You are on page 1of 8

Human Factor in Maintenance Performance Measurement

Diego Galar1, Christer Stenström1, Aditya Parida1, Rupesh Kumar 1, Luis Berges 2
Division of Operation and Maintenance Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden
Manufacturing Engineering and Advanced Metrology Group, Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A),
University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

x The human factor in maintenance management

The maintenance performance measurement is often faced and generally all matters relating to the
with a lack in knowledge about the real function of the maintenance function.
maintenance department within organizations, and
A number of conclusions on the use of metrics for
consequently the absence of appropriate targets emanating
from the global mission and vision. These facts bring about measuring the quality and performance of the
metrics not adapted to the real needs, which has a strong maintenance function within an organization will be
load of human factor and without a roadmap of the amount drawn from the combination of these two factors.
of data to be collected, their processing and use in decision It is noteworthy that performance measurement in
making. organizations is usually unwelcome, since its starting
This article proposes a model where qualitative and point is the attempt to improve a hypothetical negative
quantitative methods are combined in order to complement existing situation, likely to change because things are
advantages and disadvantages of them both. supposed to be able to be done better than up to now.
The way in which these performance measurements are
Keywords – Human factor, maintenance, indicators,
carried out is varying, thus highlighting:
x External assessment, that is an audit made by
someone unrelated to the organization
I. INTRODUCTION x Internal evaluation consisting of three constituent
Nowadays, new technologies, especially IT, are o Self-evaluation
available to all organizations. The difference between a o Evaluation made by subordinates
good and an excellent organization is not only found in o Assessment made by superiors
technology but also in the empowerment of human With regard to human factors in maintenance, this has
capital. Although technology is increasingly replacing been a subject of study since early implementations of
men in production organizations, they still need the Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) because the history
presence of operators to manage and maintain their of the evolution of maintenance departments inside the
machines. This dependence involves humans associated companies has been full of organizational changes, which
with a constant source of potential error that must be have made this function more or less important. This fact
minimized. has had an obvious influence on individuals linked to this
Within the field of asset management, there are department. These changes have ranged from the
multiple factors that affect the reliability of systems. One integration of maintenance in production, to the
factor that may influence the availability of any asset is outsourcing of the function itself. Therefore morale,
what is known as "Human Factors", which can be defined motivation or ownership pride has experienced many ups
as physical and psychological capabilities of the and downs. All this affects the performance measurement
individual, like training, education and experience. of a department, which is controversial in organizations
Human factor issues are also the conditions under which and usually ill-considered because of its cost or its
individuals must work, and that affect these individuals’ services perception.
capabilities, modifying the accomplishment of objectives.
Studies of employee influence within the field of II. HUMAN FACTOR IN THE MAINTENANCE
maintenance has been performed mainly on those areas in FUNCTION
which safety and reliability are the main concerns, as they
play a major role regarding the reliability of systems. The first development in the human relations
These fields include aeronautics, chemistry and energy approach was the Mayo’s work [1]. He established that
production, where safety, health and the environment psychological and social factors were important both for
often have the highest priority versus other factors. worker satisfaction and for productivity. Considerable
The influence of human factors in the maintenance advances were made during the period 1950-1970, mainly
performance measurement consists of two factors that by Maslow [2], Herzberg [3] and McGregor [4], in the
unequivocally form it: understanding of worker motivation.
x The issue of human element in performance Previous theories, especially McGregor’s [4], have had
measurement, whatever the activity undertaken. numerous applications in maintenance, the TPM is

