It is truly easy to lose a customer and future business by not meeting expectations. Maybe not the first time, but the second or third time… well, you get the idea. As I have seen this in a number of instances, I will just give a simple, mundane example not related to the industry.
A few weeks ago I went to the KFC near the repair shop and asked for the special they had on their sign related to ‘grilled’ chicken instead of the other deep fried variety. The idea was to get something quick and reasonably healthy (no comments, I know). I was told it would take 45 minutes to make the meal. So I left and went to another place and actually got something better. Same thing today, went in and asked for a grilled chicken meal, was told 25 minutes this time. Managed to convince them that I would take a mix of the grilled chicken that they did have available that did not match their menu. They charged me extra, served up the meal, I returned to my office, opened it and discovered that they gave me all wings and the worst of the deep fried variety. Unfortunately, I did not have time to take it back and get my money back. However, having remembered a similar experience a while ago, I have figured that this is their standard practice. Therefore, no more KFC.
Over-promising and under-delivering is a common issue in business and personal lives. It becomes a true issue when people are given unreal expectations that cannot be met. In the end, regardless of discounting, having to invest more by providing expensive services at no charge, and other unproductive activities, the client will remember only that you did not meet those expectations and not the profit-killers that were added on after.
The real challenge is to set realistic expectations and to not promise what cannot be provided. This can sometimes be a challenge, goodness knows I have run into challenges the past few years.
The key is to ensure that any commitments that are made are reasonable and if they cannot be made that the other party is aware of that fact. While there may be some concerns before and during the commitment, it will be remembered that you met it rather than complaints that you did not deliver. Excuses do not matter, what matters is when you under-commit and over deliver.
Basically: actions count, not words.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Tech Tip High Voltage Testing
Tech Tip: Motor Testing
Caution – High voltage testing existing machines!
I have been tasked with investigating a number of unexpected machine failures in the field. In each case the failures relate to dead grounds on large, form wound machines. When investigating the cause we discovered that the machines were operational until testing. At this point, high potential testing was discovered to have been used on machines that have high levels of contamination.
Were there ways to deal with avoiding the failures? There are some steps that can be taken to avoid failures when performing high voltage testing, but these just reduce the high risk slightly.
For high voltage insulation to ground tests, the first thing to consider is evaluating the insulation system. This can be accomplished by performing a polarization index test in which the polarization curve is observed. Deviations to the PI curve will indicate dry and brittle insulation systems or ground-wall contamination. With these conditions, the risk of failure during a high voltage insulation test is extreme.
The next decision is to then determine: the type of high potential test to perform; how it is performed; and, the value to be applied. In an existing winding, the safest method is the DC high potential test at a value of twice the voltage plus 1000 Volts times 1.7 and then select 60% to 70% of the value. The test should be performed in increments in which it should be expected that the current (leakage currents) will jump and then settle down to a lower value. This value should be noted and trended. If there is a sharp uptick, then it should be considered that the insulation system has ‘failed’ the test. The extreme risk in this test is if the technician applies the full voltage immediately.
Before considering any of these situations, however, you need to ask yourself: “is this test necessary considering the risk?”
Caution – High voltage testing existing machines!
I have been tasked with investigating a number of unexpected machine failures in the field. In each case the failures relate to dead grounds on large, form wound machines. When investigating the cause we discovered that the machines were operational until testing. At this point, high potential testing was discovered to have been used on machines that have high levels of contamination.
Were there ways to deal with avoiding the failures? There are some steps that can be taken to avoid failures when performing high voltage testing, but these just reduce the high risk slightly.
For high voltage insulation to ground tests, the first thing to consider is evaluating the insulation system. This can be accomplished by performing a polarization index test in which the polarization curve is observed. Deviations to the PI curve will indicate dry and brittle insulation systems or ground-wall contamination. With these conditions, the risk of failure during a high voltage insulation test is extreme.
The next decision is to then determine: the type of high potential test to perform; how it is performed; and, the value to be applied. In an existing winding, the safest method is the DC high potential test at a value of twice the voltage plus 1000 Volts times 1.7 and then select 60% to 70% of the value. The test should be performed in increments in which it should be expected that the current (leakage currents) will jump and then settle down to a lower value. This value should be noted and trended. If there is a sharp uptick, then it should be considered that the insulation system has ‘failed’ the test. The extreme risk in this test is if the technician applies the full voltage immediately.
Before considering any of these situations, however, you need to ask yourself: “is this test necessary considering the risk?”
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
MotorDoc Editorial on New Economy Ethics
At first I thought that maybe I was getting older and more relaxed so just was more sensitive to workforce and ethical issues. Then, nope, absolutely identified that issues exist.
We are still a few years off the beginning of the peak of the skilled trade crisis (2014-2016) which is also the time when the Baby Boom Echo (more than 1 million enter the workforce in the USA vs 75 million Baby Boomers) generation starts entering the job market. The result is a challenge finding qualified trades and craftsmen while also convincing a new generation that these are good jobs, no matter what the media, political leaders and schools say. I suppose recent history has raised concerns about the viability of these jobs. However, I would note that once things started turning around, the need for trades outweighed the need for middle management.
