Dispelling the myth between CMMS and EAM and MRO

Background

How many times have we heard this question when embarking on an asset management journey either within our organization or when working with customers? CMMS which stands for Computerized Maintenance Management System, EAM short for Enterprise Asset Management and MRO generally known as Maintenance Repair & Operations and in some circles as Maintenance Repair & Overhaul are all terminologies we are bombarded with and worst still confused upon when implementing asset management or equipment maintenance best practices. I have been intrigued by how the disparity drive clients and customers crazy to the point of losing focus on the objective of the projects. They are not to be blamed anyway as there are tons of materials out there both in soft and hardcopy formats going into explaining the differences rather than drawing parallels between them. But my approach has always been taking this through as the one and only thing for customers to facilitate their understanding on the underlying philosophies of asset management as an operational strategy.

So, this article is aimed at dispelling the myths, mysteries and monotony surrounding these terminologies and topics with the hope that the audience will walk out with much clarity to appreciate asset management from wholistic point of view. The general perception is that CMMS is somewhat limited in features as compared to EAM which is regarded as the epitome of asset management software among many circles of asset management practitioners. Some even regard CMMS as a subset of EAM. The connotation towards EAM is so strong that almost all vendors in the industry claim the product they carry to be an EAM offering.

Flipping The Pages Of History

But the reality that is going to make the life of implementors a breeze is to know that it is the one and only akin to how one what might refer to the object of “car” as “vehicle” in the same context under separate perspectives. As one might observe that the style of abbreviation for CMMS might sound to be rather unpopular in recent times. It gives the clue from the era where it would have been born which we will cover in the later part of this article. Equipment maintenance was the core operations that great technicians and engineers were engaged to keep plants operational, cities lit up, airplanes flying, ships sailing, and food stocks delivered to our local stores. Equipment maintenance and repairs have been done even before the advent of mainframes and computers. But it has been paper intensive as technicians needed to carry loads of inspection sheets and maintenance manuals. I remember talking to a veteran who recalls having a separate section at the back of his storeroom where all his maintenance paper records were kept safely in a steel cabinet. These records were worth a diamond weight for these boys then as it would tell stories of prior readings of calibration for them to calculate tolerance values or special notes on defects noted during the last round of inspection. Apart from the fact of being audited by the engineers or internal audit team, these technicians would keep those records safer than their spares as it was a matter of personal pride. In the 1960s and 70s during the rise of the mainframes, large organizations started to take advantage of the computing and storage capabilities to run scheduling programs for maintenance checklist and recording the results at the end of the day. By factor of being mainframe based we can reckon it was normally huge enterprises like food manufacturers, nuclear power plants and airliners who had the budget for it. Notice the term computer was not a norm then yet. But it was a pre-cursor as technicians and engineers were seen to use computerised programs to aid the maintenance activities as it spanned across huge assets that cannot afford downtime. Just like now, downtime was only by means of outage management. The long list of activities planned for a plant shutdown was scheduled through mainframe ran jobs.

Not until the 1980s when computers became affordable being more distributed and networked, the mainframe functions could then be ported into computers or workstations along with newer features. As smaller and mid-sized organizations could afford these computers, technicians started to have one installed in their stores just beside their precious steel cabinets full of maintenance records. The dependency on paper-based maintenance records started to shift to their newer computerized counterparts as records could be stored in a centralized database. It was then the idea of “computerizing” maintenance management was taking a full shape when the engineers and technicians could have access to plan and run their maintenance activities finally with business coherence as a “system”. It was no more an end-of-shift or end-of-day batch activity where technicians need to feed in their records into the mainframe using punch-cards. Now the maintenance data can be shared between the crew and updated for forward planning. Along with other computerization initiatives happening during the 80s era, the maintenance community too wanted to embrace and be in the computerization trajectory to be seen equally progressive in technology. So, it was important to be seen as maintenance management being “computerized” as it was the new thing then just as much as going “digital” is the buzzword now.

So how does MRO come into the equation?

