Apologies, Eugene, my intention was not in line with your interpretation. I appreciate your perspective. In my experience, when attempting to introduce best practices from one location to another (even as a pilot), the initial reaction from people was often similar to what you mentioned.
I agree with Svanels about the importance of Program Monitoring in my industry, as it is a crucial task due to the regulations that affect us. As the supervisor of the Maintenance Planning group in my organization, it falls under my responsibilities. I rely on the support of the Planners who provide reports from the CMMS. This division of tasks can be visualized as a time continuum: Planners focus on the future, scheduling jobs for the upcoming weeks, months, or shutdown periods. Maintenance Supervisors and Team Leaders, on the other hand, concentrate on the present, overseeing the implementation of the planned jobs for the day or week and responding to any emergencies. As a Maintenance Systems Engineer, I have to juggle all these responsibilities, supervising the Planners for future planning, ensuring compliance with the PM Schedule, reviewing past performance, and alerting Supervisors about outstanding PM orders. Additionally, I have change control duties related to the PM Program.
quote: Josh mentioned that when trying to introduce best practices from one location to another, there was pushback from individuals who were hesitant to try something new. It can be frustrating when people dismiss an idea without giving it a chance, especially when previous tests have shown positive results for their organization.
Eugene, you are facing a common situation that I encounter frequently. It is essential to organize regular meetings with Maintenance Engineering and Operation Supervisors. This involves preparing and submitting progress reports and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), as well as supporting the development of maintenance programs and task lists. Additionally, suggesting changes to Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) programming is crucial.
Coordinating routine meetings with Maintenance and Operations is a key responsibility of the Scheduler. Furthermore, preparing and submitting progress reports and KPIs, supporting the development of maintenance programs, and suggesting changes to CMMS fall under the purview of the Reliability Engineer. The planner typically works within the Maintenance department and should have prior experience as a crafts person. On the other hand, the scheduler usually works within operations and acts as a liaison between maintenance and operations, often coming from an operator background.
To ensure efficiency and clarity in your processes, it is important to clearly define responsibilities by position rather than by name. Establish who is Responsible, Accountable, provides Support, and provides Information within your procedures to streamline operations.
In analyzing the organization's structure, it becomes evident that a holistic view is necessary before evaluating the allocation of duties. For instance, while my organization lacks dedicated Schedulers in the hierarchy, the Maintenance Planners could potentially take on this role as well. Alternatively, redistributing clients among planners and reducing their number could also be considered. On the other hand, Svanels addressed a similar issue by having a resource similar to a Maintenance Supervisor handle planning tasks. Furthermore, in the absence of a dedicated Reliability Engineer, tasks attributed to this role could potentially be divided between myself as the Maintenance Systems Engineer and the Planners in a 70/30 split.
Eugene, the issue appears to stem from a lack of organization within your company. While this is common, having separate functions can lead to inefficiencies. Clarifying job roles and responsibilities can greatly improve productivity and overall efficiency within the organization.
No offense, but I always carry two backpacks: one filled with challenges and experiences that still need my attention, and another with success stories and lessons that others can learn from. Life is about finding balance between these two sets of baggage. In a recent post titled "The Business Case for Maintenance Planners" (and a forthcoming article by Jerry), we explored the importance of dedicated Maintenance Planners in organizations, considering factors such as crew size, backlog orders, and other variables. Should Scheduling responsibilities be removed from the Maintenance Planner's role in order to enhance organizational efficiency? How can we justify creating a new position for this purpose? -------------------- Terry raises an important point: should we continue discussing Maintenance Planners, or should we delve into the Business Case for Schedulers? It's essential to define the roles of Maintenance Supervisors (team leaders, etc.) and Schedulers in order to have a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
- 13-09-2024
- Victor Thompson
I am delighted by the ongoing discussion involving the introduction of a new player in the maintenance department: the scheduler. No offense meant, but I feel the need to address my unique situation with a relatively small maintenance department consisting of four sections: the Maintenance Control Center (referred to as the planners group) and the Maintenance Responsibility Centers (MRCs, also known as maintenance execution). The planners group efficiently oversees and manages future work by handling Preventive Maintenance, releasing PM and PdM work orders, and taking charge of the CMMS and KPIs, just as Eugene elucidated. On the other hand, maintenance execution receives PM work orders from Planning and non-PM tasks from various internal clients such as operations, Stores, and other sections with registered assets in need of maintenance. Complex tasks like turnarounds and temporary outages, which require outage execution, are meticulously prepared by the planning group in collaboration with clients, with operations being the biggest client (an oil refinery). Meetings involving Maintenance Planning and MRC supervisors are regularly held with Operations to discuss upcoming events and current bottlenecks. Planning dutifully notifies Operations about forthcoming PM jobs, and upon acknowledgment, the work order is promptly dispatched to execution (MRC). The MRC team must then negotiate a suitable timeframe and agree on the exact hours with Operations, ensuring all necessary precautions such as permits, hot work, and confined space are in place in the 24/7 running plant. In case of delays in receiving PM work orders or no change in status within a specific period, Planning steps in to take necessary action. A significant challenge I face is the multitude of functions within maintenance that need to be introduced, without compromising the availability of essential roles such as welders, mechanics, millwrights, and Electrical/Instrumentation technicians who juggle ammeters and pipewrenches with expertise.
