STI Maintenance Inc. Free Self-Assessment: Spare Parts and Procurement

In 15 questions, assess your maintenance spare parts management across 5 dimensions: procurement, inventory, warehouse processes, organization and structure, and master data governance. Answer each question by choosing the rating from 1 to 5 that best describes your current situation. You'll see the highlights of your result on screen, and you'll receive the full detailed report by email.

0 / 15 answeredQuestion 1 of 15

Question 1 / 15

Reliability and upkeep of purchasing data

To what extent is the purchasing data for your MRO parts complete, accurate, and kept up to date? (vendor records, purchasing info records, source of supply, lead times, pricing)

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Very frequent errors (part ordered, vendor selected, lead time, price)Few or no complete purchasing info recordsSource of supply incomplete or missingLead times unknown or inconsistentNo tracking of data quality

Level 2 of 5

Frequent errors (part ordered, vendor selected, lead time, price)Some purchasing info records are complete (unknown %)Irregular data reviewsPartial data tracking (occasional KPI or report)Delivery lead times not updated

Level 3 of 5

Occasional errorsMetrics in place (KPI)Majority of purchasing info records completeBasic controls in placePeriodic data reviewLead times updated but not systematically

Level 4 of 5

Few errorsOver 80% of purchasing info records complete and accurateSources of supply validated and reviewed periodically based on riskLead times reviewed regularlyReliable contract parametersControls documented and applied

Level 5 of 5

Data virtually free of errors100% of critical data completeAutomated controls where possibleLead time updates automated or tightly integrated into the processCorrective measures and continuous improvement in placeMultiple sources of supply defined based on item criticality and risk level

Question 2 / 15

Efficiency of the MRO purchasing process

To what extent are purchase requisitions processed efficiently, from defining the need through to issuing and following up on vendor purchase orders, while meeting target processing times?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Very long processing timesComplex process, heavily dependent on individualsRequisitions frequently incomplete or poorly defined, requiring many back-and-forths for clarificationNo target processing time defined, or not met at allCumbersome approval processVendor confirmations irregular and not trackedDelays not tracked

Level 2 of 5

Long processing timesProcess involves multiple manual stepsRequisitions regularly need clarification before processingTarget processing time defined but rarely metFewer than 50% of orders confirmed within 48hMore than 40% of orders lateLimited exception tracking

Level 3 of 5

Target processing time defined and met for about 85% of requisitionsProcess is complex but runs smoothlyRequisitions are generally documented well enough to be processed without major intervention or repeated clarificationFunctional approval processAbout 70% of orders confirmed within 48hDelays tracked regularly and measured: fewer than 20% of orders are late

Level 4 of 5

Target processing time met 90–95% of the timeSimple, smooth processRequisitions are standardized and rarely returned for clarificationDelays tracked, analyzed and escalated as needed (10–20%)About 80% of orders confirmed within 48h and 95% within 72h of issue70% of orders created automaticallySimple approval process, generally followed

Level 5 of 5

Target processing time consistently met over 95% of the timeEasy, simple, highly streamlined processStandard requisitions are mostly processed on a "one-touch order" basis, with no clarification or additional manual interventionFewer than 10% of orders are lateCorrective and preventive actions in placeAbout 90% of orders confirmed within 48h and 95% within 72h of issue90% of POs created automaticallyApproval process optimized or automated according to established thresholds and delegations

Question 3 / 15

Management of emergency and spot purchases

To what extent are urgent purchases and spot buys (text/manual orders) exceptional, justified, and governed by control processes?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Emergencies very frequent and not trackedSpot buys very frequent and not trackedNo framework governing emergencies or spot buys

Level 2 of 5

Partial rulesMetrics tracked but no follow-up actionAbout 30% of parts purchases are spot buysAbout 10% of purchases are emergency purchases

Level 3 of 5

Clear rulesMetrics in placeAbout 20% of parts purchases are spot buysAbout 5% of purchases are emergency purchasesMonthly review and follow-up actionsSpot buys are sometimes converted into cataloged items

Level 4 of 5

Active governance of emergencies and spot buysFewer than 10% of parts purchases are spot buysFewer than 2% of purchases are emergency purchasesWeekly review and follow-up actionsSpot buys are very often converted into cataloged items

