Benefit from Our Service: Save 25%Along with the first order offer - 15% discount (with the code "get15off"), you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
According to the article under investigation, maintenance productivity can be regarded as one of the most essential issues that shape the economics of production activities to ensure that the plant attains the desired performance via establishment and institution of thoroughly defined performance indicators. The measures are pertinent in determining whether resources are used optimally, costs are managed efficiently, and the production assets remain in good health. The authors contend that the competitiveness and performance of manufacturing companies hinges on the consistency, availability, and productivity of the production facilities. Performance measurement is a critical principle of management since it highlights current performance gaps between the present and desired performance and avails insights into the progress towards closing the gaps; however, the availability of maintenance may not essentially guarantee low maintenance cost. The authors demonstrate that performance indicators are not delineated in isolation, but ought to be the outcome of meticulous analysis of the interaction between organization functions and maintenance function.
Effective management of the maintenance process is necessary for economic viability and the long-term survival of numerous industries. The maintenance performance conceptual frameworks proposed in the paper highlight core components and processes that propel the maintenance function towards delivery of performance necessitated by the production objectives. The authors contend that the maintenance performance criteria ought to be balanced with the requirements set by the production objectives. The authors align maintenance objectives with corporate and production objectives and avail a connection between maintenance process and goals and outcomes. The authors place maintenance objectives under five categories, namely: plant functionality; attainment of plant design life; guaranteeing plant and environmental safety; guaranteeing cost effectiveness in maintenance; and effective utilization of resources.
The article explains the significance of having a good performance and maintenance track record in order to guarantee that the plant attains the desired production and maintenance purposes. I agree with the authors that the performance indicators should not be defined in isolation, but rather should be the result of a meticulous study of the interaction of the maintenance function with other functions. The arguments presented by the authors are logical; indeed, the authors understand the difficulties that arise when measuring and quantifying the output and input of the maintenance process drawing from the intricate link between production and maintenance.
The authors clearly define the terms presented in the paper (including indicators, maintenance, and performance measurement). The text provides irrefutable evidence to support the arguments presented. However, the authors utilize too many assumptions, including the assumption that maintenance goals and strategies are not determined in isolation, but rather are the result of features such as production policy, as well as other possibly contradicting demands and constraints within the facility. The authors assume the maintenance objectives sought at a particular plant direct the performance indicators employed. Some of the concepts applied in defining maintenance performance are unclear on what to gauge, and how to align maintenance performance with corporate targets and strategies. The ambiguities of maintenance performance can be linked to the failure to consider the complexities involved in breaking down the corporate goals into measurable units. The framework should integrate interrelationship between various factors impacting on performance and desired performance indicators across strategic, operations, and tactical hierarchical levels of the business.
The management of the maintenance process ought to be fulfilled so as to gain the desired results and maintenance objectives. In the leading performance indicators for maintenance process model featuring work identification, work planning, work scheduling, and work execution, the authors neglect the evaluation and strategizing phases in which a significant percentage of the value from work execution can be derived. In such cases, the precise scorecards and metrics substitute the blame culture that features in numerous situations in which low-grade performance is prevalent. Such improvements can be re-assessed to render effective holistic improvements to the asset configuration, improve the manner in which failures are managed and mitigated, enhance organizational skills and capabilities, or performance measurement. The outlined phases can allow successful companies to undertake an appraisal to establish suitable asset strategies, while repositioning the management of assets and process risks.
Effective maintenance is central to production operations since it extends equipment lifespan, enhances equipment availability, and sustains equipment in proper condition devoid of delay of production schedules. However, the paper falls short of acknowledging the problems associated with measuring parameters of maintenance performance. The authors also do not adequately address the issue how maintenance performance metrics can create value for companies and the system of measurement that best suits the maintenance strategy. The maintenance performance presented in the paper outlines the key elements critical to the management of the maintenance function. Nevertheless, the paper does not point to the existence of tradeoffs among the different aspects of performance, given that performance measures are unlikely to have equal significance for individual operations. The authors do not adequately shed light on how the metrics that are built into a performance measurement system enable individuals and groups to understand how their activities and behaviors fulfill the overall corporate goals.
There is no doubt that companies often find themselves under immense pressure to continuously improve their capabilities and create value for their clients, while at the same time enhancing the cost effectiveness of their operations. All businesses require a strategy to direct effective metrics on corporate objectives within an asset performance management system, which can track, trend, and appraise asset information for improved business decision making. The maintenance process indicator presented by the authors can be praised for being well-organized and availing operational measures with concise cause-effect relationships with the desired result. However, the authors do not adequately demonstrate how each of the outcomes builds towards the goal of the perspective. The metrics, if well selected, can be a catalyst for change in availing warning signals to highlight ineffective or unsuccessful asset performance strategies.