978-1-4577-0739-1/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 1569

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM

actually an attempt of evolution from theory X to theory experience, many of the ideas of work teams and
Y, with the convinction that a flatter structure giving participatory management, like the Swedish Employers
workers autonomy would increase productivity. Confederation [5]. More recently, the industrial climate
Similarly we can conclude that the Maslow’s pyramid has changed again and brought about staff reductions and
[2] has an absolute validity in the field of maintenance, as new alliance policies which are changing the management
needs are concerned, in three basic aspects: style of human factors. In some cases, wrong maintenance
x It is difficult to perceive ownership pride when performance implementations and further decisions based
the bottom of the pyramid is not covered, i.e. the on them are backward steps of considerable size, due to
salary to support the operator and his/her family wrong outsourcing or misunderstood multitasking policy.
is unsatisfactory. The feelings of belonging are Therefore, identifying and understanding the human
typical of populations where the basic needs are factor make the employee work more satisfactory and
satisfied. thus more effective regarding of organizational objectives.
x The introduction of work teams has provided The interest lies in identifying the main factors
individuals with high autonomy, thus making influencing the effort to achieve the objectives of the
self-esteem and external recognition grow faster. maintenance. Some of the factors (e.g. a sense of
One factor that influences negatively is ownership of the equipment, which have an effect on the
subcontracting, where the non-membership in reliability and performance) will affect the maintenance
the organization leads to a little recognition as through targets, and hence the effectiveness of the
well as a reduced sociability that impedes the maintenance function, and others will affect (e.g.
operator's personal growth. motivation) through efficient resource use. It is important
x Number of maintenance accidents is higher to understand that management can undertake actions to
compared to normal operation accidents due to change human factors, for instance, creation of work
the non-standardized intervention in machines teams at shop floor level, proposed in TPM, can improve
with lowered barriers. With the appropriate the feeling of ownership.
ergonomics and protections established by When identifying human factors, the following points
regulating organizations employees feel are relevant:
protected and appreciated. x It is important to distinguish between human
Herzberg [3], in line with Maslow [2], as said above, factors and measures that affect them.
suggested a prioritization of physical needs with respect x Human factors can interact between one another.
to personal development. Regarding maintenance, the For instance, moral affects motivation.
physical capacity of an individual is also important. x Kelly [6] believes that some human factors, such
Mounting/dismounting or transporting of spare parts as goodwill toward the company, may be
become insurmountable obstacles if the maintenance regarded as dominant.
workers do not have the appropriate tools or the necessary x There are performance indicators that provide a
logistical support. measure of certain human factors. For instance,
During this period, the general view of industrial the level of absenteeism is an indicator of
sociologists was that work had become too controlled and morality. Such indicators will be easily
boring. This feeling towards excessively hierarchical calculated with "hard" and "soft" cost division.
structures with no room for innovation led to the The absenteeism rate is a parameter easily
following changes: obtained from the Enterprise Resource Planning
x Replacement of detailed instructions for clear or ERP, therefore the degree of absenteeism will
objectives. be easily quantified. Other parameters are not so
x Increased accountability, providing more immediate, they are more difficult to obtain.
opportunities for progress, performing tasks of When maintenance departments are audited, the
planning, organization, direction and control of a purpose is to get an idea of how well the human factors
joint function with other employees. are involved in this function, since human factors, the cost
x Study of job organization in an attempt to give model and the RAMS parameters are three underlying
greater satisfaction to human needs. factors for a successful audit, Galar, Berges et al. [18].
x Replacement of control oriented leadership to Strategies, structures and systems are not complete if they
mentor/advisor oriented leadership. do not provide the relevant information about human
x Suitable configuration to create efficient factors.
employee teams.
In recent years there have been many industrial III. AUDIT MAINTENANCE MODEL THROUGH
applications of this approach. Some applications have SURVEYS
focused on the design of individual jobs with some The maintenance audit is a concept that hides a
autonomy, but with little emphasis on self-managing complexity associated with the regulation vacuum and the
working groups. In other work, managers and unions have dispersion of opinions on this practice, even unusual in
worked together, implementing and modifying, through organizations. The criteria differ and the lack of

