Where is your current PM Program? Where are the gaps? This maturity matrix focused on Preventive Maintenance is the most updated one anywhere. Some of the brightest minds in Maintenance and Reliability, world-wide, contributed to the development of this latest version.

1. Elements LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
PM Workflow Process
Maps
No process maps exist.
Basic high-level process
map exists that essentially
matches CMMS key stroke
instructions; not tied to
organizational behavior.
Process maps exist for PM
program covering execution
only; no mechanism
for PM development or
optimization. No performance
standards for PM program
management.
Process maps exist for PM
program management,
execution, development, and
optimization.
Process maps exist for all
PM program elements. There
is substantial evidence of
continuous improvement on
a regular basis.
Stores PM Program No program in place.
Some PMs conducted in
Stores but not consistent
or coordinated with the
materials management team.
PMs conducted in Stores
on some critical spares.
Informal coordination with the
materials management team.
Spares added to program
on request, usually after a
failure event.
PM compliance <50%
PMs conducted in Stores
on all critical spares with
materials management team.
PM compliance > 80%
Failure mode driven PM
strategy for all stocked
spares. Materials
management team is an
integral part in ensuring
reliability when parts are
issued.
PM compliance = 100%
Expectations
PM program is an opportunity
for crafts personnel to
inspect the machines and fix
what is wrong.
PM program follows OEM
recommendations for
parts replacements and
inspections because OEM
compliance guarantees
warranty coverage.
PM program replaces select
components based on OEM
recommendations, failure
history, and risk analysis.
PM program identifies future
work through intrusive
inspections as required.
Some components replaced
due to end of useful life.
Prevention of interval-based
failure modes and detection
of defects not found with
PdM or Operator Care
programs.
PM Frequencies
Established from unknown
source or best guess.
Established from OEM
recommendations with some
informal adjustments made
using equipment history.
Established and modified
based on equipment history
(failures rate, MTBF, etc.).
>30% of critical assets
Interval optimized based on
Weibull failure profile and
simulation model results for
select machines; based on
criticality or management
selection for all other
machines.
Interval optimized based on
Weibull failure profile and
simulation model results for
top 20% of machines based
on criticality.
Failure Mode Driven
Activities
All PMs are “Check and
repair as necessary” style
activities.
PMs follow OEM
recommendations.
Some critical equipment
PM activities are based on
a Failure Modes Analysis
(FMA) of critical and likely
equipment defects. Job
plans are rarely reviewed for
accuracy.
All critical equipment PM job
plans are based on formal
FMA with the right balance
of PM and PdM tasks. PM
strategies are reviewed
periodically (but infrequently)
for accuracy.
All PM job plans are based
on FMA. There is a formal
review cycle in place
where PM strategies are
modified based on RCA and
FRACAS results on a regular
schedule.
PM Procedures
PM jobs are simple
checklists of things to do or
things to inspect.
PM jobs are broken into tasks and
steps but are worded such that
the task is neither quantitative nor
repeatable. PMs do not contain
warnings, cautions, constraints,
resources, or standards.
Some critical equipment has PM
jobs that have been improved to be
more consistent and quantitative.
Some PM job plans contain
warnings, cautions, constraints,
resources, and standards.
All critical equipment PM
job plans are quantitative,
repeatable, and contain all of
the necessary elements of a
well-constructed procedure.
All PM job plans are compliant with
the requirements for a well-designed
procedure. There is ample evidence
that continuous improvement efforts
are formalized and working well.
PM Content
PMs lack consistent
information.
<20% of PMs contain
any estimated hours,
consumables needed, or
tools.
<50% of PMs contain
accurate estimated hours,
consumables needed, or
tools.
>90% of PMs contain
accurate estimated hours,
consumables needed, or
tools.
All PMs are reviewed annually
to update the estimated hours
versus actual and consumables
and tools required to perform the
work. Feedback is provided to the
materials management team on
additions to free issue stock items.
Unique PMs
All PMs are different on like
pieces of equipment.
Some consistency exists
between like or similar pieces
of critical equipment.
