
We implement APM practices We implement APM practices
because they can lead to a because they can improve
competitive advantage. performance.

Those surveyed responded that they “disagree or strongly disagree” that their asset management program has had a negative impact on
their profitability (56%) and that they would be better off without an asset management program (73%). (see Performance - P, –
p69):
• “Our asset
management program
has had a negative
Performance II
impact on our
profitability. “ – 56%
• “We would be better
80%
off without an asset
management 70%
program.” – 73% 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Our asset management We w ould be better off
program has had a negative w ithout an asset management
impact on our profitability. program.

APM: People, Processes and Technology
Gaining a competitive edge and increased profitability with APM requires the effective application of process, people and technology.
This happens through powerful, enabling technology to simplify tasks, well designed methods that identify how to perform work, and
committed people who know how to apply them.
According to Jeff Dudley, Director of Maintenance and Reliability for The Dow Chemical Company, the pivotal moment in an
organization’s cultural transformation toward effective APM comes after individuals have alignment with, and an understanding of,
goals. "Once the appropriate level of awareness of the goal is created, the individual owns the goal and must make a decision," says
Dudley. Survey respondents indicated that the following goals with regard to the maintenance function were “extremely or very
important” at their sites: improve safety (90%),
reduce risk (73%), and reduce maintenance cost
(69%). (see Goals - GL, p.32)
Goals
“How important are the following goals with
regards to the maintenance function?”
90%
• Improve safety – 90%
80%
70% • Reduce Risk – 73%
60% • Reduce Maintenance Cost – 69%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Improve safety Reduce risk Reduce Maintenance
Cost

“At this point,” Dudley indicates, “the successful transformation boils down to personal leadership. Once individuals embrace
personal responsibility for minimizing unplanned events, cultural change is put into motion.” (APM Advisor, June 2010) In this
survey, 86% of respondents indicated they “somewhat agreed, agreed or strongly agreed” that employees are able to identify and offer
solutions to problems in their workplace. (see Empowerment – EP, p. 40):
• “Employees are able to identify and offer solutions to
problems in their workplace.” – 86%
Knowledge and Skills
In addition to the cultural change and training issues
mentioned above, asset intensive industries face other
70%
challenges: knowledge management, recruitment and
training. An accelerating rate of retirement is taking place 60%
among skilled maintenance and manufacturing workers in
these industries, and taking years of experience and 50%
knowledge along with them (Maintenance Technology, 40%
July 9, 2010). According to the Oil and Gas Journal, by
the year 2010 as many as 60 percent of experienced 30%
managers will retire from the oil and gas industry.
20%
(Practical Oil Analysis, July 2006).
These industries are also finding it challenging to recruit 10%
well-qualified applicants to fill the gaps. Survey
0%
respondents indicated that they “somewhat agreed, agreed
A significant Upgrading the skills of We have a difficulty
or strongly agreed” that a significant knowledge and skills “knowledge and skills the maintenance staff is recruiting skilled
deficit exists within their company (52%), that upgrading deficit” exists within the problematic. maintenance
company. technicians.
the skills of the maintenance staff is problematic (49%),
and that they have difficulty recruiting skilled maintenance
technicians (68%) (see Knowledge and Skills - KS, p. 36)
• “A significant knowledge and skills deficit exists within their company.” – 52%
• “Upgrading the skills of the maintenance staff is problematic.” – 49%
• “We have difficulty recruiting skilled maintenance technicians.” – 68%

Survey respondents indicated difficulty in

recruiting skilled employees (79% “somewhat,
to a great or very great extent”) and lack of Impediments
training (70% “somewhat, to a great or very
great extent”) were an impediment to
improving asset performance. (see
Impediments - DF, 26) 80%
• Difficulty recruiting skilled 78%
employees – 79% 76%

74%
• Lack of training – 70%
72%
70%
68%
66%
64%
Difficulty recruiting skilled Lack of training
employees

APM: Risk Management
Ultimately, companies have to analyze risk based on the costs and benefits of maintenance processes and what it believes is realistic in
their business environment. Linkages between corporate objectives and budgets have to be considered. Narasimhan (2006) defines risk
as “the net negative impact of the exercise of a vulnerability, considering both the probability and the impact of occurrence.” The
consequences can be expressed in terms of the physical damages, production delays or shortfalls, casualties, or the monetary
equivalents of these occurrences.
Survey respondents indicated that

they “somewhat agree, agree or Risk
strongly agree” with these statements
in regards to overall risk management
(see Risk - RSK, p.75):
80%
• “When budgets are reduced, 78%

we look for ways to perform
76%
maintenance tasks more
effectively.” – 80% 74%
• “With an effective APM plan, 72%

reliability and safety can be 70%
improved.” – 78%
68%
• “With an effective APM plan,
66%
risk can be mitigated.” – 73%
64%
• “When budgets are reduced, When budgets are reduced With an effective APM plan, With an effective APM plan, When budgets are reduced
w e look for w ays to perform reliability and safety can be risk can be mitigated. w e look for w ays to do less
we look for ways to do less maintenance tasks more improved. w ork by avoiding
work by avoiding unnecessary efficiently. unnecessary maintenance.
maintenance.” – 70%

DATA COLLECTION
Maintenance Data Collection
An effective APM initiative focuses on minimizing reactive maintenance and creating an environment of collaboration between
maintenance, engineering and production. A positive strategic outcome of such implementations is the reduced occurrence of
unexpected machine breakdowns that disrupt production and lead to losses which can exceed millions of dollars annually.
Additionally, frequent machine breakdowns can lead to a host of other problems, such as, difficulties in meeting customer deadlines,
safety problems and etc.
The following categories were used to collect maintenance data about tools, techniques and other related considerations.
• Impediments to APM (DF)
• APM methods (M)
• Metrics (MES)
• Autonomous Maintenance (AM)
• Maintenance Prevention (MP)
• Maintenance Support (MS)
• Tools (T)
• Goals (GL)
• Maintenance Improvements (MPI)
• Current Maintenance Process Improvements (CMPI)
Risk Data Collection

A high-risk activity typically either has a high probability of occurring (with limited impact) or a low probability of occurring with
significant impact (Merrick et. al, 1999). Strategic planning should establish risk management objectives, particularly with regard to
safety and the environment, and risk tolerance. Policies and strategies may need to be adjusted because of changing market conditions,
or a change in risk management objectives. For example, during poor economic conditions, maintenance postponement for some
equipment may be considered. Likewise, after incidents such as the BP oil spill, safety factors may receive increased emphasis. The
basic principle behind safety activities is to address dangerous conditions and behavior before they cause accidents.

This study included the following categories in relationship to risk:
• Risk (RSK)
• Consequence Costs (CC)
• Safety (S)
• Serious Crisis or Accident (SC)
• Disruptions (D)
Training Data Collection

Regardless of the level and sophistication of maintenance processes in a company, most maintenance processes are performed by
people. Thus various organizational and human resource factors need to be considered. Barriers may exist in improving employee
skills and changing behavior. In the study we focused on the following:
• Training (TR)
• Knowledge and Skills (KS)
• Rewards (R)
Organizational Culture Data Collection

Organizational culture is an important factor that enables the successful implementation of an APM initiative. Barney (1986) defines
organizational culture as “a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its
business.” If an organizational culture is such that it does not value safety, then there is no need for the top management or the
employees to invest their time and resources in an APM initiative which enhances safety within their organization. Hence, we
included the following categories:
• Empowerment (EP)
• Formalization (MI)
• Organizational Learning (OL)
• Long-Range Values (LV)
• Adoption Pressures (AP)
• Top Management Commitment (TMC)
We also asked respondents to indicate organizational priorities and performance levels.
• APM Best Practices (MAP)
• Key Performance Indicators (PI)
• Performance (P)

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
This survey included questions to determine the factors impacting the implementation of APM, the effect of APM on manufacturing
performance, and the effect of APM on firm performance. The objective of this survey was to gather information from asset intensive
firms to better understand how they manage those assets, and to reveal key cultural traits of companies practicing asset performance
management strategies.
For the purposes of this study, “APM Methods” refers to the generic terms which describe some of the widely used and adopted
methodologies that might be used in a comprehensive APM initiative. “APM Tools” refers to specific tools, usually software-based,
that may be used to achieve specific maintenance/reliability goals or objectives within an organization. Both the APM Methods and
APM Tools scales showed statistically significant relationships with numerous other indicators of organizational performance. While
correlations do not necessarily denote causation, it appears as if implementing APM initiatives is consistent with many other
positive organizational processes and outcomes. In general, while utilizing specific APM tools has a stronger association with the
other variables measured than does use of general APM-related methods, the use of general APM methods still has important
statistically significant relationships with the other factors.
APM Methods APM Tools

