Introduction

Today, companies are faced with many options when selecting and implementing a maintenance management system.  Not only must they deal with the dilemma of selecting from the multitudes of available Computerized Maintenance Management systems (CMMS) systems, but there are now many alternatives for installing, implementing and delivering the software application to the end user mechanic, planner and storeroom manager.

This paper presents a case study of the approach taken by one company to integrate several divergent systems into a state of the art CMMS, hosted and delivered by a Managed Service Provider (MSP).  With careful attention to detail, they built a strong foundation for improving both equipment reliability and the efficiency of the maintenance workforce while minimizing up-front software acquisition and ongoing support costs.  Although the focus of the CMMS implementation project was support of the maintenance and materials departments, the unique technical aspects of the project will be a large part of this discussion.

Managed Service Providers – a Primer

The term Managed Service Provider has evolved into the description of a company that provides organizations access to enterprise application software which would traditionally reside on the customer organization’s computers.  These services are provided on a fee basis by the MSP who maintains the software on servers in data centers, typically making use of the Internet for the distribution of the application to the end users. 

In most cases, the MSP must integrate their program into locally running business applications, typically through custom interface programs. 

The MSP usually provides the implementation service and facilitates the design and implementation of interfaces and product customizations as required.  A typical value-added scenario is for an MSP to specialize in a particular application such as an Enterprise Resource Planning program or CMMS.  Their experience, having evolved from multiple previous implementations, enables their customer to get the application running quickly while minimizing risk.  After start-up, the MSP will then be responsible for the operation of the software throughout its life cycle.  This includes help desk support, server routine maintenance, software upgrades, database backups and maintenance of the communication links.  Figure 1 depicts the relationships between the MSP and the client company in the delivery of an enterprise software system.

Overview of J&L Specialty Steel and Projetech

J&L Specialty Steel, Inc. is the second largest austenitic stainless steel producer in the United States and produces a wide variety of standard AISI grades as well as special chemistries.  The company produces flat rolled stainless steel at its two facilities located in Midland, Pennsylvania and Louisville, Ohio.  The company is an integrated producer of stainless products, capable of converting scrap material into highly finished stainless products used in many applications throughout the world.   

At the time of the CMMS implementation, maintenance at J&L was managed by four maintenance managers, six maintenance planners and three storeroom managers.  The business is aligned around four departments:

• Primary – responsible for melting scrap and casting the slab steel.
• DRAP – Direct Anneal and Pickle – a state of the art finishing line, which takes cold rolled steel bands as input and finished product as output.
• Conventional finishing – a finishing department comprised of several autonomous finishing processes.
• Louisville, OH, - a separate finishing operation located 80 miles away from the main operations in Midland, PA.

This project commenced in the fall of 2002 and was completed in July, 2003.  On June 1, 2004, J&L was acquired by Allegheny Ludlum Corporation.

Projetech is based in Cincinnati, OH, with an office in New Castle, PA.  Projetech’s core competencies include:

• Project management of enterprise CMMS implementation initiatives
• Configuration and customization of the CMMS to best meet the business needs and requirements of the client organization
• Development and presentation of user training to insure effective software use and process implementation
• User field coaching and support after roll-out

Projetech is a Managed Service Provider utilizing MAXIMO, a leading CMMS / Asset Management System. 

Software Options Considered

When J&L embarked on the initiative to improve maintenance operations and asset reliability, they first defined the business requirements and then evaluated CMMS software vendors for the best fit.  Detailed software specifications were developed and, after preliminary evaluation, five vendors were selected to present demonstrations and detailed proposals.  A maintenance steering committee was formed and chartered with one of the first results of their efforts the selection of MAXIMO as the CMMS of choice.

At the time of project, J&L was owned by the Arcelor Group, a major world player in the steel industry.  Arcelor uses MAXIMO as their CMMS and has a steel-industry specific configuration that it offers to subsidiary companies throughout the world.  They maintain 25 databases throughout their organization which are supported by a 30 person IT staff for the 5,000 plus users.  Arcelor presented a compelling case on the merits of their solution, however, the steering committee at J&L had concerns about support residing in an international location; concerns that proved to be quite valid as J&L was no longer under the Arcelor corporate umbrella 18 months later.

