MAINTENANCE BENCHMARKING INSTRUMENT - cou.fi · MAINTENANCE BENCHMARKING INSTRUMENT ... benchmarking, maintenance, maintenance costs, ... best practices benchmarking can be …

Jaakko Dahl MAINTENANCE BENCHMARKING INSTRUMENT BOLIDEN ZINC SMELTERS Bachelor’s Thesis CENTRAL OSTROBOTHNIA UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES Degree Programme in Mechanical Engineering and Production Technology February 2007

CENTRAL OSTROBOTHNIA ABSTRACT UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES Degree Programme in Mechanical Engineering and Production Technology Author: Jaakko Dahl Name of thesis: Maintenance benchmarking instrument Date: 14:th, February 2007 Pages: 38 + 9 Appendices Instructor: Olli-Matti Airiola Supervisor: Pekka Nokso-Koivisto The main objective of this thesis was to create a functional tool to measure and compare the maintenance cost efficiency of certain process steps at the Boliden zinc smelters. Bo-liden produces zinc in Kokkola, Finland and in Odda, Norway. The production processes are largely similar in both plants. An additional objective was to determine indicators to measure the performance of certain maintenance areas (Key Performance Indicators, KPI). These indicators make it possible to continuously measure the state of maintenance and to improve its performance. The benchmarking studies of various zinc production processes have been done earlier and therefore to start comparing maintenance costs and practices was a natural thing to do. The cost accounting is executed in a SAP R/3 system and the production key figures are found in data systems at both smelters. This gave a good starting point to use this chosen bench-marking procedure. As a result of this project, a SAP report was developed that shows the maintenance costs in the chosen sectors at both plants during the selected period of time. During this study the idea of regular maintenance function auditions between Kokkola and Odda smelters was born. The intention is to audit sister plant maintenance once a year and by doing this to spar each other to achieve better performance. Keywords: benchmarking, maintenance, maintenance costs, SAP R/3

KESKI-POHJANMAAN TIIVISTELMÄ AMMATTIKORKEAKOULU Kone- ja tuotantotekniikan koulutusohjelma Työn tekijä: Jaakko Dahl Työn nimi: Maintenance benchmarking instrument Päivämäärä: 14.2.2007 Sivumäärä: 38 + 9 liitettä Työn ohjaaja: DI Olli-Matti Airiola Työn valvoja: KTL, ins. Pekka Nokso-Koivisto Tämän työn ensisijaisena tavoitteena oli kehittää toimiva työkalu Boliden konsernin sink-kitehtaiden kunnossapitotoimintojen kustannustehokkuuden mittaamiseen benchmarking-menetelmällä. Boliden tuottaa sinkkiä Suomen Kokkolassa ja Norjan Oddassa. Tuotanto-prosessit ja -laitteistot ovat molemmilla laitoksilla hyvin samankaltaiset. Toisena tavoitteena oli määritellä kunnossapidon käyttöön soveltuvat mittarit (Key Per-formance Indicators). Niiden avulla mahdollistetaan kunnossapidon tilan jatkuva seuranta ja toiminnan parantaminen. Tuotannon prosessien suorituskykyvertailua oli tehty jo aikaisemmin, ja nyt oli luontevaa vertailla myös tehtaiden kunnossapitokustannuksia ja käytäntöjä. Oddan ja Kokkolan sink-kitehtaiden kustannuslaskenta tapahtuu SAP R/3 -järjestelmässä ja tuotanto-osastojen tun-nusluvut löytyvät sulattojen tietojärjestelmistä. Tämä antoi benchmarking-metodin käytölle erinomaiset lähtökohdat. Projektin tuloksena kehitettiin tehtaiden käyttöön SAP-raportti, josta molempien tehtaiden valittujen osa-alueiden kunnossapitokustannukset ovat halutulla aikavälillä tarkasteltavis-sa. Projektin aikana syntyi myös idea säännöllisistä Bolidenin sinkkitehtaiden välisistä kunnossapitotoimintojen auditoinneista. Tarkoituksena on käydä tarkastamassa sisarteh-taan kunnossapitoa kerran vuodessa ja sitä kautta ”sparrata” kumppania parempiin suori-tuksiin. Avainsanat: suorituskykyvertailu, kunnossapito, kunnossapitokustannukset, SAP R/3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BKO Boliden Kokkola Oy

BO Boliden Odda AG

KPI Key Performance Indicator

SAP Systems Applications and Products (in Data Processing)

CC SAP Cost Center

IO SAP Internal Order

CE SAP Cost Element

L&P Zn-Leaching and Purification department

CELL HOUSE Zn-Electro Winning Department

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all the people who helped me to create this thesis. My team members

were Olli-Matti Airiola, Marko Kinnunen and Ville Ylä-Jokisalo from Boliden Kokkola

Oy and Trond Thiis, Svein Moe and Torgeir Kvingedal from Boliden Odda AS. It would

have been impossible to conduct this benchmarking study without their help.

Pekka Nokso-Koivisto and Esko Johnsson from the Central Ostrobothnia University of

Applied Sciences also deserve my thanks for their invaluable assistance in this thesis.

I am also greatly indebted to my wife Iiris and my children Jani and Tommi for all the pa-

tience and understanding they have shown during the whole project. To my parents Eeva

and Kalevi I have always felt the utmost gratitude for all their help during my life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TIIVISTELMÄ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 BENCHMARKING 3

2.1 Research framing 4 2.2 Benchmarking types 4 2.3 Benchmarking of maintenance 5 2.4 BKO-BO Benchmarking Project 6 2.5 Maintenance benchmarking method and procedure 6

3 NEW BOLIDEN ZINC SMELTERS 8

3.1 New Boliden corporation 8 3.1.1 Historical background of Boliden zinc smelters 9 3.1.2 Boliden Kokkola Oy 10 3.1.3 Boliden Odda AS 10

4 MAINTENANCE 11

4.1 Maintenance – what is it? 11 4.2 The changing world of maintenance 11 4.3 Maintenance costs in industry 12 4.4 Comparison of the Boliden zinc plant maintenance organizations 13

5 SAP COST ACCOUNTING 15

5.1 SAP Company 15 5.2 SAP CO module 15 5.3 SAP FI module 15 5.4 CO Cost components 16

5.4.1 Cost Center 16 5.4.2 Internal Order 17 5.4.3 Cost Element 18

5.5 Major differences in BKO and BO maintenance cost accounting 19 6 MEASURING OF PLANT MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE 20

6.1 Identification of benchmarking areas 20 6.2 Internal orders for benchmarking 21 6.3 Key performance indicators 21

6.4 Key performance indicators for production departments and infrastructure 22

6.5 BKO and BO approaches 23 7 DELIVERING SAP-REPORT FOR MAINTENANCE BENCHMAKING 24

7.1 SAP know-how at Boliden zinc smelters 24 7.2 SAP internal orders 24 7.3 KPI reporting 25 7.4 Statistical key figure input 25 7.5 Shift electrician cost comparison 26 7.6 Creating the SAP benchmarking report 27 7.7 SAP – reporting principles 27

8 REPORT FORMAT 29

8.1 Operation practices 29 8.2 Manipulation of report illustrating data 29 8.3 Used reporting currency 30 8.4 Production department cost reporting 30 8.5 KPI reporting 31 8.6 Statistical key figure reporting 32

9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33 10 CONCLUSIONS 35

10.1 Essential outcome 35 10.2 Critical points 35

LIST OF REFERENCES 37 APPENDICES 38

1

1 INTRODUCTION

There has been a lot of advantageous co-operation between Boliden Kokkola Oy (BO) and

Boliden Odda AG (BKO) production departments for several years. The production func-

tions and methods were benchmarked closely in 2003. Therefore benchmarking each

other’s maintenance was a natural next step to take.

I learned to know some people from the BO maintenance organization during my earlier

project so it was very easy to start this new one with them. After introducing the idea for

the decision makers both plants recognized the benefits of maintenance benchmarking and

the project was started in March 2005.

The target of this project was to facilitate the gathering of maintenance cost data of certain

process steps at both plants. The major problem in maintenance benchmarking is the lack

of proper instrument to demonstrate the state of plant maintenance. Therefore as a result of

this work it was decided that an illustrative SAP-report would be developed for bench-

marking purposes. A proper measuring instrument makes it possible to compare our main-

tenance performance as an ongoing process whenever needed.

This study will not present any conclusions or speculations over the figures provided by

maintenance benchmarking SAP report. That is left to the maintenance experts and deci-

sion makers. Now they have easy access to the required data and are capable to exploit it

as well as possible.

An additional objective was to create a base for auditing routines to be able to regularly

audit each other’s maintenance performance. This would give a good basis for continuous

operational learning and improvement of our plant maintenance.

The benchmarking type called similar industry benchmarking proved to be most conven-

ient for this project. The key maintenance functions of inputs, outputs and outcomes were

measured with the aim of improving them.

2

In this project the benchmarking method is not used in order to become better than our

competitors in zinc business. Rather the main target of this project was to create a proper

tool for competitive analysis and thereby develop our maintenance functions, and last but

not least, to learn from each other.

This project was to cover only the zinc production functions because the processes are to a

great extent similar at both plants. Therefore e.g. BO’s aluminum fluoride production and

BKO’s water treatment works are not included.

3

2 BENCHMARKING

In this thesis the problem of finding the most cost-effective maintenance practices is ap-

proached by the means of benchmarking. Synonyms for benchmarking are e.g. best prac-

tices and competitive analysis. The meaning for these concepts is to search and find the

best practices to provide the possibility to reach superior performance for the organization.

There are various definitions of benchmarking, but essentially it involves learning, sharing

information and adopting best practices to bring about step-by-step changes in perform-

ance. In briefly, benchmarking means improving us by learning from others and search for

industry best practices which lead to superior performance. (Wireman 2004, 27.)

It is simply the systematic process of searching for best practices, innovative ideas, and

highly effective operating procedures that lead to superior performance. What could be

more straightforward? No individual, team or operating unit – no matter how creative or

prolific – can possibly parent all innovation. No single department or company can corner

the market on all good ideas. (Bogan&English 1994, 1.)

Many companies use benchmarking to be as good as their competitors. However, a com-

pany can gain very little if its goal for benchmarking is merely to achieve status quo.

Benchmarking is a continuous improvement tool that is to be used by companies that are

striving to achieve superior performance in their respective marketplace. (Wireman 2004,

27.)

Competitive analysis often focuses on meeting some specific industry standard. All that

may be required is meeting some published number. By comparison, benchmarking fo-

cuses not on a number, but on the process that allows such a standard to be not only

achieved, but also surpassed. Process enablers and critical success factors must be clearly

understood for any permanent improvement to be achieved and sustained. This understand-

ing will require extensive data collection, both internally and from the benchmarking part-

ners. (Wireman 2004, 29.)

Consequently, best practices benchmarking can be described as the process of seeking out

and studying the best internal and external practices that produce superior performance.

4

One measures this performance through various financial and non-financial indicators.

(Bogan&English 1994, 5.)

2.1 Research framing

The target of this study was to identify the most appropriate maintenance objects to be

benchmarked from a cost perspective and then develop a reporting tool in SAP R/3 envi-

ronment that provides the information of a current state of maintenance performance at the

selected areas of Boliden zinc smelters, BKO and BO.

The common problem in benchmarking is to establish reliable data collection from the

studied areas and finding suitable key performance indicators to measure the level of per-

formance. The SAP as a cost control system provides a possibility to develop a reporting

tool that writes out the demanded data for the use of maintainers. The cost structure of the

benchmarked areas must be studied carefully and then utilize this data in SAP report com-

piling process. The purpose is to make BKO and BO costs and values as comparable as

possible from the matching principle point of view.

2.2 Benchmarking types

There are three types of benchmarking employed in conducting a benchmarking project.

They include:

1. Internal benchmarking

2. Similar Industry / Competitive benchmarking

3. Best Practice benchmarking

Internal benchmarking typically involves different departments or processes within a plant.

(Wireman 2004, 35.)

5

Similar industry or competitive benchmarking uses external partners in similar industries

or processes. In many benchmarking projects, even competitors are used. (Wireman 2004,

35.)