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM

standardized procedures and the scanty literature on this • Minimum training required for the auditor. Hoberg
subject, has led to a gap in research and in the application and Rudnick [11] propose that managers and supervisors
of the auditor models. There are few standards regarding appoint the staff who will be involved in the audit
the assessment of maintenance performance. The most process. An outside consultant or trainer will be in charge
classic one is the COVENIM 2500-93 [7] of Venezuela, of training on how to proceed and achieve objectives,
which considers an evaluation survey format. Recent which will have been clarified by management. The audit
standards, BS PAS 55:2008 [8] and EN 15341:2007 [9], team is the one to begin the process of collecting and
propose Key Performance Indicators or KPIs for analyzing data and to conduct the audit, and the facilitator
maintenance, i.e. numerical indicators derived from acts as a passive advisor. Many authors, like Kaiser [12]
information systems, as the most appropriate way of Idhammar [13] or Tomlingson [14] match Hoberg and
measuring performance of the maintenance function, Rudnick [11] on the need for specific training before the
similar to performance measurement in production audit, in order to create a multidisciplinary team to meet
management, e.g. Jovan, Zorzut [18]. the audit responsibilities.
Qualitative methods, like COVENIM 2500-93, come • Involvement of subcontractors in the audit process.
from surveys and interviews carried out, with a strong The audits should involve subcontractors, even assuming
component of human factor. While those made through the complexity of the measurement between internal and
indicators are considered and called quantitative, since external service and the suspicions that have traditionally
they are influenced only of the reliability of the data existed in relation to each other. The subcontractors are a
contained in the computer systems. These typologies major factor in this process because they are part of the
present characteristic problems and difficulties that arise performance of the maintenance function and contribute
from the nature of these evaluation processes, which are: to it. Therefore, the integration of contracts and their
x Qualitative: Related to the complexity of efficiency and effectiveness deserve special attention, and
evaluating the performance associated with work especially when studying outsourced parts where future
of people. outsourcing are going to be decided. Again, there will be
x Quantitative aspects: Quality of the records fear in internal staff that the produced data will possibility
stored in computer systems. increase outsourcing of the maintenance. On the other
This article proposes a model of combining qualitative hand, the contractors will not welcome the performance
and quantitative methods in order to complement measurement either. Provided information must be
advantages and disadvantages of the both. The surveys of reflected in the contractual terms, otherwise it becomes
different hierarchical levels constitute the qualitative side, useless. In the absence of measurements when performing
compared to the measurement of a set of indicators that the contracted services, the subsequent insertion of
represent the quantitative. The indicators revise the metrics is extraordinarily complex.
possible tendency of too optimistic or pessimistic • Involvement in the audit of the safety and the
responses of the surveys. Both methods should be used environment. Woodhouse [15], in his definition of asset
together, since their mixture will provide staff’s management, emphasizes that the workers and supervisors
perception of the reality, with the boundary conditions of are exposed to risks associated to manipulation of
the numerical indicators. Clarke [10] stresses upon that physical assets, hazardous for individuals and the
the maintenance assessment should include acquisition, environment. This is an intrinsic aspect of maintenance
operation, maintenance and disposal of assets in the performance management. That is why audits should
measurement, and observe their performance from all the involve aspects of quality, safety and environment.
aspects related to the organization. This inevitably leads Maintenance work is the most exposed activity to
to the use of both qualitative and quantitative indicators, accidents for staff and to environment. This is due to
as proposed in the model presented. many factors, like; safety barriers lowered, leakage of
The human factor influences both aspects, but the fluids, work at heights, exposure to chemicals, bad
qualitative one reflecting a more loaded measurement on ergonomics, etc. Apart from the damage the maintenance
this factor. However, several factors, involving people, staff may suffer from, there are a number of potential
influences the audit process: hazards towards production workers, which the
• Positive and negative experiences of previous internal maintenance is responsible for. As an example, the fact
and external audits. Obviously the most complex audit is that a mechanical seal of a centrifugal pump cannot leak
the first one due to the concerns and fears that it is fluid from the pumping, which can cause damage to the
believed to cause, and the difficulty of finding certain operator next to it. These two responsibilities, within the
records necessary in the production of indicators. team itself, and the one with respect to staff at the factory,
Systematization of the process will be streamlined in make safety and environment key factors in the audit of
future audits. The fear of negative results, warranting maintenance.
punitive measures, sanctions, cutbacks or restructurings • Participants in the audit: All the staff involved in the
prevails in this first part. Therefore one has to be prepared maintenance function should participate in the proposed
of the weaknesses in favor of the improvements that can audit process, as required by the Balanced Scorecard
be made. perspective. All hierarchical levels in the command chain
have input to the maintenance, and each should contribute

