Has there been any research linking the size of a maintenance department to the total asset value or number of equipment? I am struggling to justify hiring more staff for our growing facility. Any recommendations would be appreciated. It's worth noting that we do not currently have a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) in place.
It is commonly believed that total maintenance costs should be around 2-3% of the plant's Capital Replacement Value (CRV). It is important to determine if your maintenance costs fall within this range. Additionally, it is crucial to assess whether your maintenance approach is predominantly reactive or if you have transitioned to a more proactive and predictive mode based on Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) studies. Consider the current stage of your maintenance organization and the age of your facility - whether it is new, 10 years old, or approaching 20 years and in need of rejuvenation. There is no standard formula correlating the size of the maintenance department to the total asset value or the number of equipment, but the department typically comprises various disciplines such as static, rotating, electrical, instrumentation, and civil engineering, as well as maintenance planning responsible for key performance indicators (KPIs) and Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS).
In a benchmarking study of the chemicals and refining industries, data revealed craft numbers per billion dollars RAV. According to the study conducted by Solomon Associates in 2004, the average numbers were E&I: 26 and Mech: 46, while the best practice numbers were E&I: 12 and Mech: 33. It is important to note that benchmark studies serve as tools to identify gaps and opportunities, rather than directly determining workforce size. Factors such as operating mode, maintenance programs, efficiency improvements, proper planning and scheduling, backlog measurement, and utilization of contractors play a crucial role in determining the optimal crew size. Without a CMMS in place, it may be challenging to accurately assess crew requirements, making qualitative evaluations necessary. While quantitative data and benchmarks can provide guidance, it is essential to avoid simplistic comparisons as each operation is unique.
In response to your inquiries... We are currently operating in a reactive mode at a facility that is 4 years old. Our preventive maintenance (PM) program has been in place for 4 months, and we have recently transitioned our condition-based monitoring (CBM) / predictive maintenance program to a monthly routine through a contracted service. We are in the process of hiring a Planner/Scheduler within the next month, and we plan to implement a CMMS/EAM program by August. Our facility is experiencing rapid growth and we are looking to quantify this expansion. We are considering utilizing the 3%-9% RAV benchmark from Gulati's maintenance and reliability best practices book, but we are unsure how it compares to other industries or experiences. As we navigate this fast-paced environment without a mature plant or established programs, we are particularly interested in learning how other facilities determine the appropriate size of their maintenance department. This information will be valuable as we anticipate questions about our department's capacity in the future.
Is your plant filled with expensive, reliable equipment or cheaper, low-maintenance equipment? Despite potentially having the same value, it's unlikely that a single number can adequately represent both scenarios. Once your CMMS is operational and accurately recording data, you should be able to find the answer you're looking for.
Which type of plant is being referred to? How many primary pieces of equipment are typically found in this type of plant? Is it common to have hundreds of major equipment pieces within the plant? Do you have the object statistics readily available? It is essential to address each discipline, such as maintenance planning (including CMMS, KPIs, daily coordination, and shutdown planning), static equipment, rotating equipment, electrical and instrumentation (both field and control), and civil activities.
In my experience, there's undoubtedly a correlation between the size of a maintenance department and total asset value/number of equipment. A larger and more complex facility often requires more staff to ensure regular checks and maintenance emergencies are well-managed. Look at it as an investment in preserving your assets value, rather than extra cost. However, regardless of the staff size, the key often lies in efficiency. This is where a CMMS could enhance your operations significantly. It optimizes maintenance tasks, reduces downtime, and provides crucial data to make informed decisions. Since you don't currently have one, introducing a CMMS might be a compelling first step before hiring more staff.
From my experience, I'd say the size of a maintenance department should indeed correlate with the total asset value or equipment count, although the exact scale can vary based on the type of industry or equipment you're managing. More complex or high-value equipment will naturally require a larger staff to maintain effectively. Establishing a CMMS might be a useful first step for you - it could not only optimize your existing workforce but could also provide data to justify further staff expansion. Plus, there are research papers out there discussing such correlations, check out the studies by Ahmed and Lutfi, 2013 and the work by Awwad and Mohammad, 2015.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: Yes, the impact of maintenance department size on total asset value has been studied. Research suggests that the size of the maintenance department can have a significant influence on the overall asset value and equipment maintenance efficiency.
Answer: Research indicates that a properly sized maintenance department can lead to improved asset performance, reduced downtime, and increased equipment lifespan, ultimately contributing to higher total asset value. By investing in additional staff, you may enhance operational efficiency and protect the long-term value of your assets.
Answer: While implementing a CMMS can streamline maintenance processes and enhance decision-making, the impact of maintenance department size on total asset value can still be significant without a CMMS. However, integrating a CMMS may further improve efficiency and allow for better resource allocation within your maintenance department.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.