One of the most loudly voiced concerns was the need to train new skills. However, a slew of other concerns raised their heads and the transition started. Past generations seemed to have stronger business and personal ethics, not just work ethic, so it seems. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of ethical people in the industry just as there are young people with excellent work ethic. However, in the past few decades I had only a handful of instances where a client employee or someone from the industry approached me with an unethical request or suggestion. I suppose part of it is based upon my reputation as I have observed more ethical issues from a distance than I care to describe. Some disturbed me enough to write about in past newsletters (well, they all disturb me, just some more than others).
However, in the past year I have seen or been approached with more such issues than I have ever seen over the past few decades. In one case it was stated by a prospective customer that if we wanted to succeed like our competitor or the prospective customer’s company (“That is how we do business,” was literally one of the statements) that we would need to lie, cheat, steal and whatever else it took. I found the whole thing distasteful and disturbing, and worse, the person obviously didn’t understand it was an issue because the statement was made to multiple people! So, did the person not realize what they were saying was unethical? Or, is his company culture really like that? Now, how do we deal with that prospect – will doing business with them harm our reputation? Knowing that is how the competitor does business based upon this information (but no actual proof) – how should that be handled? Because ethics are ‘fluid’ is this the way business is being done with the newer generation? Does finding this disturbing make me too much of an idealist? (I tend to like to think people are honest, first).
I do know that once as a consultant I had someone approach me and state that if I wanted to keep my contract, I would have to do something for him personally. My reaction in that case was to report the offender and the company, and his union, acted quickly. In another case, when I reported the issue to management my contract was discontinued (which I had no problem with – no way I was going to work in that environment).
How would you approach this kind of situation?
Sincerely,
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
We are still a few years off the beginning of the peak of the skilled trade crisis (2014-2016) which is also the time when the Baby Boom Echo (more than 1 million enter the workforce in the USA vs 75 million Baby Boomers) generation starts entering the job market. The result is a challenge finding qualified trades and craftsmen while also convincing a new generation that these are good jobs, no matter what the media, political leaders and schools say. I suppose recent history has raised concerns about the viability of these jobs. However, I would note that once things started turning around, the need for trades outweighed the need for middle management.
One of the most loudly voiced concerns was the need to train new skills. However, a slew of other concerns raised their heads and the transition started. Past generations seemed to have stronger business and personal ethics, not just work ethic, so it seems. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of ethical people in the industry just as there are young people with excellent work ethic. However, in the past few decades I had only a handful of instances where a client employee or someone from the industry approached me with an unethical request or suggestion. I suppose part of it is based upon my reputation as I have observed more ethical issues from a distance than I care to describe. Some disturbed me enough to write about in past newsletters (well, they all disturb me, just some more than others).
However, in the past year I have seen or been approached with more such issues than I have ever seen over the past few decades. In one case it was stated by a prospective customer that if we wanted to succeed like our competitor or the prospective customer’s company (“That is how we do business,” was literally one of the statements) that we would need to lie, cheat, steal and whatever else it took. I found the whole thing distasteful and disturbing, and worse, the person obviously didn’t understand it was an issue because the statement was made to multiple people! So, did the person not realize what they were saying was unethical? Or, is his company culture really like that? Now, how do we deal with that prospect – will doing business with them harm our reputation? Knowing that is how the competitor does business based upon this information (but no actual proof) – how should that be handled? Because ethics are ‘fluid’ is this the way business is being done with the newer generation? Does finding this disturbing make me too much of an idealist? (I tend to like to think people are honest, first).
I do know that once as a consultant I had someone approach me and state that if I wanted to keep my contract, I would have to do something for him personally. My reaction in that case was to report the offender and the company, and his union, acted quickly. In another case, when I reported the issue to management my contract was discontinued (which I had no problem with – no way I was going to work in that environment).
How would you approach this kind of situation?
Sincerely,
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Reliability Gives Voice to Autism 2011 Book Awards Report
The evening started with Chezaday and his assistants performing table tricks then dinner. Bill Kiesel of ATPublishing (Maintenance Technology & Lubrication magazines) doing introductions. The primary team of Tom Madding, Art Rice, and Kathy Penrose were introduced as the organizers led by myself as the chair.
The introductions were followed by the book awards and thank-you’s to the sponsors and attendees.
The winners of the Autism Genre awards were (Presented by Mary Kay Betz, Executive Director of ASI):
- Bronze: “The Best Kind of Different: Our Family’s Journey with Asperger’s” by Shonda and Curt Shilling
- Silver: “I Want to be Like You: Life with Asperger’s Syndrome” by Travis Breeding
- Gold: “Sucking Up Yellow jackets” by Jeanne Denault (next picture)
The winners of the Reliability & Maintenance awards were:
- Bronze: “Asset Data Integrity is Serious Business” by Robert S. DiStefano and Stephen J Thomas
- Silver: “TPM Reloaded” by Joel Levitt
- Gold: “Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices” by Ramesh Gulati (next picture)
Following the awards presentations, Ken Arthur of GP-Allied did a fantastic presentation about his experiences as a child, overcoming adversity, then raising an autistic child and the challenges that came with it. He culminated with the statement that the daughter that was ‘never going to speak or learn’ has graduated with her class. The effort was a combination of personal sacrifice and professional assistance from volunteers and educational programs alike.