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM

in providing information and in achieving the metrics What is important in this assignment of ratings is to
needed. Staff from other areas, such as production, have a baseline, in order to first have an idea about the
purchasing, finance and human resources should be part current state of maintenance, and second, to compare
of the working group, as the issues arising from these under the same scale the various aspects involved, rather
departments have a high impact on effectiveness, but than the value itself, as an absolute value that does not
especially in maintenance efficiency. Obviously this type have any interest. It is therefore important to be especially
of multilevel and interdepartmental working groups careful in conducting the first audit, since it will be a
requires some degree of corporate maturity and an support and a subsequent reference. Individualized
established quality culture. graphics can also be generated for some specific items of
the surveys according to hierarchical levels, or
IV. MAINTENANCE AUDIT MODEL calculations of the dispersion in the results of different
people in the same category within the organization.
The audit submitted consists of both qualitative and
quantitative aspects. Numerical indicators are measured
through information systems, which constitute the
quantitative part, and the survey batteries, conducted at
different hierarchical levels, constitute the qualitative one. Different hierarchical levels

Level 3
The indicators together with the results of the surveys will

Level 2
Level 2
Score 1-5

Level 3

Level 3
be processed as shown in Fig. 1.

Level 1

Level 2
Different items evaluated as

Level 1

Level 1
preventive maintenance,
CMMS, WO system, etc. ..





EYS Surveys results
Fig. 2. Graphic representations of the survey items and hierarchical



The method proposed by Tavares [16] is focused on

ATOR COLLECTION maintenance radars, with around fifteen items, assessed
through surveys. The results, averaging the responses of
groups, are put into a radar chart, or spider diagram, so
Fig. 1. Proposed model of audit quality and quantity. that the items quantified adopt a morphology which is
characteristic of the organization, and allows visual
Both indicators and surveys will be properly balanced comparison between different maintenance organizations.
to give more credence to the measurements obtained from A case study, Fig. 3, identifies both areas that are highly
different dimensions. Once processed, they will be developed and areas that have significant gaps.
compared to references associated with each measure, Tavares proposal incorporates a high amount of human
which will show deviations from normality, alarms or the factors, the result of the audit is not a true reflection of the
ease of having the situation under control. Some reality, but a sum of weighted views according to the
indicators will provide measures in conventional people surveyed. The method proposed in this paper does
monetary units, time units, or number of shares, products, not eliminate the surveys, because this perception gained
etc. Others will be ratios of certain figures representing through these data yields non-negligible information. It is
percentages, such as the ones for the different items and the perception of those who carry out the maintenance.
types of maintenance, efficiency or inefficiency indexes, These insights will be useful in making subsequent
the desired value of which will be unity or zero. recommendations in the audit process.
The average value for each set of questions for each The proposed model combines the results of the surveys
overall aspect considered may occur on a chart as shown with KPIs. Each aspect assessed through surveys will be
in Fig. 2, together by a score sheet adapted to different associated with related KPIs, to study their positive or
hierarchical levels on which the survey was conducted. negative agreement. The resulting model will be the one
Thus, the auditor has a relative appreciation of all aspects in Fig. 4.
and can compare. Therefore, he/she can focus on those
aspects which are poorly qualified, and formulate a guide
to start studying the details of the reasons for the situation.