Traditional Maintenance Reliability Centered Management (RCM)
Preventative Maintenance Safety Instrumented Systems Management (SIS)
Predictive Maintenance Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
Total Productive Maintenance Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS)
Reliability Centered Maintenance Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system
Condition Based Maintenance Risk Based Inspections (RBI)
Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA)
Human resource “best practices” tend to have moderate to strong relationships with APM Methods and APM Tools. Specifically, use
of APM Methods has moderate relationships (correlations of .35 to .36) with employee training and job-related knowledge and skills.
Further, APM Methods also have significant, although somewhat weaker, relationships (correlations of .19 to .28) with employee
empowerment, formalization of maintenance responsibilities and procedures, and organizational learning. APM Tools show somewhat
stronger relationships with these variables. Use of specific APM Tools have moderate to strong associations (correlations of .39 to .47)

with employee training, job-related knowledge and skills, as well as use of pay-for-performance systems that are tied to plant
objectives. APM Tools also showed a moderate relationship (.25) with employee empowerment and a very strong correlation (.57)
with reported organizational learning.
The APM Methods and Tools scales showed moderate to strong relationships with strategic planning. APM Methods had moderate
correlations (.30 to .34) with long-range planning and top management commitment to asset performance management. However,
APM Tools indicated a strong relationship (.45) with long-range planning and a very strong association (.60) with top management
commitment to asset performance management. In addition, use of specific APM Tools also had a moderately strong relationship (.38)
with employing APM practices in order to gain a competitive advantage.
Use of general APM Methods has moderately strong relationships (.31 to .42) with use of organizational maintenance processes,
including autonomous maintenance, maintenance prevention, maintenance support, APM risk management processes, as well as
reported improvements in maintenance process metrics. Use of specific APM Tools tended to have stronger relationships (.48 to .56)
with the same maintenance processes and improvements, although the relationship (.36) with autonomous maintenance was similar to
that shown by APM Methods.
APM Methods and Tools are significantly related with safety processes and outcomes. The use of general APM Methods had
statistically significant associations (.19 to .23) with safety prioritization, serious crisis or accident response preparedness, and
planning/avoidance of disruptions. However, the use of specific APM Tools had much stronger relationships with these variables, with
strong associations (.44 to .46) with safety prioritization and serious crisis or accident response preparedness, and a moderate
correlation (.28) with planning/avoidance of disruptions.
Finally, APM Methods and Tools had a statistically significant positive relationship with reported improvements in
organizational performance, as well as a significant negative relationship with production costs. Specifically, APM Methods had
a moderate positive relationship (.28) with reported performance gains (e.g., increases in competitive position, profitability, ROA) and
a similarly sized negative relationship (-.29) with costs attributed to problems with capacity, maintenance, process failures, downtime,
and safety investigations. In comparison with APM Methods, use of APM Tools had a somewhat stronger relationship (.36) with
reported performance gains, but a somewhat weaker, although still significant, relationship (-.20) with the production costs listed
above.



SURVEY RESULTS BY QUESTION
Key Performance Indicators (PI)

To what extent are the following Key Mean Std. % % % % %
Performance Indicators (KPI’s) used to Dev. To a To a Some- To a To a Don’t
very small what great very Know
determine company success? small extent extent great
extent extent
1. Return on Investment 3.99 .893 5.6 22.5 38 32.4 1.4
2. EBITDA 4.04 1.068 1.4 5.6 12.7 19.7 31 29.6
3. Return on Assets 3.60 1.074 2.8 11.3 29.6 28.2 22.5 5.6
4. Utilization 4.00 .937 2.8 2.8 15.5 43.7 29.6 5.6
5. Unplanned downtime 4.18 .946 1.4 2.8 19.7 28.2 47.9
6. Availability 4.19 .839 2.8 18.3 35.2 42.3 1.4
7. OSHA Recordable Injuries 4.45 1.092 5.6 2.8 2.8 16.9 69 2.8
8. Other 3.68 1.065 1.4 2.8 19.7 9.9 14.1 50.7

Key Performance Indicators
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Return on EBITDA Return on Utilization Unplanned Availability OSHA Other
Investment Assets downtime Recordable
Injuries
To a very small extent To a small extent Somewhat To a great extent To a very great extent Don't Know

Impediments (DF)
To what extent is each of the following an Mean Std. % % % % %
impediment to improving asset Dev To a To a Some- To a To a Don’t
performance at your site? small extent extent great
extent extent
1. Lack of top management support 2.64 1.373 25.4 26.8 16.9 16.9 12.7 1.4
2. Difficulty recruiting skilled employees 3.15 1.009 7 14.1 43.7 26.8 8.5
3. Lack of training 2.92 1.079 12.7 16.9 43.7 19.7 7
4. Insufficient resources for maintenance
activities 3.03 1.183 11.3 22.5 29.6 25.4 11.3
5. Lack of documentation 2.84 1.175 15.5 19.7 38 15.5 9.9 1.4
6. No structure for asset management process 2.57 1.234 23.9 25.4 25.4 16.9 7 1.4
7. OSHA Recordable Injuries 2.89 1.141 9.9 32.4 25.4 23.9 8.5
8. Other 2.38 1.176 31 22.5 26.8 16.9 2.8

Impediments
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Lack of top Difficulty Lack of training Insufficient Lack of No structure OSHA Other
mgmt. support recruiting resources for documentation for asset mgmt. Recordable
skilled maint. process Injuries
employees activities

Methods (M)
To what extent do you practice the Mean Std. % % % % %
following Asset Management methods? Dev To a To a Some- To a To a Don’t
small extent extent great
extent extent
1. Traditional Maintenance 3.54 1.085 5.6 7 32.4 31 19.7 4.2
2. Preventative Maintenance 4.00 .845 1.4 4.2 14.1 53.5 26.8
3. Predictive Maintenance 3.52 .984 1.4 14.1 32.4 35.2 16.9
4. Total Productive Maintenance 2.77 1.004 9.9 23.9 38 14.1 4.2 9.9
5. Reliability Centered Maintenance 3.10 1.136 9.9 18.3 35.2 25.4 11.3
6. Condition Based Maintenance 3.40 1.027 4.2 12.7 35.2 32.4 14.1 1.4

APM Methods
To what extent do you practice the following Asset Management methods?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Traditional Preventative Predictive Total Productive Reliability Centered Condition Based
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance

Metrics (MES)
To what extent do you measure each of the Mean Std. % % % % %
following? Dev To a To a Some- To a To a Don’t
small extent extent great
extent extent
1. OEE (Overall Equip. Effectiveness) 2.64 1.399 28.2 16.9 19.7 16.9 11.3 7
2. TEEP (Total Effective Equipment
Performance) 2.09 1.195 40.8 18.3 18.3 11.3 2.8 8.5
3. Availability 4.20 .910 1.4 4.2 11.3 38 43.7 1.4
4. Uptime 4.00 1.071 2.8 8.5 12.7 35.2 38 2.8
5. Idletime 2.76 1.436 25.4 19.7 18.3 16.9 15.5 4.2
6. Utilization Rate 3.68 1.243 9.9 4.2 22.5 31 29.6 2.8
7. MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) 3.29 1.264 12.7 11.3 28.2 28.2 18.3 1.4
8. MTTR (Mean Time to Repair) 2.67 1.305 23.9 22.5 23.9 18.3 9.9 1.4
9. MTBM (Mean Time Between
Maintenance) 2.46 1.324 31 22.5 19.7 15.5 8.5 2.8
10. MDT (Mean Downtime) 2.55 1.374 32.4 14.1 18.3 22.5 7 5.6
11. Overtime as a percentage of labor hours 3.91 1.126 2.8 9.9 19.7 26.8 39.4 1.4
12. Preventative Maintenance costs 3.48 1.157 8.5 9.9 25.4 38 18.3
13. Corrective Maintenance costs 3.92 1.052 4.2 5.6 16.9 40.8 32.4

Metrics
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10

Goals (GL)
How important are the following Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
goals with regards to the Dev Not at Very Some- Neither Some- Very Extrem Know
all Unimp. what imp. what Imp. Imp.
maintenance function? Import. Unimp. Or Imp.
Unimp.
1. Reduce Maintenance Cost 6.00 .828 1.4 1.4 21.1 47.9 28.2
2. Improve Unit Cost 5.83 1.082 1.4 1.4 4.2 25.4 39.4 28.2
3. Improve Quality 5.52 1.263 2.8 2.8 8.5 29.6 35.2 21.1
4. Increase Innovation 4.87 1.275 4.2 2.8 21.1 45.1 19.7 7
5. Increase Capacity 5.37 1.355 4.2 1.4 1.4 7 35.2 33.8 16.9
6. Increase Unit Volume 4.91 1.543 5.6 2.8 4.2 19.7 23.9 28.2 11.3 4.2
7. Reduce Cycle Times 5.03 1.757 8.5 4.2 2.8 11.3 21.1 32.4 16.9 2.8
8. Increase Customer Service 4.87 1.656 7 4.2 2.8 19.7 21.1 28.2 12.7 4.2
9. Reduce risk 6.10 1.009 2.8 2.8 19.7 29.6 43.7
10. Improve safety 6.64 .664 1.4 5.6 19.7 70.4 1.4

Goals
How important are the following goals with regards to the maintenance function?
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not at all Important Very Unimportant Somewhat Unimportant

Neither Important nor Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important
Extremely Important Don't Know

Training (TR)
Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Dev Strong. Disagr. Some- Neither Some- Agree Strong. Know
Disagr. what agree what Agree
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Adequate resources are available
for employee training. 4.39 1.608 4.2 8.5 21.1 11.3 28.2 18.3 8.5
2. Employee training is provided to
enhance problem-solving skills. 4.46 1.620 2.8 14.1 12.7 12.7 26.8 23.9 7
3. Employee training is provided
about teamwork. 4.61 1.669 5.6 7 12.7 15.5 26.8 19.7 12.7
4. Adequate training is provided for
equipment operation. 5.13 1.284 2.8 11.3 12.7 26.8 33.8 11.3 1.4
5. Employees receive training and
development in workplace skills
on a regular basis 4.54 1.706 4.2 12.7 12.7 11.3 23.9 25.4 9.9
6. Management at this plant believes
that continual training and
upgrading of employees’ skills are
important. 5.23 1.523 1.4 5.6 11.3 4.2 25.4 32.4 19.7
7. Employees receive training to
perform multiple tasks. 4.94 1.423 2.8 4.2 8.5 14.1 31 29.6 9.9
Adapted from:
Ahmad, Sohel, and Roger G.Schroeder. 2003.