Best Practice benchmarking focuses on finding the unarguable leader in the process being

benchmarked. (Wireman 2004, 35.)

Despite the fact that BO and BKO are both Boliden smelters the approach of this study is

not internal benchmarking. Because these two plants have their own way of running main-

tenance functions, the approach is more the similar industry type of benchmarking.

2.3 Benchmarking of maintenance

Maintenance is one of the most important areas in all industrial production. This project

was created up to improve and harmonize maintenance functions for both plants. The basic

idea of benchmarking is to search and recognize the best practices, which will lead the Bo-

liden zinc plants to better performance in its maintenance functions. Benchmarking as its

best is a continuous process.

One of the biggest problems is to recognize the present state of maintenance performance.

There is an urgent need for a functional tool that provides a reliable conception of the di-

rection the performance is going. SAP as a cost control system enables to implement a

proper instrument for benchmarking.

For rating cost efficiency and the performance of maintenance activities, benchmarking is

an outstanding method. There are not too many zinc plants in the world to be able to carry

out same kind of project as openly as the maintenance departments of Boliden zinc smelt-

ers. The smelters are both inside the same corporation and there is no need to hide any-

thing from each other. This unique opportunity must be exploited carefully.

First the benchmarking areas must be defined in detail. Naturally the selected maintenance

areas must be found at both plants. It is also important that maintenance cost accounting of

6

these areas makes it possible to make comparisons. What is a maintenance cost and what is

not must be clear before any comparison can be done.

This work is followed by actual data collection and the definition of Key Performance In-

dicators (KPI) to be used. Usually the required data is available straight from the company

accounting and production management systems. To gather all the data manually from dif-

ferent systems would be an unreasonable task to do. All this information can be taken to a

single report run in SAP once the report content is defined.

This report does the calculations and will make it possible to compare the results gained

from the plants. If remarkable differences between the results are found, the reasons behind

them need to be studied more closely by the decision makers.

2.4 BKO-BO Benchmarking Project

In March 2005 the project group got an assignment from management to start the project in

order to study the maintenance functions on Boliden’s zinc smelters at Kokkola in Finland

and at Odda in Norway. The benchmarking team nominated to include three persons from

both plants.

2.5 Maintenance benchmarking method and procedure

After the benchmarking teams were formed at both plants it was soon noticed that at least

three meetings is required to get the process going. The first meeting took place at Odda on

18th - 19th of May 2005 (Appendix 1). In that meeting the BO maintenance functions and

cost structure together with local maintenance staff was studied. Preliminary the areas that

will be taken in to this study were determined and also the KPI selecting process was

started.

The benchmarking teams gathered again in Kokkola on 31st of May 1st of June 2005 at

Kokkola (Appendix 2). This time we concentrated on BKO’s maintenance policy and cost

7

structure. The selected KPIs were specified and adjusted. Also the decision what to do dur-

ing the summertime was done. The next meeting that was first to be in September 2005,

but due to another urgent corporation-wide benchmarking project, this meeting was post-

poned to year 2006. The third meeting was held as a video conference in January 2006

(Appendix 3).

The project was started again on November 2006 and the last meeting was held on Stock-

holm on 13th December 2006. In that meeting the final benchmarking areas and KPI’s were

defined. The developed SAP benchmarking report was completed and ready to use from

the beginning of year 2007.

8

3 NEW BOLIDEN ZINC SMELTERS

3.1 New Boliden corporation

Boliden is one of the leading mining and smelting companies in Europe with operations in

Sweden, Finland, Norway, Ireland and the Netherlands. Boliden's main products are cop-

per, zinc, lead and gold and silver. The number of employees is approximately 4,500 and

the turnover amounts to approximately EUR 3.8 billion annually. (Boliden Company

2007). Figure 1 shows the schematic flow sheet of New Boliden Organizational Business

Areas and Figure 2 indicates the location of Boliden zinc smelters.

FIGURE 1. New Boliden Organizational Business Areas.

FIGURE 2. Geographical locations of Boliden zinc smelters.

9

3.1.1 Historical background of Boliden zinc smelters

The Kokkola zinc plant was established in 1969 and was a member of the Outokumpu

group from the very beginning. In Odda, the zinc plant was a shared ownership by Boliden

and RTZ up to 2001.

In April 2001, the Norwegian Norzink AS was acquired by Outokumpu at a price of USD

180 million (EUR 204 million). Norzink’s annual production capacity is 150 000 tonnes of

zinc, and it is one of worlds most profitable zinc producers. Integration of Norzinc with

Outokumpu zinc business has proceeded smoothly. Norzink’s good logistical location and

low-cost energy supply will provide an opportunity for further development and expan-

sion. (Outokumpu annual report 2001, 28.)

From the beginning of 2003 Outokumpu’s business unit zinc and thereby both plants were

integrated to New Boliden as a result of the corporate acquisition between Outokumpu and

Boliden.

In December, Boliden and Outokumpu completed a deal whereby Boliden acquired Outo-

kumpu’s zinc and copper mining and smelting operations and simultaneously sold its Fab-

rication and Technology Sales operations to Outokumpu. The new Boliden will thereby

become one of the world’s leading mining and smelting companies. The transaction boosts

Boliden’s competitiveness and creates the preconditions for a long-term improvement in

profitability. (New Boliden annual report 2003, 5.)

These two zinc plants have widely common machinery and functions because of very simi-

lar manufacturing processes. During the last few years there has been plenty of co-

operation between the two plants, which has helped them gain superior benefits in devel-

oping their production facilities.

10

3.1.2 Boliden Kokkola Oy

Boliden Kokkola on the west coast of Finland is the second largest zinc plant in Europe

and the fifth largest in the world. The main product of the plant is special high-grade

(SHG) zinc, the purity of which is a minimum of 99.995 per cent according to the classifi-

cation of the London Metal Exchange. Boliden Kokkola Oy is the largest private employer

in Kokkola. The plant gives work to almost 700 professionals in the zinc field. (Boliden

zinc smelters 2006a).

Production at the Kokkola zinc plant started in December 1969. After roughly three dec-

ades and four extensive expansions, the production capacity of the zinc plant has more

than quadrupled to 280,000 tons. (Boliden zinc smelters 2006a).

The most important targets in the development of process techniques are efficiency, profit-

ability, and focus on environmental effects. At Boliden Kokkola efficient production and

respect for the environment walk smoothly side by side. By using the most modern tech-

nology, the plant can operate in an environmentally friendly way. (Boliden zinc smelters

2006a).

3.1.3 Boliden Odda AS

The zinc plant Boliden Odda was established in 1924. The plant is situated on a peninsula,

approximately 4 kilometers north of Odda. The main products are zinc and aluminum fluo-

ride. Currently the annual capacity is 160,000 and 29,000 tonnes respectively, and the

plant is one of the world's most cost-efficient zinc producers. In addition Boliden Odda

also produces sulphuric acid. The zinc plant was modernized during 2003 and 2004, a

EUR 88 million investment. (Boliden zinc smelters 2006b).

Boliden Odda has its own ice-free port, which is used for receiving zinc concentrates and

other raw materials and for shipping refined zinc and aluminum fluoride powder. More

than 90 percent of the zinc produced at the Boliden Odda plant is exported, mainly to

Scandinavia, the UK and other European countries. The aluminum fluoride powder is

mainly sold to Norwegian aluminum smelters. (Boliden zinc smelters 2006b).

11

4 MAINTENANCE

4.1 Maintenance – what is it?

There are various definitions for a concept of maintenance. The most common used are:

- Any activity, such as tests, measurements, replacements, adjustments and repairs, in-

tended to restore or retain a functional unit in a specified state in which the unit can

perform its required functions.

- All supply and repair action taken to keep a force in condition to carry out its mission.

- The routine recurring work required keeping a facility (plant, building, structure,

ground facility, utility system, or other real property) in such condition that it may be

continuously used, at its original or designed capacity and efficiency for its intended

purpose. (Hernu 2001, Using Benchmarking Data Effectively.)

As for any function in industry, there must exists an agreed definition of what responsibili-

ties and activities constitute maintenance before its performance can usefully be discussed,

measured, or compared. CMA and Solomon use the following definition: "Maintenance is

responsible for conserving an industrial facility at its designed level of performance and

for managing the necessary resources." (Hernu 2001, Using Benchmarking Data Effec-

tively.)

4.2 The changing world of maintenance

Over the past twenty years, maintenance has changed, perhaps more so than any other

management discipline. The changes are due to a huge increase in the number and variety

of physical assets (plant, equipment and buildings) that must be maintained throughout the

world, much more complex designs, new maintenance techniques and changing views on

maintenance organization and responsibilities. (Moubray 2001, 1.)

12

Maintenance is also responding to changing expectations. These include a rapidly growing

awareness of the extent to which equipment failure affects safety and the environment, a

growing awareness of the connection between product quality, and increasing pressure to

achieve high plant availability and to contain costs. (Moubray 2001, 1.)

The changes are testing attitudes and skills in all branches of industry to the limit. Mainte-

nance people are having to adopt completely new ways of thinking and acting, as engineers

and as managers. At the same time the limitations of maintenance systems are becoming

increasingly apparent, no matter how much they are computerised. (Moubray 2001, 1.)

4.3 Maintenance costs in industry

To illustrate the economic importance of maintenance and reliability, Hans Ahlmann refers

to two studies carried out in the UK and in Sweden at the industrial and national level.

The first study, by a British consultant firm at the request of DTI in London, compared the

ratio maintenance expenditures to company turnover in 6 different European countries.

The outcome of the study showed the following key-figures: France 4.0%, Italy 5.1%,

Spain 3.6%, Ireland, 3.5%, UK 3.7%, Holland 5.0% compared to Sweden 3.5%. (Ahlmann

2002, From traditional practice to the new understanding.)

In the Swedish study the scope was extended to focus, not only direct but also, indirect

maintenance costs and loss of revenue due to poor availability.

The study also included an estimate of the economic impact of imperfect maintenance and

reliability on the environment. On average direct maintenance cost was 3.5%, indirect

maintenance cost 1.4% and non- realized revenues 1.3% of turnover adding up to a total of

6.2% equal to an economic influence of maintenance of about 190 - 200 billion SEK annu-

ally. (Ahlmann 2002, From traditional practice to the new understanding.)

But there is a considerable variation among different industry sectors from a few percent in

light industry to up to 15-20% in heavy industry. A more valid and stable key-figure would

have been the ratio maintenance. cost/added value, the real influence of maintenance and

repair. Such a key-figure, in the Swedish case, would land on an average of about 11%

compared to the 6.2% relating to turnover. (Ahlmann 2002, From traditional practice to the

new understanding.)

13

4.4 Comparison of the Boliden zinc plant maintenance organizations

There are certain differences in the way each mill is organized and runs its maintenance as

can be seen in Fig. 3. BKO has its own maintenance service unit, which was divided in to

production maintenance group and actual plant maintenance until the end of year 2006.

From the beginning of year 2007 BKO maintenance will be reorganized so that production

maintenance and plant maintenance are united as a common production equipment mainte-

nance unit. This will clarify the situation from the benchmarking point of view. BKO’s

new maintenance organization employs 115 people. At the same time the new plant ser-

vices unit is formed for facilities maintenance. Plant Services unit employs 75 people.

BKO also buys some maintenance services from outside providers.

BO has widely outsourced its maintenance and it is now buying most of the maintenance

services from ISS and from other third party Providers. BO’s own maintenance organiza-

tion consists of 35 persons. These factors make this benchmarking project challenging in

several ways. Cost accounting and control of maintenance is done in a SAP FI/CO-module

at both mills, which makes it easier to compare.

14

KOKKOLA MAINTENANCE

ODDA MAINTENANCE

FIGURE 3. Maintenance organizations of Boliden Zinc smelters

15

5 SAP COST ACCOUNTING

5.1 SAP Company

Founded in 1972 as Systems Applications and Products in Data Processing, SAP is the rec-

ognized leader in providing collaborative business solutions for all types of industries and

for every major market.

