Well Cork didn’t get the fundamentals right in the first of the Munster Senior Hurling Final. Did better in the second half and it was exciting stuff. Can’t see either of the two teams troubling the Cats though.

I’m reminded of fundamentals because of the amount of times that I see managers chasing the newest shiny thing (Lean is still new and shiny to many) and forgetting about the fundamentals.

So, if you know what work you do, to what equipment, for how long and what spares you use – those are basic building blocks. If you then analyse that information and use it for continuous improvement – that’s good practice and it’s fundamental. No point haring off unless you (and your people!) are doing that as a sustained behaviour. (This is what we are doing in the ESS Ltd. CMI service).

C’mon the Rebels this coming Sat – get the fundamentals right!!

And no, there won’t be a vuvuzela in sight .

World Cup in full swing at the moment, the vuvuzelas are deafening and the millionaire players throw themselve to the ground in total agony as soon as they are tackled. Am I the only one who is thinking “get up you dope, you were barely touched?”  (As a Corkman, the match I’m looking forward to is the Munster Hurling Final in Thurles on July 11th. ) Skill, speed, strength, scores, excitement. 

The behaviours of these players on the pitch (and indeed off the pitch too – look at the French) reminded me  of something I read by D. Army.  He was talking about KPI’s  and said that  ” We have discovered that it is not enough to just manage the numbers.  What is of the most value is that along with developing the process is to develop a list of behaviors we want the organization to exhibit.  Then develop behavioral metrics that are aligned with the desired behaviors. ”

He’s certainly singing our tune (or playing our vuvuzela) when he says that it is extremely important that prior to commencing any installation or implementation activities that the new desired behaviors are identified.  Here are a few:

• People attend planning meetings and are prepared to make decisions
• A craftsperson knows what he or she will be working on during the next week or day
• A craftsperson is confident that he or she will be allowed to perform that identified work
• An operator knows what equipment will be taken out of service tomorrow
• A planner understands the importance of clear and concise work instructions
• Work is not permitted to begin until the parts are available
• Feedback is provided on Preventive Maintenance activities

In the ESS Ltd. CMI service, we have an implementation plan which puts in place the business processes and we carry out the training required. That’s the easiest bit. What we do after the implementation is put all our time and effort into changing behaviours because without these , starting at the very highest levels of the organization, firmly in place, it all just slips back to the way it was.  Ref: D.Army,Strategic Asset Management.

Who was it that said “it’s the economy, stupid”? (Was it President Clinton?)

In maintenance, it has always been,” it’s the budget” and as a service provider, we have certainly had some very “challenging” requests (well,demands really) from some in our customer base due to “the budget”.

Would it be fair to say that for maintenance managers, a commonly used approach is to budget for 12 months and then re-forecast at shorter intervals of 1 month? S. Carlile of Assetitvy Pty Ltd. says that what we need to improve is how we perform the re-forecasting. Then how we manage the subsequent spending during that forecast period.

When gathering the information for the new forecast we must include information from the following sources:

• The original Budget
• The planned work in the CMMS
• Rectification/breakdown work and opportunities in the CMMS
• Expected parts deliveries in the purchasing system and any outstanding commitments not received in the previous period
• Information on possible work from production and maintenance supervisors, planners, Engineering and others

Stuart reckons that we have to monitor expenditure and compliance to plan on a regular basis (no disagreements there). He says “ At Best Practice level this would be on a daily basis but at a minimum should be performed on at least a weekly basis.”

Anyone out there who is reviewing their maintenance budget on a DAILY basis. ie.  Key stake holders (not just you on your own looking at figures on a screen) need to meet early, in the morning for a daily process or the beginning of the week for weekly reviews?

Ledet who is ex Dupont, says that in the ” Du Pont benchmark study, the most reliable performance in the world was Total Productive Maintenance. It was also the least expensive to achieve and sustain. ”

Then he goes on to say that “  The conventional wisdom is that maintenance best practices are planning, scheduling, preventative maintenance, optimized procurement, and predictive maintenance. ”

I’d say that some form of continuous improvement process has to be a given too. Otherwise, the best that we can hope for is that the performance will stay the same – and who would be happy with that?

Sometimes known as “mature recollections”.

A Canadian firm called Western Management Consultants have put together the Ten Pitfalls to Avoid When
Selecting a CMMS/EAM

In Mistake no. 2 they comment…………”

Look for a vendor partner whose resources best fit your specific needs, now and over the long run. Some of the supporting services that vendors offer are as follows:
• assessment of organizational readiness and gap analysis to understand what changes will be necessary for a successful implementation, (That is the ESS Ltd. Maintenance Evaluation) • process design expertise to map your software configuration to optimized business processes, (That is part of the ESS Ltd. CMI service.) • guidance about industry best practices, (Done as part of the evaluation initially and then as part of CMI) •assistance in setting up key performance indicators (KPIs) to ensure users are focused on the right things, and (Done as part of implementation of CMI) • facilitation of data analysis and decision-making to ensure expected savings and benefits are achieved. (This is the whole key to CMI)

Your relationship with the CMMS/EAM vendor should not end once the system has been implemented.