Following the presentation, Chezaday was on stage presenting a rousing hour of magic involving many in the audience, which was made up of R&M professionals, authors, members and officers of the Autism Society of Illinois and teachers.
The list of books that made finalist and the winners may be found: http://www.reliabilitygivesvoicetoautism.com/bookaward.html
Funds raised during the Reliability Gives Voice to Autism 2010 were used to provide training to federal and local law enforcement, nationally, to recognize autism in critical instances. Additionally, every $10 raised provides support for three families in direct support.
The introductions were followed by the book awards and thank-you’s to the sponsors and attendees.
The winners of the Autism Genre awards were (Presented by Mary Kay Betz, Executive Director of ASI):
- Bronze: “The Best Kind of Different: Our Family’s Journey with Asperger’s” by Shonda and Curt Shilling
- Silver: “I Want to be Like You: Life with Asperger’s Syndrome” by Travis Breeding
- Gold: “Sucking Up Yellow jackets” by Jeanne Denault (next picture)
The winners of the Reliability & Maintenance awards were:
- Bronze: “Asset Data Integrity is Serious Business” by Robert S. DiStefano and Stephen J Thomas
- Silver: “TPM Reloaded” by Joel Levitt
- Gold: “Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices” by Ramesh Gulati (next picture)
Following the awards presentations, Ken Arthur of GP-Allied did a fantastic presentation about his experiences as a child, overcoming adversity, then raising an autistic child and the challenges that came with it. He culminated with the statement that the daughter that was ‘never going to speak or learn’ has graduated with her class. The effort was a combination of personal sacrifice and professional assistance from volunteers and educational programs alike.
Following the presentation, Chezaday was on stage presenting a rousing hour of magic involving many in the audience, which was made up of R&M professionals, authors, members and officers of the Autism Society of Illinois and teachers.
The list of books that made finalist and the winners may be found: http://www.reliabilitygivesvoicetoautism.com/bookaward.html
Funds raised during the Reliability Gives Voice to Autism 2010 were used to provide training to federal and local law enforcement, nationally, to recognize autism in critical instances. Additionally, every $10 raised provides support for three families in direct support.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
US Navy Preference for Dreisilker Repair Process for over 20 Years (News)
In the editions of the NAVSEA S6260-BJ-GTP-010 "Electrical Machinery Repair, Electric Motor Repair, Shop Procedures Manual" starting in the 1980s (this is the Navy Rewind bible), the Dreisilker method (by name) is outlined.
As noted by the Navy rewind manual (Section 8-14): “Oven Burnout Procedure: The simplest, but most time consuming, method of preparing a failed winding for removal from a stator is a pre-heated, temperature-controlled burnout oven that has a forced exhaust system [to atmosphere – see the EPA article] until all the insulating materials have turned to ash and the windings can be removed. This will take at least 12 hours. The oven temperature during burnout should not exceed 700F (600F for T-frame and aluminum stators), measured by thermocouple on stator iron. After removing the stator from the oven, allow it to stand and cool to room temperature.”
The motor is not allowed to be rapidly cooled to reduce the amount of core warping and only one stator in the oven at a time. Both of these requirements are ignored by virtually all motor repair facilities. Normally, motors are stacked in an oven, thermocouples unused, and, in many cases, temperature suppression systems turned off to speed the process.
As noted, following discussion of the burnout process:
8-17: "Warming and pulling is the preferred method for stripping the stator. This method is to be used on motors with sealed insulation systems and can also be used with aluminum frame motors. This method uses lower temperatures, so it does not damage the laminations."
This is the Dreisilker/Thumm method of coil removal.
Dreisilker is mentioned twice more in the repair winding removal process: Section 8-18 – “Suitable end turn cutoff devices are manufactured by Lancer of Wisconsin and Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc. of Glen Ellyn, Illinois;” and, Section 8-20 – “Commercial devices suitable for the operation are made by S and W Enterprises of Savannah, Georgia, and Dreisilker Electric Motors of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.”
The process is outlined as not damaging the condition of electric motors versus the burnoff oven. A copy of this section is available (public information) by contacting the MotorDoc.
As noted by the Navy rewind manual (Section 8-14): “Oven Burnout Procedure: The simplest, but most time consuming, method of preparing a failed winding for removal from a stator is a pre-heated, temperature-controlled burnout oven that has a forced exhaust system [to atmosphere – see the EPA article] until all the insulating materials have turned to ash and the windings can be removed. This will take at least 12 hours. The oven temperature during burnout should not exceed 700F (600F for T-frame and aluminum stators), measured by thermocouple on stator iron. After removing the stator from the oven, allow it to stand and cool to room temperature.”
The motor is not allowed to be rapidly cooled to reduce the amount of core warping and only one stator in the oven at a time. Both of these requirements are ignored by virtually all motor repair facilities. Normally, motors are stacked in an oven, thermocouples unused, and, in many cases, temperature suppression systems turned off to speed the process.
As noted, following discussion of the burnout process:
8-17: "Warming and pulling is the preferred method for stripping the stator. This method is to be used on motors with sealed insulation systems and can also be used with aluminum frame motors. This method uses lower temperatures, so it does not damage the laminations."
This is the Dreisilker/Thumm method of coil removal.
