The journey to world-class maintenance described in the previous installments of this series involves a series of actions, each accompanied by an evaluation to confirm progress and verify achievement. A review of these steps lends perspective to the actions that were taken, why they were necessary and how they could contribute to achieving world-class maintenance status.
Step 1
Improvement needs — The first step explains the use of evaluations to deter-
mine the initial “as-is” condition of maintenance, identify, and prioritize improvement needs and create an improvement plan.
Step 2
Environment — The second step explains how to gain the cooperation and support for maintenance to create a positive working environment. Evaluation results from Step 1 guide this effort.
Step 3
Program — The third step illustrates how to develop, document, test, implement, and utilize a quality maintenance program with capability to deliver reliable equipment and enable workforce productivity. Again Step 1 results guide this effort.
Step 4
Information — The fourth step provides guidelines for the selection, implementation and utilization of an information system to manage the maintenance program. Step 3, program development, provides details of information needed, and the Step 1 evaluation results pinpoint specific improvement needs.
Step 5
Organization — The fifth step establishes the attributes of a maintenance organization that can execute the maintenance program efficiently. All of the previous steps contribute to organization selection.
The Final Step
The sixth and final step in this process comprises evaluation techniques for the long term and incorporation of evaluations into the mine’s continuous improvement efforts. These techniques are explained and illustrated in the following text.
Evaluation overview — The evaluation process parallels the procedures used to identify the causes of excessive maintenance costs. It begins by examining the two elements of maintenance cost:
- Direct cost = Labor + materials + equipment + overhead
- Unnecessary downtime = Lost product + non-productive time + damages
Specific deficiencies causing excess costs are identified by examining their relationships to the maintenance program, the use of information and the organization. Each deficiency is assessed to determine what improvements are required to meet cost reduction objectives. Improvement needs are prioritized to create an improvement plan. As the plan is carried out, progress and achievements are determined with continuing evaluations until cost reduction objectives are met.
Evaluation technique — Evaluation techniques should be considered based on the mine situation. Some operations may require an evaluation in which every detail must be scrutinized. Other operations, having established the essential pattern of evaluations, may simply check progress by measuring only a few critical areas. There are three techniques that can be used to evaluate maintenance performance: a physical audit; questionnaire; and physical audit with questionnaire.
Physical audit — A physical audit is usually conducted by a team. The team can be made up of consultants or company personnel (or both). They examine the maintenance organization and its program, as well as activities that affect maintenance (such as the quality of material support).
The physical audit examines the total maintenance activity first-hand, by observing work, examining key activities, reviewing costs, and even measuring productivity. It relies on interviews, direct observation of activities and examination of procedures, records, and costs. When done properly, the physical audit produces effective, objective and reliable information on the status of maintenance.
The physical audit by itself should be used when personnel could not be frank, objective and constructive in completing a questionnaire. But, the physical audit is also useful when plant personnel want an opportunity to discuss issues and offer suggestions. However, a physical audit lasting several weeks can be disruptive because of the time required to help explain procedures or participate in interviews. Therefore, it must be well organized in advance.
Questionnaire — A questionnaire gives a cross-section of randomly selected personnel an opportunity to compare maintenance performance against specific standards. This cross-section might include personnel from management, staff departments (such as purchasing), operations and maintenance.
Although a questionnaire is subjective, the results are, nevertheless, an expression of the views of plant personnel. Therefore, participants will have committed themselves to identifying improvements they see as necessary. To most of them, this constitutes potential support for the improvement effort that follows.
When administering a questionnaire, be careful to ensure that personnel are qualified to respond. For example, participants outside of maintenance should respond only to those standards on which they have personal knowledge. The evaluation must be administered so that questions on evaluation points can be answered completely. When carried out properly, the questionnaire can produce reliable results quickly while minimizing disruption to the operation.
The questionnaire has the advantage of being administered often so that progress against the previous results can be measured. For example, one plant was able to establish areas in which improvement was still needed while setting aside areas in which good progress had been demonstrated by previous evaluations.
The questionnaire is the best choice when a quick, non-disruptive evaluation can serve as a reasonable guide in developing an improvement plan. It must be carefully crafted so that it embraces all of the elements of the maintenance program, like planning, as well as activities that affect the program, such as purchasing. Participants should have personal knowledge of maintenance performance for the standards against which they are comparing maintenance. There should be selectivity in who responds to what. For example, the accounting manager could evaluate the quality of labor data reported but, could not evaluate work quality.
Questionnaires are rarely of value if they are not administered in a controlled environment. Typically, if distributed for completion at the respondents’ leisure expect poor results because there are too many opportunities for misunderstanding when questions about the standards cannot be answered quickly or interpreted by the administrator. Questionnaires administered in a controlled environment, where participants can be oriented and their questions answered, are always best.
