Global Maintenance and Reliability Indicators

Global Maintenance and
Reliability Indicators
Fitting the Pieces Together
2nd Edition
A publication of
European Federation of National Maintenance Societies vzw

and
Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals
EFNMS Maintenance Benchmarking Committee
SMRP Best Practice Committee
Harmonised Indicators Document
2nd Edition
Copyright © 2009 by the European Federation of National Maintenance Societies vsw and the Society
of Maintenance & Reliability Professionals. All rights reserved. Reproduction or transmittal by the
individual holder, or outside the company for whom the holder of this document is employed, of any
part of this document by electronic or mechanical means, including photocopying, microfilming, re-
cording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the express written consent of the
EFNMS and SMRP is prohibited.
Authors:
Jerry Kahn, Tom Svantesson, Dick Olver, Al Poling
Version: Update at: Status: Reference:

th
1.4 19 October 2009 Released
Contents
Foreword by Mr. Franco Santini CEN
1. Introduction to the Harmonised Indicators..............................................................................................6
2. Objective of the Harmonised Indicator Document..................................................................................7
3. Harmonisation Effort...............................................................................................................................8
3.1 Harmonisation Beginnings ....................................................................................................................8

3.2 Harmonisation Process ..........................................................................................................................8
3.3 Harmonisation Results ..........................................................................................................................9
3.4 Harmonisation Future............................................................................................................................9
4. Harmonised Indicators ..........................................................................................................................10
4.1 EN Indicators Harmonized to SMRP Metrics .....................................................................................10

4.2 Classification of Harmonised Indicators .............................................................................................12
4.3 Harmonisation Forum..........................................................................................................................18
5. SMRP Metrics for use as Guidelines.....................................................................................................19
5.1 EN 15341 Indicator E1 and SMRP Metric 1.5....................................................................................21

5.4 EN 15341 Indicator E8 and SMRP Metric 5.5.5.................................................................................27
5.5 EN 15341 indicator E10 and SMRP Metric 5.5.71 .............................................................................29
5.8 EN 15341 indicator E15 and SMRP Metric 5.1.1 ...............................................................................35
5.9 EN 15341 indicator E17 and SMRP Metric 5.1.5 ...............................................................................37
5.12 EN 15341 Indicator E21 and SMRP Metric 4.2.1.............................................................................44
5.13 EN 15341 Indicator T17 and SMRP Metric 3.5.1.............................................................................47
5.14 EN 15341 Indicator T18 and SMRP Metric 3.1................................................................................49
5.15 EN 15341 Indicator T21 and SMRP Metric 3.5.2.............................................................................52
5.16 EN 15341 Indicator O8 and SMRP Metric 5.7.1 ..............................................................................54
5.17 EN 15341 indicator O10 and SMRP Metric 5.5.6.............................................................................56
5.19 EN 15341 Indicator O17 and SMRP Metric 5.4.1 ............................................................................60
5.26 EN 15341 Indicator O26 and SMRP Metric 5.5.33 ..........................................................................76
5.27 Figures Referenced in the SMRP Metrics .........................................................................................78
6. References and useful links ...................................................................................................................80
6.1 SMRP Metrics Guidelines...................................................................................................................80

6.2 References ...........................................................................................................................................80
6.3 Useful links .........................................................................................................................................80
7. Information about EFNMS and SMRP .................................................................................................81
Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Version 1.4 – – 19th October 2009 3
7.1 European Federation of National Maintenance Societies....................................................................81
7.2 Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals..........................................................................82
8. Authors ..................................................................................................................................................83

Foreword by Mr. Franco Santini, CEN
The standard CEN EN 15341 “Maintenance Key Performance Indicators” released in March
2007, was designed and developed from September 2003 until February 2007 by CEN Technical
Committee 319 Working Group 6, set up by the major European experts of maintenance man-
agement, with the aim to achieve a system and an architecture of indicators able to become a
common basis to measure the maintenance performance in a shared and significant way at world-
wide level.
In fact the WG 6, moving from all the maintenance indicators available in the literature and in the
guidelines, procedures and experiences of many multinational industrial companies, selected three
groups of KPIs as follows:
 Economic: E1….…… E24

 Technical: T1 ….……T21
 Organizational: O1…..…...O26
The characteristics of Maintenance KPIs introduced in the standard are the following:
 simple and synthetic
 defined in a clear and unambiguous way
 measurable on homogenous basis
 linked on one or more factors
 suitable in management maintenance process
The KPIs are tools available to be used
 To measure the status

 To compare internal and external benchmarks
 To verify the technical organizational attitude
 To diagnose every situation: strength and weakness
 To define a strategy, objectives, targets and actions
 To check the results and the progress of a plan
 To visualize the success and to share the achievements
 To measure needs and changes continuously
Therefore, standard EN15341 is a reliable and fundamental reference to achieve a harmonised

document between SMRP and EFNMS as a Worldwide Standard to measure and develop in the
same way the maintenance performance, considering and managing in appropriate way the exter-
nal and internal influencing factors outlined in the standard. Further information is available at
www.cen.eu
I do believe that this 2nd edition of this Harmonised Indicator Document, revised after the Work-
shop of Euromaintenance 2008 Congress, and many careful studies and feedback carried out by
Working Group 6, will support this perspective, giving an up-to-date and proved common base in
the process to achieve only one worldwide set of standard to measure the Maintenance Key Per-
formance Indicators
Franco Santini, Chairman of Working Group 6, CEN

1. Introduction to the Harmonised Indicators
When a company wants to compare maintenance and availability performance internally or exter-
nally, they need a common platform in terms of predefined indicators or metrics so that they can
compare apples to apples. Comparison of metrics when the bases of calculation are not the same
is a frustrating non value-added activity. This challenge has been met by SMRP (Society for
Maintenance & Reliability Professionals) and EFNMS (European Federation of National Mainte-
nance Societies vzw). These two maintenance organizations conducted a joint effort to compare
and document standard indicators for maintenance and reliability performance.
The value for an organisation to use standardized indicators or metrics such as the indicators from
the standard EN 15341 or the SMRP metrics are:
• Maintenance managers can rely on a single set of predefined indicators supported by a

glossary of terms and definitions
• The use of predefined indicators makes it easier to compare maintenance and reliability
performance across borders
• When a company wants to construct a set of company indicators or scorecard, the devel-
opment process based on predefined indicators will be simplified
• The predefined indicators can be incorporated in various CMMS software and reports
• The predefined metrics can be adopted and/or modified to fit the company’s or the
branch’s special specific requirements
• The need for discussion and debate on indicator definitions is ended and uncertainties
are eliminated
SMRP has defined 70 Best Practice Metrics to measure maintenance and reliability performance.
The process started in 2004 and is ongoing. In 2000, EFNMS defined a set of indicators to meas-
ure maintenance performance. These indicators are now incorporated in the European standard
EN 15341 “Maintenance Key Performance Indicators” released in May 2007. The joint EFNMS-
SMRP harmonization effort, which commenced in 2006, has the objective of documenting the
similarities and the differences in the SMRP metrics and the EN 15341 standards. (Figure 1.1)
The result of the activity is this document. Information on the use and application of “Global
Maintenance and Reliability Indicators” can be found at: www.HarmonisedIndicators.org.
With increased globalization and with companies producing goods and supplying services on an
international scale, the need for a common understanding of the indicators to measure mainte-
nance and availability performance is paramount. There is no doubt that this activity will eventu-
ally be a part in a global standard guideline for maintenance indicators.

SMRP Best
Practices Global
Metrics Maintenance
Harmonised
and Reliability
Indicators Indicators
EN15341
”Maintenance Key
Performance Indicators”
Future
Global
standard
Figure 1.1 Harmonised Indicator Project
2. Objective of the Harmonised Indicator Document

The objective for the of the harmonisation document is to offer the global maintenance commu-
nity a set of predefined indicators to be used by companies with a need to measure maintenance
and reliability performance on a global basis. The indicators can be used by all organisations with
a need to measure, track, report and compare maintenance and reliability performance.
The further objective for the document is to give the scale to measure a maintenance or reliability
performance. It is outside the scope of this document to give any recommended values and
thresholds for the indicators.
The indicators or metrics are supported by a set of guidelines and examples of the calculation.
This provides maintenance professionals with an easy-to- use guide for understanding of the indi-
cators, and of the components included or excluded in the calculation of each indicator.
The target group for the Harmonised Indicators Document is comprised of: Maintenance manag-
ers, Asset managers, Plant managers, Operations managers, Reliability Engineers, Technical man-
agers, General Managers or in general any other personnel who are involved with benchmarking,
or maintenance and reliability performance measurement.

3. Harmonisation Effort
3.1 Harmonisation Beginnings
Until 2006, the SMRP work was conducted independent of the European efforts. At Euromainte-
nance 2006 in Basel, Switzerland, key members of the EFNMS European Maintenance Bench-
marking Committee and the SMRP Best Practices Committee met for the first time. The purpose
of the meeting was to exchange information and to explore possible cooperation efforts.
It was clear from the start that both groups should strive to work toward a common set of indica-
tors to best serve the needs of the international community. However, since both groups had been
developing indicators for some time, and these indicators were already being published, a diver-
gence had already occurred in, formulas, definitions and grouping factors. Both organizations
agreed to form a joint EFNMS-SMRP working group to resolve differences between the
EN:15341 indicators and those being developed by the SMRP Best Practices Committee.
3.2 Harmonisation Process

Side-by-side comparisons were made of both the indicator formulas and definitions of terms. The
basis for the European terms is the standard EN:13306:2001 “Maintenance Terminology” and the
standard IEC 60050-191:1990 “Dependability and Quality of Service”. The SMRP definitions are
contained within each indicator (metric) description, and have been compiled in a SMRP Glossary
of Terms. This resulted in two extensive lists, as there were either terms or formulas that were not
common to both sets.
An indicator is determined to be common if it has the same basic formula or could be universally
applied. For these common indicators, it was first determined whether any differences could be
eliminated without sacrificing the objective of the indicator. If differences could not be elimi-
nated, the differences are qualified or explained. This is the essence of the harmonisation process,
which is graphically depicted in Figure 3.1
It should be noted that the grouping of indicators is different. In EN:15341, the indicators are
grouped into economic, technical and organizational sets. The SMRP indicators are categorized in
accordance with the five pillars of the SMRP Maintenance and Reliability Body of Knowledge:
Business and Management, Manufacturing Process Reliability, Equipment Reliability, Organiza-
tion and Leadership and Work Management.

Figure 3.1 Harmonization process
3.3 Harmonisation Results

The joint working group made very good progress, announcing the first harmonisation results in
January 2007, and published the original edition of “Global Maintenance and Reliability Indica-
tors” in April 2008. To date, 29 metrics have been targeted for harmonisation.
When an indicator is harmonised, a statement so stating is added to the SMRP metric description.
Furthermore, the SMRP metric is recommended by EFNMS for use as a guideline for calculating
the EN 15341 indicators.
The indicators were used in the first joint SMRP-EFNMS Benchmarking Workshop, which was
held at Euromaintenance 2008 in Brussels.
3.4 Harmonisation Future

The harmonisation work will continue until the complete list of SMRP indicators currently under
development has been exhausted. It is desired to initiate similar harmonisation efforts with other
international maintenance organizations, such as COPIMAN (Technical Committee on Mainte-
nance of the Pan American Federation of Engineering Societies) or MESA (Maintenance Engi-
neering Society of Australia). There are tentative plans to promulgate the use of these indicators
as international standards. Discussions are ongoing with CEN/TC 319 to consider proposing the
harmonised metrics as global standards or guidelines.

4. Harmonised Indicators
In this chapter the differences and similarities between the EN 15341 Indicators and the SMRP
metrics are documented and described.
4.1 EN Indicators Harmonized to SMRP Metrics

The indicators that have been targeted for harmonisation are listed in Table 4.1
Table 4.1 Master list of harmonised indicators - Summary
EN 15341 SMRP
Indicator No Indicator Ratio Metric No. Metric name
E1 Total Maintenance Cost x 100/ 1.5 Total Maintenance Cost per RAV
Assets Replacement Value
E3 Total Maintenance Cost/ 1.3 Maintenance Unit Cost
Quantity of output
E7 Average inventory value of mainte- 1.4 Stocked MRO Inventory Value As
nance materials x 100/ a Percent of RAV
Asset Replacement Value
E8 Total internal personnel cost spent in 5.5.5. Internal Maintenance Personnel
maintenance x 100/ Costs
Total Maintenance Cost Value
E10 Total contractor cost x 100/ 5.5.71 Contractor Cost
Total maintenance cost
E11 Total cost of maintenance materi- 5.5.38 Maintenance Material cost
als x 100/
Total maintenance cost
E12 Total cost of maintenance 5.5.31 Stores Inventory Turns
materials x 100/
Average inventory value of Mainte-
nance materials
Warehouse turnover
E13 Cost for indirect maintenance person- 5.5.4 Indirect Maintenance Personnel
nel x 100/ Cost
Total Maintenance Cost
E15 Corrective maintenance cost x 5.1.1 Corrective Maintenance Cost
100/
E17 Condition based maintenance cost x 5.1.5 Condition Based Maintenance
100/ Cost
E18 Preventive maintenance cost x 100/ 5.1.3 Preventive Maintenance Cost
E20 Maintenance shutdown cost x 100/ 5.1.9 Maintenance Shutdown Cost
E21 Cost of training for maintenance/ 4.2.1 Maintenance Training Cost
Number of maintenance personnel
T2 Achieved uptime during required time 2.2 Availability
x100/
Required time
T17 Total operating time x 100/ 3.5.1 MTBF
Number of failures
T18 Number of Systems Covered by Criti- 3.1 Systems Covered by Criticality
cality Analysis x 100/ Analysis
Total Number of Systems

