Sites & Equipment

Heavy industry carries more loss per window, but site explains little of it

The cement and drilling sites average about 1.5x the revenue loss of the lab and diagnostics sites, and the gap is statistically real. It is also small: site explains about 1.3% of the variation in loss, against 6.5% for spare-parts status. Criticality matters more for money: critical windows lose 4.4x what low-criticality windows lose.

ℹNo verdict on manufacturer or shift. Both were tested and neither shows any difference (ANOVA p > 0.4 on downtime, η² under 0.1%). They are shown for completeness, not as rankings.

Mean revenue loss by site, with 95% intervals study

EGP per observation. The two lighter-industry sites sit clearly lower; the four heavy sites overlap each other.

Mean revenue loss by criticality, with 95% intervals study

EGP per observation. Every step in criticality is clear of the next: a medium-sized effect (η² 0.064).

High-risk share by asset class

% of observations with failure probability ≥ 50%. Live.

High-risk share by environment severity

% of observations high-risk. Severe environments run about 3.8x controlled ones. Live.

Mean downtime by manufacturer group

Hours per observation. No significant difference (see Data & Method).

Mean downtime by operating shift

Hours per observation. No significant difference.

Site profile table

Live. The accessible view of every site figure on this page.

So what. Do not run a site-versus-site campaign. Site explains about 1.3% of the variation in loss; spare-parts status explains five times as much. Route effort by criticality and by the levers instead, which apply at every site.