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM

objective numerical indicators, which reduce part of the

1. Pride ownership
2. Organization human factor inherent to surveys and interviews.
3. Training of At this point, the surveys, the results obtained from
4. Training of planners them, and the corresponding validation by the associated
5. Training of indicators are shown. In this case study, the audit results
6. Motivation
are from a paper mill and from a press, where the former
7. Management control one was audited in a traditional way and the latter one was
8. Work Orders audited with the proposed method. Both methods are
9. Rework
10. Tools presented for comparing the different results obtained.
11. Parts The indicators drawn from surveys and their further
12. Preventive
maintenance validation comes from those conducted at levels 3, 4 and
13. Maintenance 5, maintenance managers, supervisors and technicians
14. Measures of work
respectively, as shown in Fig. 5 and 6. Specific values of
15. Data Processing hierarchized answers following Likert scale, ranked from
1 to 5, can be found in Table I.
Fig. 3. Maintenance radar by Tavares [16].
Survey on the maintenance scheduling:
1. Are there work requests to the department from
equation other areas such as production, quality and
prevention of labor risks?
Surveys SURVEYS 2. Are there priorities between jobs?
Likert scale
APPROVED 3. Is there a workload known as outstanding work?
Surveys 4. Are these jobs scheduled?
5. Are these works planned?
6. Is the duration of the planned and scheduled work
Fig. 4. Model validation surveys through equations based on known with any degree of accuracy?
efficiency KPIs.
7. Is there a checking on both the work performance
n and the results obtained?
SurveysValidated ¦ Survey
i 1
Raw ˜ KPI Efficiency (1)
8. Are 95 % of maintenance works scheduled and
planned at the latest 1 day before being made?
Where n is the total number of questions performed in 9. Are spare parts, tools, equipment needed and
the survey and KPI equation is as follows: appropriate documentation ready for the
completion of this work?
n 10. Do planners clearly suggest the tools to use and
KPI Efficiency – KPI
i 1
1 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜KPI n (2)
the components to replace?
11. Are there instructions or procedures for carrying
Where n is the total number of normalized KPI selected out the work?
because of its strong correlation with the audited item 12. Does maintenance staff previously know tasks to
In Fig. 4, it can be observed how the results obtained be performed?
from surveys are multiplied (block π) by the results of the 13. Is the role of planner defined?
efficiency equation proposed as a combination of one or
more KPIs, which are considered as a necessary guarantee TABLE I
for the smooth running of the process and the item quality MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
evaluated. There are items to consider such as work
orders, or the warehouse, imposing more complex Planned Maintenance
equations of efficiency combining several indicators, due Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Technician
to the implicit need to cover several aspects such as work Maintenance Supervisor
order backlog, the absence of permanent work orders or Manager 1 2 Avg. 1 2 3 Avg.
the accuracy in predicting system resources 1 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4,333
2 3 5 4 4,5 5 5 5 5,000
3 5 5 4 4,5 5 5 3 4,333
VI. CASE STUDY 4 4 5 4 4,5 5 5 5 5,000
5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4,667
6 4 4 3 3,5 4 5 3 4,000
Traditional models certainly advocate audit to measure 7 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4,667
maintenance performance through surveys of various 8 4 5 4 4,5 5 5 4 4,667
aspects of the maintenance function. This model considers 9 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 4,333
10 4 3 2 2,5 4 4 4 4,000
the information from those involved in the maintenance 11 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4,667
function as very important, if it is properly validated by 12 4 3 3 3 5 5 3 4,333
13 4 5 4 4,5 5 5 5 5,000

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM

In question 6, on job scheduling, there is a worrying

matching response. The people seem to ignore the bulk of
the task ahead for the next day. In question 12, regarding
planning, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about
tools and spare parts. Such a low answer to such a key
question, warns of possible faulty planning.
When viewing the responses from the same level in
both companies, the differences mentioned above can be
seen. In fact, surveys of the same factors do not usually
differ more than one point between different hierarchical
levels. At the level of maintenance manager, one can see
that the most important differential jump occurs when
asking about knowledge of the work the following day
(aspect 12), much lower in the press that in the paper
Fig. 5. Results of surveys on maintenance planning. Paper Industry.
industry. Therefore, it predicts a weak indicator of
planning or execution of scheduled jobs, as discussed
above. In the middle level, the most significant difference
appears in the specification of tools, security measures or
parts needed to perform the tasks (aspect 10 and 11), i.e.
shortly detailing the type of work and accessories for it.
Logically, this anxiety appears at the appropriate level of
planners and team leaders. At technician level, the next
day is still not clear in the press industry, an increasing
divergence appearing to ask about planning and
scheduling to decrease the score.
Noting the differences, the conclusion drawn is a worry
on the scheduling of tasks in the press, but it is masked by
responses in other aspects. Thus the final values relating
to surveys are summarized in the following table:

Fig. 6. Results of surveys on maintenance planning. Industry press. TABLE II


At level 4 and 5, where a larger number of surveys is Results Maintenance Scheduling