Training
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Adequate Employee Employee Adequate Employees Management at Employees
resources are training is training is training is receive training this plant receive training
available for provided to provided about provided for and believes that to perform
employee enhance teamwork. equipment development in continual multiple tasks.
training. problem‐solving operation. workplace skills training and
skills. on a regular upgrading of
basis employees’ skills
are important.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

Knowledge and Skills (KS)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Records of employee experience
acquired on the job are maintained. 5.03 1.567 1.4 9.9 9.9 4.2 25.4 36.6 12.7
2. A significant “knowledge and skills
deficit” exists within the company. * 4.34 1.585 4.2 9.9 18.3 15.5 26.8 18.3 7
3. Knowledge and skills are learned
systematically rather than “picked-
up”. 4.28 1.436 4.2 5.6 21.1 21.1 25.4 19.7 2.8
4. We encourage individuals to
acquire/update new knowledge and
skills. 5.30 1.139 11.3 7 35.2 33.8 12.7
5. Employees at this plant have
knowledge and skills that are above
average in industry. 4.93 1.298 4.2 7 26.8 23.9 23.9 11.3 2.8
6. Upgrading the skills of the
maintenance staff is problematic.* 4.30 1.580 2.8 15.5 12.7 19.7 21.1 23.9 4.2
7. We have a difficulty recruiting
skilled maintenance technicians.* 4.79 1.723 2.8 12.7 11.3 5.6 26.8 25.4 15.5
8. The majority of employees hold some
type of related certification. 4.69 1.686 2.8 9.9 11.3 18.3 15.5 23.9 14.1 4.2
Adapted from: Gilgeous, Vic. 1995.

Adapted from: Choi, Thomas Y., and Karen Eboch. 1998.
*Item excluded from analysis. Responses for that item were not consistent with other items in the scale.

Knowledge and Skills
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Records of A significant Knowledge and We encourage Employees at Upgrading the We have a The majority of
employee “knowledge skills are individuals to this plant have skills of the difficulty employees
experience and skills learned acquire/update knowledge and maintenance recruiting hold some type
acquired on deficit” exists systematically new skills that are staff is skilled of related
the job are within the rather than knowledge and above average problematic.* maintenance certification.
maintained. company. * “picked‐up”. skills. in industry. technicians.*

Incentive Rewards (R)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Our incentive system encourages
employees to vigorously pursue
plant objectives. 4.17 1.532 7 8.5 15.5 18.3 31 15.5 2.8 1.4
2. The incentive system at this plant
is fair at rewarding people who
accomplish plant objectives. 4.23 1.649 8.5 8.5 14.1 19.7 25.4 18.3 5.6
3. Our reward system really
recognizes the people who
contribute the most to our plant. 3.83 1.404 7 9.9 22.5 25.4 25.4 8.5 1.4
4. There are financial incentives for
providing suggestion and ideas to
improve plant performance. 3.59 1.626 12.7 15.5 19.7 21.1 14.1 16.9
5. Our incentive system rewards
results more than effort. 4.38 1.621 4.2 14.1 5.6 21.1 25.4 18.3 7 2.8
Adapted from: University of Minnesota high performance manufacturing study.

Adapted from: Choi, Thomas Y., and Karen Eboch. 1998.
*Item excluded from analysis. Responses for that item were not consistent with other
items in the scale.

Rewards
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Our incentive system The incentive system at Our reward system There are financial Our incentive system
encourages employees this plant is fair at really recognizes the incentives for providing rewards results more
to vigorously pursue rewarding people who people who contribute suggestion and ideas to than effort.
plant objectives. accomplish plant the most to our plant. improve plant
objectives. performance.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree Don't Know

Empowerment of Maintenance Employees

(EP)
Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Employees are permitted to use their
own judgment in solving problems. 5.23 1.209 1.4 9.9 9.9 38 25.4 15.5
2. Employees are permitted to take
initiative. 5.45 1.039 5.6 7 40.8 29.6 16.9
3. Employees are allowed complete
freedom in their work 3.73 1.320 2.8 12.7 35.2 18.3 21.1 8.5 1.4
4. Employees are allowed to do their
work the way they think is best. * 3.93 1.334 1.4 11.3 31 22.5 18.3 14.1 1.4
5. Employees can easily gain access to
company’s asset management
database to make decisions about
procedures. 4.24 1.789 8.5 9.9 21.1 5.6 25.4 19.7 8.5 1.4
6. Employees are able to identify and
offer solutions to problems in their
workplace 5.65 1.160 1.4 4.2 8.5 25.4 35.2 25.4
Adapted from: De Jong, Ad, and Ko de Ruyter. 2004.
items in the scale.

Empowerment
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Employees are Employees are Employees are Employees are Employees can Employees are able
permitted to use permitted to take allowed complete allowed to do their easily gain access to to identify and offer
their own judgment initiative. freedom in their work the way they company’s asset solutions to
in solving problems. work think is best. * management problems in their
database to make workplace
decisions about
procedures.

Formalization Regarding Maintenance

Issues (MI)
Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Whenever a maintenance situation
arises, we have procedures in place
to deal with it. 4.62 1.418 1.4 2.8 26.8 7 32.4 22.5 7
2. Comprehensive rules exist for all
routine procedures with regard to
maintenance. 4.54 1.575 1.4 9.9 19.7 14.1 22.5 22.5 9.9
3. When rules and procedures exist in
maintenance, they are in written
form. 5.18 1.417 1.4 7 5.6 8.5 22.5 45.1 9.9
4. There are significant penalties for
violating procedures. 4.69 1.712 2.8 12.7 14.1 5.6 25.4 26.8 12.7
5. The actual job duties of maintenance
personnel are shaped more by the
individual than by a specific job
description.* 3.85 1.609 5.6 19.7 21.1 9.9 29.6 9.9 4.2
6. The actual job duties of engineers
are shaped more by the engineer
than by a specific job description.* 4.43 1.490 1.4 14.1 11.3 15.5 31 21.1 4.2 1.4
Adapted from: Malhotra,Manoj K., Michelle L. Heine, and Varun Grover. 2001.
*Item excluded from analysis. Responses for that item were not consistent with other items in the
scale.

Formalization
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Whenever a Comprehensive When rules and There are significant The actual job The actual job
maintenance rules exist for all procedures exist in penalties for duties of duties of engineers
situation arises, we routine procedures maintenance, they violating maintenance are shaped more by
have procedures in with regard to are in written form. procedures. personnel are the engineer than
place to deal with it. maintenance. shaped more by the by a specific job
individual than by a description.*
specific job
description.*

Organizational Learning (OL)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. what agree nor what Agree
Disagr. Disagr. Agree
1. When improved processes are
developed for equipment in one area,
that knowledge is transferred to other
areas/locations. 4.69 1.460 1.4 5.6 21.1 4.2 39.4 18.3 9.9
2. We analyze mistakes to understand
what happened, not just to blame
somebody. 5.52 1.297 1.4 1.4 8.5 1.4 28.2 38 21.1
3. Formal routines exist to uncover faulty
assumption about the asset
management process.* 4.47 1.638 4.2 11.3 9.9 14.1 25.4 21.1 7 7
4. There is a formal program to
implement best practices at other
divisions or departments. 4.89 1.591 4.2 5.6 9.9 9.9 33.8 21.1 15.5
5. We frequently have interdepartmental
meetings to discuss trends in the asset
management process. 4.49 1.539 2.8 8.5 19.7 9.9 28.2 23.9 5.6 1.4
6. We spend time discussing future asset
management needs. 4.76 1.617 5.6 2.8 18.3 4.2 32.4 25.4 11.3
7. We alert others when something
important happens in the asset
management process. 4.94 1.511 4.2 4.2 8.5 8.5 39.4 21.1 14.1
8. We are committed to sharing our vision
with each other in the asset
management process. 4.99 1.399 1.4 2.8 12.7 14.1 31 23.9 14.1
9. Benchmarking is used to identify
cutting-edge asset management
techniques. 4.72 1.734 5.6 7 14.1 8.5 29.6 18.3 16.9
10. We keep track of asset management
techniques related to our industry. 5.14 1.505 5.6 5.6 12.7 35.2 21.1 19.7
Adapted from: Hult, G. Thomas, Robert F. Hurley, Larry C. Guinipero, and Ernest L. Nichols, Jr. 2000 Adapted from: Stratman, Jeff K., and Aleda Roth. 2002.
*Item excluded from analysis. Responses for that item were not consistent with other items in the scale.

