| |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Justifying Preventative MaintenanceOverview How often do you
experience unscheduled downtime? What are the causes? Example Recommendations AR 3504: Institute
A Preventive Maintenance Program for CNC Machines
Analysis Management
estimates that the three CNC machines must be run overtime about 2,070 hours per
year and that about 60% of this is due to machine breakdowns. In addition,
present inventory levels are inflated 35% to compensate for breakdowns. Recommendations In order to reduce
lost production time, repair, maintenance and inventory costs due to machine
breakdown, we recommend implementing a preventative maintenance (PM) program. Estimated Savings Overtime Management reports
that each of the three CNC machines is run during overtime hours for about 10
hours per week plus about 13 hours per weekend for 30 weeks per year. Thus, the
annual overtime is about: Management reports
that the regular hourly wage and benefit package is about $10 per hour and
overtime is about $15 per hour. If so, the annual overtime operator labor cost
is about: Management
estimates that about 60% of the overtime is related to machine breakdowns and
that a preventive maintenance program could reduce machine breakdowns by 60%.
Thus, the annual overtime labor savings due to a PM program would be about: $31,050 /year x
60% x 60% = $11,178 /year Replacement Parts
Preventative maintenance would also reduce the cost of replacement parts. We
estimate that the amount spent on replacement parts for the three CNC machines
would be reduced by at least $500 per month due to a PM program. Thus, the
replacement part savings would be about: Maintenance and Repair Labor As calculated
before, the annual overtime was about 2,070 hours per year, and management
estimates that about 60% of this overtime is due to machine breakdowns.
Assuming that a machine is put back into production as soon as it is fixed, the
time spent repairing broken CNC machines is about: 2,070 hours/year x
60% = 1,242 hours/year Management
estimated that the time required to implement an effective PM program would be
about: However, this is
more than the current time spent repairing the
machines. Preventative maintenance programs have repeatedly been shown to
reduce, not inflate, repair time. Thus, we estimate that the time required to
implement an effective PM program would be about half the current
downtime maintenance: 1,242 hours/year x
50% = 621 hours/year Assuming that a
skilled craftsman earns $15 per hour, the labor savings would be about: (1,242 hours/year
- 621 hours/year) x $15 /hour = $9,315 /year Inventory In addition,
management reports current inventory levels are 35% higher than necessary to
compensate for maintenance breakdown. Current inventory is about 8,000 parts
and each part costs about $3.50. The value of inventory held due to machine
breakdown is about: 8,000 pieces x
$3.50 /piece x 35% = $9,800 If this amount
were invested in the company or elsewhere at a 15% to yield, the additional
revenue would be about: $9,800 x 15%/year
= $ 1,470 /year Total savings
would be about: $11,178 /year +
$6,000 /year + $9,315 /year + $1,470 /year = $27,963 /year Estimated Implementation Cost and Simple Payback There is no implementation cost; hence the payback is immediate. AR 3354: Purchase
Screenless Extruder Head for Extruder #1
Analysis Management
estimates that Extruder #1 is down for about ten hours per month to change the
screen/filter in the head of the extruder. This downtime could be eliminated
by purchasing and installing a screenless die. According
to maintenance personnel, a screenless die costs about $90,000. Recommendations To reduce
downtime, we recommend purchasing a modified screenless die that would not
require periodic cleaning. This would add about 10 hours of production per month
and reduce maintenance labor costs. Estimated Savings To estimate
savings, we seek to estimate the total costs associated with
the current operation, in which the extruder is down for 10 hours per month, and
the total costs associated with the recommendedoperation, in which the extruder
is operational for 10 more hours per month. The savings would be the difference
between costs in the current and recommended operations. Current We assuming that
the die change requires a three-person maintenance crew. Management reports
that the average cost of labor is about $15 per hour including benefits. If so,
the cost of maintenancelabor for change-outs is about: 10 hours/month x 3
persons x $15 /hour-person x 12 months/year = $5,400 /year We assume that
when the extruder die is being changed, the three regular operators are assigned
to other duties in the plant. Thus, the cost of operator labor is about: 10 hours/month x 3
persons x $15 /hour-person x 12 months/year = $5,400 /year There are no
material costs during the 10 hours per month that the extruder is down.
