Eight Ways to Be Mediocre

If your goal is to just be good enough, then no worries. But, if your goal is to be the best you can be, then advanced processes are worth pursuing. Conversely, basic processes deliver basic results.

When you have hundreds of work orders in the backlog, it helps to know which work is most important. Most CMMS products encourage a basic 1 through 5 work prioritization strategy. This approach is good enough for separating emergent work from plannable work but nothing else. Further, if the job priority was entered by the requester, there is no way this person is familiar with the existing backlog. By creating a ranking matrix for generating a numerical value, this value could be automatically assigned to the backlog each night.

Many organizations have a planner/scheduler position. This staff creates work order packages. Unfortunately, there is always more work coming in than the planners can plan. Consequently, a backlog may have more unplanned work than planned. If there was a gatekeeper, this role would be the first to review incoming work. Using his years of experience, he would quickly assess the magnitude of the job, and dispatch if necessary. He would verify the job is feasible and not a duplicate, verify priority, enter the duration, lead craft, type of work, and rough estimate. Over time the entire backlog would either have a fully planned work package or have a rough estimate.

One of the benefits of having a CMMS is the ability to set up a job plan library. This library would contain job steps, craft estimates, material requirements, special tools, safety precautions, and links to reference documents. Some job plans are linked to an asset record. The CMMS would also allow a planner to save a “working plan” to a job plan record. See Maintenance Planner Duties for more information.

There are several types of work order feedback. But the trick is to ask for feedback. A work order could be modified to include several questions on the last page, such as, (a) what is the condition of the asset as left, (b) is the PM frequency valid, (c) is the PM strategy valid, (d) is there a maintainability issue, (e) is there a design flaw, (f) did the work order omit a safety hazard, (g) is there an ergonomic issue, (h) does this asset have poor energy-efficiency factor, (i) were parts/tools missing from the planning package? Failure data is also part of this feedback.

Most organizations agree that maintenance scheduling is a best practice. But for various reasons, most do not have a weekly schedule. As an advanced process that is based on data, the backlog needs to be accurate, estimated, and ranked. Aside from the data requirements, some leadership teams simply do not want a weekly schedule.

Reliability strategy development (or RSD) includes RCM analysis, PM optimization, OEM recommendations, and senior staff input. RSD contains the justification for establishing a maintenance strategy. By creating an RSD application within the CMMS, decision-makers have an easy way to review the PM/PdM basis and easy way to update records (after proper review). This embedded design provides the best way to support a “living program for RCM.” The joining element is the 3-part failure mode as captured on the work order and stored in the RSD application.

Asset criticality can be formally calculated by assessing the consequence of failure, risk mitigation, maintenance impact and the frequency (or likelihood) of occurrence. Asset criticality is a factor used in the ranking matrix. It is also useful in determining which RSD method to apply, such as RCM, PMO, OEM, and senior staff (20%, 30%, 30%, and 20% respectively).

Chronic failure analysis is an advanced process. There can be a reliability team that meets monthly. They may start the meeting by running the bad actor report against the CMMS. After selecting the asset(s) of interest, they can drill down on the 3-part failure mode. Without a bad actor report, you are just guessing.

There are other ways to be mediocre but this is where I would start.