Table 4.1 Master list of harmonised indicators - Summary
EN 15341 SMRP
Indicator No Indicator Ratio Metric No. Metric name
T21 Total time to restore x 100/ 3.5.2 MTTR
Number of failures
O3 Number of indirect maintenance per- 5.5.3 Indirect to Direct Maintenance
sonnel x 100/ Personnel
Number of direct maintenance person-
nel
O8 Man-hours used for continuous im- 5.7.1 Continuous Improvement Hours
provement x 100/
Total maintenance personnel man-
hours
O10 Direct maintenance personnel on 5.5.6 Craft Workers on Shift Ratio
shift x 100/
Total direct maintenance personnel
O16 Corrective maintenance man 5.1.2 Corrective Maintenance Hours
hours x 100/
Total maintenance man hours
O17 Immediate Corrective maintenance 5.4.1 Reactive Work
man-hours x 100/
Total maintenance man-hours
O18 Preventive maintenance man 5.4.2 Proactive Work
hours x 100/
Total maintenance man hours
O19 Condition based maintenance man- 5.1.6 Condition Based Maintenance
hours x 100/ Hours
O20 Predetermined maintenance man- 5.1.4 Preventive Maintenance Hours
hours x 100/
O21 Overtime internal maintenance man 5.5.8 Overtime Maintenance Hours
hours x 100/
Total internal maintenance man hours
O22 Number of work orders performed 5.4.4 Schedule Compliance – Work
as scheduled x 100/ Orders
Total number of scheduled work or-
ders
O23 Number of maintenance internal per- 4.2.2. Maintenance Training hours
sonnel man-hours for training x 100/
Total internal maintenance man-hours
O26 Number of the spare parts supplied by 5.5.33 Stock outs
the warehouse as requested x 100/
Total number of spare parts required
by maintenance
Table 4.1 List of harmonised indicators

4.2 Classification of Harmonised Indicators
The terms Identical, Similar and Same Performance are used to classify the similarities and differ-
ences between the SMRP metrics and the EN indicators. Each set of indicators/metrics is classi-
fied as:
 IDENTICAL – the basis of the indicators are the same although there may be some differ-
ences in how they are presented which are detailed in the comments
 SIMILAR – there are some differences in the indicators that are detailed in the comments.
The difference in the two sets of calculations is estimated to affect the result by less than
5%
 SAME PERFORMANCE – measuring the same performance area but there are significant
differences in how the definitions and or calculations which are detailed in the comments
The one-to-one comparison of each harmonised indicator is presented in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Classification of Harmonised Indicators

EN 15341 SMRP
Indicator Metric Difference Comment
E1 1.5 Similar Note 1:The difference is that EN 15341 has a broader definition
and includes depreciation of maintenance owned equipment
and facilities in "Total Maintenance Cost" (office, workshop and
warehouse)
Note 2: The SMRP term “Replacement Asset Value” = the EN

15341 term “Asset Replacement Value”
E3 1.3 Similar Note 1: The difference is that EN 15341 has a broader defini-
tion and includes depreciation of maintenance owned equip-
ment and facilities in "Total Maintenance Cost" " (office, work-
shop and warehouse)
Note 2: The EN 15341 definition: “Production and service quan-

tity” expanding the definition to more than a physical product.
The similar SMRP component definition is “… any other stan-
dard units of measure”. This makes the two component defini-
tion identical
E7 1.4 Similar Note 1: Both indicators exclude depreciation cost for strategic
parts
Note 2: SMRP metrics include operating materials. The EN

15341 definition only includes maintenance materials. This can
give a higher value compared to the EN 15341 indicator.
The difference is estimated to be less than 5 %.
E8 5.5.5. Similar Note 1: The difference is that EN 15341 has a broader defini-
shop and warehouse)
Note 2: Both EN 15341 E8 and the SMRP metric 5.5.5 include

internal Maintenance Personnel costs. Internal Maintenance
Personnel cost includes blue collar, managerial, support, and
supervisory personnel.

EN 15341 SMRP
E10 5.5. 71 Similar Note 1: The difference is that EN 15341 has a broader defini-
shop and warehouse)
E11 5.5.38 Similar Note 1: The difference is that EN 15341 has a broader defini-
ment and facilities in "Total Maintenance Cost" (office, work-
shop and warehouse)
Note 2: It is assumed that operating materials (“O” component

in MRO) is only for maintenance purposes
E12 5.5.31 Identical Note 1. The EN 15341 indicator includes only the inventory
turns of spare parts in the calculation. The SMRP metric calcu-
lates the value of the spare parts + operating parts (MRO).
However the SMRP metric 5.5.31 offers the possibility to calcu-
late spare parts separately.
Note 2: If the SMRP 5.5.31 calculation is applied only to the

spare parts in stock excluding operating parts, then the metrics
are identical
E13 5.5.4 In Process (SMRP metric under development)

shop and warehouse)
Note 2: The SMRP component definition for Corrective Mainte-

nance “is the hours/cost to restore equipment to a functional
state after a failure or when a failure is imminent”. This is similar
to the EN 13306 definition “. Maintenance carried out after fault
recognition and intended to put an item into a state in which it
can perform a required function”
Note 3: Corrective maintenance consists of “Deferred mainte-

nance” and “Immediate/Breakdown Maintenance”.
Note 4: SMRP includes part of the work identified during Condi-

tion Based Maintenance (CBM), and Preventive Maintenance
(PM) in the Corrective Maintenance definition.
In the EN definition for Condition Based Maintenance any work

identified during CBM activities is included in CBM indicators.

EN 15341 SMRP
E17 5.1.5 Same Perfor- Note 1: The difference is that EN 15341 has a broader defini-
mance tion and includes depreciation of maintenance owned equip-
shop and warehouse)
Note 2: EN 15341 defines Conditioned Maintenance (cost) as:

“Preventive maintenance which includes a combination of con-
dition monitoring and/or inspection and/or testing analysis and
the following maintenance actions.
SMRP counts the “condition monitoring and/or inspection
and/or testing analysis” and does not include the ensuing activi-
ties (i.e., work performed as corrective maintenance) as CBM
Conclusion: Calculating the indicator based on the SMRP met-

ric 5.1.5 definition will give a lover number than by the EN
15341 definition since the ensuing actions are excluded” from
the SMRP definition of CBM
Note 3: Both EFNMS and SMRP include human senses in CBM
Note 4: Both EFNMS and SMRP include failure finding tasks for
hidden failures in CBM ref. IEC 60300-3-11
Note 5: EN 15341 and SMRP include operator CBM hours in

the calculation
shop and warehouse)
Note 2: The SMRP term “Preventive” = The EN 13306/15341

term “Predetermined”
Note 3: Minor tasks not included in the procedure detected dur-

ing Preventive/Predetermined maintenance are included in
Preventive/Predetermined activities.
Please look at the Q/A section at the Harmonised Indicator

website for further discussions of the subject.
shop and warehouse)
Note 2: The SMRP metric includes the planning and prepara-

tion cost for a Shutdown. Planning and preparation costs are
expected to be less than 5% of the Shutdown cost. EN 13541
defines the cost as: “Cost of maintenance performed during
shutdowns”. This excludes the planning and preparation costs.

EN 15341 SMRP
E21 4.2.1 Identical Note 1:The SMRP term: “Maintenance Employees” is similar to
EN 15341 “Direct + Indirect personnel”
Note 2: SMRP includes participation in conventions, seminars

and workshops under the umbrella of SMRP Body of Knowl-
edge in “Training hours”
Note 3: Salary cost during training is included in the calculation.
Note 4: The result of the indicator E21 is “unit of value/person.

Metric 4.2.1 offers the possibility to calculate the result as a per-
centage.
T2 2.2 In Process (SMRP metric under development)
T17 3.5.1 Identical Note 1: SMRP uses the Reciprocal value MTBF as Failure rate.
EN/IEC standards uses MTTF for the calculation of a Failure
Rate.(1/MTTF)
Note 2: SMRP uses MTBF for Repairable items and MTTF for
non – repairable items. This differs from the EN/IEC definition.
T18 3.1 In Process (SMRP metric under development)
T21 3.5.2 Identical Note 1: The difference is in the glossary EN 15341 refers to "R
Restore" while SMRP refers to "R Repair". IEC 15191 term
191-13-08 approves "restoration" as well as "repair" Conclu-
sion: The difference is academic
Note 2: Both the SMRP metric and the EN metric include ad-
ministrative and logistic delay in the calculation.
This definition is similar to the definition used in many ISO/IEC

EN standards: “Termination of the ability to perform a required
function”
.
O3 5.5.3 In Process (SMRP metric under development)
O8 5.7.1 Identical
O10 5.5.6 Identical Note 1: "On call" craft workers are excluded from the calculation
for both metrics/indicators
Note 2: SMRP Metric calculates the formula as a ratio.

EN 15341 indicator calculates the formula as percentage.
Note 3: The term “Maintenance Craft worker” is similar to EN

15341: “Direct maintenance personnel”

EN 15341 SMRP
O16 5.1.2 Similar Note 1: The SMRP component definition for Corrective Mainte-
nance “is the hours/cost to restore equipment to a functional
state after a failure or when a failure is imminent”.
This is similar to the EN 13306 definition “. Maintenance carried
out after fault recognition and intended to put an item into a
state in which it can perform a required function”.
Note 2: Corrective maintenance consists of “Deferred mainte-

nance” and “Immediate/Breakdown Maintenance”
Note 2: SMRP includes part of work identified during Condition

Based Maintenance (CBM) and Preventive Maintenance (PM)
in the Corrective Maintenance definition.
In the EN definition for Condition Based Maintenance, any work
identified during CBM activities is included in the CBM indica-
tors.
O17 5.4.1 Same perfor- Note 1: The difference is that metric 5.4.1 measures the labour
mance hours that breaks the maintenance schedule. Indicator O17
measures only the labour hours spent on equipment failure re-
quiring immediate action regardless of schedule or no sched-
ule. When comparing Metric 5.4.1 with O17, the metric 5.4.1
will be a higher value since it measures labour hours spent on
equipment failure + poor planning + rapid change of priorities.
Depending on the application of the metric, one should be care-

ful about making comparisons
See the Harmonised Indicator web site for further discussions
O18 5.4.2 Same perfor- Note 1: Proactive maintenance contains the EN 13306 defini-
mance tion of Preventive Maintenance + the part of corrective mainte-
nance tasks originating from findings during predictive and pre-
ventive activities.
O19 5.1.6 Same perform- Note 1: EN 15341 defines Conditioned Maintenance (hours) as:
ance “Preventive maintenance which includes a combination of con-
dition monitoring and/or inspection and/or testing analysis and
the following maintenance actions”.
SMRP counts the “condition monitoring and/or inspection

and/or testing analysis” and does not include the ensuing activi-
ties (i.e., corrective maintenance) as CBM
Conclusion: Calculating the indicator based on the SMRP met-
ric 5.1.5 definition will give a lower number than by the EN
15341 definition since “..the ensuing actions are excluded” from
the SMRP definition of CBM.
Note 2: Both EFNMS and SMRP include human senses in

CBM.
Note 3: Both EFNMS and SMRP include failure finding tasks for
hidden failures in CBM ref. IEC 60300-3-11.
Note 4: EN 15341 and SMRP includes operator CBM hours in

the calculation.

EN 15341 SMRP
O20 5.1.4 Identical Note 1: SMRP “Preventive” = EN 13306/15341 “Predetermined”
Note 2: Minor tasks not included in the procedure detected dur-

ing Preventive/Predetermined maintenance are included in
Preventive/Predetermined activities.
Please look at the Q/A section at the Harmonised Indicator

website for further discussions.
O21 5.5.8 Similar Note 1: Both SMRP and EN15342 calculate only direct person-
nel.
Note 2 Permanent contractors on site are included in the calcu-

lation of SMRP metrics, 5.5.8. EN 15341 excludes contractors.
O22 5.4.4 Identical Note 1: Both metrics/indicators measure schedule compliance -

Not planned and scheduled performance.
Note 2: Metric 5.4.4 is calculated on a weekly basis. EN O22 is

calculated on any given time frame - also weekly.
O23 4.2.2. Same perfor- Note 1: The difference is in the calculation method. EN 15341
mance Indicator O23 expresses the result as a percentage. SMRP
Metric 4.2.2 metric calculates the result as hours per year per
maintenance employee.
Note 2 Denominator is similar for both metrics including training

hours for direct and indirect personnel.
EN 15341 O23 expresses the indicator as a percentage of "To-
tal Maintenance personnel man hours”. which includes contrac-
tor hours and excludes indirect personnel
SMRP Metric 4.2.2 expresses the result as a ratio per mainte-

nance employee (excluding contractors and including direct and
indirect personnel).
Note 3.The SMRP term: “Maintenance Employees” is similar to

EN 15341 “Direct + Indirect personnel”.
Note 4: SMRP includes participation in conventions, seminars

and workshops under the umbrella of SMRP Body of Knowl-
edge in “Training hours”. This difference is estimated to impact
the calculation with less than 5 %.
O26 5.5.33 Identical Note 1: The difference is in the way the performance is calcu-
lated. EN 15341 measures the success rate, while SMRP
measures the "un-success rate".
Note 2: The formula for the calculation of the metric 5.5.33

based on the O26 calculation is: 100 % - (Value from EN
15341, O26) = Result for SMRP 5.5.33 metric

4.3 Harmonisation Forum
The indicators and metrics have been used in the maintenance community served by both SMRP and
EFNMS, and they have been used as the platform for the Benchmarking workshops organised by the two
organisations. These Benchmarking workshops have been excellent forums for understanding and use of
the indicators, and have generated a series of questions and comments for the application of the indica-
tors/metrics in the given organisation. These questions and comments have been posted and will be contin-
ued at the website: www.HarmonisedIndicators.org
The Harmonised Indicator website also has information on upcoming conferences and workshops where
global indicators will be discussed.

5. SMRP Metrics for use as Guidelines
The Society of Maintenance & Reliability Professionals has developed standard definitions for mainte-
nance and reliability metrics used in the industry. These metrics were created by SMRP’s Best Practices
Committee, using a rigorous development process that included an initial draft, project manager review
and edit, subcommittee review and edit, Web review (for public review and comment), validation (pilot
implementation and verification), full committee review and edit, and final editing and formatting prior to
publication.
Each metric is defined in a standard format:
Number and Title The number and name of the metric

A. Definition A concise definition of the metric in easily understandable terms
B. Objectives What the metric is designed to measure or report
C. Formula A mathematical equation used to calculate the metric
D. Component Definitions Clear definitions of each of the terms that are utilized in the metric
formula
E. Qualifications Guidance as to when or when not to apply the metric
F. Sample Calculation A sample calculation utilizing the formula with realistic values
G. Harmonization A statement of harmonization to EN 15341 indicators
H. References Places to go for more detailed information
The grouping of indicators is different. In EN:15341, the indicators are grouped into economic (E), techni-
cal(T) and organizational (O) sets. The SMRP indicators are categorized in accordance with the five pillars
of the SMRP Body of Knowledge:
1.0 Business and Management

2.0 Manufacturing Process Reliability
3.0 Equipment Reliability
4.0 Organization and Leadership
5.0 Work Management
The numbering system utilized for the SMRP metrics is in accordance with the SMRP Body of Knowledge
(e.g., metric 1.2 belongs to the Business and Management category, metric 5.1.1 belongs to the Work
Management Category.)
When an indicator is harmonized, a statement declaring this fact is included in the SMRP metric descrip-
tion. Furthermore, the SMRP metric is recommended for use by EFNMS as a guideline or supporting
document for the European indicator.
“This metric and its supporting definitions are similar or identical to the indicator E7 in
standard EN 15341. This document is recommended by the European Federation of
National Maintenance Societies (EFNMS) as a guideline for calculating the E7 indica-
tor”. Details are provided in the document “Global Maintenance and Reliability Indicators”. In-
formation can be found at www.harmonizedindicators.org
In the following section, the SMRP metric for each of the harmonized indicators listed in Table 4.1(except
for those “In Process”) is presented. Cost metrics are expressed in $, however €, CHF, £ or any other cur-
rency may be used as appropriate.

