Maintenance maturity is a key issue for any industrial operator, and climbing the maturity ladder will always be the goal. However, many organisations in this space remain uncertain about the maturity of their maintenance operations. This may stem from a combination of operational priorities and the challenges around obtaining the reliable data needed to facilitate more strategic planning
The 2024 maintenance engineering report ‘Performance in Focus’, developed by RS in collaboration with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), shone a light on this issue. The report provided a mixed view of how organisations approach facility and asset management. Nearly 30 per cent of companies rate their maturity level as high— doubled on the previous year’s figures – while 53 per cent assess their maturity as medium, and 19 per cent consider it low.
So what does this mean for the future of maintenance strategy evolution with the challenges industry players are facing in bridging the information gap?
Data reliability remains a key challenge
According to RS’ report, one of the main reasons organisations feel their maintenance functions aren’t as mature as they could be is the quality of the data they rely on. The report found that 57 per cent of respondents believe their data is reliable, while 28 per cent are neutral and 13 per cent consider it unreliable. Furthermore, leaders tend to have less confidence in the data compared to those in hands-on roles, with only 47 per cent of senior leaders trusting the information, compared to 62 per cent of operational staff.
Not having reliable data means the true source of an issue is never really determined and therefore is harder to resolve or improve on maintenance approach. Even worse, poor data can lead to going down the wrong resolution path, like fixing electrical issues when the root cause is mechanical, or overloading a machine to increase output without realising the underlying problem.
Despite the need for better data management, many organisations still rely on outdated tools, according to Performance in Focus. The report showed 62 per cent of respondents use computerised maintenance management systems (CMMS), and 59 per cent still use Excel spreadsheets. Some 37 per cent rely on paper records.
A combination of cost concerns and cultural factors can often prevent organisations from adopting more advanced tools. Not only do larger systems and online monitoring come with a financial investment, but the fear factor of unveiling gaps in engineering knowledge can prevent some engineering departments from engaging in the right technologies.
A growing focus on condition monitoring
Some of the most commonly used condition-monitoring techniques across industries were highlighted in RS’ report. These include vibration monitoring (48%), oil analysis (47%), and current monitoring (44%). Thermography and ultrasonics are being used by 38 per cent and 26 per cent of organisations, respectively.
Companies primarily implement these techniques to gain a better understanding of asset health (58%), predict failures (55%), and increase asset uptime (36%).
Arguably, tools like ultrasonics and thermography should be standard in any maintenance department, as essential to identifying and addressing maintenance issues as part of daily operations.
Diagnosing and reducing downtime
Effective data collection is not only crucial for diagnosing issues but also for reducing the impact of unscheduled downtime. The report reveals that 30 per cent of organisations measure Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), while 22 per cent track Mean Time to Repair (MTTR). This could be because the best-performing maintenance teams are those that focus on extending MTBF and reducing MTTR.
To achieve this, a clear understanding of critical assets is needed along with the necessary elements like cleaning, inspection, and lubrication. Monitoring for early indicators of failure is crucial in diagnosing and addressing problems before they lead to downtime.
Reducing MTTR also involves having the right skilled labour and spare parts readily available, and this is where working with a reliable industrial distribution partner is crucial: one that can ensure fast-moving spare parts are on-site, while slower-moving parts are available through their supply chain.
Key to the maintenance process is also an understanding what’s truly critical as not every asset in a factory is essential to performance. It’s important to prioritise maintenance on the key equipment that keeps operations moving, where impact of failure is high.
Understanding the financial cost of downtime can be a powerful motivator for improvement and help with getting stakeholders on board when it comes to financial outlay on maintenance. If downtime costs an organisation £50,000, justifying hiring a technician for a year to reduce those costs and improve efficiency – which could in turn increase production and improve profitability – would be a no brainer.
The Performance in Focus report sheds light on the current state of maintenance maturity and highlights the importance of reliable data, effective monitoring, and strategic prioritisation of assets. It is clear organisations that embrace data-driven decision-making, invest in the right tools, and focus on critical asset management are best positioned to reduce downtime, improve performance, and achieve greater operational efficiency.
For more insights on the findings from the RS Performance in Focus report, click here.
For more articles like this, visit our Industrial Data & AI channel.