Consider this: Materials, Planning, and Scheduling are crucial elements that support maintenance operations, which, in turn, support overall productivity. Materials play a key role in notifying planners of necessary parts and assembling kits for jobs. Planners, typically consisting of mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation specialists, are responsible for job closure and ensuring accurate data in the CMMS system. They also monitor KPIs and provide operational support. The primary accountable individual should be the Reliability/Maintenance engineer. Schedulers focus on operational aspects, determining shutdown times to allow for maintenance work and ensuring equipment safety. Mechanics, electricians, and instrument technicians are responsible for the physical work and providing feedback to planners. These key functions in maintenance operations are essential to any organization's success. The challenge often lies in having the right people in the right roles within the organization.
Questions to consider: What type of maintenance is most prevalent within the Organization: area maintenance or centralized maintenance? Additionally, how much authority does the scheduler hold? Are they empowered to initiate equipment shutdowns for maintenance purposes or reduce production throughput? Are they actively involved in the manufacturing process and ensuring equipment safety during maintenance operations?
In our organization, the scheduler serves as the operations supervisor during off-hours, holding the highest plant authority, with a primary focus on production. The responsibility for equipment safety falls under the reliability/maintenance engineer. In the event of equipment failure and production halts, the blame falls on maintenance and operations, overlooking the role of reliability/maintenance engineers.
During plant downtimes, the pressure falls on operations and maintenance teams to quickly restore operations, with support from various departments such as stores, procurement, process engineers, and safety personnel.
When it comes to organizing your team, the RASI chart plays a crucial role in assigning Responsibility, Accountability, Support, and Information to each position. The scheduler acts as the bridge between operations and maintenance, ensuring equipment safety before maintenance work begins. It's essential for the scheduler to have the authority to adjust production levels if necessary. In most organizations, there is a hierarchy in place, with maintenance technicians reporting to the Reliability/Maintenance engineer, who then reports to the maintenance manager/supervisor. This structure is vital for optimizing reliability, which is essential for achieving high availability, efficiency, and quality. By establishing clear roles and accountability, teams can work together towards the common goal of profitability and long-term success.
- 13-09-2024
- Vanessa Carter
Organizational hierarchy plays a crucial role in maintenance management, as described by Terry Wireman as the maintenance-centric model. In this model, maintenance, operations, and engineering departments are equally important and report to a plant manager. This approach is ideal for efficient maintenance practices.
On the other hand, the engineering-centric model is beneficial for organizations with a surplus of engineers and specialized crafts. A leader like motordoc would thrive in this setting. Conversely, the production-centric, or "underdog" model, is not favorable for maintenance, as it prioritizes operators over maintenance personnel.
In a well-established TPM framework, the maintenance-centric model proves to be the most effective. However, implementing TPM requires a cultural shift, which is often easier for Eastern organizations compared to their Western counterparts. Military organizations may excel in TPM practices, but challenges arise in environments with rigid unions and job hierarchies.
As a maintenance superintendent, I prioritize the maintenance-centric model for optimal operations. While OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) may be a high-level concept, those responsible for data collection are adapting to new tools like vibration analyzers for Lean Maintenance practices. I work closely with the maintenance scheduler, who plays a pivotal role in coordinating maintenance activities with operations.
I understand your point, Svanels. Despite maintenance, operations, and engineering being on the same level, their purposes are still interconnected in terms of functionality. Implementing a cultural shift is crucial for success, as every individual must be onboard for the changes to be effective. The approach I am suggesting combines various philosophies into a unified system, known as Reliability Centric. Utilizing operator care does not necessarily require implementing TPM. By adapting strategies from Ron Moore's book, "Making Common Sense Common Practice," you can tailor them to suit your organization's needs. Incorporating data into your CMMS system enables you to track OEE and other key metrics seamlessly in your daily operations. Analyzing your current processes and envisioning your desired state allows your team to identify areas for improvement. Regardless of the level of education or training, the key is to provide employees with the tools they need to excel, as emphasized by Demmings. Research suggests that maintenance, operations, and sales/marketing/management contribute to a 20% decrease in reliability each. While these figures may vary, they serve as a useful benchmark. I have firsthand experience with a program that resulted in over $40 million in cost savings for a business unit, preventing it from being sold off. In contrast, another unit faced potential sale due to operational inefficiencies and loss resulting from a lack of reliability initiatives. This was exacerbated by conflicting priorities between departments, leading to costly mistakes and negative outcomes. Upon evaluation, it became clear that the root cause was the attitude and behavior of individuals, stemming from their treatment within the organization.
