Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

About Andrej

  • Rank

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

14 profile views
  1. Jim, thank you. You put it very nicely - lots of maintenance / engineering professionals (including myself) have invested a lot of effort into technical scope of projects. For me, it took many years to recognise the technical aspects are not sufficient for success, when a change in a day-to-day practice is required. Consequently, I started searching for what had actualy been missing. It was definitely a human side of the change and, quite often, inadequete sponsorship. Then I started to look into different CM methodologies. Finally, Prosci's approach resonated very well with me - in their PCT Model they emphasise the importance of Leadership/Sponsorship, Project Management and Change Management for a project to meet its objectives and ROI. There's a good explanation at: https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/project-change-triangle-overview And I absolutely agree with you on the need for focusing on understanding why we do what we do and how to use this information to make a positive change. This is but a prerequisite to address the Awareness and Desire, the first two phass of individual change within the ADKAR model: https://www.prosci.com/adkar/adkar-model. I am not advocating the use of Prosci methodology as the only plausible one, I'd simply like to draw the attention of maintenance managers on CM when improving / optimizing maintenance processes and organisation, or introducing any other changes. Whatever the methodology they opt to use, it can significantly improve the chances of success. Finally, as there are surely many other important aspects - several of them mentioned within this topic - I will personally never again leave CM out of the equation :). Best regards, Andrej
  2. Jim, you raised some execellent points. And it is also my experience that many executives talk about having many good maintenance practices in place, while reality may show a very different picture. Some of your points are in line with what I would consider focusing on the basics, and many of them may well fit into my understanding of a proper Change Management process. I trully believe the latter is essential for introducing the improvements into the day-to-day maintenance practices. WIthout changing the way maintenance personnel do their job, the outcomes of any improvement projects will be hard to realize. Best, Andrej
  3. Hi Raul, Thank you for your feedback. While I agree with your observation that poor training and knowledge management contribute to the inadequate WO information, let me suggest some more potential reasons: We should all understand that it is generally not realistic to expect from maintenance techs to start filling in all necessary information into the WO when the system is initially put in place. This is human. For that purpose, the change (and resistance!) have to be managed properly - which is not the case very often. If MOC was not utilized when implementing a WO system and the whole process has never been fully implemented, the change in the way maintenance crews do their jobs never gets entirely in place. Hence, not all necessary functionalities of the WO are used as initially planned. The WO process and associated roles may not be defined well enough and people are not completely aware of the stardards they should comply with. The approval points of either supervisors or maintenance managers within the WO workflow are either not in place or are not executed properly. Those approvals should assure that all the necessary information has been put into the WO prior to execution and after it. If not, the supervisor/manager should return the WO for update. This approach normally gives good results and with the time helps setting the standards. If the links to or data from the warehose are not established properly within CMMS, it is not realistic to expect that the spares will be planed and recorded appropriately.
  4. I agree with all what UptimeJim has said and would like to add a few more thoughts: I. FOCUS ON THE BASICS & STAGE It is crucial to start with the basics and focus on Wildly Important Goals (see e.g. https://www.franklincovey.com/Solutions/Execution/4-disciplines.html). You may want to use some assessment tools to help you prioritize the steps. Terry Wireman puts it very nicely in several of his books that the Preventive Maintenance Program should be a fundament, enabling all other methodologies to be built upon. Wireman’s maintenance management pyramid is also useful for that purpose. The staging of the maintenance processes improvements needs to be realistic and well managed. Some suggested steps to start with: · Develop a PM program, or refine the existing one using a simplified risk matrix, “bad actor” Pareto analysis etc. · When the PM tasks are updated, cleaned up and put into the CMMS work on planning and scheduling. · Strongly focus on concise Work Ordering Process. There are at least three good reasons for that: firstly, a WO should define and enable control of LOTOTO and HSE requirements, and, secondly, a WO is a key information vehicle in maintenance. Without a good history, it is hard to make any analyses, KPI calculation and tracking etc. In many cases, WO can provide useful inputs for RCAs. Thirdly, only a solid WO process enables the right prioritization and gatekeeping which also affect reliability. · As RCA/defect elimination comes to play, together with all the lessons learned from the WO execution, the feedback loop/continual improvement goes back to the PM program and so on. In many cases it is advisable that improving housekeeping practices in parallel with the above gives an additional signal that the change is real and can be one of the quick wins. The fact of the matter is that the plants with poor maintenance very often show poor housekeeping practices. II. PREPARE A BUSINESS CASE Without a solid Business Case or at least a good Cost-Benefit Analysis “showing the money” to the Board, maintenance remains perceived as a pure cost generator – instead of becoming a value adder in an organization. And it is hard to expect proper sponsoring of top-level executives if they do not recognize the economic outcomes. Some good and useful concepts can be found in a book Value Driven Maintenance: https://www.mainnovation.com/vdm-xl/. III. MANAGE CHANGE Way too many maintenance managers have never had a chance to receive training in Change Management. True, they are not expected to be solely responsible for CM in this kind of projects. But without their understanding of the need for CM, of its principles and without factoring them into the implementation of new methodologies of maintenance management, the chances for success are very slim. Many improvement projects in maintenance requiring changes in the way people do the work do not get fully implemented and/or are not delivering the expected outcomes. A common denominator for most of them seems to be the lack of CM. Lots of useful CM resources and training can be found at https://www.prosci.com/
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and use of We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..