Organizational Learning
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. When improved processes are developed for equipment in one area, that knowledge is transferred to other areas/locations.
2. We analyze mistakes to understand what happened, not just to blame somebody.
3. Formal routines exist to uncover faulty assumption about the asset management process.*
4. There is a formal program to implement best practices at other divisions or departments.
5. We frequently have interdepartmental meetings to discuss trends in the asset management process.
6. We spend time discussing future asset management needs.
7. We alert others when something important happens in the asset management process.
8. We are committed to sharing our vision with each other in the asset management process.
9. Benchmarking is used to identify cutting-edge asset management techniques.
10. We keep track of asset management techniques related to our industry.

Long-Range Values (LV)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. When improved processes are
developed for equipment in one
area, that knowledge is transferred
to other areas/locations. 4.55 1.566 1.4 11.3 19.7 4.2 33.8 21.1 8.5
2. We analyze mistakes to understand
what happened, not just to blame
somebody. 5.30 1.546 1.4 7 7 5.6 21.1 33.8 21.1 2.8
3. Formal routines exist to uncover
faulty assumption about the asset
management process. 5.87 1.027 1.4 2.8 1.4 23.9 42.3 28.2

Long Range Values
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
When improved processes are We analyze mistakes to understand Formal routines exist to uncover faulty
developed for equipment in one area, what happened, not just to blame assumption about the asset
that knowledge is transferred to other somebody. management process.
areas/locations.

Adoption Pressures (AP)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. We feel that we have to adopt
Asset Performance Management
(APM) practices because other
firms are doing it. 3.76 1.719 7 21.1 18.3 23.9 9.9 11.3 8.5
2. We adopt APM practices to gain a
positive reputation. 4.16 1.585 2.8 16.9 8.5 35.2 12.7 14.1 8.5 1.4
3. We implement APM practices
because they can lead to a
competitive advantage. 5.51 1.372 1.4 2.8 2.8 16.9 12.7 39.4 23.9
4. We implement APM practices
because they can improve
performance. 5.79 1.286 1.4 1.4 1.4 14.1 8.5 40.8 32.4
5. Our customers pressure us to
employ APM practices. 2.81 1.576 19.7 33.8 9.9 19.7 5.6 4.2 2.8 4.2
Adapted from: Koufteros, X., Texas A&M University, supply chain security study.

Adoption Pressures
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
We feel that we have to We adopt APM We implement APM We implement APM Our customers pressure
adopt Asset practices to gain a practices because they practices because they us to employ APM
Performance positive reputation. can lead to a can improve practices.
Management (APM) competitive advantage. performance.
practices because other
firms are doing it.

Top Management Commitment (TMC)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Top management is committed to
APM. 5.14 1.437 4.2 2.8 1.4 19.7 19.7 39.4 11.3 1.4
2. Top management allocates proper
levels of resources to enhance asset
performance. 4.45 1.529 2.8 5.6 23.9 12.7 23.9 21.1 7 2.8
3. Top management provides clear
objects for asset performance
priorities. 4.25 1.461 1.4 12.7 21.1 14.1 28.2 19.7 2.8
4. Top management is aware of the
risk and consequences associated
with production disruptions. 5.93 1.345 1.4 2.8 2.8 5.6 9.9 36.6 40.8
Adapted from: Koufteros, X., Texas A&M University, supply chain security

Top Managment Commitment
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Top management is Top management allocates Top management provides Top management is aware of
committed to APM. proper levels of resources to clear objects for asset the risk and consequences
enhance asset performance. performance priorities. associated with production
disruptions.

Autonomous Maintenance (AM)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Operators understand the cause
and effect of equipment
deterioration. 4.39 1.643 1.4 18.3 16.9 4.2 23.9 32.4 2.8
2. Basic cleaning and lubrication of
equipment is done by operators. 4.30 1.780 9.9 8.5 16.9 8.5 21.1 29.6 4.2 1.4
3. Operators inspect and monitor the
performance of their own
equipment. 4.70 1.616 7 9.9 4.2 4.2 35.2 38 1.4
4. Operators are able to detect and
treat abnormal operating
conditions of their equipment. 4.56 1.422 5.6 5.6 9.9 11.3 40.8 26.8

Autonomous Maintenance
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Operators understand the Basic cleaning and lubrication Operators inspect and Operators are able to detect
cause and effect of of equipment is done by monitor the performance of and treat abnormal operating
equipment deterioration. operators. their own equipment conditions of their
equipment.

Maintenance Prevention (MP)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. We upgrade inferior equipment in
order to prevent equipment
problems. 4.85 1.261 1.4 4.2 14.1 4.2 42.3 32.4 1.4
2. In order to improve equipment
performance, we sometimes
redesign equipment. 5.44 .874 1.4 1.4 4.2 39.4 50.7 2.8
3. We estimate the lifespan of our
equipment, so that repair or
replacement can be planned. 4.70 1.642 4.2 7 15.5 8.5 29.6 22.5 12.7
4. We use equipment diagnostic
techniques to predict equipment
lifespan. 5.29 1.571 4.2 5.6 2.8 4.2 31 29.6 21.1 1.4
5. We conduct technical analysis of
major breakdowns. 5.62 1.367 4.2 4.2 1.4 25.4 40.8 23.9

Levitt, Joel. 1997.
Nakajima, Seiichi. 1988.

Maintenance Prevention
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
We upgrade inferior In order to improve We estimate the We use equipment We conduct technical
equipment in order to equipment lifespan of our diagnostic techniques analysis of major
prevent equipment performance, we equipment, so that to predict equipment breakdowns.
problems. sometimes redesign repair or replacement lifespan.
equipment. can be planned.

Maintenance Support (MS)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Our production scheduling
systems incorporate planned
maintenance. 5.66 1.373 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 19.7 43.7 25.4
2. Spare parts for maintenance are
managed centrally. 5.19 1.563 1.4 8.5 8.5 4.2 22.5 36.6 16.9 1.4
3. Each of our plants establishes its
own maintenance standards. 4.21 1.531 4.2 11.3 18.3 14.1 31 15.5 4.2 1.4
4. Equipment performance is
tracked by our information
systems. 5.50 1.370 1.4 2.8 5.6 5.6 28.2 29.6 25.4 1.4
5. Our systems capture information
about equipment failure. 5.16 1.566 1.4 9.9 5.6 5.6 25.4 33.8 16.9 1.4

Levitt, Joel. 1997.
Nakajima, Seiichi. 1988.

Maintenance Support
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Our production Spare parts for Each of our plants Equipment Our systems capture
scheduling systems maintenance are establishes its own performance is tracked information about
incorporate planned managed centrally. maintenance standards. by our information equipment failure.
maintenance. systems.

Tools (T)
Our company uses the following in our Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
asset management programs. Dev Strong. Disagr. Some- Neither Some- Agree Strong. Know
. Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Reliability Centered Management
(RCM) 5.20 1.461 1.4 5.6 5.6 9.9 33.8 21.1 21.1 1.4
2. Safety Instrumented Systems
Management (SIS) 4.68 1.988 9.9 9.9 4.2 16.9 11.3 23.9 19.7 4.2
3. Root Cause Analysis (RCA) 6.00 .845 1.4 2.8 18.3 49.3 28.2
4. Computerized maintenance
management systems (CMMS) 6.08 1.307 1.4 2.8 1.4 4.2 9.9 31 49.3
5. Enterprise asset management
(EAM) system 5.15 1.885 5.6 8.5 4.2 9.9 15.5 21.1 29.6 5.6
6. Risk Based Inspections (RBI) 4.87 1.903 5.6 12.7 5.6 11.3 15.5 25.4 22.5 1.4
7. Failure modes and effect analysis
(FMEA) 5.23 1.322 5.6 5.6 9.9 35.2 26.8 16.9

Tools
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Reliability Safety Root Cause Computerized Enterprise asset Risk Based Failure modes
Centered Instrumented Analysis (RCA) maintenance management Inspections (RBI) and effect
Management Systems management (EAM) system analysis (FMEA)
(RCM) Management systems (CMMS)
(SIS)

Best Practices (MAP)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Your company’s ability to manage
assets has improved in the last 3
years. 5.59 1.280 1.4 1.4 5.6 4.2 26.8 35.2 23.9 1.4
2. The benefits from your asset
management programs outweigh the
costs. 5.65 1.243 2.8 5.6 4.2 21.1 38 23.9 4.2
3. Performance metrics are aligned
with financial metrics.* 5.16 1.281 1.4 4.2 4.2 9.9 38 29.6 11.3 1.4
4. Your firm is confident in identifying
risks associated with maintenance
programs. 4.89 1.280 1.4 2.8 14.1 9.9 32.4 35.2 2.8 1.4
5. Safety programs are decreasing
overall cost for the company. 5.22 1.580 2.8 4.2 9.9 9.9 14.1 38 18.3 2.8
6. Your company’s safety profile has
been strengthened in the last 3 years. 6.03 1.191 1.4 2.8 7 15.5 25.4 46.5 1.4
7. There is recognition that good
maintenance practices have a major
impact on other budget line items
such as energy, capital replacement,
insurance premiums and regulatory
compliance. 5.54 1.293 1.4 9.9 2.8 25.4 36.6 22.5 1.4
8. Budget savings are available for
reinvestment into other cost-
reduction programs. 4.19 1.699 7 11.3 15.5 15.5 15.5 26.8 2.8 5.6

9. The current budgeting process is

likely to serve the overall long-term
interest of the organization.* 4.33 1.613 4.2 9.9 21.1 11.3 23.9 22.5 5.6 1.4
10. Training for the maintenance
personnel is part of all new
equipment acquisition contracts. 4.72 1.524 1.4 8.5 11.3 16.9 25.4 21.1 11.3 4.2
11. Downtime is tracked and the trends
are calculated.* 5.61 1.266 1.4 1.4 2.8 8.5 26.8 31 26.8 1.4
12. The reasons for downtime are
tracked.* 5.55 1.216 1.4 5.6 7 29.6 33.8 22.5
13. There is a well known cost for
downtime by machine, process or
facility. 4.97 1.464 1.4 4.2 14.1 11.3 25.4 29.6 12.7 1.4
Adapted from: Koufteros, X., Texas A&M University, supply chain security
study.
*Item excluded from analysis. Responses for that item were not consistent
with other items in the scale.

