One dictionary defines value as “relative worth, merit, or importance”. How do most organizations view maintenance? Most will use terms such as “necessary evil”, “expense” or “costly”. Are these terms really the right way to view maintenance? What is the “relative worth, merit, or importance” of the maintenance function for an organization?
First everyone needs to realize that maintenance is a defined component in the life cycle of any asset, whether it is a piece of equipment or a building. The maintenance costs are predictable and controllable. They are also determined (up to as much as 95%) during the design phase of the asset life cycle.
When an organization complains that their maintenance costs are too high, do they expect the maintenance organization to correct problems that are actually part of the equipment’s design specification? Is that what they mean to “reduce” maintenance costs? For organizations to arbitrarily reduce their maintenance budget by 10% shows they truly do not understand the maintenance function, let alone really value it.