Serving more than 36,200 customers worldwide, SAP is the world's largest business soft-

ware company and the world's third-largest independent software provider overall. They

have a rich history of innovation and growth that has made us a true industry leader. To-

day, SAP employs more than 38,400 people in more than 50 countries. (From Walldorf to

Wall Street: The SAP Success Story 2006.)

5.2 SAP CO module

The SAP CO (Controlling) Module provides supporting information to Management for

the purpose of planning, reporting, as well as monitoring the operations of their business.

Management decision-making can be achieved with the level of information provided by

this module. (What is the? SAP CO Module - Introduction 2006.)

5.3 SAP FI module

The SAP FI Module has the capability of meeting all the accounting and financial needs of

an organization. It is within this module that Financial Managers as well as other Manag-

ers within your business can review the financial position of the company in real time as

compared to legacy systems which often times require overnight updates before financial

statements can be generated and run for management review. (What is the? SAP FI Mod-

ule - Introduction 2006.)

http://www.sap.com/company/history.epx

16

5.4 CO Cost components

SAP CO module (Controlling) has three types of components: Cost Centers, Internal Or-

ders, and Cost Elements. Cost centers are centrally allocated funds, budgeted to the fiscal

year. Internal Orders are linked to Cost Centers but they are not tied to the fiscal year and

may receive interest income. Internal orders are non-sponsored fund accounts used to keep

track of a particular activity e.g. maintenance work.

Cost centers are usually equal to production process steps. Internal Order types are e.g.

production, service or maintenance. Cost Elements are classified cost types, which are di-

vided in primary and secondary Cost elements. Primary Cost Elements are e.g. external

purchases, rents and maintenance. Maintenance based Cost Elements are usually secondary

cost elements.

5.4.1 Cost Center

Cost Center (CC) is an organizational unit within SAP to which costs and income can be

assigned. Cost Centers are used to track costs of departments and major activities. Cost

Center codes are eight-digit numbers e.g. 40930002 – Calcine Leaching. Figure 4 shows an

example of SAP CC-structure from BOK L&P.

Cost Center Accounting provides information on the costs incurred by your business.

Within SAP, you have the ability to assign Cost Centers to departments and /or Managers

responsible for certain areas of the business as well as functional areas within your organi-

zation. Cost Centers can be created for such functional areas as Marketing, Purchasing,

Human Resources, Finance, Facilities, Information Systems, Administrative Sup-

port, Legal, Shipping/Receiving, or even Quality. (What is the? SAP CO Module - Intro-

duction 2006.)

17

FIGURE 4. Example of SAP CC-structure from BOK L&P

5.4.2 Internal Order

Internal Order (IO) is a cost object used to monitor costs at a detailed level. IO codes are

ten-digit numbers e.g. 4090003230 (alloy casting furnace). IO’s are linked to Cost Centers

so they are able to provide sub-analysis. IO’s simplify the cost center structure and are

used to track costs of individual activities e.g. project and short courses. Maintenance ac-

tivities have their own Internal Orders, which are tracking costs of maintenance areas or

maintained groups. An example of BKO SAP maintenance IO-structure from L&P can be

seen in Fig. 5.

Internal Orders provide a means of tracking costs of a specific job, service, or task. Internal

Orders are used as a method to collect those costs and business transactions related to the

task. This level of monitoring can be very detailed but allows management the ability to

review Internal Order activity for better-decision making purposes. (What is the? SAP CO

Module - Introduction 2006.)

18

FIGURE 5. Example of BKO SAP maintenance IO-structure from L&P

5.4.3 Cost Element

Costs Elements (CE) are used to collect and summarize costs according to classification.

The CE code is an eight-digit number e.g. 36020200 – External maintenance service.

There are specific Cost Elements for maintenance purposes. Figure 6 shows typical main-

tenance cost-elements from SAP report.

FIGURE 6. Typical maintenance cost-elements from SAP-report

The Cost Element Accounting component provides information, which includes the costs

and revenue for an organization. These postings are automatically updated from FI (Finan-

cial Accounting) to CO (Controlling). The cost elements are the basis for cost accounting

and enable the user the ability to display costs for each of the accounts that have been as-

signed to the cost element. Examples of accounts that can be assigned are Cost Centers,

Internal Orders, WBS (work breakdown structures). (What is the? SAP CO Module - In-

troduction 2006.)

19

Figure 7 shows the SAP cost component relations.

FIGURE 7. The Cost Element /Internal Order/ Cost Centre relationship

5.5 Major differences in BKO and BO maintenance cost accounting

Before the maintenance costs can be compared, each plant must define exactly which costs

are considered as maintenance. Both smelters run their cost accounting in SAP CO system,

which facilitates this process considerably. A lot of SAP cost control structure harmoniza-

tion has already been done but there still are certain differences in maintenance cost treat-

ment. This local maintenance cost analysis was done at BKO and BO before the first

benchmarking project team meeting.

The most remarkable difference is that process service work is not considered as mainte-

nance work at BO. That means that BKO has always to add these costs to its figures to

make costs comparable with BO. Another prominent difference is the amount of internal

orders. In BKO there are usually tens of maintenance and service IO’s for one CC and in

BO there are only few. Teams had to be very careful in selecting the right ones to be in-

cluded in comparison.

20

6 MEASURING OF PLANT MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE

6.1 Identification of benchmarking areas

In the first meeting on May 2005 in Odda the benchmarking teams discussed the zinc

manufacturing process flows of the plants. Some minor differences in department limits

were found but from the benchmarking perspective they were insignificant.

BO has two cell houses and at first it was decided to include only the newer (series 5) to

this study. In the final meeting at Stockholm on December 2006 it were chosen both Odda

cell houses (Series 4 and 5) for this comparison. The foundries were found challenging be-

cause the cost controls differ so much in each plant.

Generally, the SAP cost center structure was built identically for both plants. These CCs

contain various numbers of internal orders for maintenance purposes. It was obvious that

the best way to approach the costs to be benchmarked was the SAP maintenance internal

orders. The most difficult part was to get the right IO’s from each plant to cover the main-

tenance costs of a certain benchmarking process area.

After the first IO outlook there will still be a few differences left in the cost control proce-

dures. Benchmarking is a continuous process, so the observed costs must be regularly up-

graded. In the future IOs must be reviewed frequently as the wisdom on plant specific cost

factors coming through the SAP system grows. At the beginning the chosen internal order

selection is only the best possible estimation from both plants.

To benchmark the whole zinc production process steps in each department at both plants

would be a huge task so it was decided to choose only handful of areas to be study. If this

method proves to be useful it can easily be distended to cover more adequate process steps

in the future. The chosen process steps to be benchmarked are:

21

Department ROASTER Process Step

Raw material supply

Process Step

Calsine transportation

Department LEACHING & PURIFICATION Process Step

Direct leaching

Process Step

Filter station

Process Step

Purification

Department CELL HOUSE Process Step

Solution and spent acid

Process Step

Cathodes and anodes

Process Step

Power supply

Department FOUNDRY Process Step

CGG-casting & SHG-large format and blocks

Process Step

Slabs

Process Step

Zinc powder equipment

Process Step

Dross treatment

Area INFRASTRUCTURE Object Shift electricians

6.2 Internal orders for benchmarking

To be able to compare the maintenance costs, the IOs must be defined for each benchmark-

ing areas at both plants. IOs were easily found in the SAP system. Due to the process dif-

ferences, both teams checked the precise contents of these IO’s so that the monitored main-

tenance costs meets each other functionally.

22

6.3 Key performance indicators

In all benchmarking processes the indicators play an important role. The most difficult part

is to find the best possible indicators for measuring the performance of maintenance cost

efficiency. In order to limit this study only few KPIs were defined to measure the plant

maintenance performances.

The project team aimed to find suitable indicators for selected zinc production mainte-

nance areas and one or two for the plant infrastructure. The relation of preventive and cor-

rective maintenance hours was also defined as a target KPI. This data it is very useful from

the benchmarking point of view. Unfortunately it turned out that this information was not

easily collected from our present maintenance systems.

BKO has purchased a reporting tool for its maintenance system, so such a report will be

available in 2007. In the near future when the maintenance system development projects

are finished at both plants it will be possible to get even this KPI out of systems. At the

moment it cannot be realized in this context.

To include different indicators in the SAP R/3 reporting is a relatively easy task to do. In

the future when this kind of benchmarking becomes an established practice there will be

more informative measuring indicators included.

6.4 Key performance indicators for production departments and infrastructure

To measure the maintenance efficiency it was decided to use following KPIs:

Department Key Performance Indicator Roaster Maintenance costs / concentrate feed

(€/t, NOK/t) Leaching & Purification Maintenance costs / solution supplied to cell

house (€/m3, NOK/ m3) Cell House Maintenance costs / cathode production

(€/t, NOK/t)

23

Foundry Maintenance costs / cast zinc production (€/t, NOK/t)

Infrastructure Shift electrician work hour costs / cast zinc (€/t, NOK/t)

24

6.5 BKO and BO approaches

The BO team was productive in this work while the BKO participants tended to be more

cautious. The Norwegians wanted to have more discussion and debating on details while

the Finnish approach was more direct. This is useful to recognize when the project team

has members from different countries. Multinational project meetings typically tend to last

longer than in the Finnish business environment.

It is no use to argue whose method to push the process forward was better. The BO and

BKO people invested their time and effort to this study and obviously this co-operation

proved to be very educative for both teams. Despite certain differences in working culture,

the combination of the Norwegian and the Finnish approach was successful. It has to be

accepted that people have different backgrounds and working together requires flexibility

from all parties. The focus must be in the results, not in the methods.

25

7 DELIVERING SAP-REPORT FOR MAINTENANCE BENCHMAKING

7.1 SAP know-how at Boliden zinc smelters

Despite the fact that both smelters are running their maintenance cost control in SAP,

knowledge and skills of the system are accumulated in Kokkola. BKO has super users for

FI and CO modules and expert know-how in SAP report compiling. So it was natural that

BKO took the main responsibility for compiling the report. During the project BO people

recognized that they were able to utilize the BKO SAP proficiency and this has been bene-

ficial in many ways. This can be considered as a synergy benefit and a welcomed added

value to this benchmarking project.

7.2 SAP internal orders

After having determined the areas of benchmarking it was decided which SAP IOs from

the plants should be included in the final report. After the May 2005 meetings BO deliv-

ered the list of BO internal orders for selected areas. Then followed the BKO IO counter-

part selections to cover the same area defined by the Kokkola team.

This was not as easily done but after some investigation and discussions with Kokkola-

Odda maintenance and accounting people it was possible to create an Excel file which in-

cluded the needed IOs from both plants.

In a videoconference in January 2006 BKO and BO teams discussed the IO list in order to

achieve agreement of this issue.

This study had to be suspended for eight months due to an urgent corporation benchmark-

ing project. The project was started up again on November 2006 when the resources were

available. BO delivered their full maintenance IO list (Appendix 4) for the Kokkola team.

The final Internal orders and KPIs were specified at the Stockholm meeting in December

2006. Some corrections of the lists agreed up on were made and the final common internal

order list was finished during the Stockholm meeting (Appendix 5).

26

7.3 KPI reporting

The requirements of the intended SAP report for maintenance were determined in Novem-

ber 2006. It was supposed to be user friendly and easy to read. The report must be easily

found in SAP so that running it would be a very straightforward routine. After several dis-

cussions the understanding of the benchmarking report appearance and data content was

reached.

7.4 Statistical key figure input

The defined KPIs must also be included in this same benchmarking report. The cost infor-

mation was already in the SAP system but the BKO quantitative production data were di-

vided in various Excel sheets maintained by the process people in the intranet. The situa-

tion at BO is exactly the same. An example of statistical key figure input table in SAP is

shown in Fig. 8.

All the information needed was therefore available. Now it was decided how to get it in to

the eligible SAP report. The information needed for KPIs is dispersed around the plant

intranets. The easiest way to get the production statistical key figures in SAP is to manu-

ally keyboard the data direct in the system once a month by process people. Having this

data available in SAP prepares the way for creating an appropriate SAP report for main-

tainers.

Statistical key figures are manually entered in the SAP-system by transaction KB31N.