Best Practices
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Your company’s ability to manage assets has improved in the last 3 years.
2. The benefits from your asset management programs outweigh the costs.
3. Performance metrics are aligned with financial metrics.*
4. Your firm is confident in identifying risks associated with maintenance programs.
5. Safety programs are decreasing overall cost for the company.
6. Your company’s safety profile has been strengthened in the last 3 years.
7. There is recognition that good maintenance practices have a major impact on other budget line items such as energy, capital
replacement, insurance premiums and regulatory compliance.
8. Budget savings are available for reinvestment into other cost-reduction programs.
9. The current budgeting process is likely to serve the overall long-term interest of the org.*
10. Training for the maintenance personnel is part of all new equipment acquisition contracts.
11. Downtime is tracked and the trends are calculated.*
12. The reasons for downtime are tracked.*
13. There is a well known cost for downtime by machine, process or facility.

Safety (S)
Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
1. Training on safety is a priority in this
work environment. 6.55 .713 1.4 4.2 31 63.4
2. The company invests sufficient resources
in safety. 6.32 .953 1.4 1.4 7 36.6 52.1
3. Having a positive attitude toward safety,
even during hard financial times, is
valued by all. 6.45 .650 1.4 4.2 42.3 52.1
4. Following safety procedures inhibits
workers from “getting the job done.”* 3.06 1.919 23.9 25.4 21.1 4.2 9.9 7 8.5 23.9
5. The safety officer is well respected in this
facility. 5.27 1.434 2.8 2.8 2.8 19.7 18.3 35.2 18.3 2.8
6. Performance Evaluations include an
assessment of adherence to safety
procedures. 5.93 1.223 1.4 4.2 9.9 8.5 36.6 39.4
7. Managers respond positively if a health or
safety issue is raised. 6.07 1.019 2.8 5.6 14.1 36.6 40.8
8. Unsafe acts can be reported without fear
of negative reactions.* 5.82 1.417 4.2 4.2 2.8 12.7 42.3 33.8 4.2
9. A worker would be looked upon favorably
for reporting a safety issue. 6.08 .996 1.4 5.6 14.1 39.4 39.4
10. Resources are available for adequate
employee training on safety.* 5.89 1.326 1.4 1.4 5.6 2.8 15.5 33.8 39.4 1.4
11. Management at this plant believes that
continual training and upgrading of
safety procedures are important. 6.35 .847 1.4 1.4 11.3 32.4 53.5
Based on readings: Zohar, Dov. 1980. Zohar, Dov and Gil Luria. 2005.
*Item excluded from analysis. Responses for that item were not consistent with
other items in the scale.

Safety
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Training on safety is a priority in this work environment.

2. The company invests sufficient resources in safety.
3. Having a positive attitude toward safety, even during hard financial times, is valued by all.
4. Following safety procedures inhibits workers from “getting the job done”.*
5. The safety officer is well respected in this facility.
6. Performance evaluations include an assessment of adherence to safety procedures.
7. Managers respond positively if a health or safety issue is raised.
8. Unsafe acts can be reported without fear of negative reactions.*
9. A worker would be looked upon favorably for reporting a safety issue.
10. Resources are available for adequate employee training on safety.*
11. Management at this plant believes that continual training and upgrading of safety procedures are important.

Serious Crisis or Accident (SC)

Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Emergency preparedness is widely
endorsed by organizational members. 5.97 .956 1.4 8.5 12.7 46.5 31
2. Communication travels easily across
management levels when a crisis is
encountered. 5.69 1.358 1.4 4.2 2.8 4.2 18.3 40.8 28.2
3. We have a disaster recovery plan in
place. 5.90 1.092 1.4 4.2 2.8 15.5 45.1 29.6 1.4
4. We delegate authority so that
teams/individuals can take necessary
action in case of a crisis. 5.80 1.179 1.4 2.8 8.5 16.9 40.8 29.6
5. We have designated a group of
employees as first respondents in case
of a crisis. 6.21 1.027 1.4 4.2 9.9 38 46.5
6. We have a quick reaction force to
deal with a crisis. 5.96 1.091 1.4 2.8 5.6 11.3 43.7 32.4 2.8
7. There is a definite chain of command
in the event of an emergency. 6.08 1.118 2.8 1.4 4.2 8.5 42.3 40.8
8. We have a redundant communication
system which can be used if a crisis
arises. 5.59 1.518 4.2 2.8 4.2 1.4 16.9 42.3 25.4 2.8
9. We have protocols for communication
in the event of a serious safety
incident. 6.01 1.419 1.4 5.6 1.4 1.4 7 36.6 45.1 1.4

Serious Crisis or Accident
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Emergency preparedness is widely endorsed by organizational members.

2. Communication travels easily across management levels when a crisis is encountered.
3. We have a disaster recovery plan in place.
4. We delegate authority so that teams/individuals can take necessary action in case of a crisis.
5. We have designated a group of employees as first respondents in case of a crisis.
6. We have a quick reaction force to deal with a crisis.
7. There is a definite chain of command in the event of an emergency.
8. We have a redundant communication system which can be used if a crisis arises.
9. We have protocols for communication in the event of a serious safety incident.

Disruptions (D)
Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Major incidents rarely occur here.* 5.58 1.295 1.4 2.8 4.2 4.2 25.4 39.4 22.5
2. We have a production plan in place to
deal with production disruptions in the
event of a safety incident.* 5.30 1.180 2.8 8.5 8.5 19.7 52.1 5.6 2.8
3. We have strategies to recover in the event
of equipment disruptions. 5.43 1.199 1.4 2.8 2.8 7 26.8 46.5 11.3 1.4
4. We track the magnitude of disruptions. 5.58 1.277 1.4 1.4 5.6 7 16.9 45.1 19.7 2.8
5. We track the number of disruptions.* 5.84 1.030 1.4 4.2 1.4 16.9 52.1 22.5 1.4
6. We have a specific process to reinstate
operations in case of a major crisis or
disruption. 5.40 1.382 1.4 4.2 4.2 8.5 19.7 39.4 16.9 5.6
7. We have a process to preserve knowledge
in case of a crisis. 5.03 1.457 7 8.5 14.1 19.7 29.6 12.7 8.5
8. We encounter disruptions on a daily basis
or frequent basis.* 3.27 1.796 15.5 31 15.5 5.6 16.9 12.7 2.8
9. Many of our disruptions would be
considered major disruptions. * 2.82 1.437 16.9 32.4 23.9 12.7 8.5 4.2 1.4
10. Many of our disruptions would be
considered minor disruptions. * 5.42 .921 2.8 11.3 36.6 39.4 9.9
11. Equipment breakdown is a frequent
phenomenon. * 4.15 1.591 1.4 15.5 23.9 15.5 21.1 14.1 8.5
12. We find ourselves delaying delivery to
customers due to equipment breakdowns. 3.38 1.619 12.7 19.7 21.1 19.7 14.1 5.6 4.2 2.8
13. We track avoided incidences (near misses.) 5.59 1.591 2.8 5.6 5.6 2.8 12.7 39.4 31
Adapted from: Koufteros, X., Texas A&M University, supply chain security study.
Disruptions
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Major incidents rarely occur here.*

2. We have a production plan in place to deal with production disruptions in the event of a safety incident.*
3. We have strategies to recover in the event of equipment disruptions.
4. We track the magnitude of disruptions.
5. We track the number of disruptions.*
6. We have a specific process to reinstate operations in case of a major crisis or disruption.
7. We have a process to preserve knowledge in case of a crisis.
8. We encounter disruptions on a daily basis or frequent basis.*
9. Many of our disruptions would be considered major disruptions. *
10. Many of our disruptions would be considered minor disruptions. *
11. Equipment breakdown is a frequent phenomenon. *
12. We find ourselves delaying delivery to customers due to equipment breakdowns.
13. We track avoided incidences (near misses.)

