Building business cases for maintenance improvement projects

Many maintenance managers find it difficult to justify investments in maintenance improvement initiatives. In part, this is due to a tendency by mine managers to regard maintenance purely as a cost centre, and not as a process able to influence productive capacity and profit. It is also hindered by a lack of alignment between commonly used maintenance performance measures and key business drivers, and the lack of formal business training amongst maintenance professionals. With this in mind, a model to assist maintenance managers in evaluating the benefits of maintenance improvement projects was recently formulated. The model considers four cost saving dimensions. These are: 1. reduction in the cost of unplanned repairs and maintenance, 2. increased or accelerated production and/or sales, 3. spares inventory reduction, and 4. reduction in over-investment in physical assets and operating costs. This paper discusses the application of this model and a number of numerical examples are given to justify investments in maintenance improvement projects having varying objectives.

Community center-based resistance training for the maintenance of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE - The purpose of this study was to determine whether beneficial effects on glycemic control of an initial laboratory-supervised resistance training program could be sustained through a community center-based maintenance program. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We studied 57 overweight (BMI >= 27 kg/m(2)) sedentary men and women aged 40-80 years with established (> 6 months) type 2 diabetes. initially, all participants attended a twice-weekly 2-month supervised resistance training program conducted in the exercise laboratory. Thereafter, participants undertook a resistance training maintenance program (2 times/week) for 12 months and were randomly assigned to carry this out either in a community fitness and recreation center (center) or in their domestic environment (home). Glycemic control (HbA(1c) [A1C]) was assessed at 0, 2, and 14 months. RESULTS - Pooling data from the two groups for the 2-month supervised resistance training program showed that compared with baseline, mean A1C fell by -0.4% [95% CI -0.6 to -0.2]. Within-group comparisons showed that A I C remained lower than baseline values at 14 months in the center group (- 0.4% [-0.7 to -0.03]) but not in the home group (-0.1% [-0.4 to 0.3]). However, no between-group differences were observed at each time point. Changes in AIC during the maintenance period were positively associated with exercise adherence in the center group only. CONCLUSIONS - Center-based but not home-based resistance training was associated with the maintenance of modestly improved glycemic control from baseline, which was proportional to program adherence. Our findings emphasize the need to develop and test behavioral methods to promote healthy lifestyles including increased physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Retention, adherence and compliance: Important considerations for home- and group-based resistance training programs for older adults

Reports on the efficacy of physical activity intervention trials usually only include discussion of the primary outcomes. However, assessing factors such as participant retention, adherence and compliance can assist in the accurate interpretation of the overall impact of a program in terms of reach and appeal. A quasi-randomised trial was carried out to assess and compare retention and adherence rates, and compliance with, a twice weekly resistance training program provided either individually at home or in a group format. Retirement villages (n=6) were assigned to either 'Have A Try' (HAT, home-based) or 'Come Have A Try' (CHAT, group-based); both programs included nine strength and two balance exercises. The program involved a 20-week Intervention Phase a 24-week Maintenance Phase and a 20-week On-going Maintenance Phase. One hundred and nineteen participants (mean age 80 +/- 6 years) were recruited (HAT = 38, CHAT = 81). There was no difference in retention rates at the end of the Intervention Phase, but significantly more HAT than CHAT participants had dropped out of the study (p < 0.01) after the Maintenance Phase and the On-going Maintenance Phase. During the Intervention Phase, over half the HAT and CHAT participants completed >= 75% of the prescribed activity sessions, but adherence was significantly greater in CHAT than HAT during the Maintenance Phase (p < 0.01). Participants in CHAT were significantly more compliant than HAT participants (p < 0.05). Both home- and group-based formats were successful over the short-term, but, in retirement villages, the group program had better adherence and compliance in the longer-term. (c) 2006 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.