Dreisilker is mentioned twice more in the repair winding removal process: Section 8-18 – “Suitable end turn cutoff devices are manufactured by Lancer of Wisconsin and Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc. of Glen Ellyn, Illinois;” and, Section 8-20 – “Commercial devices suitable for the operation are made by S and W Enterprises of Savannah, Georgia, and Dreisilker Electric Motors of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.”
The process is outlined as not damaging the condition of electric motors versus the burnoff oven. A copy of this section is available (public information) by contacting the MotorDoc.
Motor Repair Impact on the Environment – US EPA
What is the impact of motor repair on the environment? On your company’s carbon footprint? On your children?
The US EPA identified the act of burning out a motor (referring to it as incinerating) results in significant emissions. This is reported in the 40 CFR Part 60: “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units: Proposed Rule.”
Motor repair organizations and others have attempted to stop the ruling, which was going to be delayed due to severe lobbying by those organizations by 15 months, in effect killing it. A Federal Judge has stated that the ruling must take place by February 21, 2011, as the ruling was supposed to be addressed in 2000, and there would be no more appeals.
The argument against the ruling is purely related to the costs to install emission reduction equipment and reporting requirements that larger incinerators are already required to use. None of the opponents have argued or supplied data refuting the amounts and types of emissions from the burnout ovens, as noted in the court case.
The US EPA and Federal Courts cited numerous studies which identified unusually high rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, and childhood mental disorders (including autism) in close proximity to burnoff ovens due to high levels of ash and heavy metals that are emitted. It is noted that a decrease of such conditions occurred in areas near the larger incinerators following the installation of emission-reducing equipment from the original US EPA rulings.
In addition, the reduced efficiency from increased core losses and other effects from poorly repaired electric motors causes and increase in energy consumption which is directly related to increased greenhouse gas emissions by the motor owners. Basically, when selecting a ‘cheap’ repair, you not only get poor reliability, but also have a negative impact on the environment and your carbon footprint.
Recently, an argument was presented that a study by the motor repair industry upon itself (yes, you read that right) identified that there were no negative impacts and, oh by the way, it was OK to crank those burnout ovens up to higher temperatures. The only benefit of this is for the shop owner as it decreases oven time. In my response I noted that the people involved were also the same people who insisted on an allowable 20% INCREASE IN CORE LOSSES THROUGH THE BURNOUT PROCESS BEFORE HAVING TO INFORM THE MOTOR OWNER in the repair standard IEEE Std 1068-2009.
Be cautious when selecting a motor repair vendor. See if they are capable of performing rewind processes that DO NOT include burnout ovens!!
The US EPA identified the act of burning out a motor (referring to it as incinerating) results in significant emissions. This is reported in the 40 CFR Part 60: “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Units: Proposed Rule.”
Motor repair organizations and others have attempted to stop the ruling, which was going to be delayed due to severe lobbying by those organizations by 15 months, in effect killing it. A Federal Judge has stated that the ruling must take place by February 21, 2011, as the ruling was supposed to be addressed in 2000, and there would be no more appeals.
The argument against the ruling is purely related to the costs to install emission reduction equipment and reporting requirements that larger incinerators are already required to use. None of the opponents have argued or supplied data refuting the amounts and types of emissions from the burnout ovens, as noted in the court case.
The US EPA and Federal Courts cited numerous studies which identified unusually high rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, and childhood mental disorders (including autism) in close proximity to burnoff ovens due to high levels of ash and heavy metals that are emitted. It is noted that a decrease of such conditions occurred in areas near the larger incinerators following the installation of emission-reducing equipment from the original US EPA rulings.
In addition, the reduced efficiency from increased core losses and other effects from poorly repaired electric motors causes and increase in energy consumption which is directly related to increased greenhouse gas emissions by the motor owners. Basically, when selecting a ‘cheap’ repair, you not only get poor reliability, but also have a negative impact on the environment and your carbon footprint.
Recently, an argument was presented that a study by the motor repair industry upon itself (yes, you read that right) identified that there were no negative impacts and, oh by the way, it was OK to crank those burnout ovens up to higher temperatures. The only benefit of this is for the shop owner as it decreases oven time. In my response I noted that the people involved were also the same people who insisted on an allowable 20% INCREASE IN CORE LOSSES THROUGH THE BURNOUT PROCESS BEFORE HAVING TO INFORM THE MOTOR OWNER in the repair standard IEEE Std 1068-2009.
Be cautious when selecting a motor repair vendor. See if they are capable of performing rewind processes that DO NOT include burnout ovens!!
Maintenance Staff Resistance Comments from the MotorDoc
Last week I discussed and posted a scenario which many, as identified in some of the responses, have seen. I asked for potential solutions to the problem. It was considered significant an issue throughout industry that it was rebroadcast on numerous discussion groups. To answer one question I was asked via email – no, it was not my company.
The responses ranged from: 1) you must do more training, so hire my training company; 2) I am a consultant with a secret magic bullet, so call me so I can sell you on hiring me; 3) you don’t need CMMS or measures on maintenance; 4) big brother is watching; 5) lack of leadership; and many more conclusions and anecdotes.