In-House vs. Hosted Software Delivery

Once the steering committee made the decision to go with MAXIMO release 4.1.1, the company had one additional decision; purchase and install the hardware and software internally or partner with a Managed Service Provider for the software delivery and implementation expertise.

If installing the software locally, J&L could deploy the software as a ‘fat client’ (the application software resides on the client PC) or as a ‘thin client’ (application software resides on central servers).  In either case the primary cost components include:

• Application software (the initial cost plus annual support costs).
• Database software (usually Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle).
• Database server (and a software application server, if thin client technology is used).
• Report writing software.
• Client hardware, if needed

Managed Service Provider as Applied to a CMMS

In many organizations, a CMMS is a good application for the MSP concept.  Most enterprise CMMS systems require a fairly high level of information technology expertise to install and maintain. These are skills that many organizations are reluctant to fund, especially for one application with a fairly limited audience such as the maintenance organization.

The Computerized Maintenance Management MSP:

• Is aligned with a particular CMMS vendor, in this case MAXIMO
• Performs the software implementation, including integration with the other enterprise systems
• Supports the users through Service Level Agreements (SLA)
• Provides total data management
• Provides guaranteed access to the CMMS

Additionally, after the implementation has been completed and the project enters the operational phase, the MSP typically provides these system administration activities:

• Creating user ID’s, resetting user  passwords
• Configuring security groups and user restrictions
• Creating and maintaining value lists
• Performing routine monthly & year-end updates
• Providing application and technical Help-Desk support
• Providing PM work order generation
• Providing database configuration services
• Report writing, trouble-shooting, modification, testing, and registration
• Customizing screens
• Integrating with third-party applications
• Applying software upgrades & patches
• Training and coaching, both online and on site

MSP Technical Architecture

How does the software application (MAXIMO in this case) reach a maintenance planner’s desktop PC from a data center in Texas?  There are several variations of what’s commonly known as ‘thin client’, or more technically, Independent Computing Architecture (ICA) protocol.  The major products in this arena include Microsoft’s Terminal Services and the MetaFrame product from Citrix Systems. 

In a thin client server-based computing architecture, the data storage and application processing takes place on central servers, while the client computers accept the keyboard instructions and mouse clicks from the user and display the result.  As shown in figure 2, the Internet is the wide area network.  Client software is typically a small remote desktop application or in most cases a standard Internet browser will suffice.

Advantages and Disadvantages

As the J&L team reviewed the options, the following advantages of the MSP model for their application of the CMMS were documented:

• Initial startup costs are significantly less because no servers are required and the software costs are the responsibility of the MSP vendor.
• The time required to have the application ready for configuration is significantly less.  Usually a development environment can be available in less than a day.
• The expertise of the MSP will be higher, as they are dedicated CMMS professionals.  Typically, installing and maintaining a CMMS is their primary business focus.
• Typically, the response to user issues and enhancement requests will be quicker by the MSP as they are bound to the terms of the Service Level Agreement (SLA).
• System reliability and database backups may be done more professionally by a MSP for the same reason - they are professionals working under the terms of a defined SLA.
• Access to the CMMS can be from any Internet connection.

There are also a few concerns to consider with the MSP approach that may affect the decision:

• Risk.  Because two vendors are now involved in supplying the CMMS (the software vendor and the MSP), there is an increased risk factor.  If either vendor becomes insolvent, the CMMS implementation will be adversely affected.
• Some customizations and enhancements are simply not possible in a MSP environment because they may affect the other customers of the MSP.  Typically, though, screen changes and basic system configuration options are still possible.
• Direct access to the database tables is typically not permitted by the MSP in order to protect database security.
• The client may be limited to the reporting tools offered by the MSP.
• Document linking is more challenging in the MSP environment because the file servers where the documents are stored are located in a remote network at the data center.
• Time zone – if the data center is located in a different time zone, confirm with the MSP what date/time stamp your records will have.