However, there are depreciation and overhead costs. We estimate that these costs
are about $10,800 annually. (Our rationale for this number, $10,800, will be
described in the next section). The total cost of the present operation
(including labor, materials, overhead and depreciation) is about: $5,400 + $5,400
+$0 + $10,800 = $21,600 /year Recommended By changing to a
screenless die, maintenance costs would be eliminated. Operator labor costs,
depreciation costs and overhead costs would remain the same. In addtion, running
the extruder would now require materials. According to management, the
production rate for this extruder is about 1,000 pounds per hour and the
production cost of styrofoam (which includes labor, materials, overhead and
depreciation) is about $0.45 per pound. Management estimates that about 70% of
the production cost is for materials. Thus, the cost of material now that the
extruder is operational would be about: 10 hours/month x
1,000 lb/hr x $0.45 /lb x 12 month/year x 70% = $37,800 /year The total
production cost if the extruder were operational for 10 more hours per month
would be about: $5,400 /year +
$10,800 /year + $37,800 /year = $54,000 /year Note that $54,000
per year for an additional 120,000 pounds of material per year equates to the
$0.45 per pound that management estimated as the production cost of the
material: $54,000 /year /
120,000 pounds/year = $0.45 /pound Thus, overhead and
depreciation must equal the difference between the total production cost and the
cost of labor and materials: $54,000 /year -
[$5,400 /year + $37,800 /year] = $10,800 /year Assuming a 20%
profit margin, the revenue generated from this product would be about: $54,000 /year x
120% = $64,800 /year Thus, the net cost
if the extruder were operational for 10 more hours per month would be about: $54,000 /year -
$64,800 /year = -$10,800 /year Note that a
negative net cost is a net increase in revenue. Savings The savings are
the difference between the costs in the current and recommended scenarios: $21,600 /year -
(-$10,800 /year) = $32,400 /year Estimated Implementation Cost According
to maintenance personnel, a screenless die costs about $90,000. Estimated Simple Payback $90,000 / $32,400 /year x 12 months/year = 33 months AR 5: Upgrade
Coolant Systems For Machining Tools
Analysis Machining coolants are an important component of metal working operations. Coolants improve machinability, increase productivity, and extent tool life by cooling and lubricating the work piece and cutting tool. When performing these functions, the coolant becomes contaminated with tramp oil, chips and fines, dissolved salts, and bacteria, and eventually must be replaced. The frequency of replacement can be minimized by controlling the amount and resident time of contaminants in the coolant.
The maintenance director felt that the average frequency of coolant
replacement could be reduced from about every two weeks to about every six
months if the residence time of the contaminants in the coolant could be
substantially reduced. After researching the issue and discussing it with
experts in the field, we agree with his assessment. This recommendation
illustrates the savings potential for upgrading the current coolant circulation
equipment on each machine. Further technical assistance for reducing &
recycling waste machining and grinding coolants is available through MnTAP at
(612)-627-4646 or (800)-247-0015. In addition, the US Environmental Protection
Agency has published “Guides to Pollution Prevention : The Fabricated Metal
Products Recovery” (EPA/625/7-90/006) which is also a valuable reference. Recommendation Contaminant resident time in the coolant could be substantially and cost-effectively reduced by adding the following equipment to the metal working machines:
The current
and recommended coolant circulation systems are shown schematically below. The
key idea is to reduce the contact time between coolant and contaminant. In the
system below, this is achieved by a pre-settling tank which catches the heavier
chips and filtration before the coolant enters the holding tank. Estimated Savings Present The cost of
coolant for the machine shop is about: 270 gal/container
x $9.25/gal x 12 containers/yr = $29,970 /yr A 1,400 gallon
spent coolant tank is emptied 7 times a month by Environmental Recovery.
