Maintenance – Is it Always “Pay me now, or pay me later?”
By John Pivik, CFM, SFP, FMP, JTP Consulting, Ltd.
One of the more iconic commercials of the last century is the ad for FRAM oil filters where the mechanic, standing over a car under repair simplifies the discussion over maintenance. While holding the oil filter up to the camera, the mechanic states simply, “You can either pay me now, or pay me later” (while gesturing to the car in the background). The implication is clear, invest in preventive maintenance now (the oil filter) or prepare yourself for unexpected repairs down the road. The ad essentially recommends performing preventive maintenance throughout the life cycle of an asset or piece of equipment in order to maximize its performance and its overall life span.
The challenge of running an Operations & Maintenance program within a Facility Organization is to find the right blend of proactive and reactive elements of a maintenance program for the building, systems, equipment and assets that are being managed. The ‘right blend’ is impacted by the resources set aside by the parent organization as part of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). The adequacy of those resources becomes the primary barrier for FM’s trying to optimize operations, minimize downtime, continuously improve processes and reduce costs simultaneously.
What is the right mix? 80/20 Preventive to reactive? 90/10? 70/30? Given the variability of corporate missions, there is no single answer that works for all businesses, or even all facilities departments within organizations. Budget pressures are different for private sector companies than they are for government agencies. They are also quite different for manufacturing occupancies, R&D campuses and ‘tech’ businesses. They are drastically different between educational facilities (k-12 schools vs. private schools); (public vs. private universities); and rural vs. urban locations. The FM must make the judgement based on the organization that is supported and the buildings that are in the portfolio.
Regardless of the type or size of business, the location or the actual product or service provided, maintenance of systems, equipment and assets boils down to reliability… can the corporate mission count on the operation of the systems and equipment when it needs them most. When it comes to reliability, FM’s are held responsible for ensuring reliability at all levels at all times. The driving need for reliability has led to the concept of “Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM)” which has been defined as a “process to ensure that systems continue operating as designed or required.”
The concept of RCM began in the airline industry as a science that focused on avoiding failure at all costs through measurement and testing, identifying how to address and avoid failure modes, and monitoring risks and opportunities. For FMs, the primary factor driving the maintenance decisions that must be made is less about the actual failure of a system, and more about the consequences of that failure on the corporate mission, the business operations and the reputation of the FM department. If the risk of failure and its consequences are critical, why then is it sometimes so difficult to convince the budget folks in an organization of the level of resources required?
I have observed FM departments that are so underfunded that the annual budget for the department carries a line item for ‘deferred maintenance.’ When the deferred maintenance line item is repeated and expected every year, the department falls further and further behind its responsibility until, ultimately life safety and health become the consequences.
In the Washington, DC Metro area, FMs have a perfect example in “what not to do” to a maintenance program simply by looking at the Metro System. While the system was new (first 10 - 15 years), maintenance that should have been done was deferred and tasks that were part of the maintenance program were not completed. Signs began to surface when the components in escalators in the stations began to fail and the normally reliable service was not. Ultimately, the underfunded maintenance program caught up to the tracks, the stations and the trains themselves. There were many reasons for this, political and practical, and many of the budget issues were out of WMATA’s control.
The point remains that the poorly funded maintenance program led to service interruptions, safety issues for the workers and even passenger deaths. How many times have you requested budget dollars for routine maintenance or even special maintenance programs that were turned down due to lack of funding? The budget battle subsides, and the FM develops work arounds for what was unfunded. Eventually, the system that needed the maintenance fails unexpectedly, causing unplanned downtime and expensive repairs and perhaps safety concerns… and, oh yes, now the budget folks can find the money to ‘fix’ the problem.
The example of the Washington DC Metro should provide leverage for any FM that is not able to obtain the funding for a maintenance program for their buildings. Invest in your maintenance programs now or pay the consequences later.
About the Author:
John worked for the World Bank as the Manager, Facilities Operations & Maintenance and retired in 2014. He worked as an independent consultant, IFMA Instructor and serves as Associate Faculty for Catholic University (MSFM Program) and adjunct faculty for George Mason University FM Certificate Program.
