EffectiveMaintenance– An Essential Ingredient of SuccessfulMining Operations

Maintenance costs in the mining industry often account for as much as 18-20% of total operating costs and with the cost of labor and materials rising, they threaten to become an even larger percentage of the total. Yet, without an effective maintenance program costs can soar beyond what they would be without a program. In other words, when production equipment is down, there is no production and no product to sell in the marketplace. This cost of downtime in lost product far exceeds the actual cost of maintenance, which is defined here as labor and materials. Thus, mine management must have an effective maintenance program to avoid downtime and meet production targets. Attaining an Effective Maintenance Program Many mine management and operations supervisors believe that an effective program is a function of how hard they push maintenance. Yet, when vital production equipment is inoperable and production is lagging, no amount of pushing helps. In actuality, maintenance has little control over its own destiny and needs support from other departments to deliver good service. Success of the maintenance program depends on gaining control of those factors that directly influence maintenance. Consider the following. Organization-The maintenance organization must be structured for maximum responsiveness to production needs. Unfortunately, some needs are immediate and many are unknown in advance. The maintenance department has little control over them. These outside influences limit the department manager's ability to control his own organizational structure. Preventive maintenance procedures-Routine lubrication, equipment inspection, minor adjustments and the like are controlled mostly by maintenance. Yet, scheduling preventive maintenance depends also on the availability of equipment controlled by other departments. Planning-The purpose of planning maintenance jobs is to ensure that the best use is made of maintenance resources. If the production department creates an environment of running repairs and emergencies, there can be little planning. Even well-planned jobs will suffer if there is less than full cooperation in carrying them out. As a consequence, the maintenance department is not blocked from planning, but the value of its planning is reduced. Scheduling-Maintenance scheduling should be a joint effort. Although maintenance does the planning, production must agree to the scheduled maintenance of its equipment. Workload-As a service organization, the maintenance department has limited control over its workload because it must consistently respond to other department's demands. At best, maintenance controls only the fixed portion of its workload-utility work, janitorial service, maintenance shop work, and assigned repetitive and preventive maintenance duties. Unscheduled and emergency work are initiated by operations. Major maintenance actions require full cooperation. Labor productivity-The effective use of labor is tied to other key functions of maintenance. These include organization, preventive maintenance, planning, scheduling, and emergency work. An area type organization, for example, can often respond more quickly to immediate needs than a centrally controlled maintenance group. Yet, area maintenance can result in lower labor productivity unless tight control is exercised. One of the advantages of a good "detection-oriented" preventive maintenance program is early discovery of problems and better opportunity to schedule corrective work in advance. Under planned work conditions, use of labor can be more productive. Complete planning and scheduling can minimize time spent on each job, increase effectiveness of supervision, and improve labor productivity. Finally, if emergency work is minimized, there are fewer delays, less lost time, better coordination, and more productive use of labor. While labor productivity is an important factor in carrying out maintenance, it also is influenced by outside factors. However, few realize the impact of being able to improve maintenance productivity. By improving the productivity of 30 men from 30% to 40%, maintenance could accomplish the same work value as if it had added 7.5 men working at 40% productivity. 30 (1800) (40%) = 21,600 man-hr/yr 30 (1800) (30%) = 16,200 man-hr/yr Difference = 5,400 man-hr/yr 1800 (40%) 7.5 men Leadership-The maintenance department can have significant control over its own leaders, the front-line foremen, but they must