Assuming 1,200 gallons of spent coolant are removed each time, the annual
amount of spent coolant removed is about: 1,200 gal/tank x 7
tanks/month x 12 months/yr = 100,800 gal/yr Assuming that the
final mixture is 19 parts water and 1 part coolant, the total spent coolant from
the machine shop is about: 270 gal cool/tank
x 12 tanks/yr x 20 gal(water&coolant)/gal coolant = 64,800 gal/yr Thus, about
(64,800 gal/yr / 100,800 gal/yr = ) 64% of the total disposal cost is
attributable to the machine shop. The total disposal
cost for spent coolant is about: $3,000 /month x 12
months/yr = $36,000 /yr The total cost of
coolant disposal for the machining shop is about: $36,000 x 64% =
$23,040 /yr The labor cost of
cleaning and replacing coolant is about: 45 machines x 8
hr/machine x 25 times/yr x $20 /hr = $180,000 /yr The total cost is
thus about: $29,970 /yr +
$23,040 /yr + $180,000 /yr = $233,010 /yr Recommended The new system
would require replacing the coolant and cleaning the tanks every 6 months
instead of every two weeks. Coolant and cleaning costs would be reduced to
about one twelfth of the present costs. $233,010 /yr /12
= $19,418 /yr In addition, we
estimate that it would take about 2 hours each week to remove chips from the
settling tank and service the new equipment. 45 machines x 2
hr/machine x 50 times/yr x $20 /hr = $90,000 /yr The total costs
associated with the new system would therefore be about: $19,418 /yr +
$90,000 /yr = $109,418 /yr Savings (Present - Recommended) Total savings =
$233,010 /yr - $109,418 /yr = $123,592 /yr Implementation Cost $4,000 /machine x
45 machines = $180,000 Simple Payback SP = $180,000 / $123,592 /yr x 12 months/yr = 17 months AR 6: Consolidate
Coolant Systems For Grinders
Analysis In the metal
working shop, concentrated coolant is mixed with water in a central location and
piped to individual machines. This ensures that the proper concentration of
coolant is being used by each machine. In the grinding shop, 8 grinders use the
same type of coolant. However, each operator mixes his own coolant. Although
the recommended concentration is 5% coolant to 95% water, operators reportably
use imprecise methods of mixing such as adding coolant “till it looks pink”.
Overly diluted or concentrated coolant can reduce tool life, adversely affect
product quality and increase coolant and coolant disposal costs. In addition,
in the current arrangement each machine must be individually cleaned when the
coolant is replaced. The maintenance director suggested that a central coolant
loop for the 8 grinders using the same coolant would alleviate many of these
problems. Recommendation We agree
with the maintenance director and recommend establishing a central coolant loop
for the 8 grinders using the same coolant. This will ensure better control of
coolant concentration and reduce coolant, disposal, operating
and maintenance costs. The central coolant loop should be equipped with a
contaminant control system similar to that described in AR 1. Estimated Savings The
estimated savings below consider only savings from reduced coolant and cleaning
costs. Other savings from increased operator productivity and product quality
and machine lifetime may also be significant. Present According to
management, the total cost of trimsol is $33,565 per year. In AR 1, we
estimated that the machine shop uses $29,970 per year worth of trimsol. Thus,
the cost of trimsol used in the grinding shop is about: $33,565 /yr -
$29,970 /yr = $3,595 /yr According to
management, the cost of other the two types of coolant used in the grinding shop
is about $17,140 per year. Thus, the cost of all coolant used in the grinding
shop is about: $3,595 /yr +
$17,140 /yr = $20,735 /yr In AR 1, we
estimated that the grinding shop produces about 36% of the spent coolant. Thus,
the disposal cost for the grinding shop coolant is about: $36,000 /yr x 36%
= $12,960 /yr The labor cost for
thoroughly cleaning the grinders and replacing coolant is about: 8 machines x 4
hr/machine x 2 times/yr x $20 /hr = $1,280 /yr The total annual
cost of coolants, disposal and cleaning is about: $20,735 /yr +
$12,960 /yr + $1,280 /yr = $34,975 /yr Recommended As in AR 1, we
estimate that an upgraded coolant cleaning system would dramatically decrease
the frequency that the coolant must be replaced. Assuming that coolant use
could be reduced to one eighth of current use, the cost of coolant and disposal
would now be about: ($20,735 /yr +
$12,960 /yr) / 8 = $4,212 /yr We estimate that
the cost of cleaning one central coolant loop would be about: 8 hr x 2 times/yr
x $20 /hr = $320 /yr Therefore, the
total cost would be about: $4,212 /yr + $320 /yr = $4,532 /yr
Savings (Present - Recommended) Total savings =
$34,975 /yr - $4,532 /yr = $30,433 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost $20,000 Estimated Simple Payback SP = $20,000 /
$30,433 /yr x 12 months/yr = 8 months AR 14: Devise
and Implement a Preventive Maintenance System
Analysis This is a
productivity driven operation and high production levels must be maintained.