The vendor can be extremely helpful in establishing a framework for continuous improvement by assisting with performance assessment and benchmarking, as well as fine-tuning asset management processes and the underlying CMMS/ EAM system. I.e. the ESS Ltd. CMI Service.

Or Mistake No. 9…………
When purchasing a CMMS/EAM system, do not make the mistake of assuming the most economical approach is to buy the software outright and run it on your own premises. One of the latest alternatives that might be more cost-effective and/or preferable from a cash-flow perspective is called “SaaS” or “Software as a Service.” Although there are many variations on the theme, (The ESS Ltd. CMI service is a variation on the theme) SaaS provides you with the flexibility to pay a monthly subscription rate, per named user, that covers hosting, training, consulting and other start-up costs.

Last one: Mistake No. 10
When would you consider the CMMS/EAM system successfully implemented? Most companies would argue that the system is implemented after a successful go-live, when it is up and running with minimal interruptions, and the system has stabilized. However, this is flawed in that the basis for selecting and implementing a CMMS/EAM system was presumably to realize benefits, not simply install a system.

That is the reason for the existence of the award winning ESS Ltd. CMI service – to realise benefits.

It’s an old saying and it’s a good one. state, “What gets measured gets done, but you need the right measures to get the right things done.” Steven J Thomas says that that this raises an important question: What are the right measures?

He says that what should be measured is different for every company. Select and use measures to influence behavior. For example, measuring profitability will positively influence behavior he says. Really? I know of a firm that measured and displayed profitability and it lead to completely negative behaviour.

This was because the employees deemed the shareholders greedy and demanded a greater share of the profits.  So, I’d agree with Thomas on his next statement – It is important to identify what you want to change in the work process, then carefully put measures into place that will affect the selected behavior in the right direction. The key word in this last statement is carefully. You can easily introduce problems if you use the wrong measures!!

Machiavelli was dead on correct wasn’t he? – “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies, all of those who have done well under the old conditions, and luke-warm defenders in those who will do well under the new.”

He clearly understood the difficulties associated with change when he made this statement in “The Prince” almost 500 years ago. I’d say there is general agreement that change is probably the most difficult thing for us to accomplish as part of our jobs.  

Steven J Thomas outlines that there are Three Characteristics of a Successful Change Initiative saying if any one of these elements are missing from the equation, problems will occur. These are:

 1. Dissatisfaction with the current state of things
 2.  A vision of the future
•   3.  A set of next steps showing how to get where you want to go

Dissatisfaction with the Current State

Easy to get people to recognize their dissatisfaction and want to make the necessary change for the better when the wolf is at the door!  

Not so easy for companies that are  marginally profitable or even successful .  Example:

We worked with a plant that was not operating at full capacity.  When there was a breakdown, they just changed over to another line. Also the maintenance people were focussed on making rapid repairs to restore the equipment to service.  We all knew that a process needed to be put into place that addressed equipment failure before it happens – a preventive and predictive maintenance effort as part of an overall maintenance strategy. However this is a major change and will make those who are the great “rapid repairers” very uncomfortable. The praise that they got from Production for quick repair and return to service will no longer exist because in the new order of things, you can’t let that equipment fail!

 Thomas says that the problem is how to create dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs so that people will want to move to the new state of equipment reliability.  He says there are eight key elements to successfully making this transition. They are:

• Leadership – management at all levels leading the change.
• Work Process – a work process in place that supports the new way of working.
• Structure – an organizational structure that supports the new process.
• Group Learning – processes in place that allow the organization to make changes, evaluate the results, learn from what they accomplished.
• Technology – computer support tools to make the process easier.
• Communication – continuously explaining why the change is needed and where the organization stands in the effort.
• Interrelationships – high quality collaborative efforts between people and work groups.
• Rewards – positive reinforcement for making the change.

These elements are key, but there is one overriding component that needs to be addressed in more detail. This is the vision of what the change will look like.

This is the clear picture of the future that will inspire those who have done well under the old conditions and energize those who are luke-warm to the new.

Anybody want to come back with how they drew this “clear picture” in their change management?

Portions of this blog were extracted from “Successfully Managing Change in Organizations: A Users Guide” by Stephen J Thomas.

One of the clients we are working with had a visit from the HSA. They asked for a list of all the “Safety Critical Components”, how they were identified and what maintenance was carried out on them. By components, they mean everything including Estops, interlocks, Pressure Relief Valves – you name it.

Senior HSA inspector, John Colreavy is quoted as follows in a recent article in Health and Safety Review;

Reflecting on the causes of maintenance accidents, John Colreavy first speaks about accidents that happen when equipment is being maintained. He highlights the importance of machine guarding, relating it to “the whole procedure for handing machinery over for maintenance and then taking it back into use”. He mentions the need for permit to work systems and isolation procedures and the possible need to have lock-out systems. He says problems can arise when equipment is being handed back. Often, he says, there is a “failure to replace guards after maintenance”. That can, he adds, be a matter of supervision.