The business of (MRO) Maintenance and Repair Operations or Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul is closely related to the evolution and contributed towards the development of CMMS. As the market of MRO continued to expand, software vendors were continually releasing CMMS solutions to cater for specific segments of the industry. The goal of MRO has always been improving equipment uptime by effectively managing the factors that influence it. In an article published by (Marco Esposito, 2019) on innovating maintenance, repair and overhaul processes through digitization, MRO processes are acknowledged to be extremely difficult to manage due to the complexity of the equipment and assets involved in addition to the compliancy requirements to laws and regulations. Though MRO processes can be extremely variable and dependent on the condition of the equipment during arrival, we are able to relate to a generic MRO process for reference here based on the article published by (Amar Ramudhin, 2008) on use of RFID control systems for MRO activities.

Figure 1 – Generic MRO Process

?

Figure 2 – Uptime Elements

Figure 1 which has been adapted from (Amar Ramudhin, 2008), shows the entire repair process within an MRO practice starting with a customer sending an engine to the service center and ending with the engine shipped back to the client after the repair process. The objectives of these MRO management techniques have not changed much, but the results have been improving over the years with more advanced knowledge in operations (Annett Bierera, 2016). The core operation of MRO has always been sticking to the same philosophy which is improving asset reliability through planning and scheduling maintenance activities while eliminating defects. This strategy is executed with effective management of spares by a competent work force that is aligned to the business strategy of the organization. Historically very intensive in the aviation industry, military, and nuclear plants due to impact on human lives in the event of even marginal errors, (Stoller, 1959) clearly explains how equipment reliability measurements were designed based on equipment operation records, maintenance and spare supplies related to the equipment. Even as back as late 1950s, (Stoller, 1959)?states that emphasis has been laid on skilled manpower, test equipment and testing facilities as it could lead to equipment malfunction. The criticality level of malfunction can have impact on operator dissatisfaction that correlates to a reliability factor. In the same paper (Stoller, 1959) shares how accuracy of maintenance data can be improved by comparing it from several operating sites for an aircraft maintenance operation. Now if we can compare these revelations from the past to one of the recent asset management best practice called Uptime Elements (Uptime, 2020) as shown in Figure 2, we will be able to draw parallels between them cutting across its four pillars namely Reliability Engineering for Maintenance, Asset Condition Management, Work Execution Management, Leadership for Reliability and Asset Management. Flipping across to another source, a recent publication by (Annett Bierera, 2016) , the Dimension of MRO Management was stated as consisting of Tasks, Influencing Factors, Knowledge, Methods and IT Tools, Resources and Strategies/Processes that are also closely related to the Uptime Elements.

?

Comprehensive features in CMMS right from the beginning

Referring to the same paper (Annett Bierera, 2016) published in the age of EAM explains how smart MRO systems are characterized through the usage of ICT to utilize machine data logging capabilities to enable sensor-based condition monitoring. Uptime Elements (Uptime, 2020) details this out under the Asset Condition Management through an element called asset condition information (Aci). If we were to thread back half a century, (Garrick, 1967) shares how plant failure and repair data was used for reliability analysis. (Garrick, 1967) explains that “next step in in-plant data collection requires periodic translation and transferral of raw data generated by the operating personnel to data forms suitable for data handling, indexing, storing, and retrieving with the possible use of computerized data handling systems. This step requires an engineer or technician familiar with both the subject plant systems and the reliability data classification requirements”. The operation data captured were used to monitor upper limits to monitor nuclear reactor safeguard systems, which was condition monitoring at work. The reliability analysis on this data was achieved through Automatic Reliability Mathematical Model (ARMM), a computerized reliability analysis program.?ARMM was capable of selecting combination of component failures to derive and solve reliability mathematical model for computing failure probabilities. Just to pause a moment to ponder, it is mind boggling that this was already the dawn on Asset Performance Management (APM) in practice more than 50 years ago not only in one facility but at least five facilities namely Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1, Yankee Atomic Power Station, Indian Point Station, Humboldt Bay Unit No 3 and Shippingport Atomic Power Station.

