One of
the reasons many reliability and maintenance improvement initiatives fail to
deliver sustaining results is lack of teamwork between and within departments.
It is still common that operations and maintenance do not work as the team they
should be. The engineering department is sometimes described as “the black hole”
by the maintenance staff. “This is where we send drawings to be updated, and we
never see them again” is not an uncommon comment.
It is a
given that all people in a plant should work for the same goal: to competitively
manufacture a quality product on time. This could be measured in overall
production efficiency or production reliability or prime tons/cost. If this
overall measurement would be applied to all departments and coupled with each
department’s measurement and reward systems, an organization stands a better
chance to work in collaboration toward the same goal. This is, however, not
always the case, so why is it so?
Ask
yourselves what the most important accomplishment is for
a:
·
Project
manager
·
Operations manager
·
Maintenance manager
·
Storeroom
manager
A project
manager is rewarded if a project is done on time and at lowest cost. Lowest cost
does seldom include the future total cost of ownership. Therefore, you might end
up with substandard equipment, no documentation or relevant training in
operating and maintaining equipment, etc. This will result in higher operations
and maintenance costs. But that is not the project manager’s
problem!
An
operations manager is rewarded if quality production throughput is improved
(improved reliability) and if operations costs are down. Maintenance costs are
not always the responsibility of the operations manager.
A
maintenance manager is rewarded if maintenance costs are going down. Of course,
everybody knows that the right thing to say is “it is more important to keep
equipment running.” But many maintenance managers will agree that they might be
in more trouble if they overspend the maintenance budget than if the equipment
reliability suffered.
A
storeroom manager is rewarded if he/she manages to lower inventory value. This
often leads to that the value of what is kept in store is going down, but
because people start keeping their own stores in areas, the total cost for spare
parts and material is going up. This is hidden in maintenance costs. Waste in
the form of downtime and waiting time for maintenance people because of missing
spare parts and material is also hidden in other
departments.
The above
examples are common and these reward systems do not impel true and necessary
collaboration between departments.
If an
organization is serious about a closer integration between departments, the
rewards systems must be designed to drive everybody’s actions and performance
toward the same goal and rewards.
I like to
offer some examples:
Results
measurements
All
results are outcomes of actions.
Action
measurements
Many more
examples can be given. As can be seen above, traditional maintenance
measurements are suggested being joint measurements. The causes of paper breaks,
high vibration levels, short component lives, poor shutdown performance, etc.,
are very seldom only maintenance- or operations-related. These indicators
should, therefore, be a measurement on how well these departments work together,
and be used as tools to encourage collaboration between
departments.
|
Torbjörn (Tor) Idhammar is partner and vice president of reliability and
maintenance management consultants for IDCON Inc. His primary responsibilities
include training and implementation support for preventive maintenance/essential
care and condition monitoring, planning and scheduling, spare parts management,
and root cause problem elimination. He is the author of “Condition Monitoring
Standards” (volumes 1 through 3). He earned a BS in industrial engineering from
North Carolina State University and an MS in mechanical engineering from Lund
University (Sweden). Contact Tor at 800-849-2041 or e-mail info@idcon.com. |