Performance (P)
Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Over, the past 3 years, our financial
performance has been outstanding. 4.69 1.410 11.3 8.5 16.9 32.4 22.5 7 1.4
2. Over, the past 3 years, our financial
performance has exceeded our
competitors’. 4.83 1.235 7 4.2 21.1 28.2 29.6 2.8 7
3. Over, the past 3 years, our return on
assets has been outstanding. 4.40 1.477 12.7 15.5 14.1 26.8 16.9 5.6 8.5
4. Over, the past 3 year, we have been
more profitable than our
competitors. 4.62 1.300 9.9 5.6 19.7 28.2 23.9 1.4 11.3
5. Our asset management program has
drastically increased our competitive
position. 4.48 1.357 2.8 4.2 15.5 22.5 29.6 18.3 4.2 2.8
drastically increased our
profitability. 4.46 1.359 2.8 4.2 15.5 26.8 25.4 19.7 4.2 1.4
drastically increased our return on assets. 4.54 1.357 2.8 4.2 14.1 21.1 31 19.7 4.2 2.8
been a positive development for our
organization. 5.21 1.413 2.8 5.6 2.8 9.9 23.9 45.1 9.9
had a negative impact on our
profitability. 2.61 1.497 28.2 28.2 12.7 18.3 5.6 5.6 1.4
10. We would be better off without an
asset management program. 2.03 1.383 49.3 23.9 8.5 11.3 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4

Performance
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Over, the past 3 years, our financial performance has been outstanding.
2. Over, the past 3 years, our financial performance has exceeded our competitors’.
3. Over, the past 3 years, our return on assets has been outstanding.
4. Over, the past 3 year, we have been more profitable than our competitors.
5. Our asset management program has drastically increased our competitive position.
6. Our asset management program has drastically increased our profitability.
7. Our asset management program has drastically increased our return on assets.
8. Our asset management program has been a positive development for our organization.
9. Our asset management program has had a negative impact on our profitability.
10. We would be better off without an asset management program.

Consequence Costs (CC)

We have been affected by the following Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
consequence costs (CC). Dev Strong. Disagr. Some- Neither Some- Agree Strong. Know
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. The cost of purchasing additional
capacity to overcome low capacity and
availability arising from inadequate
maintenance service. 3.43 1.678 12.7 26.8 8.5 14.1 22.5 11.3 12.7
2. The loss of profit from a lack of
continuity of productive output due to
failures. 3.97 1.765 7 23.9 9.9 5.6 26.8 22.5 1.4 7
3. The cost of product waste due to mal-
functioning of the machines. 3.51 1.651 11.3 25.4 11.3 12.7 25.4 11.3 11.3
4. The cost of overtime due to downtime. 4.37 1.687 5.6 14.1 11.3 11.3 22.5 31 2.8 5.6
5. The loss of profit due to reduced output. 4.25 1.752 5.6 18.3 8.5 14.1 21.1 23.9 5.6 5.6
6. The cost of investigating safety
incidents. 3.42 1.818 15.5 25.4 9.9 15.5 15.5 11.3 4.2 15.5

Consequence Costs
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
The cost of The loss of profit The cost of product The cost of The loss of profit The cost of
purchasing from a lack of waste due to mal‐ overtime due to due to reduced investigating safety
additional capacity continuity of functioning of the downtime. output. incidents.
to overcome low productive output machines
capacity and due to failures
availability arising
from inadequate
maint. service

Maintenance Process Improvements: (MPI)
From our current maintenance process Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
improvements we have been able to: (MPI) Dev Strong. Disagr. Some- Neither Some- Agree Strong. Know
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Reduce the size and scale of repairs.* 5.09 1.228 5.6 2.8 15.5 32.4 29.6 8.5
2. Reduce downtime. 5.36 1.311 5.6 4.2 8.5 22.5 39.4 14.1
3. Increase equipment’s useful life. 5.48 1.198 2.8 4.2 8.5 25.4 36.6 16.9
4. Increase safety of operators, mechanics, and
the public. 5.82 1.058 1.4 1.4 7 18.3 40.8 25.4
5. Reduce overtime for responding to
emergency breakdowns. 5.11 1.416 1.4 5.6 2.8 18.3 21.1 31 12.7 1.4
6. Increase equipment availability. 5.51 1.341 1.4 4.2 1.4 8.5 21.1 38 19.7
7. Decrease potential exposure to liability. 5.38 1.343 1.4 4.2 1.4 11.3 21.1 36.6 15.5 2.8
8. Reduce spare stand-by units required. 4.55 1.531 1.4 9.9 11.3 22.5 18.3 21.1 8.5 1.4
9. Increase control over parts and reduce
inventory levels. 4.89 1.337 5.6 8.5 18.3 28.2 22.5 9.9 1.4
10. Improve identification or problem areas to
know where to focus attention. 5.60 1.232 4.2 1.4 8.5 21.1 38 21.1
11. Add more predictability to potential
equipment failures. 5.47 1.180 2.8 2.8 11.3 22.5 38 15.5 1.4
12. Use information from operators to influence
decisions. 5.18 1.313 5.6 5.6 9.9 31 29.6 12.7
13. Reduce energy costs. 4.83 1.386 1.4 5.6 5.6 21.1 22.5 25.4 7 5.6
14. Increase uptime.* 5.56 1.204 1.4 1.4 7 18.3 40.8 25.4
15. Increase predictability. 5.41 1.202 1.4 5.6 2.8 18.3 21.1 31 12.7 1.4
16. Increase output from existing asset base. 5.50 1.180 1.4 4.2 1.4 8.5 21.1 38 19.7
17. Decrease maintenance costs. 4.92 1.384 1.4 4.2 1.4 11.3 21.1 36.6 15.5 2.8
18. Increase compliance with regulatory
agencies. 5.46 1.288 1.4 2.8 1.4 12.7 16.9 40.8 15.5 2.8
Items based on readings from: Levitt, Joel. 1997.
*Item excluded from analysis. Responses for that item were not consistent
with other items in the scale. Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 73
Maintenance Process Improvements
From our current process we have been able to:
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Reduce the size and scale of repairs.* 10. Improve identification or problem areas to know where to
2. Reduce downtime. focus attention.
3. Increase equipment’s useful life. 11. Add more predictability to potential equipment failures.
4. Increase safety of operators, mechanics, and the public. 12. Use information from operators to influence decisions.
5. Reduce overtime for responding to emergency breakdowns. 13. Reduce energy costs.
6. Increase equipment availability. 14. Increase uptime.*
7. Decrease potential exposure to liability. 15. Increase predictability.
8. Reduce spare stand-by units required. 16. Increase output from existing asset base.
9. Increase control over parts and reduce inventory levels. 17. Decrease maintenance costs.
18. Increase compliance with regulatory agencies.

Risk: (RSK)
Mean Std. % % % % % % % Don’t
1. When budgets are reduced we look for
ways to perform maintenance tasks more
efficiently. 5.45 1.194 4.2 4.2 1.4 29.6 38 12.7 1.4
ways to do less work by avoiding
unnecessary maintenance. 5.10 1.411 9.9 4.2 4.2 26.8 36.6 7 2.8
ways to postpone maintenance work. 4.95 1.527 2.8 5.6 9.9 5.6 25.4 32.4 8.5 1.4
4. We use Risk Based Inspections to find
systems where postponement is feasible. 4.76 1.643 2.8 9.9 9.9 7 19.7 32.4 7 2.8
5. We use RCM techniques to determine
which large critical systems can support
postponement. 4.29 1.773 5.6 15.5 9.9 7 23.9 21.1 5.6 2.8
6. We use technologically advanced tools to
determine where postponement is feasible. 4.58 1.688 5.6 15.5 9.9 7 23.9 21.1 5.6 2.8
7. We use a Pareto analysis to help prioritize work. 5.11 1.439 1.4 4.2 7 9.9 23.9 26.8 12.7 5.6
8. When there are forced budget cuts,
management realizes the extent of the risk
to the process. 4.54 1.574 1.4 5.6 25.4 7 16.9 25.4 7 2.8
9. With an effective APM plan, risk can be
mitigated. 5.64 1.198 1.4 1.4 9.9 16.9 38 18.3 5.6
10. With an effective APM plan, reliability and
safety can be improved. 5.87 1.208 1.4 1.4 7 12.7 36.6 28.2 4.2
11. Frequent risk based assessments are
conducted to understand the risk profile of
an asset. 4.35 1.815 4.2 16.9 9.9 12.7 18.3 18.3 11.3
12. Asset performance data is used to optimize
decision-making. 5.05 1.494 1.4 7 8.5 5.6 26.8 31 11.3
13. Asset performance metrics are linked with
financial metrics. 4.87 1.509 2.8 7 7 8.5 22.5 35.2 4.2 4.2
14. Risk management is managed at the
corporate level rather than site-by-site. 3.77 1.693 5.6 15.5 23.9 14.1 11.3 9.9 7 4.2

Risk
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. When budgets are reduced we look for ways to perform

maintenance tasks more efficiently. 8. When there are forced budget cuts, management realizes
2. When budgets are reduced we look for ways to do less the extent of the risk to the process.
work by avoiding unnecessary maintenance. 9. With an effective APM plan, risk can be mitigated.
3. When budgets are reduced we look for ways to postpone 10. With an effective APM plan, reliability and safety can be
maintenance work. improved.
4. We use RBI to find systems where postponement is 11. Frequent risk based assessments are conducted to
feasible. understand the risk profile of an asset.
5. We use RCM techniques to determine which large critical 12. Asset performance data is used to optimize decision-
systems can support postponement. making.
6. We use technologically advanced tools to determine where 13. Asset performance metrics are linked with financial
postponement is feasible. metrics.
7. We use a Pareto analysis to help prioritize work. 14. Risk management is managed at the corporate level rather
than site-by-site.