Such optimum production levels are difficult to achieve without
a preventative maintenance in place. The assessment team found a variety of
problems related to the lack of a preventative maintenance program. As a case
study, we analyzed the Copelandā machining cell to illustrate some of the
savings opportunities frompreventative maintenance. These results may be
generalized and applied throughout the facility. Operators reported
that daily cleaning and maintenance of the machines is often
neglected. Maintenance is scheduled every Thursday, but other problems often
require attention and the maintenance is not performed. According to operators,
most cleaning and maintenance occurs after a machine breaks down. Operators cite
a direct correlation between the buildup of debris and machine failure. Productivity
driven facilities, such as yours, should prevent problems rather than just
respond to problems as they arise. Quality Control, maintenance, and the
operators all agree a preventativemaintenance program and better personnel
training would drastically improve productivity and quality. More importantly,
these changes would decrease downtime and related costs. Recommendation We recommend
devising and implementing a preventative maintenance program. This program
should define and track specific daily, weekly, and long
term maintenance requirements. We estimate an immediate payback. Estimated Savings The estimated
costs and savings are based upon figures agreed upon by quality
control, maintenance, and the machine operators. Present The downtime for
the Copelandā machining cell for repairing failed machines is about: 2 day/mo x 24
hr/day x 12 mo/yr = 576 hr/yr Filings and
shavings collect in bottom of these machines. With proper maintenance, these
filings are removed by an automated collector. However when left to accumulate,
the machines must be shut down to remove the debris. The downtime for this
cleaning is about: 2 hr/wk x 6
machines x 3 shifts x 50 wk/yr = 1800 hr/yr The debris
accumulation also prevents collectors from sealing properly. Coolant leaks
through these gaps and the time required to clean leaking coolant and add extra
coolant is about: 4 hr/wk x 50 wk/yr
= 200 hr/yr Assuming that 25%
of the makeup coolant is leaked, the cost of makeup coolant fluid is about: 30 gal/day x 25% leakage x 6 machines x 7 day/wk x 50 wk/yr = 15,750 gal/yr 15,750 gal/yr x 5%
coolant concentrate x $7.02/ gal = $5,528 /yr Quality control
estimates 30% of the 50 scrap parts per month result from the excess debris in
the machines, while each part requires 30 minutes to rework. The time required
to remachine defective parts is about: 50 parts/mo x 6
machines x 30% x 0.5 hr/part x 12 mo/yr = 540 hr/yr We estimate a
comprehensive preventative maintenance and personnel training program would
decrease the current costs by approximately 50%. Savings from higher moral and
a cleaner work environment are intangible, but will also contribute to
productivity. Assuming the average cost of wages and benefits is about $15 per
hour, the total savings, including coolant and salary, would be about:
[(576 + 1,800 + 200 + 540) hr/yr x $15 /hr + $5,528 /yr] x 50%
= $26,134 /yr The payback would
be immediate. AR 15: Implement a Preventive Maintenance Program
Analysis On the day of our
plant visit, the cylinder and the journal lines were the only two lines
available for observation because the bracket line had run out of castings and
production on the Mitsubishi line was intermittent. Because of this, we took a
detailed look at the cylinder machining operation to see if we could identify
any productivity issues. We then extrapolated our findings to the entire
plant. High production
levels are critical in the cylinder machining operation. Because of the emphasis
on production, operators report that daily cleaning and maintenance of the
machines is consistently neglected and that no regular maintenance schedule
exists. According to operators, cleaning and maintenance typically occur only
after a machine breaks down. In addition, large quantities of debris are
produced. Based on our
observations and discussions with operators, we believe that production could be
increased if a preventative maintenance program were implemented. In this
analysis, we attempt to quantify the savings that we believe would result from a
successful preventative maintenance program. In virtually all cases, facility
personnel agreed that a preventative maintenance program would help correct the
issues we identified. Recommendation We recommend
devising and implementing a preventative maintenance program. This program
should define and track specific daily, weekly, and long
term maintenance requirements and responsibilities. In addition, you may want
to commission a more detailed study of productivity issues in this cell and in
the plant. Estimated Savings The estimated