Figure 3 - Maintenance Record Form

Figure 4 – Equipment History Form

We understand based on current standards an organization can embark on APM only when maintenance best practices have been adhered enterprise wide consistently over the years. Figure 3 and Figure 4 ?shows how maintenance data was captured before transferred into computerized programs which at that time was running on mainframes. There onward the programs were able to produce failure rate analysis which was used to establish range of measurements for condition monitoring. Figure 5 shows actual readings that were established at component level which were re-tabulated through revisions based on progressing patterns. Analytical reports printed subsequently were used to baseline reliability factors based on various failure dimension. Figure 6 shows a sample analysis report extracted from (Garrick, 1967) report, that was generated by the mainframe computers for nuclear power plants. There were mainframes already running sophisticated modelling algorithms based on Monte Carlo Fault Tree Simulation in 1960s capable of generating failure analysis report of this kind and more. Excerpts from a source code listing shared in Figure 7 shows mainframe program that was developed and used in mission critical application for power plants. All these speaks volume of the sophistication that was available in the CMMS systems more than half a century back to keep uptime as high as possible.

Figure 5 – Failure Rate Range of Readings

Evidence shared here indicates that asset management maturity is not a realm that was discovered after the emergence of EAM, if at all “emergence” is the right word to use in this context. CMMS then was already serving the needs of the maintenance professionals in general and the consumers in specific who depended on the services rendered by these asset intensive industries. The core of CMMS as it can be seen is its database. It stores a comprehensive repository of assets that an organization is charged with maintaining along with the equipment, materials and resources that are required to achieve the asset reliability and MRO objectives.

??

Figure 6 – Failure Rate Summary Report

Figure 7 – Source Program Listing

The 4-letter Word

Now looking at the terminology EAM, the 3-letter abbreviation itself gives an indication when it would have been formed as contrary to the 4-letter used in CMMS. Following the Dotcom and the Y2K era, three-letter acronyms (TLA) were a popular reference for internet based or electronic solutions intended for automation and workplace productivity. Notice “Y2K” itself is a TLA. Internet powered applications that could then be deployed to take advantage of the matured communication and networking infrastructures within organizations started to serve enterprise level needs that cut across several departments. Along came Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Material Resource Planning (MRP) solutions that gathered so much heat in the mid-1990s. It was not until half a decade after Y2K, EAM began getting the traction as CMMS vendors decided to benchmark their product offering together with ERP products with a marketing flavour to fit “Enterprise” solutions. Some ERP vendors even started offering EAM solution as part of their product suite. However, the core of CMMS remained the same in terms of functionalities needed for MRO processes. The enrichment largely was seen from the technological aspect. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was actively releasing open standards to promote interoperability between different internet-based systems. Product technology vendors began to adopt these standards for allowing open communications for data exchange across different platforms. This enabled CMMS vendors to take advantage of standards such as Application Programming Interface (API) and Extensible Markup Language (XML) that allowed interoperability through the matured internet-based protocol TCP/IP and browser-based protocol HTTP.

These gave an edge for connecting CMMS software with host of other enterprise software within an organization, by then aptly known as Enterprise Asset Management software. Furthermore, the development of ISO55000 standard as the asset management best practice was another benchmark product vendors were using as a base in terms of compliance for EAM. However, as we have seen, CMMS practices were in place decades before complying to such standards prior to the release of ISO55000 in 2014. Its predecessor PAS55 which was published by British Standards Institution (BSI) in 2004, was already in reference for asset management standards in relation to CMMS. In a research carried out to study maintenance practices and knowledge in Milwaukee Metro area, (Lampi, 2010) starts out establishing PAS55 as the wholistic model of asset management and making reference to how maintenance planners and technicians were using CMMS on a daily basis to process entries and extract reports for Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) program for a mix of Reactive (RM), Corrective (CM), Preventive (PM) and Predictive (PdM) activities. It stands as evidence that CMMS was an operating model for quality management system such as ISO55000 and PAS55 from the time these standards were published similar to how ISO55000 is used as benchmark for EAM now. This however does not isolate CMMS from ISO55000 as the operation model of CMMS is ISO55000 in action.