Level 5 of 5

Restrictive thresholds and active governanceFewer than 5% of parts purchases are spot buysFewer than 1% of purchases are emergency purchasesContinuous improvementRoot causes of emergencies and unplanned purchases are proactively analyzed and eliminatedRecurring spot buys are systematically converted into cataloged items

Question 4 / 15

Inventory accuracy and cycle counting

To what extent are inventory quantities accurate and kept up to date through a rigorous cycle counting and discrepancy management process?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Very frequent inventory errorsAccuracy not measuredSystem quantities often do not reflect what is actually on handCounts not performed, or not structuredInventories done ad hoc or only when problems are noticedDiscrepancies not analyzedLow confidence in system quantities

Level 2 of 5

Frequent errorsAccuracy partially measuredDiscrepancies between system and physical quantities are regularly observedCounting plan partial or irregularKPIs defined but rarely tracked or usedDiscrepancies not systematically analyzed, or analyzed with delayHigh adjustment volumes after counts

Level 3 of 5

Structured annual counting plan in place100% of items counted every yearInventory accuracy measured and trackedCounting, discrepancy and adjustment KPIs defined and used to drive performanceDiscrepancies are occasional and generally corrected quickly90% of discrepancies analyzed and resolved the same dayFewer than 15% of items require adjustment after a countGenerally good confidence in system quantities

Level 4 of 5

Annual plan followedContinuous cycle countingReliable KPIs, reviewed periodically95% of discrepancies analyzed and resolved the same dayDiscrepancies are rare and trends are trackedRecurring discrepancies identified and monitoredFewer than 5% of items require adjustment after a countHigh confidence in system quantities

Level 5 of 5

ABC counting program based on item criticality and valueContinuous countingDiscrepancies are exceptional and root causes are systematically eliminatedFewer than 2% of items require adjustment after a countTargeted action plan and continuous improvementRoot-cause analysis of discrepanciesVery high confidence in system quantities

Question 5 / 15

Management of obsolete, dormant, and overstocked items

To what extent are obsolete, dormant, slow-moving, and overstocked items identified, quantified, tracked, and reduced through structured actions?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Statuses not measuredNo formal definition of obsolete, dormant, or overstocked itemsStock value unknownNo review processDecisions made reactivelyActions ad hoc and unstructured

Level 2 of 5

Statuses partially knownIdentification criteria defined but applied inconsistentlyObsolescence policy existsValue of problematic stock estimatedAction plan partial or incompleteOccasional reviews

Level 3 of 5

Statuses quantified and trackedMonthly KPIs in placeValue and quantity of obsolete, dormant, and overstocked stock knownInventory policy known and generally appliedStructured periodic review processDisposal actions carried out regularlyNon-critical inventory older than 10 years kept limited

Level 4 of 5

Active governance in placeReuse, inter-site transfer, and substitution prioritized before any new purchaseKPIs tracked and analyzed monthlyControlled item entry and exit processes, including validation of new itemsInventory-related policy documented and appliedMonthly review and accountabilityObsolescence considerations occasionally integrated into projects and equipment changesOccasional tracking of manufacturer obsolescence on critical parts

Level 5 of 5

Proactive governance and continuous improvementOnly critical parts or asset-preservation items remain in stock long-termObsolescence virtually nil outside strategic partsObsolescence considerations systematically integrated into projects and equipment changesRobust tracking of tied-up capitalSystematic tracking of manufacturer obsolescence, with mitigation plans in place for critical partsRigorous control over new item creation to prevent future accumulation of dormant or obsolete stock

Question 6 / 15

Replenishment strategies and inventory parameters

To what extent are replenishment strategies and inventory parameters (min-max, safety stock, lot sizes, lead times, MRP, etc.) defined, understood, reviewed, and effective?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Replenishment strategies poorly defined or not defined at allParameters rarely updatedInitial parameters set based on individual judgmentReplenishment logic poorly understoodRecurring stockoutsExcess inventory on certain itemsInconsistencies not controlled

Level 2 of 5

Reviews done only as neededStrategies known but rarely appliedParameters defined but applied inconsistentlyBasic understanding of parametersInconsistencies regularly observedRecurring stockouts on certain items

Level 3 of 5

Replenishment strategies documented and generally well controlledPeriodic parameter reviewParameters defined according to established management rulesPartial control of stockoutsStrategies adapted for certain item familiesDiscrepancies and inconsistencies corrected when identifiedOccasional stockouts, but analyzed

Level 4 of 5

Strategies adapted to business needsParameters reviewed periodicallyParameters defined and adjusted based on documented, analyzed criteriaParameters are reviewed when there are significant changes in consumption, criticality, or lead timeParameters generally prevent stockouts without creating significant overstockParameter consistency controlledStrategies differentiated by certain item families or categoriesAdvanced understanding of parameters among stakeholdersStockouts rare and analyzed

Level 5 of 5

Strategy optimized by family and risk levelParameters prevent stockouts without creating significant overstockParameters optimized based on consumption data, risk, criticality, and business objectivesParameters reviewed monthly or based on defined triggersStrategies differentiated by criticality, risk, and consumption behaviorStockouts exceptional, with root causes analyzedContinuous optimization of tied-up capitalRobust governance of inventory parameters

Question 7 / 15

Management of critical parts and linkage to assets (BOM/EAM)

To what extent are critical parts identified, assessed against established criteria, and linked to equipment (BOM/EAM) to support operations and procurement?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

No critical parts identified, or criticality is confused with "important for the machine"Criteria unclearCriticality based mainly on individual judgment< 10% of parts linked to a BOMNo improvement plan

Level 2 of 5

A few critical parts identifiedCriticality criteria exist but are applied inconsistentlyInventory decisions rarely take criticality into accountUpdates very rareNo specific action< 20% of inventoried parts linked to a BOM

Level 3 of 5

Critical parts identified using a defined methodologyClear criteria, appliedTracking KPI in placeAbout 80% of critical parts linked to a BOMAbout 40% of inventoried parts linked to a BOMInventory parameters for critical parts reviewed periodicallyUpdates done as needed (no formal process)New critical parts are generally linked to assets when created

Level 4 of 5

Majority of critical parts identifiedCriticality rules applied when new items are created90% of critical parts linked to a BOMAbout 60% of inventoried parts linked to a BOMPeriodic process in placeCritical parts are used to guide stocking and procurement strategies

Level 5 of 5

All critical parts identifiedRules applied across the board100% of critical parts linked to a BOMAbout 80% of inventoried parts linked to a BOMPeriodic process in placeMitigation plans defined for at-risk critical partsNew critical parts are systematically linked to assets when createdCriticality is integrated into replenishment strategies and stock levels

Question 8 / 15

Receiving and making parts available

To what extent are received parts quickly identified, recorded in the system (ERP/EAM), labeled, and made available for operations?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Processing very slow and cumbersomeNo target processing time definedNot measuredData entry delayedReceived parts frequently sit waiting before becoming available to usersFIFO not applied

Level 2 of 5

Processing slow and cumbersomeNo target processing time definedMeasured occasionally, with no formal indicatorsReceiving times variableLabeling partialMultiple manual stepsInventory availability sometimes delayed

Level 3 of 5

Target processing time definedLead time and compliance KPIs tracked monthly80% of received items recorded the same day, both physically and in the system (ERP/EAM)Labeling standards in place and followedReceiving process documented and generally followed

Level 4 of 5

Fast processing90% of received items recorded the same day, both physically and in the system (ERP/EAM)Labeling standards in placeReceiving discrepancies analyzed and corrected quicklyCompliance controls applied at receiving

Level 5 of 5

Fast processingTarget processing time met 95% of the timeReceiving data accurate on first entryRobust labeling standards in place and auditedData improvement and correction process in placeParts available for operations within a few hours of receiving in most cases

Question 9 / 15

Physical organization and control of the storeroom

To what extent are storeroom areas clearly organized, controlled, secured, and maintained according to 5S principles?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Areas not marked outVMI mixed in with other areasOpen, uncontrolled accessLocations little or not standardizedNo 5S

Level 2 of 5

Areas partially marked outVMI partially separated from other areasSelf-service poorly controlled5S applied sporadicallyAccess or storage rules partially defined

Level 3 of 5

Clear areas and rules, but not always followedTraining required for storeroom access5S definedOccasional auditsDeviations identified but addressed inconsistently

Level 4 of 5

Dedicated areas and clear rules followedControls applied5S scores tracked5S audits performed periodicallyDeviations addressedAccess controlled according to roles and responsibilities

Level 5 of 5

Improvement loop in placeVMI optimized and controlled5S embedded in daily practicesRegular audits and continuous improvementAccess, responsibilities, and areas clearly defined and reviewed periodically

Question 10 / 15

Parts issue process (GI) & compliance

To what extent are parts issues controlled, properly recorded, and compliant with established processes?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Storeroom uncontrolled self-serviceAnyone can issue partsPaper entries recorded with delayErrors/omissions very frequentNo documented issue procedurePoor traceability of consumed parts

Level 2 of 5

Storeroom self-service partially controlledEntries delayed about 24hErrors/omissions frequentAd hoc controlsTraceability of consumed parts incompleteIssue procedure documented

Level 3 of 5

Controlled self-serviceStoreroom access granted after trainingIssues carried out mainly by the storeroom attendantReal-time entryErrors less commonIssue procedure defined and generally followedIssues generally tied to a work order

Level 4 of 5

Storeroom tightly controlled or closedIssues carried out mainly by the storeroom attendantReal-time entryErrors very rareTraining required for contingency parts issuesPartial kittingIssues mostly tied to a work order

Level 5 of 5

Storeroom access managed according to roles and responsibilitiesVirtually all issues recorded in real timeErrors very rareContinuous improvementFull kittingKit-return analysisFull traceability of consumption back to work ordersPerformance metrics in place

Question 11 / 15

Roles, responsibilities, and access rights

To what extent are roles, responsibilities, access rights, and segregation-of-duties rules clearly defined, applied, and reviewed periodically?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Roles unclearAccess rights not under controlResponsibilities poorly understoodNo access controlLong delays to obtain required access

Level 2 of 5

RACI partial and not widely knownIrregular reviewsResponsibilities sometimes ambiguousAccess granted mainly on requestVariable delays to obtain required access

Level 3 of 5

RACI complete and knownAnnual reviewsSegregation of duties appliedAccess rights defined by functionAccess-granting process documentedRequired access generally granted within reasonable timeframes

Level 4 of 5

Periodic reviews of RACI and accessRemediations trackedPosition-based "template" rolesAccess granted on the principle of least privilegeAppropriate access granted quickly for hires, transfers, or replacementsDeviations corrected quicklyCritical roles have an identified, trained backup

Level 5 of 5

Periodic access re-certificationComplete history of access and changes retainedPosition-based "template" rolesSegregation of duties systematically controlledActive governance of access and responsibilitiesAccess provisioned quickly, in a standardized way consistent with defined roles

Question 12 / 15

Skills, succession, and operational continuity

To what extent are skills developed, maintained, and transferred to ensure operational continuity?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

"On-the-job" training onlyHigh dependency on a few individualsLittle or no documentation of knowledge

Level 2 of 5

Partial training pathInformal "backup" resourcesDependency on a few individualsLimited documentationSkills development mainly driven by individual initiative

Level 3 of 5

Training path defined by roleRequired skills defined by roleDesignated "backup" resourcesDocumentation and job aids available for key activitiesBasic training completed for key positions

Level 4 of 5

Role-based training paths completed and trackedSuccession tests plannedIndividual KPIsJob aids available at every workstationCritical skills covered by more than one personIndividual development plans in place

Level 5 of 5

Structured development programCross-training on critical positionsNo critical role depends on a single personFull coverage of key rolesPeriodic skills assessmentOngoing updates to training and job aidsActive succession planning

Question 13 / 15

Management and quality of spare parts master data

To what extent are MRO items created, maintained, and controlled to ensure data quality, effective search, and duplicate prevention?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

No quality control processPoor taxonomyMany errors and missing dataNo quality indicators in placeLittle or no corrective actionLong item-creation timeVery difficult to find a part in the system

Level 2 of 5

Partial quality control processSpot validationsTaxonomy incompleteUneven standardsMany errors and missing dataA few quality indicators in place, but rarely trackedFrequent difficulty finding an existing itemTarget processing time defined but not met

Level 3 of 5

Quality control process definedMinimum creation criteria definedTaxonomy complete and mostly appliedFew errors in existing dataSome data remains incomplete and still needs enrichmentQuality tracking metric in placeCreation time meets target processing timesItem search generally effective

Level 4 of 5

Quality control process defined and rigorously appliedTaxonomy complete and appliedStandards continuing to evolveDuplicate detection and resolution process in placeFast creation timesData improvement action plan in placeCreation subject to formal validation and systematically enrichedVery easy to find a part in the system (ERP/EAM)

Level 5 of 5

Tool-supported workflow with mandatory validation of critical fieldsOver 98% of new items compliant with established standardsOngoing process for improving and correcting master dataFast, standardized search thanks to a robust taxonomyAutomatic part extension/numbering

Question 14 / 15

Management of locations and parts labeling

To what extent are part locations and labeling accurate, complete, and consistent with system information (ERP/EAM)?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Locations and labeling poorly controlledDifficulty finding partsSeveral locations unidentified or ambiguousFewer than 50% of parts correctly labeled30% match between physical locations and the system (ERP/EAM)

Level 2 of 5

Locations and labeling partially controlledLocation and labeling standards partially defined50–75% of parts correctly labeled70% match between physical locations and the system (ERP/EAM)

Level 3 of 5

Locations and labeling standardizedLocation and labeling standards definedParts are generally found using location identificationAt least 80% of items correctly labeledAt least 85% match between physical locations and the system (ERP/EAM)Discrepancy correction plan in place

Level 4 of 5

Locations and labeling well controlledParts are generally found quickly using location identification90–99% of parts correctly labeled95% match between physical locations and the system (ERP/EAM)Periodic auditsDiscrepancy management documented

Level 5 of 5

Locations and labeling optimizedParts are found quickly and reliably thanks to a robust location system99% of parts correctly labeled99% match between physical locations and the system (ERP/EAM)Ongoing process for validating and correcting discrepancies

Question 15 / 15

Management of stocking decisions and purchasing channels

To what extent are stocking rules and procurement strategies defined, applied, and used consistently?

1 = very far from your situation, 5 = fully in place

Tap a level to read what describes it.

Level 1 of 5

Stocking rules not definedThe decision to stock a part relies mainly on individual judgmentPurchasing channels and procurement responsibilities not definedSignificant presence of little-used or obsolete itemsMany items are stocked without clear justification or demonstrated usage

Level 2 of 5

Stocking rules are defined but not appliedThe decision to stock a part is partly based on individual judgmentPurchasing channels and procurement responsibilities applied inconsistentlyRules and responsibilities partially up to date

Level 3 of 5

Stocking rules are defined and appliedStocking criteria documented and knownThe decision to stock a part is fact-basedPurchasing channels and procurement responsibilities are generally used consistently

Level 4 of 5

Stocking rules are defined, applied, and controlledRules applied uniformly across sectorsThe decision to stock a part is fact-based and requires approvalPeriodic reviewsPurchasing channels and procurement responsibilities support smooth, efficient processing of requestsExceptions to the rules are documented and justified

Level 5 of 5

Stocking rules are defined, applied, and controlledStocking rules are reviewed periodically as business needs evolveStocking decisions are optimized based on criticality, risk, lead times, and substitution optionsDecisions tracked and auditedProcurement strategies are adapted based on criticality, risk, and item type

Last step

Where should we send your report?

Your details are used to produce your results and send you the detailed report.

Your nameYour email (to receive the detailed report)

Industrial Maintenance Consulting Services

IBM Maximo

SAP PM experts team

Technical Services

Maintenance Spare Parts Management Self-Assessment (MRO)

Reliability and upkeep of purchasing data

Efficiency of the MRO purchasing process

Management of emergency and spot purchases

Inventory accuracy and cycle counting

Management of obsolete, dormant, and overstocked items

Replenishment strategies and inventory parameters

Management of critical parts and linkage to assets (BOM/EAM)

Receiving and making parts available

Physical organization and control of the storeroom

Parts issue process (GI) & compliance

Roles, responsibilities, and access rights

Skills, succession, and operational continuity

Management and quality of spare parts master data

Management of locations and parts labeling

Management of stocking decisions and purchasing channels

Where should we send your report?