SAP reporting expert from BKO project team wrote up clear instructions for statistical key

figure input (Appendix 6).

27

FIGURE 8. Statistical key figure input table in SAP

7.5 Shift electrician cost comparison

One of the intended plant infrastructures KPI was the shift electrician cost vs. cast zinc.

There was no BO internal order for shift electricians alone so this had to be solved by fil-

tering the shift electrician costs from the other electrician costs. This was possible by using

the names of BO shift electricians. The working hours and costs of BO’s five shift electri-

cians were summed up to set the required figure.

Instructions for running the shift electrician costs were created by the BKO SAP expert

(Appendix 7). The easiest way to get a transparent BKO shift electrician cost report print

out is to run the SAP report in Excel format (Appendix 8). The BO shift electrician cost

report is a normal internal order report run in SAP. The results of these report runs are

comparable when the monitoring period is the same.

28

7.6 Creating the SAP benchmarking report

As soon as the tentative IO and KPI Excel sheet list was formed it was given to BKO’s

SAP specialist who is familiar with SAP reporting features. As a result of his efforts a

good frame for a targeted SAP benchmarking report was created. This prototype report

was ready to be introduced to our Odda team in a videoconference held on January 2006.

During the project stoppage BO’s internal orders for maintenance were revised and there-

fore the BO reporting IOs had to be determined once again. The new IO list was given to

Odda team to be crosschecked in mid-November 2006. In December BO and BKO teams

had a meeting in Stockholm. A common view on selected IOs was found and the actual

report finishing work was started.

The basic idea of this report is to collect data from the BOK and BO SAP databases and

from other sources. This report can be run whenever needed for a given period. The report

was finished to meet the requirements by the end of December 2006 and it was now ready

for use.

7.7 SAP – reporting principles

There was no standard report available within the SAP system for this particular bench-

marking case so the team resorted to BKO’s SAP expert. Cost control reports in SAP are

created by a report generator called Report Painter. The Report Painter is a tool where the

data to be monitored is allocated to rows and columns. SAP retrieves the data needed from

the system database tables.

The benchmarking report created for this thesis utilizes the costs accumulated in the Inter-

nal Orders table and the statistical key figures input in the system. Internal orders are de-

fined as rows and BO and BKO smelters as columns. The monitored objects are, for tech-

nical reasons, given on different pages.

29

This means that if the report must be opened or printed in Ecxel, SAP will make a separate

page for each object, so the report has pages for the roaster, leahching and purification, the

cell house, foundry, infrastructure, KPIs and statistical key figures.

Also the default currency is supposed to be users’ local currency, as this facilitates com-

parison of the consumed maintenance money.

30

8 REPORT FORMAT

The original idea was to have all the information in one report page. That turned out to be

impossible because of BKO shift electrician costs were not directly collected from a par-

ticular internal order like in BO. Comparing shift electrician costs requires running a spe-

cial BKO SAP report where the costs were summarized.

BO shift electrician costs are available directly from SAP for any given period. This prac-

tice is not automatically brought to this SAP report. For the time being shift electrician

costs have to be run manually.

8.1 Operation practices

The report operation practices (Appendix 9) were established by the BKO SAP expert and

were delivered to potential users on January 2007. The Document shows in a detailed level

how to find the maintenance benchmarking report in the SAP system and how to determine

the monitoring period.

8.2 Manipulation of report illustrating data

For the reasons of confidentiality the production and cost data given in the report illustra-

tion is not authentic. The data were manipulated but the idea is that the principle of the

SAP maintenance benchmarking report becomes evident. Also the running period and the

currency used are not given in the illustrations. The official SAP report will of course pro-

vide real data for decision makers, who will decide the monitored period and currency.

31

8.3 Used reporting currency

The benchmarking reporting currency depends the on users’ SAP log in the profile. When

the report is run by a default BO profile the user will see the figures in Norwegian Crowns.

Respectively for BKO users the figures appear in Euros.

The currency can be freely chanced in a benchmarking report with an instant icon on

the task bar. The currency used can also be defined freely in the SAP user settings by the

transaction RPC0.

8.4 Production department cost reporting

The structure of the zinc production cost report is legible; see Fig. 9. First column indicates

the name of the monitored process phase in each department. The Second and third column

indicates the monitored plant and the cumulated maintenance costs of the process phase

mentioned in the row title. The two last columns shows the calculated costs per produced

zinc ton for both smelters.

32

FIGURE 9. Production related maintenance benchmarking report layout

In the illustration (Fig. 9) it is seen that at the Roaster department’s raw material supply

process step BKO has consumed 0.77 currency units and BO 0.66 currency units on main-

tenance for a produced zinc ton. The obvious conclusion is that BO has conducted its

maintenance functions on a more cost efficient way.

8.5 KPI reporting

Key performance indicators are given departmentally; see Fig. 10. First row under the de-

partment name indicates the total department maintenance costs and the following rows

show the actual KPI titles. There are separate columns for both smelters so the figures are

seen parallelly.

33

FIGURE 10. KPI reporting lay out

8.6 Statistical key figure reporting

Statistical key figures are manually entered to SAP once a month at the smelters; see Fig

11. These figures are taken to the maintenance benchmarking report and are seen as infor-

mative data. Feed concentrate, produced zinc and produced cathodes figure units are tons

for a chosen period. The unit for the supplied solution is cubic meters per chosen period.

FIGURE 11. Statistical key figures in benchmarking report

34

9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There is not much maintenance benchmarking research done with the focus on the pure

cost approach. Most existing studies measure the maintenance performance from the func-

tional perspective. The KPI’s are mainly built to measure the effectiveness of various

maintenance practices and processes e.g. the reliability, management and productivity of

the maintenance functions.

The financial optimization is no doubt the most challenging and most rewarding class of

benchmarking when it is done successfully.

According to Terry Wireman: This statistical technique combines all of the relevant data

about an asset, such as downtime cost, maintenance cost, lost efficiency cost, and quality

costs. It then balances that data against financially optimized decisions, such as when to

take the equipment off line for maintenance, whether to repair or replace an asset, how

many critical spare parts to carry, and what the maximum-minimum levels on routine spare

parts should be. (Wireman 2004, 42-43.)

Financial optimization requires accurate data; making these types of decisions incorrectly

could have a devastating effect on a company’s competitive position. When a company

reaches a level of sophistication where this technique can be used, it is approaching best-

in-class status. (Wireman 2004, 42-43.)

In the real industrial world, efficiency of maintenance functions are often viewed from the

cost perspective. However, costs alone are not able to provide any unambiguous wisdom

over the state of the plants current maintenance performance. Maintenance costs are the

gate to the closer examination of maintenance functions. An abnormal cost in a certain

process phase often tells about poor maintenance practices. These cases always deserve to

be studied in a detail level.

35

In the long term this kind of cost tracking is rewarding and as an on going process it will

surely develop maintenance practices in a plant. Now Boliden zinc smelters have a possi-

bility to implement this benchmarking tool together. When the cost analysis and conclu-

sions are simultaneously carried out in the two plants, the benefits will accumulate in a

same scale.

As a result of this study Boliden zinc smelters have a SAP reporting tool for comparison

and examination of maintenance costs. These costs often reveal conclusive details that in-

dicate the quality of maintenance.

This report does not provide instant improvements for maintenance functions. Benchmark-

ing is a learning process and time is needed for being able to get a extensive understanding

of maintenance costs in a detailed ways. This report enables a good start for a successful

maintenance benchmarking and auditing process.

Be aware that when improving a reactive maintenance organization, these savings are not

immediate. Time is needed to realize the total savings. Improvement of a reactive mainte-

nance organization to a proactive, best practice organization can take from three to five

years. The transition is not technically difficult; however, time is required to change the

corporate culture, from one of negativity towards the maintenance function to one of treat-

ing it as a core business process. (Wireman 2004, 33.)

36

10 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Essential outcome

To comfortably monitor and compare the maintenance costs from the two zinc plants was

found difficult and there was an apparent need for a proper maintenance benchmarking and

auditing instrument.

BKO-BO project team managed to build a functional reporting tool for decision makers.

The costs and KPIs are now easily seen in a same report. This information must be evalu-

ated carefully by the maintenance organizations. Especially remarkable differences in costs

and KPI figures clearly tell who is the better performer. The reasons behind these differ-

ences often reveal the maintenance methods that will provide the essential benefit.

This report in the present format does not give an absolute conseption of the state of main-

tenance. Report users are constantly learning more of local maintenance cost factors and

methods of treating them in the system. This provides possibility to improve and update

this report frame to meet future requirements.

With the developed report format BKO and BO maintenance organizations are able to go

forward with the continuous benchmarking process and drill down to details. Running this

report once a month gives a good conception of the disadvantages and gives a possibility

to step by step lift their maintenance performance to higher level.

10.2 Critical points

Although the maintenance costs of BKO and BO were processed through the SAP-system,

it was found very challenging to find meaningful maintenance targets and internal orders to

compare.

37

Even the smallest differences in the plant maintenance cost accounting procedure are sig-

nificant, and they can easily ruin the whole idea of reasonable comparison functions. Many

target process steps e.g. compressed air production had to be excluded from the study be-

cause of the different approach in maintenance cost control.

SAP as a system is not especially popular among the staff of Boliden zinc smelters, a

strong change resistance exists and it is sometimes awkward to get people committed in-

putting data manually to SAP and use it as a primary source of information. It is essential

that certain statistical key figures will be manually entered to the SAP. Otherwise the re-

port is not able to provide extensive data content for users.

Also the lack of resources made it difficult to push the study forward in a well-organized

way. Because of other urgent Boliden projects there was a suspension of eight months in

this research. The prospective research suffered of this considerably. The importance of

being able to work without any disturbance cannot be under estimated. Delays often tend

to destroy the motivation of participants. It requires determination and discipline to keep

the process going.

38

LIST OF REFERENCES Literature Bogan, Christopher E & English Michael J. 1994. Benchmarking for Best Practices: Win-ning through innovative adaptation. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc. Boliden Ab. New Boliden Annual Report 2003. Stockholm Outokumpu Oyj. Outokumpu Annual Report 2001. Espoo Moubray, John. 2001. Reliability-Centered Maintenance. New York: Industrial Press Inc. Wireman, Terry. 2004. Benchmarking Best Practices in Maintenance Management. New York: Industrial Press Inc. Electronic publications Ahlmann, Hans. 2002. From traditional practice to the new understanding: The signifi-cance of life cycle profit concept in the management of industrial enterprises. IFRIMmmm Conference, Växjö Sweden, 6-7 May 2002. Available at http://www.ie.lth.se/Staff/Hans/AhlmannIFRIMmmm1.doc. Accessed (17 Jan 2007) Boliden Company 2007. Boliden home. Available at http://www.boliden.com/. Accessed (8 Feb 2007) Boliden zinc smelters 2006a. Boliden Kokkola-General. Boliden As. Available at http://www.boliden.com/. Accessed (10 Oct 2006) Boliden zinc smelters 2006b. Boliden Odda-General. Boliden As. Available at http://www.boliden.com/. Accessed (10 Oct 2006) From Walldorf to Wall Street: The SAP Success Story 2006. SAP AG. Available at http://www.sap.com/company/index.epx. Accessed (8 Dec 2006) Hernu, Michael. 2001. Using Benchmarking Data Effectively. Solomon Associates Inc. Available at http://www.mt-online.com/newarticles2/03-01mm01.cfm. Accessed (18 Dec 2006) What is the? SAP CO Module - Introduction 2006. Hosting SA. Available at http://www.thespot4sap.com/IntroTo/SAP_CO_Module_Introduction.asp. Accessed (8 Dec 2006) What is the? SAP FI Module - Introduction 2006. Hosting SA. Available at http://www.thespot4sap.com/IntroTo/SAP_FI_Module_Introduction.asp. Accessed (8 Dec 2006)

http://www.mt-online.com/newarticles2/03-01mm01.cfm

http://www.thespot4sap.com/IntroTo/SAP_FI_Module_Introduction.asp

39

APPENDICES

1/1. Minutes of the first benchmarking meeting






2/1. Minutes of the second benchmarking meeting






3/1. Minutes of the third benchmarking meeting

3/2. Minutes of the third benchmarking meeting

4/1. BO maintenance Internal Orders




5/1. Final BO-BKO internal order list – Roaster

5/2. Final BO-BKO internal order list – L&P

5/3. Final BO-BKO internal order list – Cell House

5/4. Final BO-BKO internal order list – Foundry

6/1. Statistical key figures in SAP - instructions

6/2. Statistical key figures in SAP - instructions

7/1. BKO Shift electrician cost report run - instructions

7/2. BKO Shift electrician cost report run - instructions

8. BKO Shift electricians cost Excel Report

9/1. SAP Operating practice for benchmarking report



APPENDIX 1/1

C:\Documents and Settings\HIEJA\Desktop\Uudet PDF\Dahl(EI OK)\APPENDIX 1 Minutes of Meeting benchmarking 1.doc 1

