Computerized Maintenance Management System UserView | 2013
Over the past two months, we’ve surveyed maintenance professionals to identify how the industry uses software to get organized, improve efficiencies and tackle other industry challenges.
You’ll find the full report below, but there are three key takeaways I’d like to highlight up front:
We began by asking survey takers what type of software they use to manage maintenance tasks. Survey takers were asked if they use the following:
In total, 84 percent of those surveyed use some kind of software to manage maintenance. Commercial software products (i.e. CMMS, EAM/ERP or other business software tools) were used by 77 percent of those surveyed.
We asked users of maintenance-specific software applications to answer how well these systems fit their needs on a 10-point scale, with 10 being “Very well” and 1 being “Not at all.” On average, CMMS software users reported their systems best fit their needs.
A majority (66 percent) of our survey takers reported they use on-premise software and 31 percent indicated they use software hosted by the software vendor (“Cloud-based software”). The penetration of Cloud-based systems into the maintenance software market lags behind other industries, but we expect Cloud-based systems to be implemented more frequently in the near future.
Fifty percent of our survey takers indicated that their maintenance software can run on mobile devices, while 38 percent indicated their system could not.
We found that mobile device support correlated highly with how well a system fit survey takers’ needs. On the same 10-point “fitness” scale mentioned earlier, mobile software users rated their software three points higher than users of software that lacked mobile support.
We expect the number of professionals using mobile devices--as well as general levels of satisfaction--to increase as mobile devices come down in cost and vendors continue to improve their mobile offerings.
We asked CMMS, EAM/ERP and custom software users how satisfied they were with their systems’ features, on a scale from “Very satisfied” to “Dissatisfied.”
Overall, our survey takers were most satisfied with their systems’ ability to offer preventive maintenance capabilities, with 48 percent reporting being very satisfied. Work order management was the next feature with the highest satisfaction ratings.
There was a large variance of satisfaction among survey takers that largely centered around the use of commercial vs. custom software, which is discussed in detail below.
Fifty-two percent of CMMS users reported being very satisfied with their software’s preventive maintenance capabilities, and 46 percent of EAM/ERP users reported similar levels of satisfaction. Meanwhile, 38 percent of custom software users reported being dissatisfied with their software’s preventive maintenance features.
Forty-two percent of EAM/ERP users reported being very satisfied; over one-third (37 percent) of CMMS software users reported the same. In contrast, 50 percent of custom software users reported being either somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied with their software’s ability to manage assets.
CMMS software users were very satisfied with their systems’ condition monitoring and alert features. At the same time, only 13 percent of custom software users and 4 percent of EAM/ERP users reported being very satisfied.
We also asked survey participants if their systems were easy to use, if they were satisfied with the quality of their systems and how satisfied they were with other support and vendor services.
Overall, our participants were most satisfied with their systems’ product stability and quality. In contrast, nearly 40 percent of participants were dissatisfied with the training bundled with their systems. However, a closer look showed that this varied greatly based on the type of software system used.
Breaking down product stability and quality satisfaction by user group showed 48 percent of CMMS users reported being very satisfied, while only 27 percent of EAM/ERP reported the same. Twenty-five percent of custom software users reported being very satisfied.
CMMS software users were the most satisfied group with their software training; 65 percent of CMMS software users indicated they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. Meanwhile, 38 percent of custom users indicated they were dissatisfied with training. And while the same percentage of EAM/ERP software users were dissatisfied with training, another 23 percent indicated they were very satisfied.
Survey takers were presented a list of benefits offered by most maintenance management software providers. We then asked participants to rate how well these systems deliver upon these benefits, from “Very well” to “Very poorly.”
According to our sample, the top benefits to using maintenance management software included:
Overall, professionals reported that their systems didn’t fully deliver on the promise of reduced repair costs, increased asset longevity or reduced asset downtime. However, a closer look showed that CMMS software did, in fact, largely deliver on these benefits.
Our sample indicated that CMMS software was best at reducing repair costs. Thirty-five percent of CMMS software responded “Very well” when asked how well the system aids in the reduction of repair costs.
CMMS software was also the best at helping professionals increase asset longevity, with 28 percent of CMMS software users reporting their system does this very well. In contrast, only 13 percent of custom software users and 12 percent of EAM/ERP users reported the same.
Both CMMS users and EAM/ERP users indicated their systems were able to deliver upon the benefit of reducing asset downtime (28 percent of both groups responding “Very well”), greater than twice the percentage of custom software users who reported the same.
We also wanted to gain further insight into the top obstacles for maintenance professionals. Survey takers were presented a list of common challenges experienced by maintenance professionals and were asked to indicate how often they encounter these difficulties.
The most common obstacles encountered by our survey takers included the inability to obtain access to historical reports, as well as a number of maintenance-specific challenges, such as managing recurring maintenance events and properly tracking asset depreciation.
In general, professionals that did not use software to manage maintenance encountered these challenges more frequently than software users, and users of CMMS, EAM and ERP solutions were the least likely to encounter these challenges. This is explained in greater detail below.
According to our sample, manual methods are an insufficient method to manage recurring maintenance events. Fifty-eight percent of professionals that do not use software reported they often have difficulty managing recurring maintenance events. In contrast, approximately 20 percent of CMMS, EAM/ERP and custom software users reported never encountering this challenge.
CMMS software is an excellent method to control administrative costs, according to our survey: 37 percent of CMMS software users reported they never encounter this challenge. Meanwhile, 37 percent of professionals that do not use software report they often do.
CMMS software users experience challenges reducing repair costs less frequently than other groups; 26 percent of these users report never experiencing this challenge. In contrast, 18 percent of professionals that use a collection of tools and 32 percent of professionals that don’t use software report often experience this challenge.
At the conclusion of our survey, we asked participants to share their top priorities for 2013. While the specifics of each professional’s responses varied, many goals for this year revolved around three central themes:
We also asked participants if they plan to invest in new CMMS software in 2013.
In this chart, the y-axis shows the type of software professionals currently use. When asked if they plan to invest in new CMMS software in 2013, a majority of professionals that don’t use maintenance management software plan to make a purchase this year.
We heard from 116 maintenance professionals from a wide range of industries and companies. Below you’ll find industry demographics, company sizes and job titles of our participants.