At the time of publication of this 2nd edition of Global Maintenance and Reliability Indicators, the SMRP
metrics listed in Table 5.1 had not been through their final review phase. As such, the text of the finalized
SMRP metrics that will be made available on the SMRP website may differ slightly from those included in
this document. When these target harmonized metrics have been finalized, they will be re-reviewed to en-
sure that harmonization assumptions remain valid. They will then be incorporated in the a 3rd edition of
Global Maintenance and Reliability Indicators
Table 5.1 Harmonized SMRP Metrics not Finalized

Indicator No Metric No. Metric name
E8 5.5.5. Internal Maintenance Personnel Costs
E11 5.5.38 Maintenance Material Cost
T18 3.1 Systems Covered by Criticality Analysis
O19 5.1.6 Condition Based Maintenance Hours
T2 2.2 Availability
E13 5.5.4 Indirect Maintenance Personnel Cost
O3 5.5.3 Direct to Indirect Maintenance Personnel Ratio

5.1 EN 15341 Indicator E1 and SMRP Metric 1.5
1.5 Maintenance Cost

As a Percent of Replacement Asset Value (RAV)
A. Definition
The metric is the amount of money spent maintaining assets, divided by the Replacement Asset Value (RAV)
of the assets being maintained, expressed as a percentage.
B. Objectives
This metric allows comparisons of the expenditures for maintenance with other plants of varying size and
value, as well as to benchmarks. The RAV is used in the denominator to normalize the measurement given
that plants vary in size and value.
C. Formula
Maintenance Cost per RAV (%) = [Total Maintenance Cost ($) × 100] ÷ Replacement Asset Value ($)
D. Component Definitions

Total expenditures for maintenance labour (including
maintenance performed by operators, e.g. TPM), mate-
rials, contractors, services, and resources. Include all
maintenance expenses for outages / shutdowns / turn-
arounds as well as normal operating times. Include
capital expenditures directly related to end-of-life ma-
chinery replacement (this is necessary so that excessive
replacement versus proper maintenance is not masked).
Do not include capital expenditures for plant expan-
sions or improvements.
Replacement Asset Value (RAV) Also referred to as Estimated Replacement Value
(ERV). This is the dollar value that would be required
to replace the production capability of the present as-
sets in the plant. Include production/process equipment
as well as utilities, facilities and related assets. Do not
use the insured value or depreciated value of the assets.
Include the replacement value of buildings and grounds
if these assets are included in maintenance expendi-
tures. Do not include the value of real estate, only im-
provements.

E. Qualifications
1. Should be measured annually.

2. Typically used by corporate managers to compare plants, by plant managers, maintenance managers,
operations managers, reliability managers, and vice presidents.
3. Can be used to determine standing of plant in a four-quartile measurement system, as best in class plants
with high asset utilization and high equipment reliability in most industries spend less maintaining their
assets.
4. Cannot rely on this metric alone since lower maintenance cost does not necessarily equate to best in class.
F. Sample Calculation
If Total Maintenance Cost is $3,000,000 annually and the Replacement Asset Value for the assets is
$100,000,000, then the Maintenance Cost as a Percent of Replacement Asset Value would be:
Maintenance Cost As a Percent of RAV = [Total Maintenance Cost ($) × 100] ÷ Replacement Asset Value
Maintenance Cost As a Percent of RAV = ($3,000,000 × 100) ÷ $100,000,000
Maintenance Cost As a Percent of RAV = 3%
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator E3 and SMRP Metric 1.5 are Similar
Note 1: The difference is that EN 15341 has a broader definition and includes depreciation of maintenance
owned equipment and facilities in "Total Maintenance Cost" (office, workshop and warehouse)
Note 2: The SMRP term “Replacement Asset Value” = the EN 15341 term “Asset Replacement Value”

1.3 Maintenance Unit Cost
A. Definition
The metric is the measure of the total maintenance cost required for an asset or facility to generate a unit of
production.
B. Objectives
To quantify the total maintenance cost to produce a standard unit of production over a specified time period
(e.g. monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.). This metric provides a period over period trend of maintenance cost
per unit produced. This measure can be applied to a specific asset, a group of assets within a facility, across an
entire facility or across multiple facilities.
C. Formula
Maintenance Unit Cost = Total Maintenance Cost ÷ Standard Units Produced
Standard Units Produced

A typical quantity produced as output. The output has
acceptable quality and consistent means to quantify.
Examples would include gallons, litres, pounds, kilo-
grams, or other standard units of measures
Total Maintenance Cost Total expenditures for maintenance labour (including

maintenance performed by operators, e.g., TPM), mate-
maintenance expenses for outages /shutdowns / turn-
arounds as well as normal operating times. Include
capital expenditures directly related to end-of-life ma-
chinery replacement (this is necessary so that excessive
replacement versus proper maintenance is not masked).
Do not include capital expenditures for plant expan-
sions or improvements.)
E. Qualifications
1. Time Basis: Annually, if a shorter interval is used, it should include a weighted portion of planned outages or
turnarounds.
2. To be used by: Maintenance, Operations, Finance or other functions to evaluate and benchmark mainte-
nance cost for production units within a plant, across multiple plants or against the industry.
3. To obtain data necessary for this measure, Total Maintenance Cost includes all costs associated with
maintaining the capacity to produce over a specified time period.
4. Standardized units are industry typical measures that enable valid comparisons across similar businesses.
These are the gross standard units (disregarding any first pass quality losses) and must be the same for
comparison purposes.

5. Output variances, such as production curtailments due to business demand or operational issues unrelated
to maintenance will negatively impact this measure.
6. Measuring maintenance cost on a specific asset within a facility will require appropriate accounting of
distributed costs (e.g. infrastructure costs allocated to the asset from the site). A percentage of building
and grounds costs directly associated with the preservation of the production asset should be applied to the
asset.
7. The unit maintenance cost on different products can vary significantly even though they have the same
units of measure. Care should be exercised when comparing different products or processes.
The total maintenance cost for the year was $2,585,000. The total output from the manufacturing site in that
same year was 12,227,500 kg.
Maintenance Unit Cost = Total Maintenance Cost ÷ Standard Units Produced
Maintenance Unit Cost = $2,585,000 ÷ 12,227,500 kg
Maintenance Unit Cost = $0.21 per kg
G. Harmonisation
Note 2: The EN 15341 definition: “Production and service quantity” expanding the definition to more than
a physical product. The SMRP component definition is “… any other standard unit of measures”. This
makes the two component definitions identical.

1.4 Stocked MRO Inventory Value

as a Percent of Replacement Asset Value (RAV)
A. Definition
The metric is the value of maintenance, repair and operating materials (MRO) and spare parts stocked on site
to support maintenance, divided by the Replacement Asset Value (RAV) of the assets being maintained at the
plant, expressed as a percentage.
B. Objectives
This metric enables comparisons of the value of stocked maintenance inventory on site with other plants of
varying size and value, as well as to benchmarks. The RAV is used in the denominator to normalize the
measurement given that different plants vary in size and value.
C. Formula
Stocked MRO Inventory Value per RAV (%) = [Stocked MRO Value ($) × 100] ÷ Replacement Asset Value
($)
D. Component definitions
Stocked MRO Inventory Value Current book value of maintenance, repair and
operating materials held in stock at the plant site
(including consignment and vendor managed in-
ventory). Include the value of MRO materials in
all storage locations including remote stores loca-
tions whether or not the material is included in
inventory asset accounts or an allocated portion
of pooled spares. (Try to estimate the value of
“unofficial” stores in the plant even if they are
not under the control of the storeroom and even if
they are not “on the books”). Include the esti-
mated value for stocked material that may be in
stock at zero-value because of various CMMS
and/or accounting idiosyncrasies, etc. DO NOT
include raw material, finished goods or related
inventories. The monetary cost of an individual
storeroom item can be calculated as:
Monetary Cost of Individual Storeroom Item =

Quantity on Hand × Individual Item Cost
When aggregated as the cost of all stocked items,

inventory value is calculated as:
N
∑ (Quantity on Hand × Individual Item Cost)i

Replacement Asset Value Also referred to as Estimated Replacement Value
(ERV). This is the dollar value that would be
required to replace the production capability of
the present assets in the plant. Include produc-
tion/process equipment as well as utilities, facili-
ties and related assets. Do not use the insured
value or depreciated value of the assets. Include
replacement value of buildings and grounds if
these assets are maintained by the maintenance
expenditures. Do not include the value of real
estate, only improvements.
E. Qualifications
1. Could be measured quarterly or annually.

2. Typically used by corporate managers to compare plants, by plant managers, maintenance managers,
materials managers, procurement managers, operations managers, reliability managers, vice presidents..
3. Can be used to determine standing of a plant in a four-quartile measurement system, as best in class plants
with high asset utilization and high equipment reliability in most industries have less stocked inventory
value because of a more predictable need for materials
4. Cannot rely on this metric alone, since lower stocked inventory value does not necessarily equate to best in
class. Should balance this metric with stock-outs (which should be low) and other indicators of the service
level of the stocked inventory.
If Stocked MRO Inventory Value is $3,000,000, and the Replacement Asset Value (RAV) is $100,000,000,
then the Stocked MRO Inventory Value as a Percent of RAV would be:
Stocked MRO Inventory Value per RAV (%) = [Stocked MRO Value ($) × 100] ÷ Replacement Asset Value
($)
Stocked MRO Inventory Value per RAV (%) = ($3,000,000 × 100) ÷ $100,000,000
Stocked MRO Inventory Value per RAV (%) = 3%
G. Harmonisation
Note 1: Both indicators exclude depreciation cost for strategic parts
Note 2: SMRP metrics include operating materials. The EN 15341 definition only includes maintenance
materials. This can give a higher value compared to the EN15341 indicator.

5.4 EN 15341 Indicator E8 and SMRP Metric 5.5.5.
5.5.5 Internal Maintenance Personnel Cost

as a Percent of Total Maintenance Cost
A. Definition:
Internal Maintenance Personnel Cost is the total burdened cost incurred for plant employees for the
period expressed as a percentage of the total maintenance cost for the period.
B. Objectives:
This metric enables management to monitor the contribution of internal maintenance labour costs to to-
tal maintenance costs. This value can then be compared to industry benchmarks and analyzed for cost
reduction opportunities.
C. Formula:
Internal Maintenance Personnel Cost (%) = Internal Maintenance Personnel Cost x 100
Internal Maintenance Personnel Cost Internal Maintenance Personnel cost would include
all burdened internal maintenance labour costs, both
straight time and overtime. (Internal maintenance
personnel are plant employees only, not contractors.)
Include maintenance labour costs for normal operat-
ing times as well as outages/shutdowns/turnarounds.
Include labour for capital expenditures directly re-
lated to end-of-life machinery replacement (this is
necessary so that excessive replacement – vs. proper
maintenance – is not masked). Include the cost for
staff overhead support (supervisors, planners, manag-
ers, storeroom personnel, etc.) Include the cost for
maintenance work done by operators. Do not include
labour used for capital expenditures for plant expan-
sions or improvements. Do not include contractor
labour cost. Do not include janitorial cost.
Total Maintenance Cost Expenditures for maintenance labour (including
maintenance performed by operators, e.g., TPM),
materials, contractors, services, and resources. In-
clude all maintenance expenses for outages / shut-
downs / turnarounds as well as normal operating
times. Include capital expenditures directly related to
end-of-life machinery replacement (this is necessary
so that excessive replacement versus proper mainte-
nance is not masked). Do not include capital expen-
ditures for plant expansions or improvements.

E. Qualifications:
1. Time Basis: Annually, but can be measured quarterly as well.

2. Useful for developing trends in the distribution of maintenance spending
3. Useful for comparing the organization’s performance relative to industry benchmarks
4. Typically used by corporate managers, plant managers, maintenance managers, human re-
sources managers, vice presidents to compare different sites.
F. Example Calculation:
Following are the categories of maintenance costs used last year at the site:
Internal Maintenance Labour – $8,144,000

Maintenance Staff Overhead (Supervisors, Planners, etc.) – $2,320,000
Contractor Labour – $1,125,000
Annual Equipment Maintenance Contracts – $96,000
Janitorial Service Contracts – $380,000
Maintenance Materials – $9,992,000
Annual maintenance costs – $22,057,000
Internal Maintenance Personnel Cost = $8,144,000 + $2,320,000 = 47.4%

$22,057,000
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator E8 and SMRP Metric 5.5.5 are Similar
Note 2: Both EN 15341 E8 and the SMRP metric 5.5.5 include internal Maintenance Personnel costs. In-
ternal Maintenance Personnel cost includes blue collar, managerial, support, and supervision personnel.

5.5 EN 15341 indicator E10 and SMRP Metric 5.5.71
5.71 Contractor Cost
A. Definition
Contractor Cost is the percentage of contractor costs of the total maintenance costs used to maintain
assets.
B. Objectives
This metric allows one to determine whether the permanent maintenance workforce is appropriately
sized and staffed for the maintenance workload. Top performers typically use some complement of
contractors for specialty crafts and/or skills, for peak or abnormal workloads (such as out-
ages/turnarounds/shutdowns) and for specialty tools/resources (e.g., cranes, vibration measurements,
etc.).
C. Formula
Contractor Maintenance Cost (%) = Contractor Maintenance Cost ($) x 100

Total Maintenance Cost ($)
Contractor Maintenance Cost Total expenditures for contractors engaged in

maintenance on site. Include all contractor main-
tenance labour and materials costs for normal
operating times as well as out-
ages/shutdowns/turnarounds. Include contractors
used for capital expenditures directly related to
end-of-life machinery replacement (this is neces-
sary so that excessive replacement versus proper
maintenance is not masked). Do not include con-
tractors used for capital expenditures for plant
expansions or improvements.
Total Maintenance Cost Total expenditures for maintenance labour (in-

cluding maintenance performed by operators,
e.g., TPM), materials, contractors, services, and
resources. Include all maintenance expenses for
outages / shutdowns / turnarounds as well as
normal operating times. Include capital expendi-
tures directly related to end-of-life machinery
replacement (this is necessary so that excessive
replacement versus proper maintenance is not
masked). Do not include capital expenditures for
plant expansions or improvements.

E. Qualifications
1. Time Basis: Should be measured annually, but can be measured monthly as well.
2. Typically used by corporate managers, plant managers, maintenance managers, human
resources managers, vice presidents to compare different sites.
3. Cannot rely on this metric alone for contractor cost assessment (i.e., the labour por-
tions may have to be considered separately.)
F. Example Calculation
If annual Contractor Maintenance Cost is $2,600,000, and annual Total Maintenance Cost is
$10,000,000, then the percent Contractor Cost would be:
$2,600,000 x 100 = 26%

$10,000,000
G. Harmonisation

5.5.38 Maintenance Material Cost

as a Percent of Total Maintenance Cost
A. Definition
Maintenance Material Cost is the total cost incurred for materials needed to repair and maintain plant
and facility assets for the period expressed as a percentage of the total maintenance cost for the pe-
riod.
B. Objectives
This metric enables management to monitor the contribution of maintenance material costs to total
maintenance costs. This value can then be compared to industry benchmarks and analyzed for cost
C. Formula
Maintenance Material Cost (%) = Maintenance Material Cost x 100

Maintenance Material Cost The value of all maintenance, repair, and operat-
ing material (MRO) used during the period. This
includes both stocked MRO inventory usage and
outside purchased materials, including cost to
repair a spare. Do not include material used for
capital expenditures for plant expansions or im-
provements. Do not include contractor labour
cost.
Total Maintenance Cost Expenditures for maintenance labour (including
materials, contractors, services, and resources.
Include all maintenance expenses for outages /
shutdowns / turnarounds as well as normal oper-
ating times. Include capital expenditures directly
related to end-of-life machinery replacement (this
is necessary so that excessive replacement versus
proper maintenance is not masked). Do not in-
clude capital expenditures for plant expansions or
improvements.

E. Qualifications
1. Time Basis: Monthly, but can be measured quarterly or annually as well.

3. Useful to compare to maintenance labour cost to get an idea of potential improvement areas. A
high percentage of material cost to labour cost may indicate an ineffective PM/PdM program,
while a high percentage of labour cost may indicate a lack of effective planning.
sources managers, vice presidents to compare different sites.
F. Example Calculation
Following are the categories of maintenance costs used last year at the site:
Internal Maintenance Labour – $8,144,000

Maintenance Staff Overhead (Supervisors, Planners, etc.) – $2,320,000
Contractor Labour – $1,125,000
Annual Equipment Maintenance Contracts – $96,000
Janitorial Service Contracts – $380,000
Maintenance Materials – $9,992,000
Maintenance Materials Cost = $9,992,000 = 45.3%

$22,057,000
G. Harmonisation
Note 2: It is assumed that operating materials (“O” component in MRO) is only for maintenance purposes

5.5.31 Stores Inventory Turns
A. Definition
The metric is a measure of how quickly inventory is flowing through the storeroom inventory system
B. Objectives
This metric is used to measure the appropriateness of storeroom inventory levels.
C. Formula
Inventory turns has no units and is calculated as follows:
Stores Inventory Turns = Value of Stock Purchased ÷ Value of Stock on Hand
The unit of measure is inventory turns per unit of time.
Value of Stock on Hand The current dollar value of the stock in inventory.
Value of Stock Purchased The value of inventory items purchased in the

period for which the metric is being calculated.
E. Qualifications
1. Time Basis: Monthly

2. To be used by storeroom, purchasing and finance management
3. Due to variation in the stock replenishment process, this metric should be measured over a
time period that allows anomalies in the purchasing cycle to be normalized.
4. This metric is best used with other indicators (e.g., 5.5.33 Stock Outs) that provide a com-
plete picture of storeroom inventory.
5. This metric should be trended in order to capture changes in storeroom inventory manage-
ment practices
6. This metric can be sued on subsets of the inventory to see the specific behaviour of different
classes of inventory items (e.g., power transmission, electrical, operating supplies, spare
parts, etc.) As with all metrics they are better used in groups as they all tend to drive specific
behaviours.
7. When used in conjunction with the metric 5.5.33 Stock Outs, a low stock out and turn ratio
would suggest that inventory levels are too high. An effective storeroom must manage risk at
an acceptable level, and balance this against working capital. The optimum turn ratio will be
different for different classes of parts and will depend on the amount of risk a facility is will-
ing to take. A high turn ratio on spare parts could indicate a reliability issue and/or reactive
maintenance culture.

A given storeroom has current values and purchases over the previous twelve months as follows:
 Total storeroom inventory value is $7,241,296
 Total of all storeroom purchases during this period is $15,836,351
 Total spare parts inventory value is $3,456,789
 Total of all spare parts purchases during the period is $5,123,456
 Total operating supplies inventory is $1,567,890
 Total of all operating supplies purchases during the period is $9,345,678
Stores Inventory Turns = Value of Stock Purchased ÷ Value of Stock on Hand
Stores Inventory Turns (total inventory) = $15,836,351/$7,241,296

Stores Inventory Turns (total inventory) = 2.19
Stores Inventory Turns (spare parts) = $5,123,456/$3,456,789

Stores Inventory Turns (spare parts) = 1.48
Stores Inventory Turns (operating supplies) = $9,345,678/$1,567,890

Stores Inventory Turns (operating supplies) = 5.96
G. Harmonisation
Note 1. The EN 15341 indicator includes only he inventory turns of spare parts in the calculation.
The SMRP metric calculates the value of the spare parts + operating parts (MRO). However the
SMRP 5.5.31 offers the possibility to calculate spare parts separately.
Note 2: If SMRP 5.5.31 calculation is applied only to the spare parts in stock excluding operating
parts, then the metrics are similar

5.1.1 Corrective Maintenance Cost
A. Definition
Corrective Maintenance Cost is the percentage of total maintenance cost that is used to restore equipment to a
functional state after a failure or when failure is imminent. (See Figure 5.2 – Maintenance Work Types, which
is section 5.27)
B. Objectives
This metric quantifies the financial impact of work done on corrective maintenance tasks. Trending corrective
maintenance costs can provide feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive activities.
C. Formula
Corrective Maintenance Cost (%) = (Corrective Maintenance Cost ( ×100) ÷ Total Maintenance Cost
Corrective Maintenance Cost Labour, material, services, and/or contractor cost for
work done to restore the function of an asset after
failure or when failure is imminent.

materials, contractors, services, and resources. In-
clude all maintenance expenses for outages / shut-
downs / turnarounds as well as normal operating
end-of-life machinery replacement (this is necessary
so that excessive replacement versus proper mainte-
nance – is not masked). Do not include capital ex-
penditures for plant expansions or improvements.
E. Qualifications

2. To be used by: Maintenance management personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive ac-
tivities such as the preventive and predictive maintenance programs
3. To obtain data necessary for this measure, the work order system must be configured so that cor-
rective maintenance work is differentiated from other types of work. This can usually be done by
setting up the appropriate work types and classifying each work order accordingly.
4. The costs incurred for corrective work resulting from problems discovered before failure (e.g.,
predictive maintenance inspections) should be included in corrective maintenance cost.

5. A high percentage of corrective maintenance cost is typically an indication of a reactive work cul-
ture and poor asset reliability. It can also indicate ineffective preventive and predictive mainte-
nance programs.
The total maintenance cost for the month was $1,287,345. The total cost of all corrective work orders was
$817,010.
Corrective Maintenance Cost (%) = (Corrective Maintenance Cost ×100) ÷ Total Maintenance Cost
Corrective Maintenance Cost (%) = ($817,000 ×100) ÷ $1,287,345
Corrective Maintenance Cost (%) = $81,700,000 ÷ $1,287,345
Corrective Maintenance Cost (%) = 63.5%
G. Harmonisation
owned equipment and facilities in "Total Maintenance Cost" " (office, workshop and warehouse)
Note 2: The SMRP component definition for Corrective Maintenance “is the hours/cost to restore equip-
ment to a functional state after a failure or when a failure is imminent”. This is similar to the EN 13306
definition “. Maintenance carried out after fault recognition and intended to put an item into a state in
which it can perform a required function”
Note 3: Corrective maintenance consists of “Deferred maintenance” and “Immediate/Breakdown Mainte-

nance”
Note 4: SMRP includes part of the work identified during Condition Based Maintenance (CBM), and Pre-
ventive maintenance (PM) in the Corrective Maintenance definition.
In the EN definition for Condition Based Maintenance any work identified during CBM activities is in-
cluded in CBM indicators

5.1.5 Condition Based Maintenance Cost
A. Definition
Condition Based Maintenance Costs (shown as a percentage) is maintenance costs that are used to
measure, trend, and compare equipment conditions with known standards to detect, analyze, and cor-
rect problems before they cause functional failures. (See Figure 5.2 – Maintenance Work Types ion
Section 5.27)
B. Objectives
The objective is to track cost of condition based (predictive) maintenance tasks. Trending the percent-
age of condition based maintenance costs can provide feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of proac-
tive activities when compared to percentage of cost trends of all maintenance work types.
C. Formula
Condition Based Maintenance Costs (%) = Condition Based Maintenance Costs X 100
Total Maintenance Costs
Condition Based Maintenance Costs Labour, material and services cost by company
personnel or contractors for work performed as
condition based maintenance. Includes operator
costs if all operator maintenance costs are in-
cluded in Total Maintenance Costs.
Condition Based Maintenance (PdM) Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) is an
equipment maintenance strategy based on meas-
uring the condition of equipment in order to as-
sess whether it will fail during some future pe-
riod, and then taking appropriate action to avoid
the consequences of that failure. The condition of
the equipment could be measured using condition
monitoring, statistical process control, equipment
performance, or through the use of human senses.
The term Condition Based Maintenance (CBM),
On-Condition Maintenance and Predictive Main-
tenance (PdM) can be used interchangeably.

Total Maintenance Costs Total expenditures for maintenance labour (in-
e.g., TPM), material, contractor services and re-
sources. Include all maintenance expenses for
plant expansions or improvements.
E. Qualifications

2. To be used by Maintenance Management personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive
maintenance and reliability activities when also compared to other maintenance work type cost
trends.
3. To obtain data necessary for this measure, the Work Order system must be configured in such
a way that Condition Based Maintenance work can be differentiated from other types of work.
This can usually be done by setting up appropriate Work Types and classifying each work or-
der accordingly.
4. The costs incurred for condition based maintenance work and minor adjustments or corrections
while completing the monitoring tasks, and performed under the same work order, should be
included in predictive spending. Time spent for minor corrections would not extend beyond
the time allowed for the PdM.
The total maintenance cost for the month was $193,400. The total cost of predictive work orders
for company maintenance personnel was $17,100, contractor cost for predictive work totalled
$9,300, operator work orders for equipment monitoring totalled $4898 and operator preventive
work orders totalled $7947.
Condition Based Maintenance Costs (%) = Condition Based Maintenance Costs X 100
Condition Based Maintenance Costs (%) = ($17,100 + $9,300+$4898) X 100

$193,400
= 16.18 %

G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator E17 and SMRP Metric 5.1.5 have the Same Performance.
owned equipment and facilities in "Total Maintenance Cost" " (office, workshop and warehouse)
Note 2: EN 15341 defines Conditioned Maintenance (cost) as: “Preventive maintenance which includes a
combination of condition monitoring and/or inspection and/or testing analysis and the following mainte-
nance actions.
SMRP counts the “condition monitoring and/or inspection and/or testing analysis” and does not include the
ensuing activities (i.e., work performed as corrective maintenance) as CBM
Conclusion: Calculating the indicator based on the SMRP metric 5.1.5 definition will give a lover number
that by the EN 15341 definition since the ensuing actions are excluded” from the SMRP definition of CBM
Note 4: Both EFNMS and SMRP include failure finding tasks for hidden failures in CBM ref. IEC 60300-
3-11
Note 5: EN 15341 and SMRP includes operator CBM hours in the calculation

5.1.3 Preventive Maintenance Cost
A. Definition
Preventive Maintenance Cost (shown as a percentage) is the maintenance cost that is used to perform
fixed interval maintenance tasks, regardless of the equipment condition at the time. (See Figure
5.2 – Maintenance Work Types in section 5.27)
B. Objectives
The objective is to quantify the financial impact of work done as preventive maintenance tasks.
Trending the percentage of preventive maintenance costs can provide feedback to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of proactive activities when compared to percentage of cost trends of all maintenance work
types.
C. Formula
Preventive Maintenance Cost (%) = Preventive Maintenance Costs X 100

Preventive Maintenance Costs Labour, material and services cost (including

maintenance performed by operators, e.g., TPM)
by company personnel or contractors for work
performed as preventive maintenance. Includes
operator costs if all operator maintenance costs
are included in Total Maintenance Costs.
Preventive Maintenance (PM) PM is an equipment maintenance strategy based
on inspection, replacing, overhauling or remanu-
facturing an item at a fixed interval, regardless of
its condition at the time. Scheduled Restoration
tasks and Scheduled Discard tasks are examples
of Preventive Maintenance tasks.
Total Maintenance Cost Total expenditures for maintenance labour (in-
e.g., TPM), material, contractor services and re-
sources. Include all maintenance expenses for
plant expansions or improvements

E. Qualifications

2. To be used by: Maintenance management personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive
maintenance and reliability activities when also compared to other maintenance work type
costs trends. Can also be an indicator of preventive maintenance efficiency and PM levelling,
when PM task count remain constant per month.
3. To obtain data necessary for this measure, the work order system must be configured in such a
way that preventive maintenance work can be differentiated from other types of work. This
can usually be done by setting up appropriate work types and classifying each work order ac-
cordingly.
4. The cost incurred for preventive maintenance work and minor adjustments or corrections while
completing the scheduled interval tasks, and performed under the same work order, should be
included in preventive spending. Time completing the PM task should not be extended much
past the normal required time to complete minor corrections.
5. Hours for work done off site is much more difficult to track and is not normally included.
6. If operator hours are included in Total Maintenance Cost they should be included in Preventive
Maintenance Cost.
.
The total maintenance cost for the month was $567,345. The total cost of preventive work orders
for company personnel was $227, 563, contractor purchase order amount for preventive work to-
talled $23,587, operator work orders for equipment monitoring totalled $4,600 and operator pre-
ventive work orders totalled $7,300.
Preventive Maintenance Cost (%) = Preventive Maintenance Costs X 100

Preventive Maintenance Cost (%) = $227,563 + $23,587 + $ 7,300 X 100

$567,345
= 45.55%
G. Harmonisation
Note 2: The SMRP term “Preventive” = The EN 13306/15341 term “Predetermined”
Note 3: Minor tasks not included in the procedure detected during Preventive/Predetermined maintenance
are included in Preventive/Predetermined activities.
Please look at the Q/A section at the harmonised website for further discussions of the subject.

5.1.9 Maintenance Shutdown Costs
A. Definition
Maintenance Shutdown Cost are the total costs incurred in association with a planned maintenance
shutdown expressed as a percentage of the total maintenance cost for the period in which the shut-
down(s) occurred.
B. Objectives
This metric enables management to track the contribution of planned maintenance shutdown costs to to-
tal maintenance costs. This value can then be compared to industry benchmarks and analyzed for cost
C. Formula
Maintenance Shutdown Cost (%) = Total Maintenance Shutdown Cost x 100

Total Maintenance Shutdown Cost Total costs incurred to prepare and execute all planned
maintenance shutdown or outage activities. Include all
staff costs incurred for planning and management of the
maintenance activities performed during the shutdown.
Include all costs for temporary facilities and rental
equipment directly tied to maintenance activities per-
formed during the shutdown. Include operator costs, if
operators work on maintenance activities during the
shutdown. Do not include costs associated with capital
project expansions or improvements that are performed
during the shutdown. Total Maintenance Shutdown
Costs are determined and reported for a specific time
period, e.g. monthly, quarterly, annually.
maintenance performed by operators, e.g., TPM), mate-
maintenance expenses for out-
ages/shutdowns/turnarounds as well as normal operating
end-of-life machinery replacement (this is necessary so
that excessive replacement versus proper maintenance is
not masked). Do not include capital expenditures for
plant expansions or improvements. Maintenance costs
are for activities on work orders. (i.e., tied to work or-
ders)

E. Qualifications
6. Time Basis: Annually, but can be measured quarterly as well.

sources managers and vice presidents to compare different sites.
F. Example Calculation:
Following are the categories of costs incurred for the annual maintenance shutdown at the site:
Outage planning – $15,000

Special equipment rental (cranes, etc.) – $22,000
Contractor labour used on shutdown projects – $125,000
Plant labour used on shutdown projects – $36,000
Materials used on shutdown projects – $192,000
Total shutdown costs – $390,000
Maintenance Shutdown Cost = $390,000 = 5.4%

$7,200,000
G. Harmonisation
Note 2: The SMRP metric includes the planning and preparation cost for a shutdown. Planning and prepa-
ration costs are expected to be less than 5% of the shutdown cost. EN 13541 defines the cost as: “Cost of
maintenance performed during shutdowns”. This excludes the planning and preparation costs.
.

5.12 EN 15341 Indicator E21 and SMRP Metric 4.2.1
4.2.1 Maintenance Training Costs
A. Definition
Maintenance training costs are the dollar expenditures for the formal training that maintenance per-
sonnel receive annually. It is expressed as costs per employee.
B. Objectives
This metric is designed to measure how much formal training is being provided to improve the skills
of the maintenance personnel.
C. Formula
Training Costs per Employee = Total Training Costs / Number of Maintenance Employees.
Can also be expressed as a percentage of the total labour costs worked by a maintenance department
Training The training is provided in a formal setting, and will typi-

cally include classroom and hands-on training with testing
to confirm comprehension. Examples of training are safety
(LOTO, JSA, etc.), interpersonal skills development (leader-
ship, ESL, supervisory, etc.), math skills, computer skills,
use of CMMS, job planning, reliability (FMEA, RCFA,
etc.), problem solving, blueprint reading, alignment, balanc-
ing, lubrication, welding, all certifications (SMRP, vibra-
tion, Thermography, etc.), pneumatics, hydraulics, fasteners,
use of specialized tools, equipment specific training, etc.
Attendance at conventions and seminars is also credited as
training, as long as the subjects fall within the SMRP Body
of Knowledge.
Training Costs Training costs include all costs for formal training that are
directed at improving job skills. Training costs should in-
clude all employee labour, travel expenses, stationary, regis-
tration fees, instructor fees, etc.
Labour Costs Labour cost consists of hourly pay (or equivalent hourly
pay, if a salaried employee) plus FCIA, insurance and bene-
fits..
Maintenance Employees All personnel, salaried and hourly, direct and indirect, who
are responsible for executing work assignments pertaining to
the maintenance of physical assets and components.

E. Qualifications
1. Time basis: costs measured per calendar year

2. Indicator type: Leading
3. Typically used by maintenance managers and maintenance supervisors to aid in the
evaluation of a craft person’s skill levels to improve overall plant reliability.
4. The training should be formal training and documented. Comprehension testing should be
included for crediting the employee with the training.
5. Individual training needs assessments are important to target specific skills and for devel-
oping an overall training program
6. There may be benefit breaking out the training by job designation (mechanical, electrical,
craft worker, planner, engineer, supervisor, etc.) for benchmarking purposes. If broken
out, the measurement would be ‘average training costs/job designation/year’.
7. This metric may also be expressed as a percentage (training costs/total maintenance costs
w/o overtime).
8. Calculations can be made in any currency (e.g. Euros). Currency conversions should be
treated with caution.
F. Sample Calculation:
The maintenance organization at XYZ Corporation consists of 1 manager, 1 maintenance engineer,

2 foremen, 2 supervisors, 1 planner, 10 mechanics, 4 electricians and 1 storeroom clerk. Records
are kept for all formal training that the maintenance personnel received throughout the calendar
year. Specific training costs during the year included:
Training Costs (travel expenses, stationary, registration fees, instructor fees, etc.)
$ 0 Safety (completed in house)
$ 6,500 Laser alignment
$ 7,000 Hydraulic systems
$ 6,500 Circuit analysis
$ 6,000 Job planning
$ 1,600 Team building
$ 0 Math skill (completed in house)
$ 3,000 Annual SMRP Conference (registration costs, travel, etc.)
$ 4,800 Storeroom management
$35,400 = Classroom training for the year
Employee Labour Costs for attending classes

$ 7,260 Safety
$ 7,079 Laser alignment
$ 7,079 Hydraulic systems
$ 1,965 Circuit analysis
$ 3,660 Job planning
$ 4,850 Team building
$ 1,200 Math skill
$ 3,335 Annual SMRP Conference (time)
$ 3,000 Annual SMRP Conference (registration costs, travel, etc.)
$ 2,530 Storeroom management
$41,958 = Total labour for the year
$77,358 = Grand Total
Training Costs per Employee = Total Training Costs / Number of Maintenance Employees =

$77,358 / (1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 10 + 4 + 1) =
$77,358 / 22 = $3,516 in training costs / maintenance employee.
Looking at training costs as a percent of the total costs, the maintenance department total costs for the year
was 42,240 man-hours at a cost of $1,162,000
% Training Costs = Annual Training Costs / Total Department Costs Worked * 100%
= $77,358 / $2,100,500 = 3.7%
Looking at the training costs just for the electrical craft, the 4 electricians received the following training:
Training Classroom Costs (Instructors, stationary, lunches, travel, etc.)

$ 0 Safety (completed in house)
$6,500 Circuit analysis
$1,600 Team building
$8,100 = Classroom training for the year
Labour
$1,200 Safety
$1,550 Circuit analysis
$ 775 Team building
$3,525 = Total labour for the year
$11,625 = Grand Total
Average training/job designation/year = $11,625 / 4 electricians = $2,900 / electrician
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator E21 and SMRP Metric 4.2.1 are Identical
Note 1: The SMRP term: “Maintenance Employees” is similar to EN 15341 “Direct + Indirect personnel”
Note 2: SMRP includes participation in conventions, seminars and workshops under the umbrella of SMRP
Body of Knowledge in “Training hours”
Note 3: Salary cost during training is included in the calculation.
Note 4: The result of the indicator E21 is unit of value/person. Metric 4.2.1 offers the possibility to calcu-
late the result as a percentage.

5.13 EN 15341 Indicator T17 and SMRP Metric 3.5.1.
3.5.1 Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)
A. Definition
Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) is the average length of operating time between failures for an asset or
component. MTBF is used primarily for repairable assets and components of similar type. A related term,
Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) is used primarily for non-repairable assets and components, e.g. light bulbs and
rocket engines. Both terms are a measure of asset reliability and are also known as Mean Life. MTBF is the
reciprocal of Failure Rate (λ) at constant failure rates.
B. Objectives
This metric is used to assess the reliability of a repairable asset or component. Reliability is usually expressed
as the probability that an asset or component will perform its intended function without failure for a specified
period of time under specified conditions.
When trending, an increase in MTBF indicates improved asset reliability.
C. Formula
MTBF = Operating time (hours) ÷ Number of Failures
Failure When an asset is unable to perform its required

function.
Mean Life A term used interchangeably with Mean Time
Between Failures and Mean Time to Failure
Operating Time An interval of time during which the asset or
component is performing its required function
E. Qualifications
1. Time Basis: Equipment dependent

2. To be used by: maintenance and reliability personnel
3. Best when used at asset or component level
4. Should be trended over time for critical assets/components
5. Can be used to compare reliability of similar asset/component types
6. If MTBF for an asset or component is low, root cause failure analysis (RCFA) or failure modes and
effects analysis (FMEA) should be performed to identify opportunities to improve reliability.
7. By using MTBF as a parameter for redesign, the repair time and maintenance cost of an asset could
be reduced.

Assume an asset had 10 failures in 1000 hours of operation, as indicated in the diagram below,
Failures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
100 152 192 297 433 485 689 757 823 951
1000
Hours
MTBF = Operating time (hours) ÷ Number of Failures
MTBF = 1000 hours ÷ 10 failures
MTBF = 100 hours
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator T17 and SMRP Metric 3.5.1 are Identical
Note 1: SMRP uses the reciprocal value MTBF as failure rate. EN/IEC uses MTTF for the calculation of a
failure rate (1/MTTF).
Note 2: SMRP uses MTBF for repairable items and MTTR for non-repairable items. This differs from the
EN/IEC definition.

5.14 EN 15341 Indicator T18 and SMRP Metric 3.1
3.1 Systems Covered by Criticality Analysis
A. Definition:
The metric Systems Covered by Criticality Analysis is the ratio of the number of systems in a fa-
cility for which a criticality analysis has been performed divided by the total number of systems in
the facility, expressed as a percentage.
B. Objectives:
The purpose of a systems criticality analysis is to identify those systems which pose the most seri-
ous consequences or adverse effects if they fail. This will direct maintenance resources and im-
provement initiatives can be focused on these failure modes
The objective of the metric is to show progress towards applying criticality analyses to all critical
systems.
C. Formula:
Systems Covered by Criticality Analysis (%) = [Number of Systems for which a criticality analysis
has been performed ÷Total Number of Systems] X 100
The formula is depicted graphically in Figure 1.
D. Component Definitions:
System A set of interrelated or interacting elements. In the context

of dependability, a system will have:
a) a defined purpose expressed in terms of required
functions,
b) stated conditions of operation, and
c) defined boundaries
Criticality Analysis A quantitative analysis of events and faults and the ranking
of these in order of the seriousness of the combination of
the seriousness of their consequences and frequency of oc-
currence.
Critical System A system that is vital to continued operations, will signifi-
cantly impact production, or have inherent risks to person-
nel safety or the environment if failed

E. Qualifications:
1. Time Basis: Calculate at the start of a maintenance improvement initiative and track in
accordance with the initiative reporting schedule. Track annually thereafter.
2. Used by: Corporate management, plant managers and reliability engineers.
3. The assets which are included in each system should be as defined by the management of
that facility or organization. The term “system” must be related and transferred to the facil-
ity’s technology (i.e., assets, functional locations)
4. The type of criticality analysis can range from use of a simple criticality table to a formal
Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA).
5. Considerations for criticality analysis include, for example, safety, environment, produc-
tion, product quality, and cost.
6. The analysis must be formally documented and assessments must be risk-based.
7. Criticality analysis should be performed on all new systems prior to installation and com-
missioning.
8. Before performing a criticality analysis, all systems must be ranked/assessed to identify
critical systems, and separate these from non – critical systems (see Figure 1)
9. The goal should be to have all critical systems covered by a criticality analysis
10. All non-critical systems should have their failure impacts on the process reviewed periodi-
cally to determine if the original criticality assessment was accurate
The XYZ Company has started a new maintenance improvement initiative at its ABC plant. The plant Re-
liability Engineer determined that during the last improvement program five years ago, criticality analyses
were performed on 337 of the facility’s 1,427 assets (hereafter termed systems).
Systems Covered by Criticality Analysis (%) = [Number of Systems for which a criticality analysis has
been performed /Total Number of Systems] X 100
Number of Systems for which a criticality

analysis has been performed = 337
Total Number of Systems =1, 811
Systems Covered by Criticality Analysis (%) = [337/1811] x 100 = 18.6%
This provides the starting point for tracking improvement in this metric, and provides a benchmark to a
concurrent improvement initiative being conducted at plant DEF.
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator T18 and SMRP Metric 3.1 are Identical

Figure 5.1. Calculation of the Metric: Systems Covered by Criticality Analysis

5.15 EN 15341 Indicator T21 and SMRP Metric 3.5.2
3.5.2 Mean Time To Repair (MTTR)
A. Definition
Mean Time to Repair or Replace (MTTR) is the average time needed to restore an asset to its full opera-
tional capabilities after a failure. MTTR is a measure of asset maintainability, usually expressed as the
probability that a machine can be restored to its specified operable condition within a specified interval of
time, regardless of whether an asset is repaired or replaced.
B. Objectives
The objective of this metric is to assess maintainability, including the effectiveness of plans and proce-
dures.
C. Formula
MTTR = total repair or replacement time (hours) ÷ number of repair or replacement events
Failure When an asset is unable to perform its required

function.
Repair /Replacement Time The time required to restore the function of an
asset after failure by repairing or replacing the
asset. The duration of the repair or replacement
begins when the asset ceases to operate to the
time operability is restored. It should include
time for checking the asset for its functionality
prior to handing it over to Operations.
Repair /Replacement Event The act of restoring the function of an asset after
failure or imminent failure by repairing or replac-
ing the asset.
E. Qualifications
1. Indicator type: Lagging

2. Time basis: Equipment dependent
3. Used by maintenance and reliability personnel.
4. Provides the best data when used for the same type of asset/component in a similar operating context.
5. The Craft Worker’s skill level, existence and use of repair procedures and the availability of tools and
materials could significantly reduce MTTR.
6. By using MTTR as a parameter for redesign, the repair time and maintenance cost of an asset could be
reduced.

Assume an asset had 10 failures in 1000 hours of operation and repair times were 2, 6, 10, 6, 5, 10, 1, 2, 5
and 3 hours as shown in the diagram below.
FAILURES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Repair Time 2 6 10 6 5 10 1 2 5 3
100 152 192 297 433 485 689 757 823 951
1000
Hours
MTTR = total repair or replacement time (hours) ÷ number of repair or replacement events
MTTR = (2+6+10+6+5+10+1+2+5+3) ÷ 10
MTTR = 50 hours ÷ 10
MTTR= 5 hours per event
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator T21 and SMRP Metric 3.5.2 are Identical
Note 1: The difference is in the glossary EN 15341 refers to "R Restore" while SMRP refers to "R Re-
pair". IEC 15191 term 191-13-08 approves "restoration" as well as "repair" Conclusion: The difference is
academic
Note 2: Both the SMRP metric and the EN metric include administrative and logistic delay in the calcula-
tion.
This definition is similar to the definition used in many ISO/IEC EN standards: “Termination of the ability
to perform a required function”

5.16 EN 15341 Indicator O8 and SMRP Metric 5.7.1
5.7.1 Continuous Improvement Hours
A. Definition:
Continuous Improvement Hours is the percentage of internal maintenance labour hours that is used
to improve the current performance to an increased level. Continuous Improvement Hours are used
to improve the performance for, but not limited to safety, quality, and environment, availability, out-
put and cost.
B. Objectives:
The objective of the metric is to quantify and track the internal labour hours used to improve the de-
velopment of the maintenance performance and the overall performance (e.g. safety, output cost and
environmental) of the operation/company.
C. Formula:
Continuous improvement hours =: Internal labour hours used for continuous improvement X 100
Total internal maintenance personnel labour hours
Internal labour hours The internal direct and indirect labour hours used on improvement processes
used for continuous intended to improve the current level of availability, reliability, maintain-
improvement ability, quality, safety, environment and costs.
Examples are hours used for systematic critical analysis, identification of
improvements, participation in projects and their preparations, as instructor
for training and education internally and externally, or, finally, for safety,
quality or environmental audit or schemes. Do not include labour hours for
capital expenditures for plant expansions or improvements
Total internal mainte- Man hours of internal personnel engaged in maintenance.

nance personnel labour
The internal personnel man hours are composed of:
hours
a) Direct personnel are personnel working in the field, or workshops per-
forming maintenance activities (usually referred to as “blue collar
workers”)
b) Indirect Personnel (Managers, Staff and clerks, Supervisors, Mainte-
nance engineering personnel, Planning and scheduling personnel, Tools
store men, Warehouse and store workers)
Man hours of maintenance activities carried out by production people are
included

E. Qualification:
1. Time Basis : Monthly, Yearly

2. To be used by: Maintenance management and site managers to evaluate the development effort
by the organization
3. Some organizations may prefer to track Continuous improvement hours used rather than the per-
centage; however, setting the standard calculation as a percentage enables plants of different
sizes to be compared.
4. “Continuous improvement hours” is a much broader term than “improvement” hours. “Improve-
ment” hours is limited to the improvement of availability performance
The internal maintenance labour used during January 2007 was 1000 hours, which was made up of
labour, support and management hours (both direct and indirect).
The monthly report from the CMMS for January 2007 showed:
Mechanics and supervisor hours used for a safety fish bone analysis on Pump # 117 12 hours
Contractor man hours used for a safety fish bone analysis on Pump # 117 10 hours
(Note: Contractor hours are external and excluded from the metric calculation)
Electrical hours used in a task force to improve the quality on line AA 28 hours
Hours used for an improvement of the lifetime on Fan #1017 24 hours
Hours used for a project proposal to debottlenecking of line BB,
leading to a potential improved output on 15 % 6 hours
Hours used as instructor in training of a new method for pump alignment
of internal staff 9 hours
Hours used to participate in an expansion capital project on dryer # 2 25 hours
(Note: Capital man hours are excluded from the metric calculation)
Continuous improvement hours/Total internal maintenance personnel labour hours * 100
Continuous improvement hours (%) = [12+28+24+6+9]/1000 x 100 = 7.9%
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator O8 and SMRP Metric5.7.1 are Identical

5.17 EN 15341 indicator O10 and SMRP Metric 5.5.6
5. 5.6 Craft Workers on Shift Ratio
A. Definition
The metric is the ratio of the number of maintenance craft workers on shift to the total number of maintenance
craft workers.
B. Objectives
This metric is an indirect measurement of equipment reliability since frequent unexpected failures require
craft workers on shift to expedite repairs. Trending the number of craft workers on shift can also help
identify maintenance issues on the off shifts and can be used to benchmark with other companies or be-
tween departments within the same plant.
C. Formula
Craft Worker on Shift Ratio = Total Number of Maintenance Craft Workers on Shift ÷ Total Number of
Maintenance Craft Workers
The result is expressed as a ratio e.g. 1:6.
Maintenance Craft The worker responsible for executing maintenance work orders (e.g. electri-
Worker cian, mechanic, PM/PdM technician, etc.).
On Shift Maintenance craft workers who rotate with or are assigned work hours
aligned with a production shift are considered “on shift.” Maintenance craft
workers on shift typically work on emergency work and are not identified
with the main group of maintenance craft workers that work day shift.
E. Qualifications
1. Time basis: monthly

2. Used by plant management as an indicator of the reliability of production assets.
3. Maintenance craft workers called in to work outside their normal shift are not considered on shift
whether working a full shift or not.
4. Trending the number of craft workers on shift may help identify maintenance issues on the off shifts.

A given maintenance department has 24 mechanics with 3 on shift, 8 Electricians with 2 on shift and 4 in-
strumentation technicians with 1 on shift.
Craft Worker on Shift Ratio = Total Number of Maintenance Craft Workers on Shift ÷ Total Number of
Maintenance Craft Workers
Craft Worker on Shift Ratio = (3 + 2 + 1) ÷ (24 + 8 = 4)
Craft Worker on Shift Ratio = 6 ÷ 36
Craft Worker on Shift Ratio = 1:6
F. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator O10 and SMRP Metric 5.5.6 are Identical
Note 1: "On call" craft workers are excluded from the calculation for both metrics/indicators
Note 2: SMRP Metric calculates the formula as a ratio. EN 15341 indicator calculate the formula as per-
centage.
Note 3: The term “Maintenance Craft worker” is similar to EN 15341: “Direct maintenance personnel”

5.1.2 Corrective Maintenance Hours
A. Definition
Corrective Maintenance Hours is the percentage of total maintenance labour hours that is used to restore
equipment to a functional state after a failure or when failure is imminent. (See Figure 5.2 – Maintenance
Work Types in Section 5.27)
B. Objectives
This metric quantifies the labour resource impact of work done on corrective maintenance tasks. Trending
corrective maintenance hours can provide feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive activities.
C. Formula
Corrective Maintenance Hours (%) = (Corrective Maintenance Labour Hours × 100) ÷ Total Maintenance
Labour Hours
Corrective Mainte- The worker responsible for executing maintenance work orders (e.g. electri-
nance Labour Hours cian, mechanic, PM/PdM technician, etc.).
Total Maintenance Total maintenance labour is expressed in hours and includes all maintenance
Labour Hours labour hours for normal operating times as well as outages, shutdowns and
turnarounds. If operator hours spent on maintenance activities are captured,
they should be included in the numerator and denominator of all applicable
metrics. Include labour hours for capital expenditures directly related to end-
of-life machinery replacement so that excessive replacement versus proper
maintenance is not masked. Do not include labour hours used for capital
E. Qualifications

2. To be used by: Maintenance management personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive activities
such as the preventive and predictive maintenance programs.
3. To obtain data necessary for this measure, the work order system must be configured so that corrective
maintenance work is differentiated from other types of work. This can usually be done by setting up the
appropriate work types and classifying each work order accordingly.
4. The labour incurred for corrective work resulting from problems discovered before failure (e.g., predictive
maintenance inspections) should be included in corrective maintenance labour hours.
A high percentage of corrective maintenance labour hours could be an indication of a reactive work culture
and poor asset reliability.

F. SAMPLE CALCULATION
The total internal maintenance labour used during the month was 2400 hours of straight time and 384 hours
of overtime. Maintenance done by contractors consumed another 480 hours. Corrective maintenance la-
bour during the month was 1832 hours.
Corrective Maintenance Hours (%) = (Corrective Maintenance Hours × 100) ÷ Total Maintenance Labour
Hours
Corrective Maintenance Hours (%) = [1832 ÷ (2400 + 384 + 480)] × 100
Corrective Maintenance Hours (%) = (1832 ÷ 3264) × 100
Corrective Maintenance Hours (%) = 0.561 × 100
Corrective Maintenance Hours (%) = 56.1%
F. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator O16 and SMRP Metric 5.1.2 are Similar
Note 1: The SMRP component definition for Corrective Maintenance “is the hours/cost to restore equip-
ment to a functional state after a failure or when a failure is imminent”. This is similar to the EN 13306
definition “. Maintenance carried out after fault recognition and intended to put an item into a state in
which it can perform a required function”
Note 2: Corrective maintenance consists of “Deferred maintenance” and “Immediate/Breakdown Mainte-

nance”
Note 2: SMRP includes part of work identified during Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) and Preven-
tive Maintenance (PM) in the Corrective Maintenance definition. In the EN definition for Condition Based
Maintenance any work identified during CBM activities is included in the CBM indicators

5.4.1 Reactive Work
A. Definition
Reactive work is maintenance work that breaks into the weekly schedule.
B . Objectives
This metric is used to measure and monitor the amount of work that is performed outside of the weekly
schedule.
C . Formula
Reactive Work (%) = [Work that breaks into the weekly schedule (hrs) ÷ Total Maintenance Labour Hours] ×
100
D . Component Definition s
Total Maintenance Total maintenance labour is expressed in hours and includes all maintenance
Labour Hours labour hours for normal operating times as well as outages, shutdowns and
Weekly Schedule The list of maintenance work to be done in the week. It is usually finalized
three to four days before the start of the work week.
E . Qualifications

2. To be used by maintenance and operations management to understand how reactive a plant is (i.e.
jumping from one problem to the next).
3. Can be used to show the potential benefit of reducing the level of reactive work and increasing the
level of planned and scheduled work.
4. High levels of reactive work can be an indication of poor asset reliability and/or poor work prioritiza-
tion and management.
5. Examples of reactive work include emergency work and similar work that must be started immediately
due the asset condition and/or business requirements (e.g. product demand).
6. Work that is well planned and scheduled is completed more efficiently than reactive work.
7. Ideally the amount of reactive work would be minimal.

The total hours worked in the month by the maintenance organization on all work types and priorities is
1000 hours. A total of 350 hours was worked on emergency and similar work that was not on the weekly
schedule.
Reactive Work (%) = [Work that breaks into the weekly schedule (hrs) ÷
Total Maintenance Labour Hours] × 100
Reactive Work (%) = [350 hrs ÷ 1000 hrs] × 100
Reactive Work (%) = 0.35 × 100
Reactive Work (%) = 35%
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator O17 and SMRP Metric 5.4.1 have the Same Performance
Note 1: The difference is that metric 5.4.1 measures the labour hours that breaks the maintenance schedule.
Indicator O17 measures only the labour hours spent on equipment failure requiring immediate action re-
gardless of schedule or no schedule. When comparing Metric 5.4.1 with O17, the metric 5.4.1 will be a
higher value since it measures labour hours spent on equipment failure + poor planning + rapid change of
priorities.
Depending on the application of the metric, one should be careful about making comparisons
See the Harmonised Indicators web site for further discussions

5.4.2 Proactive Work
A. Definition
Proactive work is maintenance work that is completed to avoid failures or to identify defects that could
lead to failures. It includes routine preventive and predictive maintenance activities and work tasks identi-
fied from them.
B. Objectives
This metric is used to measure and monitor the amount of work that is being done in order to prevent fail-
ures or to identify defects that could lead to failures.
C. Formula
Proactive Work (%) = [Work completed on preventive maintenance work orders, predictive maintenance
work orders, and corrective work identified from preventive and predictive work orders (hrs) ÷ Total Mainte-
nance Labour Hours] × 100
Preventive Maintenance Preventive maintenance is an equipment maintenance strategy based on re-

placing or restoring an asset on a fixed interval regardless of its condition.
Scheduled restoration and replacement tasks are examples of preventive
maintenance
Predictive Maintenance Predictive maintenance is an equipment maintenance strategy based on as-
sessing the condition of an asset to determine the likelihood of failure and
then taking appropriate action to avoid failure. The condition of equipment
can be measured using condition monitoring technologies, statistical process
control, equipment performance indicators or through the use of human
senses
Corrective Work Identified Corrective work that was identified through preventive and/or predictive
from Preventive and Predic- maintenance tasks and completed prior to failure in order to restore the func-
tive Maintenance Work Or- tion of an asset
ders
Failure When an asset is unable to perform its required function.

Total Maintenance Labour Total maintenance labour is expressed in hours and includes all maintenance
Hours labour hours for normal operating times as well as outages, shutdowns and

E. Qualifications
2. To be used by maintenance and operations management to understand how much time is being spent
on activities designed to avoid failures.
3. High levels of proactive work coupled with a low rate of failures can be an indication that operation
and maintenance processes are well designed and managed.
4. Ideally the amount of proactive work would be high to maximize the benefits derived from avoiding
failures.
The total actual hours worked in the month by the maintenance organization is 1000 hours. A total of 150
hours was worked on preventive maintenance, 100 hours was worked on predictive maintenance and 400
hours was worked on corrective maintenance from preventive and predictive maintenance work orders.
Proactive Work (%) = [Work completed on preventive maintenance work orders, predictive maintenance
work orders, and corrective work Identified from preventive and predictive work orders (hrs) ÷ Total
Maintenance Labour Hours] × 100
Proactive Work (%) = [(150 hours + 100 hours + 400 hours) ÷ 1000 hours] × 100
Proactive Work (%) = [650 hours ÷ 1000 hours] × 100
Proactive Work (%) = 0.65 × 100
Proactive Work (%) = 65%
G. Harmonisation
Note 1: Proactive maintenance contains the EN 13306 definition of preventive maintenance + the part of
corrective maintenance tasks originating from findings during predictive and preventive activities

5.1.6 Condition Based Maintenance Hours
A. Definition
Condition Based Maintenance Hours (shown as a percentage) is maintenance labour hours that are
used to measure, trend, and compare equipment conditions with known standards to detect, analyze,
and correct problems before they cause functional failures. (See Figure 5.2 – Maintenance Work
Types in Section 5.27)
B. Objectives
The objective is to quantify the labour resource impact of work done as condition based (predictive)
maintenance tasks. Trending the percentage of condition based maintenance hours can provide feed-
back to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive activities when compared to the percentage of labour
hour trends of all maintenance work types.
C. Formula
Condition Based Maintenance Hours (%) = Condition Based Maintenance Hours X 100
Total Maintenance Labour Hours
Condition Based Maintenance Hours Total craft hours, company or resident contractor
for condition based maintenance work per-
formed. Includes operator hours if all operator
maintenance hours are included in Total Mainte-
nance Labour Hours.
Condition Based Maintenance (PdM) PdM is an equipment maintenance strategy based
on measuring the condition of equipment in order
to assess whether it will fail during some future
period, and then taking appropriate action to
avoid the consequences of that failure. The con-
dition of the equipment could be measured using
condition monitoring, statistical process control,
equipment performance, or through the use of
human senses. The term Condition Based Main-
tenance, On-Condition Maintenance and Predic-
tive Maintenance can be used interchangeably.