Current processes (CP)

From our current maintenance process Mean Std.
improvements (CMPI) Dev 76- Don’t
0 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 100% Know
1. What percent of operators have been cross-
trained on maintenance tasks? 2.44 1.118 11.3 50.7 11.3 7 8.5 2.8
2. What is the average percent downtime of
machines due to failure, during a normal
shift? 2.15 .709 5.6 69 2.8 5.6 1.4 7
3. What percent of machines in the plant have
information concerning maintenance,
operation, set-up, etc., posted on them or
readily available? 3.20 1.388 11.3 19.7 16.9 16.9 21.1 5.6

Current Processes
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
What percent of operators have been What is the average percent downtime What percent of machines in the plant
cross‐trained on maintenance tasks? of machines due to failure, during a have information concerning maint.,
normal shift? operation, set‐up, etc., posted on them
or readily available?
0 1‐25% 26‐50% 51‐75% 76‐100% Don't Know

Maintenance Function
% % % % % % %
Strong. Disagr. Some- Neither Some- Agree Strong.
Disagr. nor Agree
Disagr.
1. Our maintenance function at this facility is

decentralized. (i.e sites are responsible for
maintenance practices)
4.2 9.9 5.6 4.2 19.7 31 25.4
2. Our maintenance function is coordinated

or centralized with other facilities.
15.5 23.9 12.7 4.2 19.7 16.9 7

Maintenance Function
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Our maintenance function at this facility is Our maintenance function is coordinated or centralized
decentralized. with other facilities.

TABLES
OPEN ENDED RESPONSE QUESTIONS
(Some respondents did not provide their identifying information.)
TABLE 1
SELF-REPORTED LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY
Assistant Facility Manager Plant level management

Consultant for multiple Koch Program Resource (2)
Industries sites Rotating Eq.Supervisor
Corp. VP Senior Manager
Corporate (2) Sr. Director
Director (8) Staff
Engineer Superintendent (2)
Executive (4) Superintendent for production
IT Supervisor (6)
Manager (23) Technician
Mid level manager of systems Technology Center Leader Role
Middle Management VP

TABLE 2
LIST OF COMPANIES
Abbott/GPO Luminant
AES Corp, North America Manitoba Hydro
Alberta Envirofuels Inc. Marathon Oil
Alpha Natural Resources Mead Westvaco Corp.
Baltek Inc / 3A composites Midway Energy LTD
Bayer Onesteel
Chevron P&H Mining Equipment Co
ConocoPhillips Peabody Energy
Dakota Gasification Co Pfizer, Inc.
Dow Chemical Company PPG Industries
Eastman Chemical Rio Tinto
ExxonMobil SABIC
Flint Hills Resources Silcar Pty Limited
GPSG Southern California Edison
Honeywell Suncor Energy, Inc.
HOVENSA Refinery LLC Tesoro Corporation
Hydro One Networks Inc XCEL Energy
International Paper Company

TABLE 3
SELF-REPORTED TITLES.
Analyst Operational Excellence Manager

CEO Operations Manager
Chief Engineer Plant Reliability Superintendent
Director Precision Maintenance and Work Management
Director - Maintenance and Reliability Systems Champion
Director Generation Reliability, Analysis & Training Predictive Maintenance Technician
Director of Performance North America Principal Advisor Assets
Director Planning, Turnarounds, & Capital Executions Principal Advisor
Director Technical Services Production manager
Director/Team Leader Project Director
Electrical Process Manager Project Manager
Engineer Reliability Center Manager
Engineering Systems Manager Reliability Consultant
Executive Manager Business Development Reliability Excellence Leader
Global Operations Manager Reliability Superintendant
Global RCM Implementation Manger Rotating Equipment Manager
Global Reliability Manager Senior Reliability Leader
HES Manager Senior Vice President Customer Operations
Inspection Supervisor Site Manager
Maintenance Superintendent Sr. Director Fossil Engineering and Support
Maintenance and Reliability Manager Sr. EAM Analyst
Maintenance Engineer Strategy
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Superintendent Supervisor
Major Projects Director Technology Improvement Leader
Manager Turnaround Event Manager
Manager Maintenance Systems VP
Manufacturing Manager VP Asset Management
Mechanical Operating Supervisor (2) VP Maintenance

TABLE 4
INDIVIDUAL/COMPANY BACKGROUND
Time Mean Std. Dev

Time with the current company
(Years) 19.1 10.5
Time in current position (Years) 5.2 5.0
Less 100-499 500-999 1,000- Over Don’t
than 100 9,999 10,000 Know
How many people are
employed at your
company/SBU? 1 6 12 27 24 1
< 25 25-49 50-100 100-199 >200 Don’t
Know
How many are employed in
the maintenance function? 7 3 3 5 51 2
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76- Don’t
100% Know
What percentage of your
organization’s maintenance
is performed by operators? 10 51 5 1 1 3
What percentage of
maintenance employees are
part of a collective
bargaining agreement
(union)? 13 13 6 6 26 5

TABLE 5
FINANCIAL SPENDING AUTHORITY
(EXPENSES)
n=
$ - 7
$ 10.00 1
$ 100.00 1
$ 5,000.00 4
$ 10,000.00 5
$ 20,000.00 2
$ 25,000.00 3
$ 30,000.00 2
$ 50,000.00 7
$ 75,000.00 1
$ 100,000.00 6
$ 250,000.00 2
$ 400,000.00 1
$ 500,000.00 3
$ 1,000,000.00 6
$ 2,000,000.00 3
$ 5,000,000.00 3
$ 10,000,000.00 1
$ 100,000,000.00 1
€ 10,000.00 1
$5000/day 1
NA 1
no comment 1
Significant 1

TABLE 6
FINANCIAL SPENDING AUTHORITY
(CAPITAL)
n=
$ - 25
$ 10.00 1
$ 5,000.00 2
$ 10,000.00 1
$ 20,000.00 1
$ 25,000.00 3
$ 30,000.00 2
$ 50,000.00 3
$ 100,000.00 6
$ 250,000.00 4
$ 400,000.00 1
$ 500,000.00 2
$ 1,000,000.00 4
$ 5,000,000.00 2
$ 10,000,000.00 2
Significant 1

TABLE 7
WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY'S/ SBU'S RETURN-ON-ASSETS

n= 15.0% 3
0.0% 1 16.9 1
1.3% 1 20 4
2.0% 1 30 1
3.0% 1 50 1
4.0% 1 83 1
4.6% 1 Don't know 15
5.0% 1 Confidential 1
7.0% 2 N/A 9
9.9% 1 No Comment 1
10.0% 6 No Details 1
11.0% 1 Not Reported 1
11.9% 1 Proprietary 1
12.0% 4 Very low margin environment
14.0% 1 currently 1

TABLE 8
2 YRS CHANGE IN PRODUCTION HOURS (%)
-20.0% 2
-10.0% 1
-5.0% 4
-4.0% 1
0.0% 15
0.5% 1
1.0% 2
1.5% 1
2.0% 2
5.0% 6
10.0% 6
20.0% 3
25.0% 1
50.0% 1
75.0% 1
38 1
60 1
Don't Know 3 8
20% more paperwork (FERC
required) 1
Basis Changed 1
Improved 1
N/A 2
No Comment 1
Proprietary 1

TABLE 9
ONE YR CHANGE IN CAPITAL BUDGET (%)
-50.0% 2
-30.0% 1
-25.0% 2
-20.0% 2
-15.0% 3
-15.0% 1
-10.0% 1
0.0% 18
2.0% 1
5.0% 5
7.0% 1
10.0% 4
15.0% 3
20.0% 3
25.0% 2
30.0% 2
50.0% 2
80.0% 1
Don't know 7

TABLE 10
ONE YEAR CHANGE IN OPERATING BUDGET (%)
-40.0% 1
-20.0% 2
-16.0% 1
-15.0% 1
-10.0% 4
-5.0% 2
-3.0% 3
-2.0% 1
-1.0% 1
0.0% 18
0.5% 1
2.0% 2
3.0% 2
5.0% 3
10.0% 7
20.0% 3
55.0% 1
Don't know 5
Basis changed 1
N/A 3
no comment 1
Not Reported 1

TABLE 11
SAFETY
What is the number of cases involving job transfers or restricted work activity?
0 11
0.5 1
1 2
3 1
4 1
5 6
6 1
7 1
20 1
48 1
Don't know 16
DART rate of 2.8 1
Do not allow restricted work / transfers; If employee is injured, must remain off
work 1
I am not in the Safety Department, but it is very good 1
Low 3
N/A 7
No comment 1
Not reported 1
Not sure but I think 2 cases 1
Unknown 1
Very low 1


TABLE 12
SAFETY
What is the number of fatalities?
0 42
1 4
8 1
10 1
Don't know 4
2 in 10 years 1
extremely low 1
I am not in the Safety Department, but it is very
good 1
N/A 3
N/A but very low 1
Not Reported 1

TABLE 13
SAFETY
What is the number of first aids?
0 3 122 1
2 1 150 1
3 1 170 1
10 1 206 1
12 1 300 1
15 5 Don't know 13
27 1 fairly high 1
38 1 I am not in the Safety Department, but it is very
40 1 good 1
43 1 N/A 15
50 1 N/A but low 1
50 1 no comment 1
59 1 Not Reported 1
65 1 Not tracked 1

TABLE 14
KEY METRICS USED TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE
Key Metrics
(Top 6 open‐ended responses ‐ % providing response)
"What are the key metrics used to evaluate your performance?"
Financial Performance 16%
Customer Service 22%
Productivity 25%
Safety/Environment 58%
Costs 63%
Availability/Reliability 67%

APPENDICES
Appendix A: MESSAGE SENT VIA E-MAIL THROUGH QUALTRICS
Our research team at Texas A&M University would like to draw your attention to a timely study on Asset Performance Management.
We strongly believe the topic is current and relevant to industry and academia alike. Your experience and expertise will prove
invaluable in shedding more light on current industry standards and practices. We understand completion of the survey will take time
away from your busy schedule and commitments but we are sure that you will find the survey interesting and informative. Each
question was selected based on extensive review of literature and industry practice.
To express our gratitude for your precious time spent completing of the survey, our research team is willing to provide an objective
benchmark report of the findings at no cost. Simply include your name and e-mail address at the end of the survey.
We can assure you that the confidentiality of the information you share with us will be preserved. Your individual responses will not
be revealed, but only combined with many others to learn about overall practices. If you would like us to sign a non-disclosure
agreement, we will be happy to do so.
It should take you about 15-20 minutes to complete the survey. If you are interrupted while responding to it, your data will be
preserved and you will be able to return to the relevant page when time allows.
We ask that you please help us to gain valuable insight into Asset Performance Management practices by clicking on the following
link.
If you have any questions or need clarification. Please contact Beth Koufteros at bkoufteros@mays.tamu.edu.