costs below are based upon figures agreed upon by management, maintenance,
and/or the machine operators. Management reports
that the current defect rate for this facility is about 2.4% and the lost cost
per cylinder is about $4.00 ($7.00 selling price - $3.00 purchase price). The
major causes of defective pieces are broken tooling 27%, oversized holes 16%,
machine damage 8%, surface scratches and misloads 5%, material handling 40% and
other 4%. Broken tooling, oversized holes, machine damage, and surface scratches
account for 56% of the total scrap rate and are all associated with excessive
chips. For example, excess chips cause tools to wear out ahead of schedule and
increase the frequency of broken tools. We believe that a preventive maintenance program with regular chip collection would reduce the defect rate. The defect rate associated with excess chips is about:
2.4% total defect
rate x 56% associated with excess chips = 1.34% The number of
cylinders lost to problems associated with defective chips is about: 70,000
cylinders/wk x 50 wk/yr x 1.34% chip related defect rate = 47,040 cylinders/yr If this defect
rate were reduced by 15% by a preventive maintenance program with better chip
removal, the savings would be about: 47,040
cylinders/yr x $4 /cylinder x 15% reduction = $28,224 /yr Assuming 15
operators work in the cylinder cells for 7,800 hours per year, the labor savings
associated with reducing the defect rate would be about: 15 operators x
7,800 hr/yr x 1.34% chip related defect rate x $22 /hr x 15% reduction = $5,189
/yr Filings and
shavings are collected in bottom of these machines. With proper maintenance, an
automated collector removes these filings. However when left to accumulate, the
machines must be shut down to remove this debris. Assuming that
a preventative maintenance program would reduce this downtime by 75%, the labor
savings would be about: 2 hr/wk/shift x 3
shifts x 50 wk/yr x $22 /hr x 75% reduction = $4,950 /yr Excessive debris
causes excess chip collection in the cylinders, which in turn causes unnecessary
wear and tear on the roller track. Roller track sections must be replaced at a
rate of about 2.5 sections per week, which totals about 5,000 rollers per year.
According to maintenance, with proper maintenance the number of sections could
reasonably be reduced to one-half section each week. This would reduce roller
replacements by about 80%. The roller purchase cost savings would be about: 5,000 roller/yr x
$1.30 /roller x 80% reduction = $5,200 /yr Currently, about
two hours are required to replace each roller section. In addition, the
machines are down for an additional hour whenever a roller section is being
replaced. The labor savings associated with reduced roller replacements would
be about: (2.5 - 0.5)
replacement sections/wk x (2 hr/section + 1 hr related downtime) x 50 wk/yr x
$22 /hr = $4,400 /yr Excess debris
accumulation also prevents collectors from sealing properly. Coolant leaks
through these gaps and must be cleaned and replaced. This takes about 4 hours
per week. Assuming 75% of this time could be eliminated, the savings associated
with reducing coolant leaks would be about: 4 hr/wk x 50 wk/yr
x $22 /hr x 75% = $3,300 /yr About 50 gallons
per day of coolant solution is leaked. Coolant costs about $7 per gallon and is
mixed with water at a rate of about 20 parts water to 1 part coolant. Assuming
that this leakage would be reduced by about 25%, the coolant purchase cost
savings would be about: 50 gal/day x 6.5
day/wk x 50 wk/yr x 5% coolant concentrate x $7 /gal x 25% = $1,421 /yr The total savings
identified above for the cylinder cell operation would be about: $28,224 /yr +
$5,189 /yr + $5,148 /yr + $4,400 /yr + $5,200 /yr + $3,300 /yr + $1,421 /yr =
$52,882 /yr Other savings from
higher moral and a cleaner work environment are intangible, but will also
contribute to productivity. It appears that
similar productivity issues also plaque the remaining lines. In particular, the
journal line appeared to have more maintenance-related problems than the
cylinder cell operation. We recommend devising and implementing
a preventative maintenance program for all production lines in the facility. If
similar problems could be corrected on the other three lines, the total savings
resulting from a plant-wide preventive maintenance program would be about: $52,882 /line/yr x
4 product lines = $211,528 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost The additional
cost of implementing a PM program would be minor because most of the
actual maintenance work is already being done; it is just being done after
rather than before production delays. A PM program would, however, require some
additional effort to develop and manage the program. Based on our experience,
we believe that a single person could manage an effective preventativemaintenance program.