Total Maintenance Labour Hours Total maintenance labour is expressed in hours
and includes all maintenance labour hours for
normal operating times as well as outages, shut-
downs and turnarounds. If operator hours spent
on maintenance activities are captured, they
should be included in the numerator and denomi-
nator of all applicable metrics. Include labour
hours for capital expenditures directly related to
end-of-life machinery replacement so that exces-
sive replacement versus proper maintenance is
not masked. Do not include labour hours used
for capital expansions or improvements.
E. Qualifications

2. To be used by Maintenance Management personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive
maintenance and reliability activities when also compared to other maintenance work type
hour trends.
a way that Condition Based Maintenance work can be differentiated from other types of work.
This can usually be done by setting up appropriate Work Types and classifying each work or-
der accordingly.
4. The hours incurred for condition based maintenance work and minor adjustments or correc-
tions while completing the monitoring tasks, and performed under the same work order, should
be included in predictive spending. Time spent for minor corrections would not extend beyond
the time allowed for the PdM.
5. Hours for work done off site are much more difficult to track and are not normally included.
The total maintenance labour hours for the month were 3753 hours of straight time (operator main-
tenance hours not included) and 47 hours of overtime. Oil samples drawn by a contract sampling
crew consumed 196 hours and the round based vibration readings by operators consumed another
24 hours. The total hours from Condition Based Maintenance work orders by the company mainte-
nance staff totalled 876 hours.
Condition Based Maintenance Hours (%) = Condition Based Maintenance Hours X 100
Condition Based Maintenance Hours (%) = (196 + 876 ) X 100

(3753 + 47)
= 28.21 %

G. Harmonisation
Note 1: EN 15341 defines Conditioned Maintenance (hours) as: “Preventive maintenance which includes a
combination of condition monitoring and/or inspection and/or testing analysis and the following mainte-
nance actions”. SMRP counts the “condition monitoring and/or inspection and/or testing analysis” and
does not include the ensuing activities (i.e., corrective maintenance) as CBM. Conclusion: Calculating the
indicator based on the SMRP metric 5.1.5 definition will give a lover number that by the EN 15341 defini-
tion since “..the ensuing actions are excluded” from the SMRP definition of CBM
Note 3: Both EFNMS and SMRP include failure finding tasks for hidden failures in CBM ref. IEC 60300-
3-11
Note 4: EN 15341 and SMRP includes operator CBM hours in the calculation

5.1.4 Preventive Maintenance Hours
A. Definition
The percentage of Preventive Maintenance hours is maintenance labour that is used to perform fixed
interval maintenance tasks, regardless of the equipment condition at the time. (See Figure 5.2 –
Maintenance Work Types in Section 5.27).
B. Objectives
The objective is to quantify the labour resource impact of work done on preventive maintenance tasks.
Trending the percentage of preventive maintenance hours can provide feedback to evaluate the quantity
of proactive activities when compared to the percentage of labour hour trends of all maintenance work
types.
C. Formula
Preventive Maintenance Hours (%) = Preventive Maintenance Hours X 100

Preventive Maintenance Hours Total craft hours , company or resident contractor

for preventative maintenance work performed.
Includes operator hours if all operator mainte-
nance hours are included in Total Maintenance
Labour Hours.
Preventive Maintenance (PM) PM is an equipment maintenance strategy based
on inspection, replacing, overhauling or remanu-
facturing an item at a fixed interval, regardless of
its condition at the time. Scheduled Restoration
tasks and Scheduled Discard tasks are examples
of Preventive Maintenance tasks.

E. Qualifications

2. To be used by Maintenance Management personnel.
3. Maintenance Management personnel can evaluate the effectiveness of proactive maintenance
and reliability activities when also compared to other maintenance work type hour trends. Can
also be an indicator of preventive maintenance efficiency and PM levelling, when PM tasks
remain constant.
a way that Preventive Maintenance work can be differentiated from other types of work. This
can usually be done by setting up appropriate Work Types and classifying each work order ac-
cordingly.
5. The hours incurred for preventive maintenance work and minor adjustments or corrections
while completing the scheduled interval tasks, and performed under the same work order,
should be included in preventive spending. Time spent for minor corrections would not extend
beyond the time allowed for the PM.
6. Hours for work done off site is much more difficult to track and is not normally included.
F. Sample Calculations
The total maintenance hours for the month was 1800 hours of straight time (operator maintenance
hours not included) and 125 hours of overtime. A pump bi-annual overhaul done by resident con-
tractors consumed 48 hours and the monthly scheduled operator rounds of lubrication, filter
changes, burner cleanings and adjustments consumed another 150 hours. The total hours from pre-
ventive work orders by the company maintenance staff totalled 452 hours.
Preventive Maintenance Hours (%) = Preventive Maintenance Hours X 100

Preventive Maintenance Hours (%) = (48 + 452 ) X 100

(1800 +125)
= 25.97 %
G. Harmonisation
Note 1: SMRP “Preventive” = EN 13306/15341 “Predetermined”
Note 2: Minor tasks not included in the procedure detected during Preventive/Predetermined maintenance
are included in Preventive/Predetermined activities.
Please look at the Q/A section at the Harmonised Indicator website for further discussions

5.5.8 Overtime Maintenance Hours
A. Definition
The metric is the number of overtime maintenance labour hours used to maintain assets, divided by the total
maintenance labour hours to maintain assets, expressed as a percentage.
B . Objectives
This metric is used to determine whether the permanent maintenance workforce is performing effectively and
appropriately staffed for the maintenance workload.
C . Formula
Overtime Maintenance Hours (%) = (Overtime Maintenance Labour Hours ÷ Total Maintenance Labour
Hours) × 100
D. Com ponent Definition s
Overtime Maintenance Labour Hours Overtime Maintenance Labour Hours is any

hours beyond the normal standard work period or
shift (e.g. 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week).
Include overtime maintenance labour hours for
normal operating times as well as out-
ages/shutdowns/ turnarounds. If operator hours
spent on maintenance activities are captured, they
end-of-life machinery replacement (this is neces-
sary so that excessive replacement versus proper
maintenance is not masked). Do not include la-
bour hours used for capital expenditures for plant
expansions or improvements. Typically, it does
not include temporary contractor labour overtime
hours.

E. Qualifications
1. Time basis: Typically calculated on a monthly basis.

2. To be used by maintenance managers, maintenance supervisors, and human resources managers to
evaluate the need for additional resources.
3. Complementary metrics include 5.6.1 Wrench Time, 5.4.1 Reactive Work, 5.5.71 Contractor Cost,
5.5.7 Overtime Maintenance Hours, and 4.1 Rework
4. If a contractor is used as permanent onsite maintenance, their hours should be included.
5. It may be difficult to separate operator-based maintenance labour hours.
6. Abnormally high levels of overtime during turnarounds may skew routine overtime maintenance
hours.
In a given month overtime maintenance labour hours is 500 and the total maintenance labour hours is
10,000 for the same month, overtime maintenance hours would be:
Overtime Maintenance Hours (%) = (Overtime Maintenance Labour Hours ÷ Total Maintenance Labour
Hours) × 100
Overtime Maintenance Hours (%) = (500 hours ÷ 10,000 hours) × 100
Overtime Maintenance Hours (%) = 0.5 × 100
Overtime Maintenance Hours (%) = 5%
G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator O21 and SMRP Metric 5.5.8 are Similar
Note 1: Both SMRP and EN15342 calculate only direct personnel
Note 2 Permanent contractors on site are included in the calculation of SMRP metrics 5.5.8. EN 15341 ex-
cludes contractors

5.4.4 Schedule Compliance - Work Orders
A. Definition
The metric is a measure of adherence to the weekly maintenance work schedule expressed as a percent of total
number of scheduled work orders.
B. Objectives
This metric measures compliance to the weekly maintenance schedule and reflects the effectiveness of the
work scheduling process.
C. Formula
Scheduled Compliance (%) = (Number of work orders performed as scheduled ÷ Total number of scheduled work orders)
× 100
Number of Work Orders Performed as Number of work orders on the maintenance

Scheduled schedule that were executed when scheduled
Total Number of Scheduled Work Orders Total number of work orders on the weekly
maintenance schedule
Weekly Schedule The list of maintenance work to be done in a
week. It is usually finalized three to four days
before the start of the work week
E. Qualifications
1. This metric is calculated on a weekly basis.

2. To be used by maintenance management to identify opportunities for efficiency improvement.
3. Rescheduled work that reappears on a weekly maintenance schedule cannot be completed as scheduled
since the original schedule date has already passed. Count only work orders that were actually com-
pleted as scheduled on the original schedule.
4. See also related metric 5.4.3 Schedule Compliance – Hours which measures schedule performance in
hours.
5. Any work performed that is not on the schedule is unscheduled work.
6. This metric is a secondary indicator of planning effectiveness, reactive work and craft worker effec-
tiveness.

For a given week there were 135 work orders scheduled. At the end of the week 113 scheduled work orders
and 45 emergency work orders were completed.
Scheduled Compliance (%) = (Number of work orders performed as scheduled ÷ Total number of scheduled work orders)
× 100
Scheduled Compliance (%) = (113 ÷ 135) × 100
Scheduled Compliance (%) = 0.837 × 100
Scheduled Compliance (%) = 83.7%
Note: The emergency work orders do not count as they broke into the weekly schedule.
G. Harmonisation
Note 1: Both metrics/indicators measures scheduled compliance - Not planned and scheduled performance.
Note 2: Metric 5.4.4 is calculated on a weekly basis. EN O22 is calculated on any given time frame - also
weekly.

4.2.2 Maintenance Training Hours
A. Definition
The metric is the number of hours of formal training that maintenance personnel receive annually. It is
expressed as hours per employee.
B. Objectives
This metric measures the investment in training to improve the skills and abilities of maintenance personnel.
C. Formula
Maintenance Training Hours = Training Hours ÷ Number of Maintenance Employees
This metric can also be expressed as a percentage of the total number of hours worked by a maintenance
department.
Training Hours Includes all time spent on formal training that is

designed to improve job skills. The training is
provided in a formal setting and typically in-
cludes classroom and hands-on training with test-
ing to confirm comprehension. Training can in-
clude but is not limited to safety, leadership,
technical, computer, planning, reliability, prob-
lem solving, and similar training. Attendance at
conventions, seminars and workshops is credited
as training, as long as the subjects fall within the
SMRP Body of Knowledge
Maintenance Employees All personnel, salaried and hourly, direct and in-
direct, who are responsible for executing work
assignments pertaining to the maintenance of
physical assets and components
E. Qualifications
1. Time basis: yearly

2. Used by maintenance management to measure the investment in skills training.
3. Used as an aid when evaluating skill levels of maintenance craft personnel.
4. Training should be formal and documented and should include comprehension testing.
5. Individual training needs assessments are important to target specific skills deficiencies and for devel-
oping an overall skills training program.
6. It is helpful to break out training by craft or job Harmonisation (mechanical, electrical, craft worker,
planner, engineer, supervisor, etc.) for benchmarking purposes.

7. This metric may also be expressed as a percentage of total maintenance hours (e.g. training hours ÷
total maintenance labour hours).
A given maintenance organization consists of a manager, maintenance engineer, planner, two foremen, ten
mechanics, four electricians and a storeroom clerk. Training hours during the year included
264 hours Safety

288 hours Laser alignment
288 hours Hydraulic systems
80 hours Circuit analysis
120 hours Job planning
176 hours Team building
52 hours Mathematics
80 hours Annual SMRP Conference
72 hours Storeroom management
Training Hours = 264 + 288 + 288 + 80 + 120 + 176 + 52 + 80 + 72 = 1420 hours
Number of Maintenance Employees = 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 10 + 4 + 1 = 20
Maintenance Training Hours = Training Hours ÷ Number of Maintenance Employees
Maintenance Training Hours = 1420 hours ÷ 20 Maintenance Employees
Maintenance Training Hours = 71 hours/employee
Training Hours as a Percentage of Total Maintenance Hours
The maintenance department total hours for the year were 38,400 man hours.
Maintenance Training Hours (%) = (Training Hours ÷ Total Hours Worked) × 100
Maintenance Training Hours (%) = (1420 hours ÷ 38,400 hours) × 100
Maintenance Training Hours (%) = 0.037 × 100
Maintenance Training Hours (%) = 3.7%
Training Hours by Craft
The four electricians received the following training:
48 hours – Safety 64 hours - Circuit analysis 32 hours - Team building
The total hours of electrician training for the year = 48 + 64 + 32 = 144 hours
Maintenance Training Hours = 144 hours ÷ 4 electricians = 36 hours/electrician

G. Harmonisation
EN 15341 Indicator O23 and SMRP Metric 4.2.2 have the same performance
Note 1: The difference is in the calculation method. EN 15341 Indicator O23 expresses the result as a per-
centage. SMRP Metric 4.2.2 metric calculates the result as hours per year per maintenance employees.
Note 2 Nominator is similar for both metrics including training hours for direct and indirect personnel.
EN 15341 O23 expresses the indicator as a percentage of "Total Maintenance personnel man hours”, which
includes contractor hours and excludes indirect personnel
SMRP Metric 4.2.2 expresses the result as a ratio per maintenance employee (excluding contractors and
including direct and indirect personnel)
Note 3.The SMRP term: “Maintenance Employees” is similar to EN 15341 “Direct + Indirect personnel”
Note 4: SMRP includes participation in conventions, seminars and workshops under the umbrella of SMRP
Body of Knowledge in “Training hours”. This difference is estimated to impact the calculation with less
than 5 %

5.5.33 Stock Outs
A. Definition
The metric is a measure of the frequency that a customer goes to the storeroom inventory system and
cannot immediately obtain the part needed.
B. Objectives
The metric is used to maintain the appropriate balance in stocked inventory. Too much inventory in-
creases working capital unnecessarily. Too little inventory results in unnecessary delay and equip-
ment downtime that can negatively impact costs and profits. Stock Outs is a measure that can be
used to minimize the waste associated with excess inventory.
C. Formula
Stock Outs (%) = [Number of Inventory Requests with Stock Out/

Total Number of Inventory Requests] x 100
Number of Inventory Requests with Stock An inventory request is considered a stock out if
Out the inventory item is normally stocked on site
and the inventory request is for a normal quantity
of the item, but the inventory on hand is insuffi-
cient to fill the request
Total Number of Inventory Requests The total of all requests for items listed as
stocked in the storeroom inventory system
E. Qualifications

2. To be used by maintenance, storeroom and purchasing managers
3. Integrated supply involves maintaining stock records in a storeroom inventory system, but
storing items off-site at a vendor’s site. Deliveries are made on some prearranged schedule
with emergency delivery available. The advantage of integrated supply is reduced working
capital and storage requirements with minimal risk. Stock outs can be measured in an inte-
grated supply arrangement.
4. Consignment involves keeping vendor-owned inventory on-site. The vendor owns the inven-
tory until it is consumed. The advantage of consignment is reducing working capital. Stock
outs can be measured in a consignment arrangement.
5. This metric is best used with other indicators (e.g., 5.5.31 Stores Inventory Turns) that provide
a complete picture of storeroom inventory
6. Information gleaned from stock out reports should be analyzed to assess stocking levels based
on consumption trends
7. Stocking level thresholds should balance working capital savings with risk.