What disturbed me the most was the volume of discussion about ‘what to do’ or ‘hire me,’ but very little substance. I was hoping for someone, anyone, to try to handle this as a problem and apply some of our reliability tools. Only one did; a practitioner who suggested that a solution cannot be given until root causes are determined. He was immediately put upon by the consulting regime. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have already determined the problem in the scenario, management, without a view of the complete picture.
If a marketing, sales, accounting or production person approached a company executive, or a company executive approached one of these departments, because it wasn’t functioning, should the company executive first have to train the department on why they should be performing their function? Or, should the executive feel comfortable that they understand what and why they are doing/performing their functions and that there is some other issue in play?
One set of comments I found particularly disturbing related to the case of a CMMS system. Not the ‘big brother’ statements, those are relatively understandable, but the concept that CMMS is not needed! The idea was that you should not have to track maintenance performance, take it as a given, and provide maintenance with all the resources they request, no questions asked. This truly blew my mind, and not in a positive way. The concepts of needs and gap analysis were good, but, again, suggestions that nothing should happen until then.
Why would management want to have a CMMS in place (there are more reasons, here are a few)?
a) Measurement of resources and to track KPI (you cannot manage what you cannot measure);
b) Ensure maintenance is being performed on the correct equipment (tool for maintenance manager);
c) As a tool to track maintenance issues and repetitive equipment failures: and,
d) Determine asset end of life and as a tool to assist with maintenance program improvement.
Throughout the comments it was suggested that management should reach out and educate/communicate with maintenance. At the same time, maintenance personnel at conferences have been screaming out for help in communicating with senior management.
So, what is the answer? Should the captain of the ship come down to the engine room to show the maintenance man why he is turning the wrench? Or, should that executive be more concerned with the heading and destination secure in the knowledge that the ship is functioning? Personally, if the captain has to come down from the bridge to direct a ship’s function, then something is seriously wrong!
One of the suggestions was that management had to somehow learn change management. The argument I put forth is that management already knows change management. A company does not survive long if an executive will not change and flow with conditions. Instead I submit, as in the sample last week, that the issue will tend to reside in the individuals directly affected by the changes. In this case, the maintenance organization was resisting changes that would be beneficial to them in both the short and long term.
For one thing, maintenance was complaining that they did not have enough resources. However, there was no evidence to that effect. All management knew is that equipment was failing with no evidence of maintenance being performed. Next, it was noted that maintenance personnel were being used for non-maintenance errands, but to what extent was unknown. So, if there is no evidence of maintenance being performed and maintenance personnel are being used for non-maintenance tasks, then perhaps there are enough resources, but they are not being effectively utilized? Tracking time on functions and wrench time would be an effective way of ensuring proper use of an asset, wouldn’t it?
Without evidence of maintenance being performed, equipment failing, and maintenance staff being used for non-maintenance tasks, the ‘not enough resources’ sounds like an excuse. What if accounting was not sending invoices and processing receivables, but instead they were out doing grounds keeping? Would that be an effective use of their time? There are measurements in place to track the effectiveness of accounting, as well as other departments.
So, what makes maintenance different than any other function of the company? I believe it is no more or less than any other function, or else it wouldn’t exist. So, as a valuable asset of the company, it must be managed and must be tied to the company strategy. This was noted in a comment that somehow maintenance was not a ‘value added’ part of the company with the person making the statement suggesting that maintenance has no impact on the bottom line. My opinion is supported, of course, that maintenance is value added as it has a direct impact on the cost to manufacture and quality of product. This is well known to experienced managers.
In times when executives are faced with having to lean their companies, make cutbacks, fine-tune functions, why should, or would, they throw resources at a dysfunctional program? Or, if they cannot see a justification for a program, why shouldn’t they cut it? Things are breaking anyways and there is no evidence that maintenance is being performed.
Is there a good solution to the problem? Perhaps multiple solutions?
Because right now, if an executive were to approach our industry and say, ‘what do I do?’ and they receive the answers I did? They would either kill the program, wipe it out and start over, or throw their hands up and let things continue dysfunctionally.
One of the things I have noted over the years is a very definite lack of a clear message to corporate executives in relation to how to get things going, what the impact is on our industry, etc. Instead, I see a bunch of stuff thrown at them to see what sticks.
I do note that I see the types of organizations that approached me trying to sell me their ‘silver bullet,’ most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario, as a HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM! When an overworked executive has wave after wave of confusing information thrown at them, most will do the smart thing and walk away. Me, I just make fun of the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, enough fall for the crap and see that it does not work and have a bad taste in their mouth for future endeavors and the R&M community. I have heard so many comments from managers to that effect that it makes me sick! But at least the scum made a few dollars while kicking our industry in the teeth.
Yep, if you just got your hair up over that, I am talking about you.
For the rest of us, one of the biggest challenges I have seen is the communication gap between our industry and corporate executives. Our message seems to be more inward with people selling to the choir instead of supporting the community and coming up with a common message on getting things started. Thank goodness for organizations like SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals) who have been working hard at educating, communicating and standardizing such items as KPIs (http://www.smrp.org).
How would you communicate with corporate executives about the value of our community to the organization? How would you identify What’s In It For Me (WIIFM) for the executive?
I really suggest that you don’t try to sell me on your latest snake oil, if you were thinking about it. I WILL make fun of you. Honest professionals making suggestions, that is another matter and I strongly welcome your comments.
The responses ranged from: 1) you must do more training, so hire my training company; 2) I am a consultant with a secret magic bullet, so call me so I can sell you on hiring me; 3) you don’t need CMMS or measures on maintenance; 4) big brother is watching; 5) lack of leadership; and many more conclusions and anecdotes.
What disturbed me the most was the volume of discussion about ‘what to do’ or ‘hire me,’ but very little substance. I was hoping for someone, anyone, to try to handle this as a problem and apply some of our reliability tools. Only one did; a practitioner who suggested that a solution cannot be given until root causes are determined. He was immediately put upon by the consulting regime. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have already determined the problem in the scenario, management, without a view of the complete picture.
If a marketing, sales, accounting or production person approached a company executive, or a company executive approached one of these departments, because it wasn’t functioning, should the company executive first have to train the department on why they should be performing their function? Or, should the executive feel comfortable that they understand what and why they are doing/performing their functions and that there is some other issue in play?
One set of comments I found particularly disturbing related to the case of a CMMS system. Not the ‘big brother’ statements, those are relatively understandable, but the concept that CMMS is not needed! The idea was that you should not have to track maintenance performance, take it as a given, and provide maintenance with all the resources they request, no questions asked. This truly blew my mind, and not in a positive way. The concepts of needs and gap analysis were good, but, again, suggestions that nothing should happen until then.
Why would management want to have a CMMS in place (there are more reasons, here are a few)?
a) Measurement of resources and to track KPI (you cannot manage what you cannot measure);
b) Ensure maintenance is being performed on the correct equipment (tool for maintenance manager);
c) As a tool to track maintenance issues and repetitive equipment failures: and,
d) Determine asset end of life and as a tool to assist with maintenance program improvement.
Throughout the comments it was suggested that management should reach out and educate/communicate with maintenance. At the same time, maintenance personnel at conferences have been screaming out for help in communicating with senior management.
So, what is the answer? Should the captain of the ship come down to the engine room to show the maintenance man why he is turning the wrench? Or, should that executive be more concerned with the heading and destination secure in the knowledge that the ship is functioning? Personally, if the captain has to come down from the bridge to direct a ship’s function, then something is seriously wrong!
One of the suggestions was that management had to somehow learn change management. The argument I put forth is that management already knows change management. A company does not survive long if an executive will not change and flow with conditions. Instead I submit, as in the sample last week, that the issue will tend to reside in the individuals directly affected by the changes. In this case, the maintenance organization was resisting changes that would be beneficial to them in both the short and long term.
For one thing, maintenance was complaining that they did not have enough resources. However, there was no evidence to that effect. All management knew is that equipment was failing with no evidence of maintenance being performed. Next, it was noted that maintenance personnel were being used for non-maintenance errands, but to what extent was unknown. So, if there is no evidence of maintenance being performed and maintenance personnel are being used for non-maintenance tasks, then perhaps there are enough resources, but they are not being effectively utilized? Tracking time on functions and wrench time would be an effective way of ensuring proper use of an asset, wouldn’t it?
Without evidence of maintenance being performed, equipment failing, and maintenance staff being used for non-maintenance tasks, the ‘not enough resources’ sounds like an excuse. What if accounting was not sending invoices and processing receivables, but instead they were out doing grounds keeping? Would that be an effective use of their time? There are measurements in place to track the effectiveness of accounting, as well as other departments.
So, what makes maintenance different than any other function of the company? I believe it is no more or less than any other function, or else it wouldn’t exist. So, as a valuable asset of the company, it must be managed and must be tied to the company strategy. This was noted in a comment that somehow maintenance was not a ‘value added’ part of the company with the person making the statement suggesting that maintenance has no impact on the bottom line. My opinion is supported, of course, that maintenance is value added as it has a direct impact on the cost to manufacture and quality of product. This is well known to experienced managers.
In times when executives are faced with having to lean their companies, make cutbacks, fine-tune functions, why should, or would, they throw resources at a dysfunctional program? Or, if they cannot see a justification for a program, why shouldn’t they cut it? Things are breaking anyways and there is no evidence that maintenance is being performed.
Is there a good solution to the problem? Perhaps multiple solutions?
Because right now, if an executive were to approach our industry and say, ‘what do I do?’ and they receive the answers I did? They would either kill the program, wipe it out and start over, or throw their hands up and let things continue dysfunctionally.
One of the things I have noted over the years is a very definite lack of a clear message to corporate executives in relation to how to get things going, what the impact is on our industry, etc. Instead, I see a bunch of stuff thrown at them to see what sticks.
I do note that I see the types of organizations that approached me trying to sell me their ‘silver bullet,’ most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario, as a HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM! When an overworked executive has wave after wave of confusing information thrown at them, most will do the smart thing and walk away. Me, I just make fun of the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, enough fall for the crap and see that it does not work and have a bad taste in their mouth for future endeavors and the R&M community. I have heard so many comments from managers to that effect that it makes me sick! But at least the scum made a few dollars while kicking our industry in the teeth.
Yep, if you just got your hair up over that, I am talking about you.
For the rest of us, one of the biggest challenges I have seen is the communication gap between our industry and corporate executives. Our message seems to be more inward with people selling to the choir instead of supporting the community and coming up with a common message on getting things started. Thank goodness for organizations like SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals) who have been working hard at educating, communicating and standardizing such items as KPIs (http://www.smrp.org).
How would you communicate with corporate executives about the value of our community to the organization? How would you identify What’s In It For Me (WIIFM) for the executive?
I really suggest that you don’t try to sell me on your latest snake oil, if you were thinking about it. I WILL make fun of you. Honest professionals making suggestions, that is another matter and I strongly welcome your comments.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Maintenance Staff Resistance to Maintenance Program?
Recently I attended a meeting where management was strongly supporting the development of a maintenance program. Everyone from the CEO to most levels and areas of the company recognized the impact of a poor program due to some recent events. A relatively simple CMMS program was in place, some equipment was missing from the database, and the maintenance steps within the CMMS were non-existent (lacked detail). It was well known that the maintenance staff was busy, but the CMMS remained unused and most issues appeared to be firefighting and reactive. Maintenance staff were used for non-maintenance tasks and errands for operations.
With several significant issues impacting production, senior staff were trying to get a handle on the issue. It was determined that the planned maintenance and CMMS should be put in place as a tactical step to meet specific strategic corporate goals. The result was an issue that I have seen time and time again. In my position, which is now mostly on the executive and operations side of the business again, I observed with the managers’ point of view in mind.
Senior management, operations management, maintenance management, and maintenance supervision were in attendance. The senior manager pointed out that there had been requests for more resources in maintenance, but it had also been noticed that there were no measures related to identification of work performed. It was known that a rudimentary program had been started a number of years in the past, which had been discontinued. There was not doubt that work was being done, but no way of determining effective use of time, energy and resources. Older equipment was failing and records were spotty on how many failures and what general condition equipment was in. It was admitted that several attempts had been made but unsupported, and that the program was going to be restarted and supported.
The maintenance managers identified a lack of support in the past and that the system was not fully updated, implying that more work needed to be done before starting. Senior management assured that things had progressed (or regressed) and that there were additional pressures for the implementation of the program that were tied to the corporate strategy.
Maintenance supervisors were upset that there would be paperwork that would slow them down. They felt that what they really needed was more people and started listing their tasks, which included numerous tasks not associated with maintenance. Managements’ position was that they could not expand a broken program without measures and an understandable view of how time and resources were being utilized.
Operations was fairly neutral, appeared to support the program and made positive suggestions. From this discussion, a basic outline for kick-starting the program with the understanding that gradual improvements would be made was developed. Overall, the maintenance organization held the attitude that this didn’t work before, why should it work now, and management appeared to be frustrated that their efforts to support the maintenance program was falling on a broken organization.
In all, I was able to see both sides. I have seen it numerous times in organizations large and small. The end result varies based on where the strength of personalities lay than even a clear-cut, common sense program.
In the reliability and maintenance community we often ask, as I have heard time and time again in conferences, private conversations, and articles: “why won’t management listen to us?” or, “they don’t get it!”
What happens when:
1) Corporate management ‘gets it;’
2) Operations is neutral but supportive;
3) Walls, resistance, and demands are put in place by the maintenance organization even with management supporting the program?
How would you approach this situation?
With several significant issues impacting production, senior staff were trying to get a handle on the issue. It was determined that the planned maintenance and CMMS should be put in place as a tactical step to meet specific strategic corporate goals. The result was an issue that I have seen time and time again. In my position, which is now mostly on the executive and operations side of the business again, I observed with the managers’ point of view in mind.
Senior management, operations management, maintenance management, and maintenance supervision were in attendance. The senior manager pointed out that there had been requests for more resources in maintenance, but it had also been noticed that there were no measures related to identification of work performed. It was known that a rudimentary program had been started a number of years in the past, which had been discontinued. There was not doubt that work was being done, but no way of determining effective use of time, energy and resources. Older equipment was failing and records were spotty on how many failures and what general condition equipment was in. It was admitted that several attempts had been made but unsupported, and that the program was going to be restarted and supported.
The maintenance managers identified a lack of support in the past and that the system was not fully updated, implying that more work needed to be done before starting. Senior management assured that things had progressed (or regressed) and that there were additional pressures for the implementation of the program that were tied to the corporate strategy.
Maintenance supervisors were upset that there would be paperwork that would slow them down. They felt that what they really needed was more people and started listing their tasks, which included numerous tasks not associated with maintenance. Managements’ position was that they could not expand a broken program without measures and an understandable view of how time and resources were being utilized.
Operations was fairly neutral, appeared to support the program and made positive suggestions. From this discussion, a basic outline for kick-starting the program with the understanding that gradual improvements would be made was developed. Overall, the maintenance organization held the attitude that this didn’t work before, why should it work now, and management appeared to be frustrated that their efforts to support the maintenance program was falling on a broken organization.
In all, I was able to see both sides. I have seen it numerous times in organizations large and small. The end result varies based on where the strength of personalities lay than even a clear-cut, common sense program.
In the reliability and maintenance community we often ask, as I have heard time and time again in conferences, private conversations, and articles: “why won’t management listen to us?” or, “they don’t get it!”
What happens when:
1) Corporate management ‘gets it;’
2) Operations is neutral but supportive;
3) Walls, resistance, and demands are put in place by the maintenance organization even with management supporting the program?