Minutes of Meeting zinc plants, Kokkola – Odda

Date: Wednesday 18/5 and Thursday 19/5-2005 Present: Olli-Matti Airiola, Jaakko Dahl, Trond Thiis, Svein Moe, Torgeir Kvingedal,

Vidar Korssund, Terje Midtun, Arild Sveinsgjerd, Knut Nistov

Copy: Stein Ytterdahl, Børge Hauge, Kjetil Børve, Lars Oddmund Fjæra, Agnar Målsnes,

Maintenance organisation

General information Overall benchmarking has been tested earlier but without great success as there were way too many differences between the two zinc plants of New Boliden. As an example, costs related to maintenance at one plant might be related to production in the other plant. To benefit from our unique possibility of detailed benchmarking and learning from each other, personnel from the two plants met in the middle of May. The first workshop was arranged map differences and to arrange them in such a way that we will be able to compare maintenance areas in the future with the help from an automated calculation. In front of and through the same workshop, possible KPI’s (key performance indicators) were identified and a few were selected. The goal was to identify KPI’s that will be informative for top management but at the same time, tells us something about the quality and yield of the two maintenance organisations. The group also agreed that we’d better start with few KPI’s and add some as time and experience runs. A lot of KPI’s from the start would probably make the success a very difficult and time demanding one. Benchmarking is to be carried out on a monthly basis in the future. Goal is to be ready at the 10th of every month when the group has completed its’ work in August/September 2005. In the workshop, we focused on the four maintenance areas called roaster, leaching, cell houses and foundry. In the following text, the reader will find notes from our work.

Benchmarking areas

Roaster This maintenance area was divided into two benchmarking areas;

• Raw material supply

o Internal order 414M010002 (Odda)

• Roaster with calsine transportation – cut off after ESP’s and incl. calsine silos o Internal orders 414M010022, 414M010042, 414M010062 and 414M010182

(Odda)

APPENDIX 1/2


Even though the method for raw material supply differs a lot (vehicles vs. conveyor belts), we decided to find maintenance cost figures for this area to see which method is the better one with

respect to maintenance. In Odda, the maintenance area starts after conveyor belt from the wharf has dumped concentrate into the silos. This includes equipment like cranes, belts, weights, crushers, screens, hoppers, elevators, illumination, power supply, HVAC and much more. In Kokkola, cleaning of process areas and equipment is taken care of by the operators or by a separate process service unit. In Odda, most of the cleaning is carried out by outside companies hired from time to time. Because it is a large job to exclude these costs for Oddas matter, Kokkola will add their costs origin from the process service unit. In Odda, we will try to estimate the preventive maintenance costs for the roaster area. Kokkola will also do that by using their system. The acid production plants will not be benchmarked as Kokkola do not have their own. Regarding feed water for the boilers, the maintenance costs for the water treatment is quite low and from that fact, we will not exclude those for benchmarking even though Kokkola receives already treated water from the steam distribution company.

Leaching and purification This maintenance area was divided into three benchmarking areas;

• Direct Leaching


• Filter station o Internal order 414M020002 (Odda)

• Purification

o Internal orders 414M020122 (Odda, incl Cl-removal as in Kokkola)

Odda need to remove maintenance costs for Cadmium production, as this isn’t common with Kokkola. Luckily, this is a separate internal order – easy to exclude. The cut toward cadmium is at the same place in the production string both in Kokkola and in Odda. Maintenance and pipe cleaning on pipelines to residue deposit/mountain caverns, is quite similar and stays within the benchmarking scope. Steam as a commodity is operational cost in Kokkola but steam coils and pipelines are all maintenance costs – as it is in Odda. Filter cloths is process support in Kokkola but in Odda it is maintenance costs. Kokkola will add their filter costs to their maintenance as it is too difficult to remove it from the maintenance costs in Odda. For the oxygen supply, the same principles are used in Odda and Kokkola. Compressed air for usage in process equipment, reactors and similar equipment is treated as maintenance costs both in Odda and in Kokkola. All thermocouples, flow meters, pressure gauges and other instruments are also maintenance costs at both plants. Both plants also have great transportation costs for the L & P department. Cranes, fork lifts, trucks, personnel lifts and similar vehicles are widely used both for maintenance and for productions reasons. Kokkola will try to isolate instrument spare part costs and costs for man hours to check, adjust and replace such equipment. This Kokkola will try to do to indicate the extent of automation at the plant as well as for benchmarking.

APPENDIX 1/3


Cell houses First, we decided to exclude series 4 in Odda as there are too many uncertainties connected with prolonged operational life or not. Then we will benchmark series 5 in Odda with the cell house of Kokkola. This maintenance area is divided into four benchmarking areas;

• Solution and spent acid series 5


• Cathodes and anodes series 5 o Internal order 414M025022 (Odda)

• Power supply series 5

o Internal orders 414M025042 (Odda)

• Cell house series 5 common costs o Internal order 414M025082 (Odda)

Even though production facilities aren’t too similar, we believe that benchmarking also will give us information that we can use to improve our yield and/or quality. Spent acid from the cell house is a L & P maintenance cost in Odda whilst it in Kokkola is a maintenance cost for the cell house (to be checked). The process operators of Kokkola are doing the cleaning and housekeeping at the process facilities along with personnel from the process support department. In Odda, mainly maintenance personnel or external companies (hired by the maintenance personnel), are taking care of the housekeeping. Cleaning of cells are almost the same at both plants. Power supply includes transformers and rectifiers in Kokkola – check if this is the matter for Odda. The solution supply is owned by L & P all the way to the first tank (GT-1) in Odda. The gypsum removal with cooling towers is also one of the maintenance areas of the cell house in Odda. In Kokkola, the cut between the two departments is placed after the cooling towers. That means that the pipe and tank after the cooling towers is a maintenance area of the cell house. From that reason, we need to check the maintenance costs for the cooling towers of the gypsum removal in Odda to remove it from cell house and put it at the L & P. If not, we will have to add it to the cost picture of the cell house in Kokkola. Responsibility for illumination, HVAC, sewage and buildings seems to be treated the same way at both places. Anode cleaning and treatment is a part of the production costs in Kokkola as it is a maintenance cost in Odda. The most sensible thing to do with it is to quantify the figures in Odda and remove them from the benchmarking project. But this is not easily done in Odda so it is probably better to add the costs of anode treatment in Kokkola to their maintenance costs. Sumps and collecting system for rain water is a cost of the cell house in Odda but an infrastructure responsibility in Kokkola.

Foundry The foundry of Kokkola is producing by continuous casting while Odda is more on the batch side. Also through weekends, the foundry is manned in Kokkola. This is a great difference

APPENDIX 1/4


for the equipment as cooling and reheating the equipment is a tough task, especially for the refractory. Still, the group believes that benchmarking will give us great opportunity to learn form each other.

The cut between cell house and foundry is identical in Odda and Kokkola though the cell house of Odda has got a cathode elevator which isn’t needed in Kokkola. Anyway, the foundry is divided into three benchmarking areas;

• CGG casting


• SHG large format and blocks o Internal order 414M030022 and 414M030042 (Odda)

• Slabs

o Internal order 414M03…………(need the help of Svein on Foundry)….

Inductors of all furnaces are water cooled in Odda as they are air cooled in Kokkola. Still no large inductors have been replaced in Kokkola the last nine years. Even though the wharf is part of the maintenance areas, we will not include that area in the benchmarking project. And for Odda, we will have to remove fork lift rental costs as they are a maintenance cost even when used for production matters. Maintenance of fork lifts will off course still be part of the benchmarking. Addition of aluminium is also very different in the two plants. Zinc dust production and maintenance is also much the same in the two plants.

APPENDIX 1/5

C:\Documents and Settings\HIEJA\Desktop\Uudet PDF\Dahl(EI OK)\APPENDIX 1 Minutes of Meeting benchmarking 1.doc

Key Performance Indicators As earlier stated, the group agreed to start with few benchmarking points and put in effort to make these successful. As a start, we will focus on cost issues for specific areas and rather develop these into more maintenance specific KPI’s later on.

Area KPI Target KPI Benchmarking areas

Comments

Roaster (Maintenance costs)/ (Tons of dry concentrate fed to roaster)

(Preventive maintenance hours) / (corrective maintnenance hours)


• Roaster with calsine transport and treatment

Cut after ESP on the off gas side

Leaching and purification

(Maintenance costs) / (cubic meters of solution supplied to cell house) (Maintenance costs) / (leaching recovery)


• Filterstation • Purification • Direct Leaching

Starts at the bottom of the calsine silos

Cellhouse (Maintenance costs) / (current efficiency) (Maintenance costs) / (tonn cathode production)


• Solution and spent acid

• Power supply • Cathodes and

Anodes • Common costs

Starts after solution enters the first tank at gypsum removal

Foundry (Maintenance costs) / (cast zinc production)


• SHG • Slabs • CGG

Starts after zinc storage on furnace feeding area

Infrastructure To be found when in Kokkola

•

As indicated in the table, infrastructure is not divided nor is any KPI identified for this area. This is to be carried out at the next meeting of the project.

Next meeting Tuesday 31st of May, the group will meet in Kokkola to go into details on infrastructure and to calculate the KPI’s already decided on. When in Kokkola, the group will also describe locations of all input data for KPI calculations to make it possible to make a program that automatically calculates the KPI’s when asked.

5

APPENDIX 1/6


To do –list Nr. Task Responsible 1 Map what is included in infrastructure on the two plants TTh in Odda

OMA in Kokkola 2 Suggest KPI’s for infrastructure TTh in Odda

OMA in Kokkola 3 Check where to find the input data for KPI calculations TTH in Odda

Jaakko in Kokkola4 Find the fork lift rental costs for Odda Svein Moe 5 Decide which internal orders from where to collect the

costs Svein in Odda Marko in Kokkola

6 Find the costs for anode cleaning and treatment in Odda Svein Moe 7 Find the costs for anode cleaning and treatment in

Kokkola Marko Kinnunen

8 Find the maintenance costs for solution cooling towers in Odda

Svein Moe

9 Find the maintenance costs for solution cooling towers in Kokkola

Marko Kinnunen

10 Are maintenance costs for transformers and rectifiers part of the internal order 414M025042 in Odda?

Trond Thiis

11 Check where the maintenance costs for the pipeline for spent acid from cell house to L & P is placed at both plants.

Marko in Kokkola Svein in Odda

12 Check if you can find the instrumentation and man hour costs for this in Kokkola.

Marko Kinnunen

13 Decide the filter cloth costs for Kokkola (belt filters etc). Marko Kinnunen 14 Find the costs for cleaning (and tidying) process areas in

Kokkola (process service) for this must be added to the maintenance costs.

Marko Kinnunen

15 Order a meeting room in Kokkola for 31st of May and 1st of June.

Jaakko

16 Order hotel rooms for Torgeir, Svein and Trond in Kokkola from 30th of May till 1st of June.

Jaakko

17

APPENDIX 2/1


Minutes of Meeting Second benchmarking meeting zinc plants, Kokkola – Odda

Date: Tuesday 31/5 and Wednesday 1/6-2005 Present: Olli-Matti Airiola, Jaakko Dahl, Trond Thiis, Torgeir Kvingedal, Marko

Kinnunen, Paul Kujala, Manu Myllymäki, Hans Rasmus, Einar Sundblad, Seppo Petäjä, Juha Anttila, Jorma Panula, Mika Virtanen, Jarmo Herronen and others..