carried out, average values were calculated to provide a Industry press
more global value, see Table I. Level 3 4,154
Regarding the paper industry audit, except for one case, Level 4 4,308
the result interpretation places all values above 3, very Level 5 3,821
Average result 4,094
close to 4, which gives an idea of an opinion and a
uniformly positive perception on the work planning by the Maintenance Scheduling
maintenance team as a whole. Given the surveys, it is Paper Industry
commonly observed that the responses of the technicians Level 3 3,769
are usually higher than those of the supervisors, and in Level 4 4,038
turn, those of the maintenance manager. This effect is the Level 5 4,538
result of positive responses at levels that respond to Average result 4,115
concerns on the result of the audit process, showing fear
for punitive actions. The nuance that gives differences can It can be seen that the maintenance scheduling
be resolved by using a correction factor. Surveys of the indicators obtain high values according to the three
three levels indicate that the collective impression is that hierarchical levels and to the two plants audited, see Table
of an adequate planning, with areas for improvement, but II and Fig. 7. Two values are above four. This fact
meeting the expectations. The subsequent numerical indicates that, in the classical model, the planning work is
indicators will validate whether this impression expressed being carried out in a successful way.
in the polls is true or not.
Similarly, the results of surveys in the industry press
can be seen. Similarly, they have been completed for: the
hierarchical level 3, the maintenance manager; for the
hierarchical level 4, maintenance crew chief and middle
management; and for level 5, three technicians.

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM

the surveys are reliable. Therefore the traditional model

matches with the proposed audit. It is not like that for the
press industry, since we see a significant reduction
between the validated indicator and the one obtained from
the surveys, reflecting the feeling timidly expressed in the
responses regarding knowledge of the planned activity.
Therefore an appropriate encoding of tasks related to the
preservation of productive assets is required, as well as an
adequate communication of these tasks, so that they will
increase the planned and scheduled work. This case shows
a failure of the traditional model of surveys or radar,
where this aspect would have gone undetected by
providing a seamless correct current planning.
Fig. 7 Result of the survey planning work. Paper industry versus
industry press.
The survey results should be validated by different
indicators. In the case of surveys on the planning of work, The human factor in the maintenance function is an
the numeric indicator to confirm the accuracy of the essential factor involved in the performance of this
maintenance team impressions is IO5, as seen in Fig. 8. department. Despite technological improvements in the
IO5 indicator represents the volume of the total planning. conservation of machines, the human element remains
essential to the quality of the work performed.
Elements such as maintainability, the ability to keep
machinery in good condition by staff, have a direct
relationship with the physical and psychological behavior
planning π Σ SURVEYS BY KPIs of operators that undertake repairs or preventive
Surveys to
maintenance tasks. These tasks have increased the use of
3,4,5 levels Surveys
technology but have not eliminated the manual handling
Fig. 8 Classical model, validated by KPIs. of items and tools. These factors refer to the need for
different times for the execution of identical maintenance
There are many theories and proposals on this indicator, tasks. To clarify this issue, it is necessary to analyze all
IO5. World Class is considered by the majority to be the aspects involved in this KPI component endowed with
around 95 %, of the labor available hours that are more human element in maintenance. The three groups
occupied in planned maintenance. The problem of lack of given below are the most influential:
contingency workforce is solved by hiring outside x Personal factors, which represent the influence of
companies to carry out the overtime work, i.e. expensive. skill level, motivation, experience, attitude,
The target of 95 % stems from an aversion to the waste physical capability, vision, self-discipline,
caused by idle resources and requires a comprehensive training, liability and other characteristics related
work planning and control. The companies in the past to the personnel involved.
three years have come and gone into the range of 95 % in x Conditional factors, which represent the influence
compliance with the mark of World Class Maintenance of the operating environment and the impact that
(WCM). As for the paper industry, IO5 value is 96.96 % it has to the failure in the physical condition and
while the industry press value is 28.32 %. It is a low value geometry.
due to the casuistry of the department and the versatility x Environment, which represents the influence of
in tasks with respect to the activity of safeguarding assets, conditions, such as; temperature, humidity,
see Table III. noise, light, vibration, time of day, season, wind,
noise, etc. in the maintenance staff during the
TABLE III recovery operation.
Thus, the time employed in the execution of each
maintenance task is influenced by the factors mentioned
COMPANY Survey results IO5 Validated
above. Consequently, the nature of the maintenance task
Paper 4,115 96,96 % 3,9899 also depends on the variability of these parameters.
Press 4,094 28,32 % 1,159 This dependency is affected by successive
organizational changes in the department, such as
subcontracting or outsourcing of certain aspects which
Combining the values derived from surveys with the were integrated to the business. The latest trend is the
validation index, very high values around 4 are obtained outsourcing of specialized companies, where the
again for one business, which means that the findings of partnership with these organizations leads to second and