So, only the evolution of technological capability in the recent years gave a flavour to EAM to be seen as different from CMMS. But many organizations still run latest EAM software as silos without or underdeveloped integration with other enterprise verticals such as human capital and financial software. This still does not reflect the “selling point” of an EAM thus falling to inferiority compared to CMMS that in the mainframe ages were somehow integrated with company’s financial and labour data that was processed within the same host i.e., mainframe supercomputers. Hence, our lens' perception index that needs to be corrected when understanding CMMS and EAM. With rapid development in technology it makes it difficult to conclude that product features is what that makes an EAM what it is, in fact it can make the CMMS just as much relevant. There are more and more CMMS software in recent times that operate in the Cloud and is mobile capable, reiterating on my earlier point on our perception index of the lens that matters.

What we have witnessed in the past where asset, reliability, safety, labor and cost related data was centrally managed in CMMS is now either offered within a single EAM solution or offered as part of suite of applications. For example, the EAM called as Maximo from IBM though captures safety related data in its standard version, comprehensive Health, Safety and Environment data management is offered through an additional module called as Maximo HSE Add-On. Apart from that though failure reporting is part of standard Maximo, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is offered as part of an additional module called as IBM Maximo Assist which operates on Artificial Intelligence (AI) based technology as shown in Figure 8. This is different compared to Infor EAM where Infor had APM functionalities pre-built into their standard EAM offering. Features such as reliability analysis, failure mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA), failure probability to name a few are available for Predictive Maintenance through Machine Learning capabilities.

Figure 8 – IBM Maximo Application Suite

Figure 9 – Infor EAM timeline

Figure 9 shows the Infor EAM product release through several versions witnessing significant enhancement in asset reliability functionalities. The future versions will also be pre-built with Monte Carlo simulations which as covered earlier in this article were functionalities available in mainframe operated CMMS back in the 1960s. On the other hand, it’s interesting to review an emerging EAM product from Hitachi ABB Power Grids called as Lumada EAM that has a comprehensive Financial Management module covering Accounts Payables (AP), Accounts Receivables (AR) and Conditional Prepayment Rate (CPR) to name a few. The Financial Management module bundled together with Asset, Work, Materials and Workforce Management out of the box brings the product portfolio close to the level of an ERP offering. However, asset reliability and predictive analytics capabilities needed for APM has been bundled into a separate offering called as Lumada APM. What’s clear here is that even among 3 leading EAM products, there seems to be a lack of consensus in terms of what goes into as a solution offering. However, there was always a clear consensus and clarity in terms what makes up CMMS based on historical accounts seen earlier in this article.

It becomes obvious now based on evidence from past implementations in asset intensive industries, CMMS functionalities remained pretty much the same. In a whitepaper on selection and implementation of CMMS, (Crain, 2003) provides a concise and yet a proven methodology for successfully implementing CMMS for any organization. The baseline components of a CMMS are clearly defined in that whitepaper with details on functionalities within those components. Crain lays out the below as base components.

• Labor
• Preventive Maintenance
• Asset
• Materials Management
• Work Management
• Purchasing
• Tasks or Procedures
• Preventive Maintenance
• Materials Management
• Purchasing

(Crain, 2003) provides a totally vendor and product agnostic view in terms of the functionalities of CMMS needed to meet the requirements of an enterprise’s MRO processes. These components form the core of the CMMS while keeping in sight some add-on modules that could provide technological features on the basis that the core components are implemented.?(Crain, 2003) states that the add-on modules come with features to address requirements for integration to third party systems, mobility and device specific capabilities. However, it is the core components that serve the MRO needs which ultimately is focused on increasing equipment availability and performance whilst ensuring product quality and reducing maintenance expense. Though Crain had pointed out these fundamentals two decades ago; it was derived from the maintenance practices that were observed three decades prior to that; which still rings true in this age, the age as we know it as Industry Revolution 4.0.