Copy: Børge Hauge, Kjetil Børve, Lars Oddmund Fjæra, Svein Moe

Maintenance organisation

Information It was decided to write the MoM’s as a revised version of the already existing one. Changes, comments or new information is written in blue colour.

Overall benchmarking has been tested earlier but without great success as there were way too many differences between the two zinc plants of New Boliden. As an example, costs related to maintenance at one plant might be related to production in the other plant. To benefit from our unique possibility of detailed benchmarking and learning from each other, personnel from the two plants met in the middle of May. The first workshop was arranged to map differences and to arrange them in such a way that we will be able to compare maintenance areas in the future with the help from an automated calculation. In front of and through the same workshop, possible KPI’s (key performance indicators) were identified and a few were selected. The goal was to identify KPI’s that will be informative for top management but at the same time tells us something about the quality and yield of the two maintenance organisations. The group also agreed that we’d better start with few KPI’s and add some as time and experience runs. A lot of KPI’s from the start would probably make the success a very difficult and time demanding one. Benchmarking is to be carried out on a monthly basis in the future. Goal is to be ready at the 10th of every month when the group has completed its’ work in August/September 2005. In the workshop, we focused on the four maintenance areas called roaster, leaching, cell houses and foundry. In the following text, the reader will find notes from our work. In the Kokkola meeting, we went through the same areas to see and hear the maintainers view on the same areas. In addition, we also managed to go through the infrastructure areas and to agree on testing two KPI’s here as well. A simplified equation for benchmarking is:

Maintenance + process service in Kokkola ≈ Maintenance in Odda

APPENDIX 2/2


Benchmarking areas

Roaster This maintenance area was divided into two benchmarking areas;


o Internal order 414M010002 (Odda) and we have to add a percentage of the maintenance personnel costs which are gathered in the internal order 414M010182. In Odda, the manning is one maintenance engineer (currently two), a maintenance leader and three mechanics. When needed, additional personnel is hired from outside companies like Aker Kværner, Odda Mekaniske, Høyer, Opedal, Kone Cranes and others. Opedal and Høyer perform quite a lot of cleaning and housekeeping within the maintenance budget. In Kokkola, there are several internal orders both for maintenance and for process services (performs several types of work, amongst them is cleaning). At the end, we were actually able to calculate the selected KPI for this area.

o Roaster with calsine transportation – cut off after ESP’s and incl. calsine

silos o Internal orders 414M010022, 414M010042, 414M010062 and 414M010182

(Odda) Also here, Odda had to add a percentage of the maintenance personnel costs which are gathered in the internal order 414M010182 (after returning to Odda, these percentages seems to be like 15 % for the raw material, 50 % for the roaster and the remaining 35 % for the sulphuric acid production). Kokkola needed to gather information from several internal orders for each benchmarking area. This took some time and could be automated.

Even though the method for raw material supply differs a lot (vehicles vs. conveyor belts), we decided to find maintenance cost figures for this area to see which method is the better one with respect to maintenance. In Odda, the maintenance area starts after conveyor belt from the wharf has dumped concentrate into the silos. This includes equipment like cranes, belts, weights, crushers, screens, hoppers, elevators, illumination, power supply, HVAC and much more. In Kokkola, cleaning of process areas and equipment is taken care of by the operators or by a separate process service unit. In Odda, most of the cleaning is carried out by outside companies hired from time to time. Because it is a large job to exclude these costs for Oddas matter, Kokkola will add their costs origin from the process service unit. For Kokkolas case, building maintenance is part of a common cost whereas it is a department specific cost in Odda. This means that we will have to either remove it from Oddas calculations or add it to the Kokkola calculations. In Odda, we will try to estimate the preventive maintenance costs for the roaster area. Kokkola will also do that by using their system. The acid production plants will not be benchmarked as Kokkola do not have their own. Regarding feed water for the boilers, the maintenance costs for the water treatment is quite low and from that fact, we will not exclude those for benchmarking even though Kokkola receives already treated water from the steam distribution company.

APPENDIX 2/3



• Direct Leaching


• Filter station o Internal order 414M020002 (Odda)

• Purification

o Internal orders 414M020122 (Odda, incl Cl-removal as in Kokkola)

Odda need to remove maintenance costs for Cadmium production as this isn’t common with Kokkola. Luckily, this is a separate internal order – easy to exclude. The cut toward cadmium is at the same place in the production string both in Kokkola and in Odda. Maintenance and pipe cleaning on pipelines to residue deposit/mountain caverns, is quite similar and stays within the benchmarking scope. Steam as a commodity is operational cost in Kokkola but steam coils and pipelines are all maintenance costs – as it is in Odda. Filter cloths is process support in Kokkola but in Odda it is maintenance costs. Kokkola will add their filter costs to their maintenance as it is too difficult to remove it from the maintenance costs in Odda. For the oxygen supply, the same principles are used in Odda and Kokkola. Compressed air for usage in process equipment, reactors and similar equipment is treated as maintenance costs both in Odda and in Kokkola. All thermocouples, flow meters, pressure gauges and other instruments are also maintenance costs at both plants. Both plants also have great transportation costs for the L & P department. Cranes, fork lifts, trucks, personnel lifts and similar vehicles are widely used both for maintenance and for productions reasons. Kokkola will try to isolate instrument spare part costs and costs for man hours to check, adjust and replace such equipment. This Kokkola will try to do to indicate the extent of automation at the plant as well as for benchmarking.

Cell houses First, we decided to exclude series 4 in Odda as there are too many uncertainties connected with prolonged operational life or not. Then we will benchmark series 5 in Odda with the cell house of Kokkola. Four men are cleaning towers, piping and pumps in Kokkola twice a week. The stripping team are taking care of cleaning the anodes. This means that there are a total of 15 men at the cell house. In this number, there is also an shift electrician who reacts when there is something needing attention elsewhere in the plant. There are 76 internal orders for the cellhouse in Kokkola compared with 4 in Odda. Hence, there is quite a job to gather information for benchmarking. This maintenance area is divided into four benchmarking areas;

• Solution and spent acid series 5



APPENDIX 2/4





Even though production facilities aren’t too similar, we believe that benchmarking also will give us information that we can use to improve our yield and/or quality. Spent acid from the cell house is a L & P maintenance cost in Odda whilst it in Kokkola is a maintenance cost for the cell house (to be checked). The process operators of Kokkola are doing the cleaning and housekeeping at the process facilities along with personnel from the process support department. In Odda, mainly maintenance personnel or external companies (hired by the maintenance personnel), are taking care of the housekeeping. Cleaning of cells are almost the same at both plants. Power supply includes transformers and rectifiers in Kokkola – check if this is the matter for Odda. The solution supply is owned by L & P all the way to the first tank (GT-1) in Odda. The gypsum removal with cooling towers is also one of the maintenance areas of the cell house in Odda. In Kokkola, the cut between the two departments is placed after the cooling towers. That means that the pipe and tank after the cooling towers is a maintenance area of the cell house. From that reason, we need to check the maintenance costs for the cooling towers of the gypsum removal in Odda to remove it from cell house and put it at the L & P. If not, we will have to add it to the cost picture of the cell house in Kokkola. Responsibility for illumination, HVAC, sewage and buildings seems to be treated the same way at both places. Anode cleaning and treatment is a part of the production costs in Kokkola as it is a maintenance cost in Odda. The most sensible thing to do with it is to quantify the figures in Odda and remove them from the benchmarking project. But this is not easily done in Odda so it is probably better to add the costs of anode treatment in Kokkola to their maintenance costs. Sumps and collecting system for rain water is a cost of the cell house in Odda but an infrastructure responsibility in Kokkola. We need to remove the costs for producing cathodes in Kokkola as this is a operating cost in Odda and maintenance people are producing these in Kokkola.

Foundry The foundry of Kokkola is producing by continuous casting while Odda is more on the batch side. Also through weekends, the foundry is manned in Kokkola. This is a great difference for the equipment as cooling and reheating the equipment is a tough task, especially for the refractory. Still, the group believes that benchmarking will give us great opportunity to learn form each other. The cut between cell house and foundry is identical in Odda and Kokkola though the cell house of Odda has got a cathode elevator which isn’t needed in Kokkola. There seems to be a different way of dividing the cost centers or internal orders in Odda and Kokkola for the foundry. This needs to be looked into by guys familiar with these things and we should find a solution during our next meeting. It looks like k1 including alloying furnace and holding furnaces of Odda is comparable with alloying number 1 in Kokkola. Anyway, the foundry is divided into three benchmarking areas;

APPENDIX 2/5


• CGG casting


• SHG large format and blocks o Internal order 414M030022 and 414M030042 (Odda)

• Slabs

o Internal order 414M03 ….

Inductors of all furnaces are water cooled in Odda as they are air cooled in Kokkola. Still no large inductors have been replaced in Kokkola the last nine years. Even though the wharf is part of the maintenance areas, we will not include that area in the benchmarking project. And for Odda, we will have to remove fork lift rental costs as they are a maintenance cost even when used for production matters. Maintenance of fork lifts will off course still be part of the benchmarking. Addition of aluminium is also very different in the two plants. Zinc dust production and maintenance is also much the same in the two plants.

Infrastructure The main areas for benchmarking could be cost connected with shift electricians and compressed air. These are not possible to benchmark every month – it is better to check them every six or twelve months as the contract fees for Atlas Copco are paid every three months or so.

Key Performance Indicators As earlier stated, the group agreed to start with few benchmarking points and put in effort to make these successful. As a start, we will focus on cost issues for specific areas and rather develop these into more maintenance specific KPI’s later on. Results from test calculations are included for the roaster area.

Area KPI Target KPI Benchmarking areas Comments Roaster (Maintenance

costs)/ (Tons of dry concentrate fed to roaster)


• Raw material supply (months 1 – 4):

o 0,64 Kokkola o 0,92 in Odda

• Roaster with calsine transport and treatment

o 0,94 Kokkola o 2,01 Odda

Cut after ESP on the off gas side

Leaching and purification

(Maintenance costs) / (cubic meters of solution supplied to cell house) (Maintenance costs) / (leaching recovery)


• Filterstation • Purification • Direct Leaching

Starts at the bottom of the calsine silos

Cellhouse (Maintenance costs) / (current

(Preventive maintenance hours)

• Solution and spent acid

Starts after solution enters

APPENDIX 2/6


efficiency) (Maintenance costs) / (tonn cathode production)

/ (corrective maintnenance hours)

• Power supply • Cathodes and

Anodes • Common costs

the first tank at gypsum removal

Foundry (Maintenance costs) / (cast zinc production)


• SHG • Slabs • CGG

Starts after zinc storage on furnace feeding area

Infrastructure (maintenance costs) / (produced air m3) (maintenance costs) / (casted zink)

• Compressed air • Shift electricians

As indicated in the table, infrastructure is not divided nor is any KPI identified for this area. This is to be carried out at the next meeting of the project.

Next meeting Next meeting will be in Odda in September. We will then continue our calculations to see if it is simple or not to make our calculations.

To do –list Nr. Task Responsible 1 Perform test calculations locally TTh in Odda

OMA in Kokkola 2 Call for the next meeting TTh in Odda 3 Order a meeting room in Odda for the next meeting TTh

APPENDIX 3/1


Minutes of Meeting – Video conference Third benchmarking meeting zinc plants, Kokkola – Odda

Date: Wednesday 4/1 -2006 Present: Olli-Matti Airiola, Jaakko Dahl, Torgeir Kvingedal, Svein Moe, Ville Yla-

Jokisalo and Trond Thiis

Copy: Børge Hauge, Kjetil Børve, Lars Oddmund Fjæra, Dag Berg Maintenance organisation

Information The meeting was held as a video conference and aimed to put some action into the project after a long period with low activity level. Tasks or new information is in these MoM’s.

Roaster • Raw material supply 414M010002 (Odda) Takes approximately 15 % of own maintainers hours which are found in IO 414M010182 in G/L accounts:

31000100 Wages and salaries 31000200 Overtime wages 31000350 Fringe benefits, debit acc. 31000359 Fringe benefits, cre 31000700 Pay due to illness a 31001215 Convensation for rea 31901000 Social security expenses 31907000 Ch vacation pay liab 31907300 Employee meeting expenses 31909900 Oth pers related exp

• Roaster with calsine transportation – cut off after ESP’s and incl. calsine silos

o Internal orders 414M010022, 414M010042, 414M010062 and 414M010182 (Odda) Takes approx. 65% of own maintainers hours which are found as mentioned above..


o Direct Leaching Internal order 414M020022 (Odda)

o Filter station Internal order 414M020002 (Odda)

o Purification Internal orders 414M020122 (Odda, incl Cl-removal as in Kokkola)

Internal maintainers costs all end up in the IO 414M020182 at the same G/L’s as mentioned above. And a percentage of these also need to be added, at least for the purification steps as we have our own maintainer in that area. We will have to find the correct percentages before next meeting.

APPENDIX 3/2


Cell houses • Solution and spent acid series 5






These orders give us the maintenance costs for cell house series 5 in Odda.

Foundry In our meeting, Svein agreed to set up a comparison on a piece of paper with observations which can add value to maintenance in either location. He is able to do so as he has great knowledge to both plants after visiting Kokkola several times. Mika Virtanen (?) and Svein should also be put in contact with each other to make this paper essential as well as to consider if there still is a chance for comparing slabs and CGG. Hence, we found that benchmarking the two foundries is a problem else than on a top level as technology and process differs a lot.

Infrastructure Shift electricians have to be taken out of the benchmarking. We are left with compressed air (from 1.st of February: IO 414M045002) for this area and will have to think if there is anything else worth comparing in this field. And we have to check if cost figures for BKO are with or without electricity. The maintenance costs for BO are without electricity.

Key Performance Indicators In the enclosed Excel sheet from Ville and Jaakko, you can find the details.

Next meeting Next meeting will be in Odda in March/April but Trond will call for another video conference in February.

To do –list Nr. Task Responsible 1 Put Ville and Magnhild Tømmernes in contact to look into

possibilities to run the benchmarking automated in SAP Svein M

2 Call for the next video conference TTh 3 Call for the next meeting in March/April TTh 4 Find percentages for internal maintenance costs for leaching. TTh => Arild S 5 Check if all process service orders are incl. for Kokkola Jaakko D.

BO MAINTENANCEINTERNAL ORDERS

APPENDIX 4/1

Gammelt OMRÅDE nummer Nye SAP nr.

Nr. Tekst Produksjon VedlikeholdKost senter Intern order

011 Kai (infrastruktur),felles 41464002 414M064002012 Losseutstyr 41400002 414M000002013 Lasteutstyr 41440062 414M040062015 Gaffeltrucker 41464002 414M064002016 Hjullastere 41464002 414M064002017 Terminaltraktor 41464002 414M064002019 Bygninger 41464002 414M064002030 Materiallager (Index-lager) 41464002 414M064002037 Tippområde 41464002 414M064002038 Kjøretøyer 41464002 414M064002039 Bygninger og byggkraner 41464002 414M0640020391 Kontorer, garderober, spiserom 41464002 414M064002049 BHT, bygninger 41445002 414M0450020601 Rubin systemet 41445002 414M0450020604 Tegnearkivet 41445002 414M045002061 Elektro 41445002 414M0450020621 Telefonanlegget 41445002 414M0450020622 Interkom anlegg 41445002 414M0450020623 Varslingssystemer 41445002 414M045002063 Kraftdistribusjon 41445002 414M0450020642 Vakt 41445002 414M0450020644 Avløp 41445002 414M0450020645 Ventilasjon 41445002 414M0450020646 Veier, plasser 41445002 414M0450020647 Diker, spuntvegger 41445002 414M0450020649 Egne boliger 41445002 414M045002065 Luftforsyning 41445002 414M045002066 Vannforsyning 41445002 414M045002067 Dampforsyning 41445002 414M045002068 Fyringsoljeforsyning069 Bygninger/Infrastruktur 41445002 414M0450020691 Adm.bygg 41445002 414M0450020692 Kantine 41481022 414M081022078 Kjøretøy , vedlikeholdsteknikk 41445002 414M045002071072073074075077078 Kjøretøy, Teknisk Service 41445002 414M045002079 Bygninger, Teknisk Service 41445002 414M045002078 Kjøretøy, vedlikehold 41445002 414M045002079 Bygninger, mek.verksted m/kontorer 41445002 414M045002089 Bygninger, laboratoriet 41445002 414M0450020891 Kontorer, gard. spiserom 41445002 414M045002090 Zinkverket Felles 41445002 414M045002100 Røsting Felles 41410182 414M010182


APPENDIX 4/2

124 Instrumentering 41410182 414M010182125 Elektro, PLS, panel, MCC 41410182 414M010182126 VVS anlegg 41410182 414M010182130 Felles konsentrattilførsel 41410002 414M010002132 Konsentratilførsel, RA1 41410002 414M010002134 Røsting, RA1 41410022 414M010022136 Dampanlegg, RA1 41410042 414M010042138 Gassrensing, tørrcottrel, RA1 41410062 414M010062139 Kalsinetransport, RA1 41410082 414M010082162 Konsentrattilførsel, RA2 41410002 414M010002164 Røsting, RA2 41410022 414M010022166 Dampanlegg, RA2 41410042 414M010042168 Gassrensing, tørrcottrel, RA2 41410062 414M010062169 Kalsinetransport, RA2 41410082 414M010082170 Felles kalsinetransport 41410082 414M010082190 Bygninger 41410182 414M010182191 Kontorer, garderober, spiserom 41410182 414M010182200 Svovelsyre Felles 41415002 414M015002224 Instrumentering 41415002 414M015002225 Elektro, PLS, panel, MCC 41415002 414M015002226 VVS anlegg 41415002 414M015002230 Gasskjøling, rensing, SF1 41415002 414M015002232 Kvikksølv rensing, SF1 41410102 414M010102234 Tørking, SF1 41415002 414M015002236 Kontaktgruppe, SF1 41415002 414M015002238 Absorbsjon og gassvasking, SF1 41415002 414M015002260 Gasskjøling, rensing, SF2 41415002 414M015002262 Kvikksølvrensing, SF2 41410102 414M010102264 Tørking, SF2 41415002 414M015002266 Kontaktgruppe, SF2 41415002 414M015002268 Absorbsjon og gassvasking, SF2 41415002 414M015002274 Vannbehandling 41410102 414M010102276 Ekspedering og lagring, svovelsyre 41415002 414M015002282 Kvikksølvproduksjon 41410122 414M010122284 Kvikksølv slam, filtrering 41410102 414M010102290 Bygninger 41415002 414M015002291 Kontorer, garderober, spiserom 41415002 414M015002300 Lutning Felles 41420182 414M020182302 Kalsinetransport 41420002 414M020002303 Nøytrallutning 41420002 414M020002304 Oliverfilterstasjon 41420042 414M020042305 Fjellhalldeponi 41420072 414M020072306 Rensegulv 41420122 414M020122307 Filterpresser, rensedorrer 41420122 414M020122308 Behandlingsanlegg for rensingsresidue 41420122 414M020122309 Klinkerlutning 41420042 414M020042310 Varmlutning 41420042 414M020042311 Jarosittfellingsanlegg 41420042 414M020042312 Syrevask 41420002 414M020002313 Retursyre/kjemikalietilsetning 41420182 414M020182324 Instrumentering 41420182 414M020182325 Elektro, PLS, panel, MCC 41420182 414M020182326 VVS anlegg 41420182 414M020182350 Vannrenseanlegg 41420102 414M020102360 Discardinganlegg 41420082 414M020082370 Kopperresidue m/filterpresser 41420142 414M020142


APPENDIX 4/3

380 Kjøretøy 41420182 414M020182390 Bygninger med byggkraner 41420182 414M020182391 Kontorer, garderober, spiserom 41420182 414M020182400 Kadmium 41420162 414M020162411 Gjenvinning og brikketering 41420162 414M020162412 Kadmium støperi 41420162 414M020162413 Lutning av kadmium sement 41420162 414M020162424 Instrumentering 41420182 414M020182425 Elektro 41420182 414M020182490 Bygninger m/byggkraner 41420182 414M020182500 Elektrolyse, serie 5,Felles 41425082 414M025082510 Gipsfelling 41425002 414M025002511 Oppløsning og retursyre, serie 5 41425002 414M025002512 Elektrolysehall m/kraner og celler, s.5 41425002 414M025002513 Kjøling og sikrulasjon, serie 5 41425002 414M025002514 Kjemikalietilsetning, serie 5 41425002 414M025002520 Stripping og katodetransport, serie 5 41425022 414M025022521 Manganrensing, serie 5 41425022 414M025022524 Instrumentering, serie 5 41425082 414M025082525 Elektro, PLS, panel, MCC, serie 5 41425082 414M025082526 VVS anlegg, serie 5 41425082 414M025082560 Elektrolyse, serie 4,felles 41425082 414M425082561 Oppløsning og retursyre, serie 4 41425002 414M425002562 Elektrolysehall m/elektrotaljer, s.4 41425002 414M425002563 Kjøling og sirkulasjon, serie 4 41425002 414M425002564 Kjemikalietilsetning, serie 4 41425082 414M025082570 Stripping og katodetransport, serie 4 41425022 414M425022571 Manganrensing, serie 4 41425002 414M425002574 Instrumentering, serie 4 41425082 414M425082575 Elektro, PLS, panel, MCC, serie 4 41425082 414M425082576 VVS anlegg, serie 4 41425082 414M425082580 Kjøretøy 41425082 414M425082590 Bygninger m/byggkraner og heiser 41425082 414M425082591 Kontorer, garderober, spiserom 41425082 414M425082600 Støperi 41430182 414M030182610 Støperi med kraner og fellesutstyr 41430182 414M030182612 Smelting av katodezink, ovn 1 41430042 414M030042613 Smelting av katodezink, ovn 2 41430022 414M030022614 Legeringer, ovn 1 41430002 414M030002615 Legeringer, ovn 2 41430062 414M030062616 Holding av zinkbad, ovn 1 41430002 414M030002617 Holding av zinkbad, ovn 2 41430062 414M030062619 Støping av CGG spes. blokker 41430002 414M030002620 Støping av SHG spes. blokker 41430022 414M030022621 Støping av 25 kg blokker, belte 1 41430042 414M030042623 Støping av NORZAK blokker, leg.beltet 41430062 414M030062624 Instrumentering 41430182 414M030182625 Elektro, Pls,Panel, MCC 41430182 414M030182626 VVS Anlegg 41430182 414M030182627 AAF Ovnsfilteranlegg 41430182 414M030182629 Vannkjølesystem induksjonsovner 41430182 414M030182640 Drossanlegg 41430102 414M030102650 Zinkpulver anlegg med skrotovn 41430082 414M030082680 Kjøretøy 41430122 414M030122690 Bygninger 41430182 414M030182691 Kontorer, garderober, spiserom 41430182 414M030182


APPENDIX 4/4

901 Led & stab Noralf 41492122 414M092122902 Marked Noralf 41492122 414M092122903 Produksjon Noralf 41492042 414M092042904 Vedlikeh. Noralf 41492042 414M092042910 Felles råstofftilførsel 41492002 414M092002911 Al.hydrat, transport, filter, lagring 41492002 414M092002912 Flusspat, Transport, Tørking, Lagring 41492022 414M092022913 HF gass , produksjon og gipsbehandling 41492022 414M092022915 Al.fluorid, produksjon 41492042 414M092042916 Gassvasking 41492042 414M092042917 Al.fluorid, transport, lagring, pakking 41492102 414M092102918 Anhydritt- produksjon/transport/lagring/lasting 41492082 414M092082922 Svovelsyre, transport, lagring 41492022 414M092022924 Instrumentering 41492042 414M092042925 El.kraft, fordeling 41492042 414M092042926 VVS anlegg 41492042 414M092042990 Bygninger, kraner, heiser etc 41492042 414M092042991 Kontorer, garderober, spiserom 41492122 414M092122