How would you approach this situation?
Friday, January 28, 2011
On Technical Training
An area that is often wanted but also takes a back seat to other areas when things get a little tough is training. I have noted over the years that some managers even become concerned with the training process and have stated, "why train them when they might leave to get a job somewhere else." I have always thought, when I have heard such statements, that these managers lack vision and are relatively short sighted. In other cases, I hear that training is not a necessary function and 'gets in the way.' Again, a short sighted view showing reactive management versus strategic or tactical thinking.
The purpose of a proper training program is to meet the needs of the organization, have an impact on the bottom line, improve morale, and meet regulatory and customer requirements. You can evaluate a successful program by noting operational or functional successes of the organization and personnel. If the training program is ineffective, you do not identify changes in the organization, which requires review and improvement.
To understand the program, you must identify the basic makeup of the training organization. The highest level consists of five elements which make up the training strategy:
1. Management is the function of directing and controlling needs assessments;
2. Support is the function of maintaining all parts of the system;
3. Administration is the function of day to day processing and record keeping;
4. Delivery is the function of providing instruction to students; and,
5. Evaluation is the function of gathering feedback data through formative, summative, and operational evaluation.
The key to any successful training program is the identification of the gaps of knowledge within the organization through needs assessment. An effective program identifies those needs and then develops the training around it. The basic organization for the tactical application of the training program also consists of five components:
1. Analysis is the process used to identify critical tasks and identify the standards, conditions, performance measures and other criteria needed to perform each task. Training is based upon the tasks identified in the analysis and the results form the basis for that training. The analysis includes evaluating the gap through an understanding of the existing knowledge level and job/task descriptions and where personnel exist.
2. The instructional design is based on the analysis phase and is the point where the designers develop learning objectives, test strategy, test items, as well as high level design of the training. The instructional designer determines the strategies to be used and selects the instructional method and media. Existing materials and raw media may be reviewed in order to determine their applicability to the specific instruction under development. At this point, the implementation plan is also developed.
3. The instructional development is based on the design phase and is where the lesson materials, exercises, drills, and other instructional materials for both the student and instructor are developed. The media selected in the design phase is produced and all materials are developed.
4. After the instructional system has been designed and developed, the validation and evaluation have been completed, then the instructional program may be fielded in the implementation phase.
5. Evaluation is a continuous process that starts during the needs analysis and continues throughout the development and life cycle of the instructional system. Feedback from the evaluation process is used to modify the training program as necessary. To ensure continuing quality of the fielded training, operational evaluations consisting of both internal (classroom) and external (field/operations) evaluations provide the necessary feedback.
There is, of course, a great deal more involved in the training program, such as records requirements, regulatory requirements, etc. For instance, maintaining safety training records becomes vital in order to meet OSHA requirements. In all cases, the real development of the program by understanding the organization's needs is vital to the success of the organization.
The purpose of a proper training program is to meet the needs of the organization, have an impact on the bottom line, improve morale, and meet regulatory and customer requirements. You can evaluate a successful program by noting operational or functional successes of the organization and personnel. If the training program is ineffective, you do not identify changes in the organization, which requires review and improvement.
To understand the program, you must identify the basic makeup of the training organization. The highest level consists of five elements which make up the training strategy:
1. Management is the function of directing and controlling needs assessments;
2. Support is the function of maintaining all parts of the system;
3. Administration is the function of day to day processing and record keeping;
4. Delivery is the function of providing instruction to students; and,
5. Evaluation is the function of gathering feedback data through formative, summative, and operational evaluation.
The key to any successful training program is the identification of the gaps of knowledge within the organization through needs assessment. An effective program identifies those needs and then develops the training around it. The basic organization for the tactical application of the training program also consists of five components:
1. Analysis is the process used to identify critical tasks and identify the standards, conditions, performance measures and other criteria needed to perform each task. Training is based upon the tasks identified in the analysis and the results form the basis for that training. The analysis includes evaluating the gap through an understanding of the existing knowledge level and job/task descriptions and where personnel exist.
2. The instructional design is based on the analysis phase and is the point where the designers develop learning objectives, test strategy, test items, as well as high level design of the training. The instructional designer determines the strategies to be used and selects the instructional method and media. Existing materials and raw media may be reviewed in order to determine their applicability to the specific instruction under development. At this point, the implementation plan is also developed.
3. The instructional development is based on the design phase and is where the lesson materials, exercises, drills, and other instructional materials for both the student and instructor are developed. The media selected in the design phase is produced and all materials are developed.
4. After the instructional system has been designed and developed, the validation and evaluation have been completed, then the instructional program may be fielded in the implementation phase.
5. Evaluation is a continuous process that starts during the needs analysis and continues throughout the development and life cycle of the instructional system. Feedback from the evaluation process is used to modify the training program as necessary. To ensure continuing quality of the fielded training, operational evaluations consisting of both internal (classroom) and external (field/operations) evaluations provide the necessary feedback.
There is, of course, a great deal more involved in the training program, such as records requirements, regulatory requirements, etc. For instance, maintaining safety training records becomes vital in order to meet OSHA requirements. In all cases, the real development of the program by understanding the organization's needs is vital to the success of the organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