Conclusions

So, we can now look back at historical evidence and development over the years to have a well-informed understanding to connect the terminologies CMMS, EAM and MRO in a manner to speed up the adoption of asset management practices. As we understand maintenance best practices were established decades before to meet the demands of asset reliability and safety requirements in asset intensive industries through MRO processes. In recent times we have EAM solutions that embed these CMMS functionalities within product suites that can be offered to a larger user base with a roadmap assurance on continued and improved future releases. The mindset becomes easier now to comprehend the connection between these as paradigms. So, when MRO is discussed it is a Process centric paradigm and when CMMS is discussed, it’s a Practice centric paradigm and finally EAM will bring us into a Product centric paradigm.

We started out this article with the objective to see the commonality between EAM and CMMS which took the route into brief understanding of MRO. Along that path we visited the pages of history to unveil the facts from peer reviewed journal articles to understand how CMMS was serving the needs of the maintenance community. It revealed that advanced features of current EAM and APM products were indeed available as full-featured functionalities in legacy CMMS solutions serving the need of Reliability professionals. It was then the line that divides CMMS and EAM was becoming blurry almost to the level where CMMS was seemed to be reigning supreme having catered for mission critical asset reliability requirements in nuclear plants and aviation industry more than half a century back. But after reviewing recent development in technology which gave rise to new product offerings our perspectives were streamlined as if given a multi-focus lens to understand both topics with the equal weight and relevance. Now as practitioners, implementors, consultants and users we can appreciate these two topics from the context of reliability domain all with the single most purpose which is to improve Uptime.

Bibliography

• Amar Ramudhin, M. P. (2008). A generic framework to support the selection of an RFID-based control system with application to the MRO activities of an aircraft engine manufacturer. Taylor & Francis, 183–196.
• Annett Bierera, U. G. (2016). Control and Evaluation Concept for smart MRO Approaches. 13th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing - Decoupling Growth from Resource Use (pp. 699-704). Ho Chi Minh City / Binh Duong, Vietnam: ScienceDirect.
• Carey, H. (n.d.). What is MRO and What Does it Stand For? A Brief Guide to Maintenance, Repair, and Operations. Retrieved from Thomasnet? - Product Sourcing and Supplier Discovery Platform - Find North American Manufacturers, Suppliers and Industrial Companies: https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plant-facility-equipment/what-is-mro/
• Chertow, D. (2017, April). How Maximo began. Retrieved from IBM Support: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/how-maximo-began
• Crain, M. (2003, January 1). Computerized Maintenance Management Software (CMMS) Articles. Retrieved from Plant Maintenance Resource Center: https://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/Role_of_CMMS.pdf
• Dudley, S. (2020, March 7). IBM Business Operations Blog. Retrieved from The complete guide to the benefits of CMMS: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/internet-of-things/iot-benefits-cmms/
• Dudley, S. (2020, January 26). What is CMMS? The quick guide to everything you need to know. Retrieved from IBM Business Operations Blog: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/internet-of-things/iot-history-cmms/
• Garrick, B. J. (1967). Reliability Analysis Of Nuclear Power Plant Protective Systems. Los Angeles: U.S. Department of Energy.
• IBM. (2021). What is a CMMS? Retrieved from IBM: https://www.ibm.com/topics/what-is-a-cmms
• Lampi, J. M. (2010). Industrial and Facilities Maintenance Management: Opportunities for Economic Growth In Milwaukee. Wisconsin-Stout: The Graduate School, University of Wisconsin-Stout.
• Marco Esposito, M. L. (2019). Innovating the Maintenance Repair and Overhaul. MDPI.
• O'Brien, J. (2014, August 21). The Evolution of Affordability and Accessibility in CMMS Software. Retrieved from American Machinist: https://www.americanmachinist.com/enterprise-data/article/21898450/the-evolution-of-affordability-and-accessibility-in-cmms-software
• Stoller, D. S. (1959, April 21). Measuring The Reliability of Equipments In Operating Environments.
• Uptime, M. (2020, March). Uptime Magazine. Retrieved from https://reliabilityweb.com/: https://reliabilityweb.com/assets/uploads/uptime/13536/uptime_feb_mar_2.pdf
• William W. Cato, R. K. (2002). Computer-Managed Maintenance Systems. Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann.