Driving Excellence in Enterprise Asset Management - SAP · 2017. 2. 23. · Enterprise Asset...
Transcript of Driving Excellence in Enterprise Asset Management - SAP · 2017. 2. 23. · Enterprise Asset...
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 2
Powerful Trends Are Driving Change in EnterpriseAsset Management (EAM)
Globalized Competition
Budgetary constraints
CAPEX and business strategy alignment
Reliability programs
Uncertain Markets Sustainability
Eroding margins
Maintenance outsourcing
Asset availability and utilization balance
Compliance risks
Safe Operations
Energy and emissions management
Maximize Return on Physical Assets to Survive with Limited Investments
Drive Competitiveness with Excellence in Operations and Maintenance
Manage EHS* Performance and Asset-Related Risks
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 3
Executive QuestionsWhat Does This Mean for Your Business?
How do I maximize asset productivity and return on physical assets?
How can I reduce maintenance costs while ensuring better asset availability?
How can I drive safe and sustainable asset operations?
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 4
Enterprise Asset ManagementKey Objectives: Significant Gap between Importance and Achievement
Source: SAP EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 60 participants (including SAP customers)Objective’s Importance and Ac hievement are on Likert Scale (1-5)
Maximize Asset Productivity Reduce Cost Drive Safe and Sustainable Operations
-
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
Importance Achievement
1.52 1.551.20
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 5
Measuring Value: Enterprise Asset Management
Operating Equipment Effectiveness
Return On Assets
Unplanned Outages
Maximize Asset Productivity
Reduce Cost
Annual OSHA Related Incidents
Drive Safe Operations
Annual Service and Maintenance Cost
Planned Maintenance Budget vs. Actual Cost
Recordable Accident Frequency Rate
i
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 6
What Is Leading Performance? Maximize Asset Productivity
Operating Equipment Effectiveness (%)
Unplanned Downtime/ Outages (%)
88.0% Best 1.0% Best20.4% Best
Return OnAssets (%)
“Best run assets have 35% higher operating equipment effectiveness”
“Best run assets witness7 - times lower unplanned downtime/ outages”
“Best performers realize 3.5-times higher return on assets”
Note: “Best” = Top 25%, “Worst” = Bottom 25%
Source: SAP EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 60 participants (including SAP customers)
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 7
What Is Leading Performance? Reduce Cost
Annual Service and Maintenance Cost
(% of revenue)
Planned Maintenance Budget vs. Actual
Cost (%)
1.5 Best 98% Best
“Best performers have6- times lower annual service and maintenance cost”
“Best performers are well within the planned maintenance budget”
Note: “Best” = Top 25%, “Worst” = Bottom 25%
Source: SAP EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 60 participants (including SAP customers)
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 8
What Is Leading Performance? Drive Safe Operations
Recordable Accident Frequency Rate (per
200K work hours)
0.7 Best
“Safe run assets witness 75% lesser accidents”
Note: “Best” = Top 25%, “Worst” = Bottom 25%
Annual OSHA Related Incidents (per total man hours worked)
2.6 Best
“Best performers have15-fold less OSHA related incidents”
Source: SAP EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 60 participants (including SAP customers)
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 9
High-Impact Strategies
Reduce Costs
Improve Asset Productivity and Reliability1Integrate Asset Management with Enterprise Operations2
Leverage Cross-Enterprise Processes and Data3
Enable Safe And Sustainable Asset Operations4
Maximize Asset Productivity
Drive Safe Operations
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 10
Improve Asset Productivity and Reliability
How to do This?
Implement preventive/predictive maintenance scheduling
Optimize assets performance level
Enable labor balancing
Balance in-house and outsourced maintenance
Best Practices and Their Impact?
1
“Organizations generating maintenance work orders from preventive maintenance inspections have on average 42% higher return on assets”
“Organizations using reliability based maintenance procedures and tools tend to have 36% higher average age of assets”
15,8 19 21,5
Low Medium High
Avg. Age of Assets (in years)
2 3 41
11,1 13,7 15,7
Low Medium High
Return On Assets (%)
+42%
+36%
Source: SAP EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 60 participants (including SAP customers)
Shell Exploration and Production Co implemented “STARS” (SEPCo Total Asset Reliability Solutions) to introduce new and improved ways of working to address maintenance, production optimization, and operational effectiveness goals.
Reactive work decreased 6%
Deferred production reduced from 10.3% to 6.4%
Labor utilization increased 20%
Schedule attainment increased 18%
Cost reduction through efficiency improvement
Source – SAP Customer Success Story
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 12
Best Practices and Their Impact?How to do This?
Optimize asset life cycle through long term asset planning, utilization and upgrades
Align asset management goals, objectives, and metrics with operations
Establish continuous improvement teams focused on EAM
2 Integrate Asset Management with Enterprise Operations
“Organizations which track accurate maintenance costs for all assets have on average 32% lower annual service and maintenance costs”
5,94,3 4
Low Medium High
Annual Service & Maintenance Cost (% of Revenue)
-32%
2 3 41
Source: SAP EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 60 participants (including SAP customers)
Eastern Municipal Water District needed a scalable system in place to support fact-based decision making throughout the enterprise
Reduced annual labor cost for water delivered by US$1 M and wastewater delivered by US$1.3 M
Cut Annual Maintenance Cost by US$390 K
Managed mid-year cost-reduction effort for all 26 district departments
Created Reusable Dashboard Template That Integrates withData Warehouse
Built metrics administrator to reduce long-term maintenance cost
Enhanced customer and employee satisfaction Source – SAP Customer Success Story
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 14
Best Practices and Their Impact?