PMs are customized by
equipment type, but overlap
exists for failure modes
covered by CBM on <30% of
the equipment.
PMs are customized by
equipment type, but overlap
exists for failure modes
covered by CBM on <10% of
the equipment .
PMs are customized for the
maintenance strategy applied
across equipment types
(CBM and PM or PM).
PM Compliance using
10% Rule
Cannot measure - PM
program is not functional.
PM compliance is measured
effectively, but not using the
10% Rule.
The 10% Rule is applied to
>50% of critical assets.
100% of PMs apply the 10%
Rule.
100% of PMs apply the 10% Rule
and PMs are load leveled to ensure
consistent execution.
Metrics / Justification
Compliance Metrics
Simple metrics that show the
PM program exists and that
PMs are getting completed
are in use.
Productivity Metrics
Metrics for route compliance
and route adherence are in
use.
Effectiveness Metrics
PM compliance and
adherence metrics are
correlated with the number
of jobs coming from the PM
program and reduction in
unplanned work.
Efficiency Metrics
Comparisons are made
between estimated parts and
labor for the PM activities
and the actual parts and
labor.
Innovation Metrics
Metrics are in place to
measure how the PM job
plans are being improved
through the elimination of
waste and improvements in
job execution.
PM Improvement No formal process.
Anyone can make changes
to an existing PM or delete or
add a PM to the system.
Only maintenance staff
can make changes to an
existing PM or delete or add
a PM to the system. The
process is informal with little
documentation of changes.
Changes, additions, or
PM removal goes through
an approval process with
changes being documented.
>50% of the review results
are provided to the originator.
Changes, additions, or
PM removal goes through
an approval process with
changes being documented.
Single site position is
responsible for updating
the PM. 100% of the review
results are provided to the
originator.
Continued on back...
PREVENTIVEMAINTENANCEMATURITYELEMENTSPREVENTIVEMAINTENANCEMATURITYELEMENTSPREVENTIVEMAINTENANCEMATURITYELEMENTS
Ways to Measure Your
Preventive Maintenance Program
Maturity Matrix
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1
NO FORMAL PROGRAMNO FORMAL PROGRAMNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGEDNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGEDNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGEDNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTING ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICE
North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific
GPAllied EMEA
Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C
B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
o. +32(0)9.210.17.20
f. +32(0)9.210.17.28
www.gpallied.com
World Headquarters
4200 Faber Place Drive
Charleston, SC 29405
o. 888.335.8276
f. 843.414.5779
GPAllied CANADA
2572 Daniel Johnson, 2nd Floor
Laval, QC | Canada H7T 2R3
o. 450.902.2569
f. 450.902.2568

2. Elements LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
Quality of PM
Inspection
PM inspections are simple
checklists of things to
inspect.
Some items on PM checklist
detail specific faults to be
identified, but no detail as to
severity.
Most items on PM checklist
for critical equipment have
defined degrees of severity.
Most inspections are still
qualitative in nature.
Most items on all PM
checklists have defined
degrees of severity with
some examples. Some items
are quantitative.
All PM inspections are
quantitative in nature and
have defined degrees of
defect progression with
examples for clarity. Each
degree designates conditions
as either “good”, “future
work”, or “immediate work.”
PM Activity Types
PM activities are only
inspections and lubrication
tasks. Maintenance does all
PM tasks.
Maintenance does most
inspections and lubrication
tasks. Operations has only a
few tasks on a few machines.
PM activities include
inspections, lubrication tasks,
and adjustments/calibrations.
Maintenance still has
most tasks, but operations
has some for almost all
machines.
PM activities include
inspections, lubrication
tasks, adjustments/
calibrations, and some
interval-based replacements.
Operations has most of
the qualitative inspections,
while maintenance has the
quantitative inspections.
PM program includes a
mixture of clean, inspect,
adjust, replenish, replace,
and rebuild as activity types.
Maintenance has the highly
technical tasks requiring
advanced machinery
knowledge, techniques,
and tools. Operations has
all qualitative inspections
and cleaning tasks, as well
as basic lubrication, and
adjustment responsibilities.
