Case Study: How DVA Can Have a
Positive Impact
Reduced Maintenance Cost
A customer had been running the same
type of reducer (reducer A) on a conveyor pulley
system for 25 years. Reducer A had historically
failed and been replaced every 2 years. This
process cost the customer 8 hours in maintenance
to replace the failed reducer. Maintenance cost
was $40/hr.
A
Bearing & Transmission representative traveled
to the customer site and inspected reducer A and
the conveyor system. The representative realized
that he could supply reducer B which is better
suited to the application and would work in
production for 5 times as long, but costs twice
as much as the current reducer being used. The
representative gathered all the appropriate
information necessary to illustrate to the
customer that reducer B would work as well, if
not better than, reducer A,
and would fail less frequently. The
customer agreed to purchase reducer B from
Bearing & Transmission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cost of Reducer
A: |
$5,000 |
|
Cost of Reducer
B: |
$10,000
|
| Maintenance Cost:
($40 x 8 hrs) |
$320 |
|
Maintenance Cost:
($40 x 8 hrs) |
$320 |
| Cost of Downtime |
unknown |
|
Cost of Downtime |
unknown |
| |
|
|
|
|
Total cost
to change reducer A:
$5,320 x 5 changes per decade
= $26,600 every
10 years |
|
Total
Cost to change reducer B:
$10,320 x 1 change per decade
= $10,320 every
10 years |
| |
|
|
|
|
Total hard cost savings: $26,600 – $10, 320 =
$16,280
|
In
this instance the customer would initially have
a greater cost to purchase the new reducer
versus the old reducer, double the cost to be
exact. However, the benefits in the future
greatly outweigh this cost. The customer will
realize savings in only having to replace the
new reducer every 10 years as opposed to every 2
years on the old reducer. In addition, the
customer will realize cost savings on
maintenance costs and down time by having to
replace the new reducer less often.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2008 Applied Industrial Technologies, All Rights Reserved |
|