A production engineering position is currently unfilled and in the budget.
Perhaps this individual could be responsible for implementing and maintaining
the PM program. We estimate that the total salary and benefits associated with
the position would be about $50,000 per year. Estimated Simple Payback SP = $50,000 / $211,528 /yr x 12 mo/yr = 3 months AR 3554: Replace
Plaster Mixer
Analysis and Recommendation The current
plaster mixer was installed in 1942. Management is considering replacing the
plaster mixer with a new portable unit to reduce maintenance, repair, labor,
spillage and transportation costs. Based on the following analysis, we believe
that it would indeed be cost effective to replace the plaster mixer. Estimated Savings
Maintenance management reports that they spend about $4,000 on parts and labor
to repair the plaster mixer each year. In addition, management estimates that
lost product due to spillage from the transportation of mixed plaster is about
2% of each batch mixed. The plant mixes about 167,000 pounds of plaster each
year at a cost of $0.09 per pound. The total cost of lost product is about: 2% x 167,000 lb x
$0.09 /lb = $300 /yr Management reports
that employees spend about 4 hours per day mixing and/or transporting plaster
through the plant. Management estimates wages and benefits are about $18 per
hour. Straight time labor cost is about: $18 /hr x 4
hrs/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = $18,000 /yr In addition,
management states that 4 hours per week of overtime are required to mix and or
transport totes of plaster. Management estimates wages and benefits for
overtime are about $27 per hour. Overtime labor cost is about: $27 /hr x 4
hrs/week x 50 weeks/year = $5,400 /yr The total savings
would be about: 4,000 /yr + $300
/yr + $18,000 /yr + $5,400 /yr = $27,700 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost Management
estimates the equipment and installation cost of a new portable plaster mixer
would be about $40,000 Estimated Simple Payback $40,000 / $27,700 /yr x 12 months/yr = 17 months AR 3554: Replace
Bulk Sand Delivery System
Analysis and Recommendation Management is
considering replacing the current bulk sand delivery system because it requires
excessive maintenance and is placed at the opposite end of the plant from the
primary processes which it serves. We estimated the savings associated with
replacing the sand delivery system and locating it at the other end of the
plant. Based on the following analysis, we recommend replacing the system to
increase productivity and reduce maintenance costs. Estimated Savings
Maintenance management reports that they spend about $3,700 on parts and labor
to repair the bulk delivery system each year. In addition, maintenance also
spends about $2,000 to clean the system each year. The total
annual maintenance cost is about: $3,700 /yr +
$2,000 /yr = $5,700 /yr Management
estimates that lost production due to maintenance downtime of the bulk sand
delivery system is 12 hours per year. Management estimates that overhead,
labor and overtime cost to cover this downtime is $75 per hour. The total cost
of lost production is about: $75 /hr x 12
hrs/year = $900 /yr Management reports
that a lift truck operator spends about 2 hours per day transporting bulk sand
across the plant. Management estimates wages and benefits are about $18 per
hour. The straight time labor cost is about: $18 /hr x 2
hrs/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = $9,000 /yr In addition,
management states that one hour of overtime is required to transport bulk sand
one day per week. Management estimates wages and benefits for overtime are
about $27 /hour. The overtime labor cost is about: $27 /hr x 1
hr/week x 50 weeks/year = $1,350 /yr In addition,
management estimates that it takes about 1.5 hours per day, 3 days per week to
mix and unload the bulk delivery system. The labor cost of mixing and unloading
is about: $18 /hr x 1.5
hrs/day x 3 days/week x 50 weeks/year = $4,050 /yr All of these costs
would be eliminated by purchasing a new bulk sand system and locating it at the
other end of the plant. The total savings would be about: $5,700 /yr + 900
/yr + 9,000 /yr + $1,350 /yr + $4,050 /yr = $21,000 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost Management
estimates the total cost to purchase and install the new bulk system would be
about $64,000. Estimated Simple Payback $64,000/ $20,600 /yr x 12 months/yr = 37 months | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check out our maintenance software in our catalog - View a demo of EPM 8. Copyright CAE Consultants Inc. 2009 |
