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?