A storeroom receives 1,234 stock requests in a given month. There were 30 requests in this same month
where there was insufficient inventory to fill the request. Analyses of these 30 requests found 4 that were
excessive orders beyond the normal request quantities; therefore these 4 requests did not meet the criterion
for stock outs. The remaining 26 requests were stock outs.
Stock Outs (%) = [Number of Inventory Requests with Stock Out/

Total Number of Inventory Requests] x 100
Stock out % = (26 / 1234) x 100
Stock out % = 0.021 x 100
Stock out % = 2.1%
G. Harmonisation
Note 1: The difference is in the way the performance is calculated. EN 15341 measures the success rate,
while SMRP measures the "un-success rate"
Note 2:_The formula for the calculation of the metric 5.5.33 based on the O26 calculation is:
100 % - (Value from EN 15341, O26) = Result for SMRP 5.5.33 metric

5.27 Figures Referenced in the SMRP Metrics
Figure 5.2 Maintenance Work Types as Defined by the SMRP
This figure is referenced in the following SMRP metrics:

 Corrective Maintenance Cost
 Corrective Maintenance Hours
 Preventive Maintenance Cost
 Preventive Maintenance Hours
 Condition Based Maintenance Cost
 Condition Based Maintenance Hours
The SMRP defined work types can be compared to those of standard EN 13306 in Figure 5.3

Maintenance
Preventive maintenance Corrective Maintenance
Condition based Predetermined Deferred Immediate

Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
Scheduled, continious
Scheduled
or on request
Figure 5.3 Maintenance Work Types as Defined in EN 13306

6. References and useful links
6.1 SMRP Metrics Guidelines
These documents provide additional guidance and/or clarification on the use of particular SMRP Metrics
Determining RAV (www.SMRP.org)
Lagging and Leading Indicators (In development)
Guide to Mean Metrics (In development)
Contractor Types (In development)
Availability (In development)
6.2 References
EN 13306:2001 Maintenance Terminology
EN 15341:2007 Maintenance Key Performance Indicators
IEC 60300-3-11, 2nd Ed. Dependability management - Part 3-11: Application guide - Reliability
centred maintenance
IEC 60500 International Electrotechnical Vocabulary
ISO 14224 Petroleum and Gas industries – Collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for
equipment, Annex E
6.3 Useful links
BEMAS – www.bemas.org (to purchase this book in Europe)
CEN – www.cen.org
EFNMS-SMRP Harmonisation Project - www.harmonisedindicators.org
EFNMS-SMRP Harmonisation Project (North America) - www.harmonizedindicators.org
EFNMS – www.efnms.org
SMRP - www.smrp.org

7. Information about EFNMS and SMRP
7.1 European Federation of National Maintenance Societies
The European Federation of National Maintenance Societies, EFNMS is the European umbrella organisa-
tion for national maintenance societies in Europe. The organisation was founded in 1971. Today EFNMS
has 21 members and several candidates for membership.
The mission for EFNMS is to coordinate and represent the National Maintenance Societies supporting a
knowledge network and providing means to improve the know-how and direction of Maintenance in the
European Union. With the aim, by means of maintenance to raise the effectiveness and competitions of
Industry and infrastructure of Europe thereby providing social environmental and economical
The EFNMSvzw is organised as a non-profit organization (“Vereniging zonder Winstoogmerk”) according

to Belgian law created on January 18, 2003, in Amsterdam. The EFNMS objectives are the following: the
improvement of maintenance for the benefit of the peoples of Europe. By the term ‘maintenance’ is meant:
the combination of all technical, administrative, and managerial actions during the lifecycle of an item in-
tended to retain or restore it to a state in which it can perform its required function. Maintenance is of ut-
most importance for trade and commerce, for the environment, and for general health and safety. In order
to pursue its goals, the EFNMS shall be an umbrella organization for the non-profit National Maintenance
Societies in Europe.
In 1995, Working Group 7 (WG7) was formed and tasked with selecting a number of benchmark indicators
that were regarded as important when measuring maintenance performance. In 2002, they unveiled the set
of thirteen indicators listed in Table 1.
Members of Working Group 7 actively participated in the standardisation activities of the European Com-
mittee for Standardization Technical Committee 319 - Maintenance (CEN/TC 319). The technical commit-
tee’s efforts resulted in publication of 71 indicators in the European Standard EN:15341 “Maintenance Key
Performance Indicators” in March 2007.
The European Maintenance Benchmarking Committee (previously called WG 7) utilizes the indicators in
EN: 15341:2007 to conduct workshops through Europe and the Middle East, wherein nearly 200 partici-
pants in 18 workshops have been given the opportunity to calculate indicators on their company’s mainte-
nance and availability performance and to gain a deeper understanding in their use.
For more information about the EFNMS, please visit their website at www.efnms.org

7.2 Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals
The SMRP organization was formed and chartered in 1992 as a not-for-profit, 501(c) corporation. SMRP
promotes information exchange through a network of maintenance and reliability professionals, supports
maintenance and reliability as integral part of business and asset management, and seeks to be a voice that
advances innovative reliability practices.
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP) is an independent, not-for-profit pro-
fessional society dedicated to instilling excellence in maintenance and reliability, in all types of manufac-
turing and service organizations, worldwide. The SMRP Best Practices Committee was chartered with
identifying and standardizing maintenance and reliability metrics (indicators) and terminology. This devel-
opment work commenced in 2004 and continues to the present day. The first set of approximately 30 indi-
cators, termed metrics, was presented in 2006. Currently, there are 70 metrics published or under develop-
ment. Published metrics can be purchased on the SMRP web site for a nominal fee.
The SMRP Best Practices Committee has also developed a workshop which utilizes the SMRP metrics.
For more information about the SMRP, please visit their website at www.smrp.org.

8. Authors
Richard (Dick) H. Olver P. Eng., CMRP

Senior Asset Reliability Specialist, Agrium Inc.
Dick has held many maintenance and operation positions in

mining, metals refining, and the manufacture of bulk fertil-
izers. He has also managed a variety of system and CMMS
implementations, including the introduction and upgrading
of SAP for Agrium. Currently he is the Senior Asset Reli-
ability Specialists leading the Agrium Asset Management
improvement work. He has spoken on Maintenance and Reliability topics at a number of conferences in-
cluding the SMRP annual meeting, Canadian Institute Maintenance Conference, the SAP-Centric EAM,
RCM-EAM and Euromaintenance 2006. He is chairman of the SMRP Best Practices team and has made
presentations on behalf of the team.
e-mail: rolver@agrium.com
Phone number: +1 (403) 255-7349
Jerry D. Kahn, P.E., CMRP, F.NSPE
Jerry Kahn is Maintenance Marketing Manager for Siemens Energy,

which provides a full range of services for energy providers, including
industrial companies and the oil & gas industry. Mr. Kahn is a licensed
Professional Engineer (PE), a Certified Maintenance and Reliability Pro-
fessional (CMRP), and a Certified Six Sigma Green Belt (CSSGB). He
holds BS and MS degrees in Chemical Engineering from Michigan
Technological University and an MBA from City University of Seattle.
Mr. Kahn has over 30 years experience working for international tech-
nology-driven companies. He has worked in the fields of pulp & paper,
nuclear power engineering, non – destructive examination, simulation
and modeling, global research program development, strategic planning, cost engineering, customer ser-
vice engineering, marketing and industrial plant maintenance.
He is a Past President of the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers (GSPE), the USA delegate to the
Maintenance Committee (COPIMAN) of the Pan American Federation of Engineering Societies (UPADI),
and a Fellow Member of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). Mr. Kahn is also a mem-
ber of the Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals (SMRP), the American Institute of Chemi-
cal Engineers (AIChE), the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and the Standards Engineering Society
(SES), where he serves on the Standards Development Committee.
e-mail: jerry.kahn@siemens.com
Phone number: +1 (713) 504-4730

Al Poling CMRP, CEM
Al Poling is Technical Director for the Society for Maintenance and

Reliability Professionals. Formerly a professional educator having
taught at both the secondary and university level, Al returned to col-
lege to get degrees in mechanical and civil engineering. He started
his technical career as a maintenance engineer with Union Carbide
before moving into maintenance and reliability management. Al has
held plant and corporate leadership roles in maintenance and reliabil-
ity with several companies and has been a Certified Maintenance and
Reliability Professional (CMRP) since 2002. He has presented at
numerous conferences nationally and internationally and has written
several white papers on maintenance and related topics.
In his role as Technical Director with SMRP, Al works with the Body of Knowledge directorate commit-
tees: Benchmarking, Best Practices and Maintenance & Reliability Knowledge. Al’s primary objective is
to facilitate the completion of the respective committee deliverables and provide value to SMRP members
and to the maintenance and reliability industry at large.
e-mail: apoling@smrp.org
Phone: +1 (832) 295-3009
Web: www.smrp.org
Tom Svantesson Marine Engineer, BSC
Tom Svantesson holds the position as manager in the maintenance and

production consulting company TSMC.
Tom Svantesson started his career as electrician and engine officer
leading to a number of positions as maintenance and engineering man-
ager in food, maritime, chemical and pharmaceutical production facili-
ties. Tom Svantesson was the first Dane to be “Certified European
Expert in Maintenance Management” and uses his experience to train
candidates for the certification.
Tom has experience within the work of implementing Production Im-

provement Programs, Implementing CMMS, development and imple-
mentation of maintenance strategies and policy, Lean manufacturing,
Theory of constraints, inventory control and recording of production
efficiency.
Tom Svantesson is a member of the European Maintenance Bench-

marking Committee, and holds the EFNMS seat in the EN standardi-
sation group TC319/WG 6 and WG8. The activities has resulted in the release of the standard EN 15341
“Maintenance Key Performance Indicators”. Tom was awarded the Annual Maintenance Award for 2009
from the Danish Maintenance Society for his benchmarking activities nationally and internationally.
e-mail: ts@tsmc.dk
Phone number: +45 (2483) 9817
www.tsmc.dk


Global Maintenance and Reliability Indicators

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Global Maintenance and Reliability Indicators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Maintenance and

Fitting the Pieces Together

European Federation of National Maintenance Societies vzw

SMRP Best Practice Committee

Harmonised Indicators Document

Version: Update at: Status: Reference:

2. Objective of the Harmonised Indicator Document..................................................................................7

3.1 Harmonisation Beginnings ....................................................................................................................8

4.1 EN Indicators Harmonized to SMRP Metrics .....................................................................................10

5.1 EN 15341 Indicator E1 and SMRP Metric 1.5....................................................................................21

6.1 SMRP Metrics Guidelines...................................................................................................................80

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

 Economic: E1….…… E24

The KPIs are tools available to be used

 To measure the status

Therefore, standard EN15341 is a reliable and fundamental reference to achieve a harmonised

Franco Santini, Chairman of Working Group 6, CEN

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

• Maintenance managers can rely on a single set of predefined indicators supported by a

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Figure 1.1 Harmonised Indicator Project

2. Objective of the Harmonised Indicator Document

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

3.2 Harmonisation Process

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

3.3 Harmonisation Results

3.4 Harmonisation Future

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

4.1 EN Indicators Harmonized to SMRP Metrics

Table 4.1 Master list of harmonised indicators - Summary

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Table 4.1 List of harmonised indicators

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Table 4.2 Classification of Harmonised Indicators

Note 2: The SMRP term “Replacement Asset Value” = the EN

Note 2: The EN 15341 definition: “Production and service quan-

Note 2: SMRP metrics include operating materials. The EN

Note 2: Both EN 15341 E8 and the SMRP metric 5.5.5 include

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Note 2: It is assumed that operating materials (“O” component

Note 2: If the SMRP 5.5.31 calculation is applied only to the

E13 5.5.4 In Process (SMRP metric under development)

Note 2: The SMRP component definition for Corrective Mainte-

Note 3: Corrective maintenance consists of “Deferred mainte-

Note 4: SMRP includes part of the work identified during Condi-

In the EN definition for Condition Based Maintenance any work

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Note 2: EN 15341 defines Conditioned Maintenance (cost) as:

Conclusion: Calculating the indicator based on the SMRP met-

Note 3: Both EFNMS and SMRP include human senses in CBM

Note 5: EN 15341 and SMRP include operator CBM hours in

Note 2: The SMRP term “Preventive” = The EN 13306/15341

Note 3: Minor tasks not included in the procedure detected dur-

Please look at the Q/A section at the Harmonised Indicator

Note 2: The SMRP metric includes the planning and prepara-

Harmonised indicators document – 2nd Edition © 2009 EFNMS/SMRP

Note 2: SMRP includes participation in conventions, seminars

Note 3: Salary cost during training is included in the calculation.

Note 4: The result of the indicator E21 is “unit of value/person.

T2 2.2 In Process (SMRP metric under development)

T18 3.1 In Process (SMRP metric under development)

This definition is similar to the definition used in many ISO/IEC

Note 2: SMRP Metric calculates the formula as a ratio.