Rising compliance means the schedule is realistic and resourced. Declining compliance means one of three problems: (1) the schedule is overloaded relative to available labor, (2) parts are not staged when PMs trigger, or (3) reactive emergency work is pulling technicians off scheduled work. Each cause has a different fix — compliance data surfaces the symptom; root cause analysis identifies which.

A PM is compliant only if completed within 10% of its scheduled interval. A monthly PM (30 days) must be completed within ±3 days to count. A quarterly PM within ±9 days. Tracking compliance without this window definition overstates true execution quality.

eWorkOrders calculates PM compliance automatically from scheduled vs. completed work orders, with configurable compliance windows per PM type. Real-time dashboards show compliance by asset, by technician, by department, and facility-wide — updated as technicians close work orders on mobile.

Aberdeen Group research shows organizations with mature PM programs achieve 40–70% higher MTBF than those relying on reactive maintenance. Track MTBF per asset, not just program-wide — an asset with declining MTBF while others are stable is signaling a specific problem: wrong interval, wrong task, or an asset approaching end of life.

Set your PM interval at 80–90% of MTBF for critical assets. If MTBF is 600 hours, PM at 480–540 hours — not 600, which means half your assets will fail before the PM triggers. As MTBF data matures over 12–18 months of CMMS records, intervals become data-driven rather than OEM-default. If MTBF is consistently stable and high, the interval may be too short — extend it and redirect that labor to underserved assets.

eWorkOrders calculates MTBF per asset automatically from failure timestamps recorded in corrective work orders. MTBF trend reports show whether reliability is improving or declining at the individual asset, asset class, or facility level — no manual spreadsheet required.

High or rising MTTR usually indicates one of three problems: parts are not available when failures occur (inventory planning failure), the technician doesn’t have documented repair procedures (knowledge capture failure), or the failure mode is complex because the asset was never properly maintained (deferred PM consequence). PM programs address all three: parts are staged for PMs, procedures are documented in work order checklists, and consistent maintenance reduces the complexity of failures that do occur.

Siemens’ 2024 True Cost of Downtime report documents MTTR rising from an industry average of 49 minutes to 81 minutes — a 65% increase driven by skills gaps and supply chain delays. PM programs don’t prevent all failures, but they reduce failure severity and ensure parts are pre-positioned, directly counteracting both MTTR drivers.

eWorkOrders calculates MTTR automatically from work order open and close timestamps. Trend analysis shows which assets, asset types, or failure codes drive the highest MTTR — enabling targeted interventions in stocking, procedures, or technician training.

A PMP below 70% means most maintenance labor is spent fighting failures rather than preventing them — no matter how good the PM schedule looks on paper. The gap between a team’s intended PM program and its actual PMP is typically explained by either a reactive culture that pulls technicians off planned work for every emergency, or a PM schedule that was never realistic relative to available staffing.

The fastest PMP gains come from ABC criticality classification — focusing PM effort on A and B assets and deliberately running C assets to failure. This concentrates planned work on the assets where it delivers the most value, rather than diluting labor across every asset uniformly. Secondary gains come from reducing emergency work by addressing root causes of the most frequent reactive failures.

eWorkOrders calculates PMP automatically from work order type (PM vs. corrective/emergency) and logged labor hours. Weekly PMP reports show whether the ratio is improving — and highlight which asset types or shifts are pulling the metric down.

Unplanned downtime accounts for 34.2% of all OEE efficiency losses, according to Godlan’s 2024 benchmark study of 1,470+ discrete manufacturing operations — making it the single largest efficiency loss category. PM programs directly address the Availability component of OEE by reducing failure events. For most facilities, improving Availability is the fastest path to meaningful OEE gains because it doesn’t require capital investment — it requires better scheduled maintenance.

Availability = MTBF ÷ (MTBF + MTTR). Every improvement in MTBF (fewer failures) and every reduction in MTTR (faster recovery) directly raises the Availability component of OEE. This is why a strong PM program, tracked through MTBF, translates into measurable OEE gains — the math connects them directly.

eWorkOrders tracks the Availability component of OEE through downtime records linked to asset work orders. As PM compliance improves and MTBF rises, Availability trends are visible in real-time dashboards — showing the direct connection between PM execution and production outcomes.

A rising emergency WO rate is one of the clearest signals that a PM program has gaps. Identify which assets are generating the emergency work orders. Then check: do those assets have PMs assigned? Are those PMs being completed on time? Are the PM tasks targeting the right failure modes? An asset generating repeated emergency work orders that also has high PM compliance is telling you the PM tasks themselves are wrong — not targeting the actual failure mode causing the emergency.

Emergency work orders carry a significant cost premium over equivalent planned work: emergency labor rates, expedited parts, and unplanned production loss. The U.S. Department of Energy documents reactive work costing 3–5 times more than the same work performed on a planned basis. Every emergency WO closed is an opportunity to investigate whether a PM could have prevented it — and whether that PM now needs to be created or improved.

eWorkOrders tracks work order priority classification (standard, urgent, emergency) at creation. The emergency WO rate calculates automatically from your work order data and surfaces in dashboards alongside PMP — so you can see both the planned work ratio and the emergency work ratio in the same view.

CMARV above 6% consistently signals that emergency and reactive repair premiums are driving total maintenance cost well beyond what a proactive program would cost. CMARV trending upward year over year, despite a stable asset base, often indicates aging assets whose failure frequency is outpacing maintenance investment — a capital replacement signal as much as a maintenance program signal.

Reactive operations typically spend 4–6% of RAV annually. Well-run PM programs typically spend 2–3%. The reduction comes from three sources: planned repairs cost less than emergency repairs (lower labor rates, standard parts pricing, no production loss), asset life is extended so capital replacement is deferred, and fewer secondary failures mean less collateral repair cost per failure event. Aberdeen Group documents up to 20% longer asset life with consistent PM execution — directly reducing the RAV denominator growth rate over time.

eWorkOrders tracks cumulative maintenance cost per asset from all closed work orders. With replacement asset values stored in the asset registry, CMARV is calculated automatically and displayed per asset and program-wide — surfacing which assets are absorbing disproportionate maintenance spend relative to their value.