FINAL BO-BKO IO-LIST APPENDIX 5/3

CELL HOUSE INTERNAL ORDERS FOR BENCHMARKING

SOLUTION AND SPENT ACID

ODDA (SERIES 4&5) KOKKOLA414M025002 4090301010 NEUTRAL SOLUTION COOLING TOWERS, TANKS&PIPELINES NL-JÄÄHDYTYSTORNIT, SÄILIÖT JA PUTKISTOT

4090301025 GYPSUM THICKENERS, PUMPS&PIPELINES KIPSISAKEUTTIMET, PUMPUT JA PUTKISTOT4090301099 NEUTRAL SOLUTION COOLING ELECTRIC&AUTOMATION WORKNEUTRAALILIUOK. JÄÄHD. SÄHKÖAUTOMAATI4090301313 HOT AND COLD CIRCULATION 1, TANKS, PUMPS&PIPELINES KU- JA KY-KIERTO; SÄILIÖT, PUMPUT JA PUTK4090301314 HOT AND COLD CIRCULATION 2, TANKS, PUMPS&PIPELINES KU- JA KY-KIERTO; SÄILIÖT, PUMPUT JA PUTK4090301325 LAUNDERS RÄNNIT4090301327 CELL TANKS ELEKTROLYYTTIALTAAT4090301343 TOWER LOUNDERS TORNIRÄNNIT

414M425002 4090301345 COOLING TOWERS JÄÄHDYTYSTORNIT4090301350 SPENT ACID PUMPS&PIPELINES PALUUHAPPOPUMPUT PUTKISTOINEEN4090301355 WASTE ZINC LEACHING EQUIPMENTS ZN LIUOTUSLAITTEISTO4090301361 FLOOR DRAIN PUMPS&PIPELINES LATTIAKAIVOPUMPUT JA PUTKET4090301365 WASHING WATER COLLECTION TO L&P PESUVESIENKERÄYS PUHDISTAMOLLE4090301370 TANK SERVICE DEVICE ALLASHUOLTOLAITTEISTO4090301375 MANGANESE EQUIPMENT, TANKS PUMPS AND PIPELINES MANGAANILAITTEISTO; SÄILIÖT, PUMPPUT, PU4090301380 CHEMICAL DOSAGE AND FEEDING EQUIPMENTS KEMIKAALIEN VALMISTUS JA SYÖTTÖ4090301385 GLASSFIBRE WORKING PLATFORMS LUJITEMUOVIHOITOTASOT4090003422 PROCESS SERVICE NEUTRAL AND ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION TRPROSESSIHUOLTO NEUTRAALI- JA ELEKTROLY

CATHODES AND ANODES

ODDA (SERIES 4&5) KOKKOLA414M025022 4090303310 KATHODE ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING EQUIPMENT KATODIEN VALMISTUS JA KUNNOSTUSLAITTEI414M425022 4090303315 KATHODE PRE-STRAIGHTENING AND CUTTING KATODIEN ESIOIKAISU JA LEIKKAUS

4090303399 KATHODE SERVICE ELECTRIC%AUTOMATION WORK KATOD. HUOLTO, VALM. JA LIUOT. SÄHKÖAUT4090304303 ANODE REPAIRING EQUIPMENTS ANODIN KUNNOSTUSLAITTEET4090304306 KATHODE AND ANODE TRANSPORTING SYSTEM KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ4090304309 STRIPPING MACHINES IRROTUSKONEET4090003423 PROSCESS SERVICE WORK ELECTRODES HANDLING PROSESSIHUOLTO ELEKTRODIEN KÄSITTELY

POWER SUPPLY

ODDA (SERIES 4&5) KOKKOLA414M025042414M425042 4090306010 ELECTRIC CIRCUIT 1 (RECTIFIER 1) VIRTAPIIRI 1 (TS1)

4090306020 ELECTRIC CIRCUIT 2 (RECTIFIER 2) VIRTAPIIRI 2 (TS2)4090306030 ELECTRIC CIRCUIT 3 (RECTIFIER 3) VIRTAPIIRI 3 (TS3)4090306040 ELECTRIC CIRCUIT 4 (RECTIFIER 4) VIRTAPIIRI 4 (TS4)4090306050 SPARE TRANSFORMER VARAMUUNTAJA TSM4090306099 POWER SUPPLY ELECTRIC&AUTOMATION WORK VIRRANSYÖTTÖ SÄHKÖAUTOMAATIO4090003424 PROCESS SERVICE WORK POWER SUPPLY PROSESSIHUOLTO SÄHKÖNSYÖTTÖ

APPENDIX 6/1

INSTRUCTION C:\Documents and

Settings\HIEJA\Desktop\Uudet PDF\Dahl(EI OK)\APPENDIX 6 Stat.key.input.doc

VYJ 14.11.2006 1

Boliden Kokkola Oy

STATISTICAL KEY FIGURES IN SAP

Statistical key figures can be used as divider in the cost controlling reports. Usually they are en-tered manually but it is also possible to get them automatically from logistic module (e.g. in-voices quantity).

Entering statistical key figures manually

Transactions: KB31N Enter

KB33N Display KB34N Reverse

Statistical key figures should be entered monthly. When you enter them notice that you have correct posting period (posting date = last date of the month)

Figures are entered to cost centers. In Kokkola we are using cost center 40945002 (Zn-plant common costs) and Odda could use corresponding 41445002 (Felles kostnad sink). As in pic-ture you must choose cost center, statistical key figure and quantity. It is also possible to give additional description to the text column.

APPENDIX 6/2

INSTRUCTION C:\Documents and

Settings\HIEJA\Desktop\Uudet PDF\Dahl(EI OK)\APPENDIX 6 Stat.key.input.doc

VYJ 14.11.2006 2

Boliden Kokkola Oy

Available statistical key figures (Benchmarking Odda-Kokkola)

PRODZN ZINC PRODUCTION ZINC1 FEEDED CONSCENTRATE ZINC2 SUPPLIED SOLUTION ZINC3 LEACHING RECOVERY ZINC4 CURRENT EFFICIENCY ZINC5 CATHODE PRODUCTION

ZINC6 COMSUMPTED AIR Statistical key figures report Transaction: S_ALR_87013618

Choose fiscal year, period, plan version and cost centers and execute report. There you can check entered figures:

AAPPENDIX 7/1

C:\Documents and

Settings\HIEJA\Desktop\Uudet PDF\Dahl(EI OK)\APPENDIX 7 Shift electrians Eng.doc

INSTRUCTION 04.12.2006 VYJ

Boliden Kokkola Oy

SHIFT ELECTIRCIANS COSTS (KOKKOLA)

Open transaction KOB1 (Orders: Actual line items)

Search choosing variant SHIFT ELECTRI: 1. Click

2. Press in opening box.

3. Choose SHIFT ELECTRI (Shift electrians)

Next choices are copied Change period if needed

(The names of BKO shift electricians are defined to background of choices)

AAPPENDIX 7/2

C:\Documents and

Settings\HIEJA\Desktop\Uudet PDF\Dahl(EI OK)\APPENDIX 7 Shift electrians Eng.doc

INSTRUCTION 04.12.2006 VYJ

Boliden Kokkola Oy

Open report with -button. The total price of BKO shift electricians is seen in this report.

BKO SHIFT ELECTRICIAN COST EXCEL REPORT APPENDIX 8

Order CO object name Cost elem. Cost elem.name Value OCur Postg date Quantity PUM ObCur4090108597 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 292,00 15.8.2006 8,000 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 155,86 15.8.2006 4,270 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 2 056,41 15.8.2006 56,340 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 884,76 31.8.2006 24,240 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 102,20 15.8.2006 2,000 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 394,20 15.8.2006 6,000 H EUR4090102420 SÄHKÖSUODATTIMET LIN 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 298,21 15.8.2006 8,170 H EUR4090108597 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 525,60 15.8.2006 8,000 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 590,21 15.8.2006 16,170 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 592,76 31.8.2006 16,240 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 298,21 15.8.2006 8,170 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 298,21 15.8.2006 8,170 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 551,88 31.8.2006 15,120 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 102,20 15.8.2006 2,000 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 394,20 15.8.2006 6,000 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 292,00 15.8.2006 8,000 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 298,21 31.8.2006 8,170 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 773,07 31.8.2006 21,180 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 894,62 31.8.2006 24,510 H EUR4090108597 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 146,00 15.8.2006 4,000 H EUR4090108597 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 102,20 15.8.2006 2,000 H EUR4090108597 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 131,40 15.8.2006 2,000 H EUR4090108597 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 262,80 31.8.2006 4,000 H EUR4090201605 CL-POISTON SUODATUS 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 145,27 31.8.2006 3,980 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 438,00 15.8.2006 12,000 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 663,94 31.8.2006 18,190 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 262,14 31.8.2006 5,130 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 295,65 15.8.2006 4,500 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 524,29 31.8.2006 7,980 H EUR4090304303 ANODIN KUNNOSTUSLAIT 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 147,10 31.8.2006 4,030 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 328,50 15.8.2006 9,000 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 143,08 31.8.2006 3,920 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 102,20 15.8.2006 2,000 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 299,96 31.8.2006 5,870 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 394,20 15.8.2006 6,000 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 384,35 31.8.2006 5,850 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 1 557,09 15.8.2006 42,660 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 663,21 31.8.2006 18,170 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 267,40 31.8.2006 4,070 H EUR4090305553 ELEKTROLYYSIN PROSES 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 453,33 31.8.2006 6,900 H EUR4090306030 VIRTAPIIRI 3 (TS3) 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 73,00 15.8.2006 2,000 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 146,00 31.8.2006 4,000 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 394,20 31.8.2006 6,000 H EUR4090202452 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 1 783,03 31.8.2006 48,850 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 294,92 15.8.2006 8,080 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 590,21 31.8.2006 16,170 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 102,20 31.8.2006 2,000 H EUR4090304306 KULJETUSJÄRJESTELMÄ 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 394,20 31.8.2006 6,000 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 302,95 15.8.2006 8,300 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 894,62 31.8.2006 24,510 H EUR4090304309 IRROTUSKONEET 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 51,10 15.8.2006 1,000 H EUR4090305553 ELEKTROLYYSIN PROSES 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 585,46 15.8.2006 16,040 H EUR4090405096 PROSESSIAUTOMAATIO 96360412 SCE Act, Mech m 596,41 15.8.2006 16,340 H EUR

23715,22 582,29 H

APPENDIX 9/1

OPERATING PRACTICE C:\Documents and Settings\HIEJA\Desktop\Uudet

PDF\Dahl(EI OK)\APPENDIX 9 ENG Instructions Benchmarking report.doc

VYJ/JRD 28.11.2006 1

Boliden Kokkola Oy

SAP-REPORTING PRINCIPLES AND OPERATING PRACTICES

In this report the internal orders are defined as rows and BO and BKO smelters as columns. The monitored objects are, from the technical reasons, defined on different pages. This means that if the report is wanted to open or printed at Ecxel, SAP will make own page for each object. So the report has own pages for roaster, leahching&purification, cell house, foundry, infrastructure, KPI’s and statistical key figures.

Department

Compared objects Costs (in users own currency) Costs per produced zinc ton

KPI’s are calculated by dividing the department maintenance costs by statistical key figure. These key figures must be input manually to SAP by transaction KB31N.

KPI’s are also distributed by Departments and under each department row there are

the maintenance costs first

Then the maintenance costs vs. produced zinc ton And finally the chosen KPI’s

APPENDIX 9/2



VYJ/JRD 28.11.2006 2

Boliden Kokkola Oy

BENCHMARKING REPORT

Report is found by transaction GRR3

Go to folder (library) Z21 (Cost Centers: BKO) and choose by double clicking report ZBKOBODB (BKO-BO Benchmarking).

APPENDIX 9/3



VYJ/JRD 28.11.2006 3

Boliden Kokkola Oy

Report is launched with -button.

Give the fiscal year and period (months) to be investigated to the value table.

Press again -button and the report opens up. Report is using the currency that is set up to the user parameters. Costs are always written out on same currency, € or NOK, depending on users set up parameters.