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM

third line of work, even store management that are [7] COVENIM 2500-93. Manual para evaluar los sistemas de
sometimes transferred to a specialized company, part of mantenimiento en la industria. 1ª Revisión. Comisión
the alliance, which combines mixed company-transferred Venezolana de Normas Industriales. Ministerio de fomento..
employees and new personnel provided by the contractor. FONDONORMA: Caracas 1993
[8] BS PAS 55: Asset Management. British Standards Institutes.
This practice introduces some negative items to the London. UK 2008
human factors, such as a decline in morale and a strong [9] EN 15341:2007 Maintenance – Maintenance Key
resistance to change, no positive feeling of goodwill Performance Indicators, CEN – European Committee for
towards the company, an a decrease in the pride of Standardization
belonging and in the ownership for the equipment. This is [10] Clarke, P. Physical Asset Management Strategy
worrying factors in critical facilities, where reliability Development and Implementation, Proceedings, ICOMS,
improvement is pursued. 2002.
Performance measurement of this function is imbued [11] Hoberg, W.A .&,Rudnick, M.F. The role of assessments in
with aspects of behavior of those who perform tasks. In a switching supplier’s TQM system. IEEE, Vol.3, 1994, pp
any performance measurement process a punitive aspect [12] Kaiser, H.. Maintenance Management Audit. R.S. Means
is perceived. The metrics should take into account Company Inc., Kingston, MA. 1991
feelings as moral, envy, jealousy, vertical and horizontal [13] Idhammar,, C. Maintenance Assessments. Pulp & Paper,
polarization, protectionism, team spirit, and as far as the Vol.65, no.2, Feb 1991, p.45(1)
implementation of the measurement system is concerned, [14] Tomlingson, P.D. Effective maintenance: The key to
they should take into account the resistance to change in profitability: a managers guide to effective industrial
an organization where there is no tradition of measuring. maintenance management. First edition. International
Therefore, the proposed model combines the qualitative Thomson Publishing, New York. 1992
and quantitative measurements of the quality of work [15] Woodhouse, J. Asset Management – An Introduction.
Institute of Asset Management, http://www.iam-
performed. It performs a mixture between the traditional 2004
method of in-depth surveys and the interviews at different [16] Tavares, L. Auditorías de Mantenimiento. Revista
hierarchical levels in the search for associated KPIs that Mantenimiento. San José. 2001.
are associated with the results of these questionnaires. The [17] Jovan, V. and Zorzut, S., 2006. Use of Key Performance
result is backed by the quality of computer information Indicators in Production Management, IEEE International
systems, and it modulates, endorsing or punishing, the Conference on Cybernetics & Intelligence Systems (CIS)
results of questionnaires, which are a hierarchical sense or and Robotics, Automation & Mechatronics (RAM), 7-9 June
the projection of a desire rather than the current state of a 2006.
situation. [18] Galar, D., Berges, L. and Royo, J., 2010. La Problemática
de la Medición del Rendimiento en la Función
Finally, the proposed audit affects the ownership of the Mantenimiento (The Issue of Performnance Measurement in
indicators. The performance measured, ranked by the Maintenance Function). Ataque Frontal al Visado
hierarchical levels, allows us to observe the strategies to Industrial, 85.
meet the objectives, not only depending on the overall
organization, but sometimes being more tied to a
hierarchical level. Like in the maintenance scheduling in
the case study; the planners and supervisors are
responsible and therefore they have to do the
improvements, according to validated survey in Table III.
This hierarchical aspect allows not only the rapid
identification of the persons responsible for improving the
strategy, but also the encouragement to that improvement.


[1] Mayo, E.. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation.

HGS & A. Boston. 1945
[2] Maslow, A.A.. Motivation and Personality. Harper and
Brothers, New York. 1954
[3] Herzberg, F.. One more time: how do you motivate
employees? Harvard Business Review, January/February
[4] McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw Hill,
New York. 1960
[5] Swedish Employers Confederation (Technological
Department), Job reform in Sweden. 1975
[6] Kelly. A. Maintenance Management Auditing. Industrial
Press. New York 2006