PM Scheduling
PM scheduling has no idea
which PMs require downtime
or how much.
Some PMs include downtime
requirements and are
scheduled as the PM comes
due.
Some PMs are grouped by
system and PM downtime is
coordinated.
PMs for critical machines are
grouped and executed by
system. System downtime
is coordinated for all PM
activities.
All PMs are grouped by
system for convenient
scheduling. Each PM
designates the required
clock hours, labor-hours,
and downtime hours for
completion.
Load Leveling
System shows no concept
of distributing PM loads
across the balance of the
required time period or with
production demands.
PM load is known and is
sometimes distributed evenly
across time window, though
production demands usually
override.
PM load is known and at
least the monthly PMs are
distributed evenly across the
month or coordinated with
planned downtime.
PM load is known and
monthly and quarterly PMs
are distributed evenly across
the time window.
PMs are leveled across
the month, quarter, semi-
annual, or annual time frame.
There is no spike in the PM
load unless coordinated
with significant planned
operational downtime.
PM Procedure
Creation
Planner or engineer built
PM procedure from OEM
checklist or from past
experience.
A few PM procedures were
built with technician input, but
just for critical machines.
Most critical machines have
had PMs reviewed and
modified by technicians.
All critical machines and
many other machines
have had PMs reviewed
and modified by teams of
technicians for accuracy and
required instructional detail.
PM procedures were built in
collaboration with technicians
who regularly perform the
work. Technicians provided
required instructions and
guidance on needed level of
detail.
PM Prioritization
PMs worked into the
schedule where possible.
Weekly schedule contains
most of the PM load but labor
is redistributed as needed for
emergency and high-priority
work on a regular basis.
Weekly schedule is base
loaded with PM work. Critical
PM activities are protected;
lower criticality PM work
may be substituted with
emergency work as needed.
PM work is rarely substituted
with emergency work, but
does happen on occasion.
PM work is protected
on schedule; no labor
substitution happens, even
during emergencies.
Feedback Mechanism No feedback from crafts.
>20% of PM procedures
have crafts’ feedback when
returned.
>40% of PM procedures
have crafts’ feedback when
returned; critical feedback is
processed by Planner.
90% of PM procedures
have crafts’ feedback when
returned; most feedback is
processed by Planner.
All PM procedures have
crafts’ feedback when
returned; all feedback is
processed by Planner;
feedback process is
formalized.
PM/PdM Balance
Inspection plus
Findings by Labor
Hours by PM / PdM
100% PM and Results of PM
/ No PdM being performed.
>50% Overall
<5% PdM + Results
>60% PM + Results
>60% Overall
<15% PdM + Results
>50% PM + Results
>70% Overall
<30% PdM + Results
>40% PM + Results
>80% Overall
50% PdM + Results
30% PM + Results
Route Adherence &
Route Compliance
Not measured .
>30% of the PMs are
completed with no
measurement of call
window adherence or route
compliance.
>50% of the PMs are
completed within +/- 50% of
the call window, with >50%
route compliance.
>75% of the PMs are
completed within +/- 20% of
the call window, with >75%
route compliance.
>90% of the PMs are
completed within +/- 10% of
the call window, with >95%
route compliance.
RESULTS/SCORECARDSRESULTS/SCORECARDSRESULTS/SCORECARDS
Ways to Measure Your
Preventive Maintenance Program
Maturity Matrix
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1LEVEL 1
NO FORMAL PROGRAMNO FORMAL PROGRAMNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGEDNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGEDNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGEDNO FORMAL PROGRAMNOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTINGEXPERIMENTING ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENEDENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICEGOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICEBEST PRACTICE
North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific
GPAllied EMEA
Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C
B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
o. +32(0)9.210.17.20
f. +32(0)9.210.17.28
www.gpallied.com
World Headquarters
4200 Faber Place Drive
Charleston, SC 29405
o. 888.335.8276
f. 843.414.5779
GPAllied CANADA
2572 Daniel Johnson, 2nd Floor
Laval, QC | Canada H7T 2R3
o. 450.902.2569
f. 450.902.2568