The Decision

After a thorough review of the options and pros and con’s of each, the J&L steering committee recommended the MSP solution as provided by Projetech.  Specifically, the major points of the agreement included:

• MAXIMO release 4.1.1 with the latest patch
• Microsoft SQL Server 7 database
• Windows Terminal Services deployment
• Crystal Reports
• Nightly database backups
• System availability of 99.7% or better
• 200 named users (initial agreement)

Getting to Work

After the decision of the steering committee, it was time for the project team to get to work.  A fairly traditional implementation project plan was developed, roles and responsibilities were defined, and personnel designated to support the effort.  The following were assigned to the project, all more or less on a full time basis for the seven month duration of the project:

• Project manager – J&L
• Maintenance planners from each area (6) J&L
• Storeroom managers (3) J&L
• MAXIMO functional consultant and assistant to the project manager (MSP).
• As-needed technical resources for data conversion and development of the interfaces to existing legacy systems (MSP).

As shown in figure 3, the main components of the implementation consisted of 1) prepare the CMMS, 2) prepare the data, and 3) prepare the users to use the system.

From the initial kick-off workshop to final implementation, the project spanned about seven months and consisted of these components:

• Project planning and initiation

-     Confirmed roles and responsibilities

-     Conducted project kick-off workshop

§         Design of the CMMS solution

-     Developed process maps for work management and inventory control.

-     Developed detailed specification document and project plan

-     Developed change management plan

-     Developed data conversion plan

• Install technical environment      

-     Created, configured and tested PROD, DEV, and TEST Database environments

-     Installed TS Client software on workstations in offices and plant

• Project execution – software configuration        

-     Developed Location hierarchy, storerooms, critical equipment, GL Account structure

-     Configured value lists, failure codes, WO priorities, signature security groups

-    Converted data (equipment, PM schedules & tasks, inventory records, companies)

-     Developed, built and tested interfaces (PO, material receipt, labor, unit operating hours, unit downtime delays)

• Implemented handheld data collectors
• Crystal Reports training
• System testing
• User training and process rollout           

-     Followed-up with field coaching as needed – completed 30 weeks after project launch 

Challenges 

As with any software initiative that changes the way an organization conducts its business, this project had its share of challenges.  These are a few of the notable examples. 

Data Conversion.   

Before the project, J&L had several autonomous systems in place for managing inventory and maintenance.  The inventory system was comprised of four Microsoft Access databases which converted quite readily into the inventory module of the CMMS.  The main data conversion challenge was the conversion of 52,000 preventive maintenance tasks into PM masters and job plans.  In the previous system, each task had a frequency and in the new system, tasks were bundled together into job plans grouped by equipment, frequency, craft, and equipment status (up or down).

Interfaces to other systems. 

To achieve the business benefits defined by the steering committee, it was necessary to install four daily interface programs between the CMMS and J&L’s procurement and manufacturing production systems.  An initial concern of the project team was that these interfaces would be difficult or impossible in the “hosted software” environment that was adopted. However, utilizing ODBC database connectivity, these data transfers on a daily basis were straightforward to implement and have proven to be reliable.  These are the functions of the interface programs:

• The J&L purchasing system sends purchase order and inventory item receipt information to the CMMS daily
• The CMMS exports labor hours to a timekeeping system once each shift
• Unit operating hours from the mainframe production system are exported to the CMMS for meter based PM scheduling
• Production downtime from the mainframe production system is exported to the CMMS daily

Handheld data collectors.

Part of the initial scope included implementation of several handheld data collectors for managing work orders and inventory issues.  The project team had concerns about the added complexity this would bring to the project but the steering committee felt the handhelds were necessary to accomplish the defined benefits of the new system. 

The handheld devices used were “ruggedized” Symbol units using the Palm operating system that synchronized with the MAXIMO database when cradled. 

After prototyping the devices, these processes were implemented:

• Recording condition monitoring data such as tank levels and filter differential pressures
• Managing inspection and rounds work orders

Work order completions by crafts. 

A key decision of the steering committee was to have work order completion information entered into the CMMS by the individual craftworker.  This had several ramifications for the project team, including: 

Training – the training audience, if craft-workers were trained, would number over 200 and would require training at a level of competency that those less skilled with computer could handle.  The goal of training and preparing users for the new system was to eliminate (or minimize) the dreaded “Valley of Despair” shown in figure 4 below.

Screen design – two new screens were developed with the intent of simplifying the presentation and data entry for the craftworkers.  With the consolidated and simplified screens, virtually all the transactions done by a craftworker could be done on a maximum of two screens, simplifying the training and ongoing support requirements. 

Level of detail.  As with most CMMS implementations, especially those driven in large part by engineers, there can be a tendency to attempt to collect too much (or the wrong) data, resulting in excessive system administration time for the technicians and other end users. 

In the end all of these challenges were resolved and much was learned along the way! 

Building a Foundation for Reliability

One of the primary business drivers for the funding of the CMMS implementation was to increase equipment OEE (Operating Equipment Effectiveness).  Realizing this long term strategic goal, the project team focused, not on overnight achievement, but on building a foundation upon which this goal could be achieved.  The major components of this foundation included:

• A logical and effective equipment hierarchy, necessary for accurate identification and tracking of maintenance activities and failures.  The hierarchy must be intuitive and logical because the majority of work requests are entered by operating personnel with limited knowledge of the equipment.
• PM schedules based on steel production rates.  This was a major improvement from the existing calendar based PM system.  In many cases the PM frequencies in use were not needed because production schedules did not require the equipment to operate.
• Equipment condition monitoring with handheld data collectors.
• Recording equipment failure information.  During the work order completion process, the technician is prompted to enter a failure cause for all corrective maintenance with just over 12,000 failure causes recorded thus far.
• Maintenance KPI’s.  Using standard report writing tools, calculating basic performance indicators has proven to be easy.  The primary maintenance performance indicators include:
  • PM completion rates by work order and task
  • Percentage of Planned/Unplanned maintenance
  • Failure rates for major equipment types
  • Pro-active work vs. reactive work

Results and Lessons Learned 

In the 15 months since the system was started up, just under 100,000 work orders have been created in the following broad categories:

• 65% preventive maintenance
• 30% corrective maintenance
• 5% projects and other non-maintenance activities

The MSP approach to delivering the CMMS has been successful with unplanned system downtime less than 2 hours in the 15 month period since entering production.  15 months after implementation, this is a summary of the MSP’s support performance:

• 156 total support issues
• Average time to resolve support issues
  • High priority – 3.13 hours
  • Low Priority – 15.28 hours
• Unscheduled system downtime – 110 minutes or an availability factor of 99.983%

The fact that the CMMS program resides in a data center 1500 miles away from the plant is transparent to the end user.  With adequate Internet bandwidth, a user cannot tell the difference between the MSP solution and a local CMMS installation.  In fact, many J&L users report they like the easy and ready access of the CMMS system from home! 

With positive results from the MSP relationship, the lessons learned are no different than any other enterprise CMMS implementation.  From the project manager’s perspective, 15 months later, these are the most significant ones:

• Data conversion – easy to underestimate, however it is time well spent as there is no better time than the implementation project to use efficient tools for data cleanup.
• Maintenance planners are key players in a CMMS implementation.
• A dedicated, small core team working nearly full time on the project enables progress to be made quickly, keeping the project on schedule.
• For end user training, a train-the-trainer approach works well.  People respond much better to someone in their organization conducting the training.  An added benefit is that the trainers become very knowledgeable and skilled in the new system.
• One or more management champions need to be visible and vocal.  Profound change is going to occur with a new work management system (or any system which changes business processes) and strong leadership is mandatory to affect the change.
• A structured implementation methodology keeps the team focused on progress and a successful product delivered on time.  The old adage “Plan the work, work the plan” is very true in a software implementation initiative.
• Minimize interfaces and modifications to the system.  Do not make modifications not supported by the CMMS vendor.  Roll out a stable, simple system and then let the users take ownership and clamor for enhancements.
• Define scope, get buy-in and move on.  It’s too easy to spend too much valuable time analyzing. 
• Communicate with users and prepare them for change.  Those with the ultimate control of whether the initiative succeeds or fails are the end users.  Where possible, simplify the main screens to make it as easy as possible for the most important end user.

In summary, contracting with an MSP for a hosted CMMS system may not be the best approach for all organizations, but for J&L, the results thus far are promising.  By implementing a user-friendly, state-of-the-art CMMS with a focus on the basics, they have achieved a foundation to improve the efficiency of the maintenance organization and the reliability of the plant’s critical assets.

More CMMS/EAM Resources

Register for the Enterprise Asset Management Summit in Las Vegas