Have you ever heard the expression “Life’s how it is, not how it ought to be?”
An enterprise that wants to implement a standard reliability strategy across multiple sites must confront the implication of this statement.
Most mining enterprises do not have cookie-cutter plants or facilities. The locations will vary in age of equipment and workers. The quality of regional raw materials may be different. Plants near metropolitan centers may have high turnover while those in small towns may be staffed with “lifers.” Cultures can be different. Some plants are union free and historically have had good relations between hourly and management. Others have histories filled with mistrust and arbitrary rule enforcement.
Non-standard plant circumstances force the enterprise to find the right balance between centralization and decentralization. When do you standardize in the name of the enterprise and when must decision-making be left to local management?
Before some of these balances can be discovered, an enterprise must face the truth of “how it is.” Confronting the brutal facts of reality can be more difficult than it sounds.
If a company has spent millions of dollars on a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS), it may not be pleasant to find out that most of the collected data is jumbled. If hundreds of thousands of dollars has been spent on vibration equipment & training, it may be painful to learn that the well-intentioned but part-time vibration specialist did not develop sophisticated time waveform analysis capabilities. If a loyal, friendly, experienced worker has been functioning as a planner for years, it’s hard to confront the fact his actual contribution is clerical in nature – and clerical contributions do not yield the productivity gains of planners who actually plan.
So – how does an enterprise face these brutal facts?
(1) Differentiate process from people. Remember that workers – especially long-time employees – are usually well intentioned. Organizations must consciously create work processes that focus on productivity & proactivity; these things do not naturally emerge without guidance and direction. A planner who focuses on non-productive behaviors is not necessarily a bad employee. The proper routines, tasks, and rules may not have been properly defined for him. When you view your organization through a process lens rather than a people lens, it is easier communicate without your employees feeling defensive or attacked.
(2) Hire a consulting firm. The reality is – the objective, third party gaze can often see things more clearly. Consultants aren’t smarter. They aren’t more knowledgeable about the operation of the plant. But if they are experienced, they are able to quickly zoom in on things that are indicative of a healthy reliability system. (Can the plant easily print a sorted list of Ready to Schedule work? Are the Preventive Maintenance tasks specifically defined?) As outsiders, consultants also have the luxury of remaining emotionally detached from existing relationship & histories between people & departments. This clinical disposition means they won’t be as easily swayed by charisma, earnestness, anger, or old wounds that won’t heal. Good consultants know they cannot add value to an enterprise if they are simply telling their clients what they may want to hear – or if they are ignoring the white elephant in the room. They know that a reliability initiative has to be built on a foundation of transparency and a clear assessment of current conditions.
(3) Establish norms around honest and respectful communication. Respect is important, as snippy exhortations about “ugly babies” and “garbage-in, garbage-out” data will get old real fast if the feedback has a tattle-tale quality. Stick to observations, not judgments about personalities. Accumulate multiple observations before drawing firm conclusions. Don’t just ask about problems that have occurred – ask about the frequency of those problems. Are parts/materials really never available when jobs are assigned, or did this only happen one time, three years ago? And never, ever retaliate against someone after you have given them permission to speak freely. If you do, you will never hear another honest observation again.
Reliability is a data driven field. It is a science. It has objective metrics. Although it may fail in the short-term (a vibration test may fail to identify a loose bolt) – over time, consistent application of reliability concepts produce huge dollar savings. Sycophantic relationships will destroy reliability. Transparent, data-driven decision making must be the norm; otherwise, reliability is just a meaningless label to smack onto old habits. But before an enterprise can begin its reliability journey, it must have an honest assessment of where it is at.
What are other ways an organization can get a good assessment of its current reliability situation?