3 Leverage Cross-Enterprise Processes and Data
How to do This?
Standardize maintenance processes across enterprise/ plants
Leverage cross-plant data to rationalize equipment and spare parts inventory
Leverage corporate procurement for equipment, spare parts and services cost reduction
2 3 41
“Organizations where maintenance systems are integrated with enterprise systems (inventory, purchasing and finance) have on average 10% higher weekly maintenance schedule attainment rate”
79,182,2
86,8
Low Medium High
Weekly Maintenance Schedule Attainment Rate (%)
+10%
Source: SAP EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 60 participants (including SAP customers)
Conectiv Energy was in need of automation technology for lean operations and lacked experience with advanced IT infrastructure and portal resulting in low user acceptance
Acceleration of Operational Readiness
Lean Operations with Cutting Edge Technology
50% maintenance & operations time savings
Greater focus on planning and value added tasks
Increase in user acceptance
24x7 work order prioritization and tracking made possible
Source – SAP Customer Success Story
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 16
4Best Practices and Their Impact?
Enable Safe and Sustainable Asset Operations
How to do This?
Establish and monitor strong safety measures for people and assets
Monitor personnel skills and certifications for regulatory requirements, safety and efficiency
2 3 41
“Organizations that assign personnel based on qualification, availability and tasks to be performed have 32% lower OSHA related expense”
27,58
18,76 18,54
Low Medium High
OSHA Related Costs per FTE (‘000)
-32%
Source: SAP MAN and EAM Benchmarking 2011, based on data f rom over 200 participants (including SAP customers)
Pemex required ability to examine production, environmental, health, safety, compliance or maintenance data in single dashboard
Greater visibility to production operations, compliance and maintenance across corporation
Greater receptivity and interest from production workers
Greater compliance through improved controls
Superior data management functionality
Overtime reduced by 50%
Internal customer satisfaction increased by 80%
Source – SAP Customer Success Story
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 18
What’s Next?
Experience
it yourself at the next SAPPHIRE or World Tour
Initiate
the benchmarking process with a free Value Assessment at valuemanagement.sap.com/
Ask
your account team to schedule an Executive Briefing
© 2012 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 20
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express permission of SAP AG. The information contained herein may be changed without prior notice.Some software products marketed by SAP AG and its distributors contain proprietary software components of other software vendors.Microsoft, Windows, Excel, Outlook, and PowerPoint are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. IBM, DB2, DB2 Universal Database, System i, System i5, System p, System p5, System x, System z, System z10, System z9, z10, z9, iSeries, pSeries, xSeries, zSeries, eServer, z/VM, z/OS, i5/OS, S/390, OS/390, OS/400, AS/400, S/390 Parallel Enterprise Server, PowerVM, Power Architecture, POWER6+, POWER6, POWER5+, POWER5, POWER, OpenPower, PowerPC, BatchPipes, BladeCenter, System Storage, GPFS, HACMP, RETAIN, DB2 Connect, RACF, Redbooks, OS/2, Parallel Sysplex, MVS/ESA, AIX, Intelligent Miner, WebSphere, Netfinity, Tivoli and Informix are trademarks or registered trademarks of IBM Corporation.Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, PostScript, and Reader are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates.UNIX, X/Open, OSF/1, and Motif are registered trademarks of the Open Group.Citrix, ICA, Program Neighborhood, MetaFrame, WinFrame, VideoFrame, and MultiWin are trademarks or registered trademarks of Citrix Systems, Inc.HTML, XML, XHTML and W3C are trademarks or registered trademarks of W3C®, World Wide Web Consortium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
© 2012 SAP AG. All Rights Reserved.
SAP, R/3, SAP NetWeaver, Duet, PartnerEdge, ByDesign, SAP BusinessObjects Explorer, StreamWork, and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and other countries.
Business Objects and the Business Objects logo, BusinessObjects, Crystal Reports, Crystal Decisions, Web Intelligence, Xcelsius, and other Business Objects products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Business Objects Software Ltd. Business Objects is an SAP company.
Sybase and Adaptive Server, iAnywhere, Sybase 365, SQL Anywhere, and other Sybase products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sybase, Inc. Sybase is an SAP company.
All other product and service names mentioned are the trademarks of their respective companies. Data contained in this document serves informational purposes only. National product specifications may vary.
The information in this document is proprietary to SAP. No part of this document may be reproduced, copied, or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express prior written permission of SAP AG.
Source of Benchmarks provided in this document: SAP Performance Benchmarking.
Benchmarking Disclaimer: This information is provided by SAP on an "as-is" basis without warranty of any kind, and subject to the "General Disclaimer" and other terms of use stated at http://www.sap.com/company/legal/copyright/. Any results or comparisons shown are for general information purposes only and any particular data or analysis should not be interpreted as demonstrating a cause and effect relationship. Comparable performance on one given key performance indicator does not guaranty comparable performance on another key performance indicator.