Appendix B: SEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR DATABASE 3

The search for contacts was conducted using MintGlobal, a global database providing company information for over 3 million
companies worldwide. Access to this database is provided for all students and faculty at Texas A&M University, through the campus-
wide library system.
The search was based primarily on industries concerned with manufacturing operations for continuous processes.
The following list specifies the particular industries used in the search: Mining, Chemical/Petrochemical, Pulp & Paper, Oil & Gas,
Pharmaceuticals, Power/Utility, and Transportation
The list was then scaled down to a more appropriate and manageable list of contacts according to (a) executive department and (b)
level of responsibility. See the following list for specific parameters for these categories:
A. Executive department
a. Engineering
b. Operations
c. Maintenance
d. Safety and reliability
B. Level of responsibility
a. Supervisor
b. Manager
c. Director
d. VP
e. Executive officer
Specific board members and advisors were also included if identified as relevant to the survey content (safety, reliability,
maintenance).
The final step in choosing the appropriate contacts was to scale the list of companies down to those of a particular size. Thus, we
included the top 25% of the companies on the list based on operating revenue, which included companies with operating revenue
exceeding $25m.
In total, 61 surveys were completed and some data from 10 partially completed surveys was incorporated into the analysis. Many
survey items were adapted from other validated scales from research in manufacturing (See Appendix C)

Appendix C: SOURCES FOR SURVEY ITEMS
Ahmad, Sohel, and Roger G.Schroeder. 2003. The impact of human resource management practices on operational performance:
Recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of Operations Management 21 (1): 19-43. Adapted scale items.
Choi, Thomas Y., and Karen Eboch. 1998. The TQM paradox: Relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer
satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management 17 (1): 59-75. Adapted scale items.
De Jong, Ad, and Ko de Ruyter. 2004. Adaptive versus proactive behavior in service recovery: The role of self-managing teams.
Decision Sciences 35 (3): 457-91. Adapted scale items.
Gilgeous, Vic. 1995. Strategic concerns and capability impeders. International Journal and Production Management 15 (10): 4-29.
Adapted scale items.
Hult, G. Thomas, Robert F. Hurley, Larry C. Guinipero, and Ernest L. Nichols, Jr. 2000. Organizational learning in global purchasing:
A model and test of internal users and corporate buyers. Decision Sciences 31 (2): 293-325. Adapted scale items.
Koufteros, X., Texas A&M University. (2011) Items adapted from an in-progress supply chain security study.
Levitt, Joel. Handbook of Maintenance Management. 1997. Industrial Press, Inc.
Malhotra, Manoj K., Michelle L. Heine, and Varun Grover. 2001. An evaluation of the relationship between management practices
and computer aided design technology. Journal of Operations Management 19 (3): 307-33. Adapted scale items.
Nakajima, Seiichi. Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance. 1988. Productivity Press.
Powell, Thomas C. 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic Management
Journal 16 (1): 15-37.
Stratman, Jeff K., and Aleda Roth. 2002. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) competence constructs: Two-stage multi-item scale
development and validation. Decision Sciences 33 (4): 601-28. Adapted scale items.
University of Minnesota. Items adapted from an in-progress high performance manufacturing study.
Zohar, Dov. 1980. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology 65
(1). 96-102.
Zohar, Dov and Gil Luria. 2005. A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-Level Relationships Between Organization and Group-
Level Climates. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (4) 616-628.

Appendix C: SOURCES FOR BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Barney, J. B. 1986. Organization culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11,
656-665.
Dittrick. P., 2009 OHSA Fines BP $87.4 million in Texas City Aftermath. Oil & Gas Journal 107 (42): 27.
Merrick, Edwin A., C. Ron Leonard, Phil Eckhardt, and Harry Baughman. 1999. Risk-based methods optimize maintenance work
scope. Oil & Gas Journal 97 (3): 47-51.
Narasimhan, V. Lakshmi. 2008. A risk management toolkit for integrated engineering asset maintenance. Australian Journal of
Mechanical Engineering 5(2): 105-114 .
Valero CEO Bill Klesse, “Valero must focus on increasing returns on our assets … a 1% improvement in the mechanical availability
would yield ≈ $140mm operating income improvement…” (Credit Suisse Energy Summit / February 8, 2007).
APM Advisor, June 2010, www.apmadvisor.com.
ExxonMobil’s 2006 annual report. (http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/XOM_2006_SAR.pdf)
SMB Guide to High Performance

Manufacturing Practices, p 28 (https://www-304.ibm.com/businesscenter/cpe/download0/127219/MBTIBMMfgPractices.pdf)
(Smith, Frank, Control Engineering, 12/01/2007,

http://www.controleng.com/index.php?id=2735&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=14564&cHash=191992)

Appendix D: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Beth Koufteros is currently a lecturer in the Management Department of the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University
(College Station, TX, USA), as well as a research consultant with the Aggies in Business program. At Texas A&M, she was also
assistant director of student services for the Information and Operations Management Department. Prior to this, Ms. Koufteros was an
instructor and lecturer at Florida Atlantic University (Boca Raton, FL, USA), The University of Texas (El Paso, TX, USA), and
Bowling Green State University (Bowling Green, OH, USA). She holds both a Master of Organization Development and a B.S. in
Business Administration with a dual major in Human Resource Management and Production Operations Management from Bowling
Green State University. Ms. Koufteros completed seven doctoral level courses with a specialization in Training and Development at
The University of Toledo (Toledo, OH, USA).
Ryan Zimmerman is an Assistant Professor of Management at Texas A&M University (College Station, TX, USA) and Director of
the Master of Science in Human Resource Management program. Dr. Zimmerman teaches and conducts research in the area of human
resource management. His research has appeared in journals including Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal
of Management, and Journal of Vocational Behavior. He is a recipient, along with two co-authors, of the Academy of Management
Human Resources Division's 2006 Scholarly Achievement Award for the most significant paper in the field of human resource
management. He serves on the editorial boards of Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, and Journal of Vocational
Behavior. He earned his M.B.A. (Human Resources & Strategic Management) and Ph.D. (Management & Organizations) from the
University of Iowa (Iowa City, IA, USA). Prior to earning his Ph.D., Dr. Zimmerman worked as a manager, HR specialist, and
internal HR consultant.
John Verghese received a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering from Anna University (Chennai, TN, India) and an M.E. in Industrial
Engineering from Texas A&M University (College Station, TX, USA). He is currently a doctoral candidate in Operations and Supply
Chain Management at the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. A publisher of numerous articles, conference proceedings
and papers, Mr. Verghese focuses his research in supply chain integration, risk management and organizational theory.

Texas A&m Univ - Asset Performance Management Study - Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas A&m Univ - Asset Performance Management Study - Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asset Performance Management Study

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 1

SURVEY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 2

Support Level of Responsibility Time with Current Company

See Table 1 See Table 4

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 3

See Table 4 See Table 4

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 4

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 5

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 6

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 7

• Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

• continuous improvement of asset performance

• advanced analytics and predictive modeling

• predictable production delivery

• understanding of past failures and successes

• connection to real-time data from plant systems

• elimination of cross-departmental barriers

• information that can be leveraged across the enterprise

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 8

GENERAL SURVEY ANALYSIS

• Availability - 82% 70%

• Uptime - 73% 60%

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 9

• Utilization - 74% 80%

• ROI - 70% 70%

• EBITDA - 51% 60%

• ROA - 51% 50%

• Unplanned downtime - 48% 40%

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 10

• “Our asset 60%

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 11

• “We implement APM

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 12

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 13

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 14

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 15

Survey respondents indicated difficulty in

• Difficulty recruiting skilled 78%

employees – 79% 76%

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 16

APM: Risk Management

Survey respondents indicated that

• “When budgets are reduced, 78%

• “With an effective APM plan, 72%

work by avoiding unnecessary efficiently. unnecessary maintenance.

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 17

Risk Data Collection

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 18

Training Data Collection

Organizational Culture Data Collection

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 19

APM Methods APM Tools

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 20

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 21

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 22

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 23

SURVEY RESULTS BY QUESTION

Key Performance Indicators (PI)

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 24

To a very small extent To a small extent Somewhat To a great extent To a very great extent Don't Know

Study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University 25