In a corporate setting, there is often disagreement among different divisions on the significance of numbers and Key Performance Indicators (KPI's). While financial departments may prioritize certain metrics, such as Return On Investment (ROI), technical and production teams may favor alternative indicators. For instance, in a maintenance organization, analyzing overtime versus regular work hours can provide valuable insights into workforce efficiency. Adding factors like accident rates and absenteeism allows for a comprehensive assessment of the root causes behind operational challenges. While I acknowledge the importance of focusing on Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM), solely relying on quantitative metrics may overlook the essential "soft skills" required for successful business operations.
In the world of maintenance planning, a crucial aspect is ensuring that jobs are closed out properly and that accurate data is recorded in the CMMS. Typically, there are different types of planners - from mechanical to electrical and instrumentation planners. These individuals play a key role in monitoring KPIs and providing support throughout the job execution process.
However, a common dilemma arises when deciding who should be responsible for the actual closure of a job. Should it be the Planner, whose expertise lies in planning future jobs? Or should it fall on the Maintenance Supervisor, who oversees the execution of the plan and has the necessary resources to see it through to completion?
Ultimately, it is essential for the job to be documented by the technician and reviewed by the supervisor before being officially closed in the CMMS. Some may argue that this data entry task could be handled by a dedicated data entry clerk to optimize efficiency.
In the end, the question remains - who should be tasked with the actual closing of a job? This decision can have implications for the overall organization and resource allocation.
Understanding and fulfilling roles and responsibilities is crucial for business success. As the person in charge, it is my duty to ensure that all bills are paid promptly, even if I am not the one physically handling the task. It ultimately falls on me if things are not done correctly. Take, for example, the role of a Planner who oversees maintenance. Their responsibility is to oversee work orders, ensuring every detail is accurate. Neglecting this duty can have a significant impact on data collection and analysis, affecting key performance indicators (KPIs).
For instance, having a maintenance tool that reports equipment failures may seem invaluable, but its true worth lies in the data collected and analyzed. Similarly, monitoring the number of data points collected by technicians on a vibration route is only valuable if the organization agrees on the significance of this data in terms of KPIs and return on investment (ROI).
In today's business landscape, the focus is shifting towards justifying every maintenance expense. Maintenance personnel are increasingly expected to present business cases for major overhauls or equipment replacements. The role of a maintenance supervisor is not just to oversee tasks but also to be accountable for the team's performance.
Effective maintenance practices are essential for ensuring machine reliability, which in turn impacts factors such as availability, efficiency, and quality. Neglecting proper maintenance practices can have a direct impact on the bottom line. In a changing economic climate where cost-cutting is a priority, it is essential for maintenance teams to demonstrate their value through measurable cost savings and efficiencies. Embracing this shift towards accountability is vital for the sustainability of any business in the face of increasing financial scrutiny.
It's no surprise that finding a skilled planner can be challenging, as true supermen are rare. As Eugene once said, why should the Maintenance Planner waste their time acting as a "secretary" for various maintenance roles and departments, when their primary focus should be on plant health? It seems that individuals like mechanics, electricians, engineers, and accountants are content to let the planner handle everything, despite being handsomely compensated each month. If the beancounters take over, the outcome is predictable - just look at Enron and similar scandals.
The issue of bean counters interfering in operational decisions is unfortunately all too common. It appears that there is a tendency for outsiders to think they know better than those actually doing the work. While planners don't need to possess extraordinary abilities, it is crucial for them to have clearly defined roles and responsibilities within the reliability and maintenance team.
- 13-09-2024
- Yvonne Mitchell
In defining a planner's role and responsibilities at a plant, it is important for all departments to have clarity on decision-making authority. This includes determining which tasks are within the scope of the planning department and which should be escalated to management. Empowering planners with specific authority can enhance operational effectiveness. It is crucial to outline clear guidelines on authorities and responsibilities, as simply having statements in place is not enough to ensure optimal performance. To strike the right balance between authority and responsibility, three key principles must be established: the "fee of decision," the "fee of participation," and the "fee of appeal." Striving for this balance is essential as each attitude - having no rules leading to chaos, excessive regulations limiting planners' autonomy, and granting planners the confidence to make decisions within a well-defined framework of obligations - can impact operational efficiency.