Physical audit with questionnaire — The combination of a physical audit and a questionnaire provides the most complete coverage. The techniques work together. The questionnaire, for example, provides confirmation of physical audit findings. This technique is helpful if it combines the objectivity of the outsider in the physical audit with insight of mine personnel using the questionnaire. The questionnaire is useful in educating personnel to gain their early potential commitment to improvement. As the insiders, their help is needed. Without it, little will happen. This combined technique is the best way of preparing for the improvement effort that must follow. For purposes of initiating the journey to world-class maintenance as quickly as possible, an evaluation using a questionnaire is recommended. While the plant may choose any method of conducting an evaluation, some methods may require funding, as in the use of consultants. If this procedure is chosen, there may be considerable delay in requesting and obtaining funds to pay for the consulting evaluation.
A physical evaluation could be helpful but the objectivity of personnel from the mine conducting a physical evaluation may be questionable until such time as the evaluation has proven its worth. Therefore, the use of a questionnaire would permit the organization to get through the initial evaluation process as quickly as possible and launch the journey toward world-class maintenance without further delay. However, it is important that if standards are considered, a sufficient cross-section of personnel from the mine must be involved. Participants should include not only those key personnel who are in maintenance but also personnel from operations, all staff departments and mine management. When all of the results are brought together there will be a reasonably accurate picture of improvement needs and their priorities. But more importantly, exposure to the self-evaluation process will cause the participants to realize that they are not perfect in their performance and as they rate themselves against the standards they will also be making a preliminary commitment to do something about it.
Conducting the Evaluation
Identify participants — Every department and management should participate in the evaluation because all impact the success of maintenance. The number of personnel from each department will vary with maintenance having the largest percentage. The maintenance group should represent a vertical slice of their organization: the superintendent, several foremen, a planner and several craftsmen. Operations would have: the operations manager, several supervisors, the production scheduler and several operators. The mine or plant manager should participate along with the managers of principal departments such as warehousing, purchasing and accounting.
Using standards — Standards establish the best, most effective way that an activity should be carried out. Participants compare their personal knowledge of the organization’s performance against the standards. The standards cover key activities like preventive maintenance, planning or organization.
The accompanying sidebar illustrates the standards that would apply to preventive maintenance.
Rating the standards — Participants would compare maintenance performance against the standards and assign a rating based on their personal knowledge. The rating scheme should be simple and easy to understand. Typical:
1 — Never done or done poorly.
2 — Rarely done or much improvement needed.
3 — Occasionally done but trying to improve.
4 — Done most of the time and continually improving.
5 — Done all of the time, carried out professionally.
X — It is important to me, but “I don’t know.”
0 — Activity not applicable.
The evaluation administrator should illustrate how “X” and “0” are to be used. If the participant does not have personal knowledge use “X.” If the standard has no application to the participant use “0.”
Evaluation results — Once the ratings of all participants are processed and compiled, each individual standard can be studied to determine what improvements are necessary or whether performance is satisfactorily (see Figure 1).
If possible, assemble the whole group and provide an opportunity for participants to ask questions. Smaller groups are workable if all participants are not available. Avoid allowing participants to complete the questionnaire at home at their leisure.
Ideally, evaluation results are presented in a logical order starting with a Summary Report (see Figure 2).
Looking Deeper
Activity 04 in the Summary Report (Maintenance Program) has the lowest rating when compared with the overall score. Learn why by looking at the ratings of all individual standards that make up Activity 04. Standard 15 is typical of rating detail.
Evaluation results identify activities in need of improvement by priority when compared with the overall score. Activity 04–Maintenance Program, for example, is given top improvement priority among all activities. Examination of all ratings for individual standards (actions) that comprise Activity 04 would establish improvement priorities, lowest to highest, when compared against the Activity score (51). These actions become the preliminary improvement plan. Information such as this enables an organization to quickly identify problem activities and specific troubles within the activity so that an improvement plan can be developed, priorities set and improvement actions launched without delay.
Carry out the improvement plan by establishing an advisory group; using the preliminary improvement plan as a guide, solicit explanations and constructive comments to help interpret evaluation results possibly explaining underlying problems or modifying some priorities. Launch the improvement plan by setting periodic milestones and repeat evaluations focused on specific actions within activities like the maintenance program.
In summary, greater assurance of profitability is the sum total of all world-class maintenance goals — but the continuing application of evaluations is the best guarantee that the hard-earned benefits of world-class achievement can be sustained.
Paul D. Tomlingson (pdtmtc@msn.com) is a Denver-based maintenance management consultant. These articles are based on his book: “Maintenance in Transition – The Journey to World-class Maintenance.” This 396-page book, comprising 32 chapters and five appendices, is available from the author.
