Maximo Reporting

When built into management processes, performance metrics become a system which will generate organizational behaviors that comply with what is measured, i.e., “you are what you measure.” Hence, this will encourage behaviors which help present a good score for the individual or for the department.

This may or may not, however, help to achieve strategic goals. Therefore, when building performance metrics, we must begin with the end result in mind. We need to focus on what we want as outcomes of our work processes. This presents a dilemma, as we do not work as a set of isolated departments, but in collaboration with others. Processes that begin with an individual are continued or completed by others. So, how do we effectively measure outcomes when a single individual or group is not controlling all the key steps?

Several basic frameworks have been proposed to build intelligent metrics that help form sets of composite measures to simplify this problem. For example, the SMART (see accompanying section “Building and Testing Performance Indicators”) test is frequently used to provide a quick reference to determine the quality of a particular performance metric. But these do not, however, address how the measures will interact to stimulate an effective network of key processes. How can individuals see what the effects of their improvements are, if these get lost in the noise of company management reports?

One problem is that business processes are segmented, and many departments are collecting silos of information that produce metrics used only for the sake of measurement. These silos then reinforce divergent opinions of company performance and limit a common understanding of what new behaviors are needed. So, a major factor in implementing performance measurement is changing the way performance is measured and reported and how people view success within their own processes.

For many organizations, this is “where the rubber hits the road:” How can we build realistic, practical metrics which drive change? How can we articulate company objectives through enterprise-wide metrics in an integrated measurement system?

Picture this. Personnel from a plant are driving along a road in an automobile. The maintenance manager is driving blindfolded. Sitting beside the maintenance manager is the mill manager who is peering in the rear view mirror. In the back seat, the production manager is urging the maintenance manager to proceed at top speed while simultaneously warning him about a flat tire.

This situation is obviously out of control. In a plant setting, it is equally out of control. Plant management frequently focuses on past data analysis rather than future improvements. Maintenance is often “blindfolded” due to tight short-term cost control measures instead of long-term results. Meanwhile, the operations group is becoming desperate and therefore dictates what maintenance should do.

The behavior described has many names—the circle of despair, unplanned maintenance, or reactive maintenance. Whatever name you prefer, you must understand the point from a maintenance perspective. Maintenance work needs management through good maintenance planning and scheduling. How does one start such an improvement? From the thousands of possible ways to start, this post will discuss a starting point: “Maintenance and Operations 101.”

One key element of an operations and maintenance partnership is well-organized daily or weekly planning and scheduling meetings. Although you may already have these meetings, are they as productive as they could be? The purpose of such meetings is finalizing a schedule and possibly finalizing minor planning. The meeting objectives or agenda are the following:
• Review work from yesterday
• Update work for today
• Finalize work for tomorrow
• Finalize schedule for following week by 2 PM on Friday
• Track planning and scheduling of key metrics
• Schedule 100% of work force including contractors
• Resolve new work requests.

The meeting should be attended by the area or department operations representatives, maintenance supervisors, and planners. The operations liaison must have sufficient clout to set a schedule without overriding by others after the meeting. Maintenance should represent both mechanical and E/I maintenance.
The meeting should occur mid-day and last no longer than 20 minutes. Keeping the meeting to this limit with effective results requires the following:
• Having a priority chart: Planning for work in the backlog before the meeting
• Knowing the availability of people
• Realizing that all meeting agreements are final—any change is break-in work.

Tracking the performance of these meetings is critical. Upper management must drive—not simply support—the planning and scheduling meetings. A simple scorecard (available at the web site noted above) will help. The scorecard tracks the following:
• Did all the proper people attend?
• Did attendees do their preparatory work?
• What is the level of unapproved work orders in the backlog?
• Was the first cut of the schedule for the following week posted on time?

In addition to the meeting indicators, the group should track the classic planning and scheduling indicators such as scheduling compliance, planning compliance, paper machine compliance, etc.