Another issue, one which has been identified from the reports the Authority receives from plant inspectors in respect of steam boilers and air receivers is, Colreavy says, the issue of corrosion. Often inspection reports show “corrosion due to failure, in the case of steam boilers, to properly treat water and failure to drain water from the bottom of air receivers”. Such failures are both a safety issue and can lead to “expensive repair” bills.

Stressing the importance of record keeping, Colreavy says records can be used as “a feedback mechanism”. He adds that “if something keeps on breaking down, it may be symptomatic of a greater problem”.

Below is what happened to one employer who didn’t keep records:
No records
An employer who had not kept maintenance records was unsuccessful in defending a personal injuries claim brought by an employee. The court heard that the worker suffered a thumb injury when a nail from a nail gun became embedded in his thumb. One of the issues in the case was whether maintenance records were kept. The employer claimed the gun was maintained, but had not kept records. Saying that on the evidence it was a difficult case to decide, Judge Alice Doyle noted that no records had been produced in court. She awarded the injured worker €8,000 damages. (For detailed report see HSR, January/February 2009, pg18)

Highlighting their legal obligations, John Colreavy mentions a number of practical actions employers should take:

• Guards should be replaced
• Access to manuals for machines should be available and manufacturers’ guidelines should be followed
• If modifications are being carried out, they should be risk assessed and care should be taken to ensure the modifications do not invalidate the manufacturer’s safety assessment
• Employers should have preventative maintenance programmes in place to prevent breakdowns.     

 As a matter of good practice, he suggests keeping a register of items which are “critical to the safety of plant”.

 A particular danger inspectors come across during the course of inspections is where interlocks are over-ridden and defeated. It is a practice he warns against. 

Q: Can you show records for the maintenance work that you do??

We are working with a company at the moment who have done great work in getting all their spares sorted out and are now going to put them all up on their EAM system and link them to the work orders. Yes, the cynics would  say that this should be standard practice for every company, not even good or best practice and they’d be right. It is very positive though that they have put the work in to getting back control.

So, all movements, be they stock items or Direct Purchases or Contractor Items will now be linked to a work order. The engineering managers will now be able to confidently look up the on line stock catalogue and only schedule in work when spares are in stock. Cuts down on loads of hours “checking to see if it is in the store”  by going in there and rooting around and getting frustrated!!

Instruction from Finance – all stock will be entered into the system at a zero value .  That will mean that any cost reports run on spares won’t be of any value. Any other implications of putting in all the stock at zero value first day?

The cost of unreliability includes all costs resulting in any manner from poor reliability.

Came across this two pronged approach to determining what all these costs actually are. (Interesting that the approach includes ”Top Down, Bottom Up” - I first came across this expression in the Business Centred Maintenance Methodology from Tony Kelly at the University of Manchester.

High Level Cost of Unreliability

Trying to understand the total loss of money that results from poor reliability. We want to assess the cost as senior managers, accountants, or investors would. They are not particularly interested in what is causing the loss of revenue. They are only interested the bottom line.

The first category of Costs of Unreliability is direct costs, which are those factors that have a direct cause-and-effect relationship with a reliability event.

These costs include:

• The value of lost production – or the income that could have been made if production had not been interrupted.

• The cost of maintenance needed to perform repairs and restore operation.

The second category of Costs of Unreliability is indirect costs.

These costs frequently have no direct cause-and -effect relationship, but are the result of poor reliability nonetheless.

These costs include:

• The cost of being a reactive organization – or the cost of having to be prepared to respond to failures. An organization that performs a great deal of reactive maintenance needs to be larger than a proactive organization. It needs people both to keep things running and to respond to failures. It needs a larger staff to manage all the problems.  Managing problems keeps senior managers from focusing on future improvement and keeps them focused on the past.

• The costs of sloppiness – sloppiness is impossible to confine to one thing. It is impossible to confine a management philosophy that condones poor reliability to reliability only.

Poor reliability tends to infect other areas like quality, safety, and environmental performance. In assessing the Cost of Unreliability, it is important to include the impact poor reliability has on those areas.

• The cost of lost business – or the impact on your business from missing deliveries or making poor products while affected by poor reliability. Companies that accept poor reliability have two choices. First, their production and quality can suffer from poor reliability. If they want to prevent their poor reliability from affecting delivery schedule and quality, they have to have sufficient manufacturing capacity to both accommodate the losses and meet customer demands.

Second, they can have an inefficient operation that ultimately affects product costs. In either case, the customer will ultimately be unhappy and look for another supplier.

Detailed Cost of Unreliability

In assessing the Cost of Unreliability from a bottom-up or inside-out perspective, we will be trying to identify each and every issue that results in poor reliability and to quantify the relative value of that specific problem. Although the accountants and investors are not interested in this level of detail, this information is needed to build a plan of attack for corrective action. It is important to understand specifically what weakness is resulting in poor reliability and how large an impact is being produced. To be effective in making changes, we need to know what to attack and in which order we should attack each problem.

This article was excerpted from Reliability Assessment: A Guide To Aligning Expectations, Practices, and Performance by Daniel T. Daley (Courtesy Industrial Press