CMMS at RATP

CMMS at RATP

Jean-Luc Bruno, with more than 40 years of experience within the RATP (Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens) and user of a CMMS software, is currently working at the group's Expertise Center. He tells us about the needs of this company, which has around 2,000 employees in maintenance and support services, spread over fifteen sites and responsible for ensuring the optimal functioning of the 350 or so stations, buildings and installations of RATP and external markets on a daily basis.

Can you talk about your experience with RATP?

I joined RATP in August 1977, first as an electrical equipment maintenance manager in the department responsible for the distribution of electrical energy. I worked on the maintenance of these installations for 17 years, both in low, medium and high voltage electromechanics (750V continuous at 63 and 225 kV alternating) and on gas turbine generators. Subsequently, my manager at the time positioned me on the implementation of maintenance management software in our department: I thus analyzed the use by my colleagues of multiple software and databases for the daily monitoring of installations.

At the end of 1995, RATP sought to equip its various departments with maintenance management software. We deployed a first external solution in our unit and used it at the level of the fleet, work orders and for everything concerning the economic and logistical aspect. Our IT department was initially very reluctant to opt for a new CMMS solution, because the people who worked there found that their proprietary product was just right for them, but when they saw that it only took half a day to enter a type of equipment and associate all the maintenance plans with it when they needed a year ago to resume all their programs, they were taken aback to say the least.

In 1998, we deployed CMMS in order to manage the maintenance of a large part of RATP's electromechanical equipment: escalators, elevators, compressors, ventilations, automatic closing grills... This is how we discovered that the stores in the many centers that deal with maintenance were particularly poorly maintained, had no inventory and had a chaotic management system. We had to start all over again, and that's where CMMS was really useful because we were able to put logistics back on track. This stage lasted until 2000, as well as the gradual implementation of preventive maintenance, with corrective maintenance being ensured from the beginning until the end of 2004.

All the news relating to current interventions are available from the Mobility Work application news feed

The third project covered all the M2E professions (maintenance of spaces and equipment), which covers all the equipment and infrastructures of a station as well as administrative and technical buildings. This covers both electronic equipment, toll equipment (automatic crossings for travelers), surveillance cameras on platforms and telephony (in short, all the computer equipment in a station), electromechanical equipment and infrastructure. Four professions are therefore represented: electromechanics, toll management, tertiary installations (telephony/networks) and finally civil engineering (tiling, fixed stairs, paintings, floors, etc.). We therefore found ourselves faced with four jobs that all acted in a different way, which meant that we had to work with software supplemented by multiple specific fields, and to observe the hierarchy making requests without any real need in the field.

In 2013, we questioned a potential evolution: after 10 years, a software package begins to show certain signs of weakness compared to new tools. All the solutions reviewed offered more or less the same thing, without the functionalities being able to cover all our needs due to the variety of our activities. So we decided to continue with the same publisher, since we considered that the evolutions were quite interesting. We still had 4 jobs, with one particularity: that of leading teams in the field.

In 2017, we tested a new version of the software to be able to benefit from all the changes that our businesses needed. At the moment, everything is working properly, the software corresponds to what we asked for, we have limited the specific ones to the essentials. We hope for another transition to mobility by the end of the year, among other projects (supply chain,...).

You have deployed CMMS to various teams who do not have the same methods, have you observed any significant differences in the integration of the tool?

The electromechanical teams are quite strict in their maintenance process, everything is quite square. When it comes to tolls, the maintainers did not have the same way of working or designing their equipment. A toll consists of several modules, and each must be treated differently: you can have a function that is deficient while the rest are still in good working order. It's exactly the same for civil engineering: they use different techniques for each case and have their own methods. We observe fairly conflicting human relationships so that we have to adapt to each person, to the maintenance routines of each team...

No maintenance technician likes to be “bullied.” When it comes to IT, the first thing that comes to mind is: “We'll look at what we're doing, know how much time we're spending on tasks...” The states that emerge from maintenance are not based on the real time spent but on the estimated time to do the work: the technicians were therefore reassured and understood that they could very well intervene on a preventive installation in good working condition, on which they will only need one hour to do the necessary work. On the other hand, if they spend three or four hours on a task when the estimated time was two hours, no one will blame them for it. What matters is that the installation is maintained and made available. Our objective is to annoy users as little as possible when there is a problem at a given level, so that within two hours a team must intervene: we have objectives to respect with iDF Mobility (ex STIF).

Based on your experience, what are the concrete advantages that a CMMS brings to a maintenance department and, by extension, to an entire company?

This improves our knowledge of the fleet, as well as the quality of monitoring interventions, the logistics park is much cleaner: stores are better maintained, restocking much better managed... When it comes to maintenance plans, we are more responsive when it comes to troubleshooting. Today, we are able to manage teams in the field, technicians receive their information directly on a tablet and therefore know where they should intervene. We will soon be able to prioritize some operations over others, which only improves our responsiveness. What we want is obviously to improve our productivity, especially in a context where Parisian transport is competing.

However, we encounter some difficulties in collecting all the documents associated with a park. To summarize, our engineering departments calculate the number of pieces of equipment that should be in a station and send us, before commissioning, all the documents concerning the equipment that will be installed. On this aspect, we still have some shortcomings. Each department has a tendency to retain information, so when we start an installation, we are not always in possession of all the information necessary for future maintenance interventions, as these are under warranty for a certain period of time and the operator (station agent) only knows one method of declaring a failure.

As a result, we encounter one constant: teams tend to think that the maintenance management software already contains all the information. They actually forget that much of the information in the tool will have been entered by themselves: it's a real problem.

Have you observed any limitations to these CMMS software?

In reality, the more informed the tool is, the more we will be able to use it. If the software does not contain enough information, there are bound to be gaps. As far as our M2E department is concerned, the software package has a very wide range of functionalities, it is quite powerful. Today, we use 50 to 60% of all available features. Central computer software packages relieve us of an economic part managed by RATP.

What are the current expectations of major groups, such as RATP, and the industrial market in general in terms of maintenance management software?

I think we are still waiting for a lot. To stay on the example of the RATP, we carry out annual, monthly, etc. maintenance, etc. depending on the equipment, as well as scheduled renovations. When it comes to major renovations, we are also dependent on the builder who provides us with availability dates. Today, we therefore still need to predict the projects scheduled for the following year and thus anticipate stocks as much as possible by generating lists that will help us to see more clearly.

The Mobility Work search engine allows you to find your equipment in one click, and to access the results of your network and the community

Our teams on foot or in vehicles, who work in the field, will not be able to take all the pieces of equipment among others that they will have to maintain. Even though their skills are very specific, some require materials. Given our activity, I would therefore say that the most important aspect is the management of troubleshooting, intervention and preventive stocks. It is important to remember the context in which we operate since we operate on installations spread all over Île de France.

You have been confronted with different interfaces and functionalities: do you think that the CMMS software observed correctly meets the current needs of the market?

We are offered various tools with different interfaces, and the services do not all use the same software. Each department has its own needs and preferences, but it is the RATP IT department that makes the final decision. It is up to businesses to make their choice once their needs have been clearly identified!