If I may, I thought I might try and tie these threads together.

It seems that we have three schools of thought:
1. Communicate using a language that the decision makers understand
2. Get the technology right and results will speak for themselves
3. Be completely open and this will negate all the other agendas

Is that a fair summary?
For the moment I will assume it is.

Looking at that list I would say that all three approaches are right but they are applied in different ways at different times.

For example, if you are trying to get the first initiative up an running then you need to apply No. 1 to get past first base. If you get a pilot going then 2 & 3 come into play. Even then you need to present the data in a way that the 'audience' understands.

If you are underway with your program but experiencing 'road blocks' then 2 & 3 both need to be applied. Again with the data provided in a way that the 'audience' understands.

The risk that all 'technical' departments face is that they are seen as promoting technology for its own sake. In this case they are seen as 'technocrats' rather than business thinkers. If we really want to influence the direction and policy of the organization we need to 'sell' the ideas. There is no point in being right if no one will listen.

quote:

1. Communicate using a language that the decision makers understand
2. Get the technology right and results will speak for themselves
3. Be completely open and this will negate all the other agendas

1.) Generally met w/resistance. Why? You're trying to make yourself look good and thereby may get some credit they want. Too good and too well written and you are "too wordy", "too much detail", "too fancy" !!!!!!!!!!! There are a lot of petty things to contend with.
2.) Make the call right - the technology is right! Don't hide behind it and baffle w/BS. Tell them when a machine will fail and why. Results; maybe!
3.) I think you have to employ some sort of PR and soft shoe your way around the dance floor else you will have confrontations and make enemies and results will be hard to obtain. Sometimes it's best to find a way for them to take credit and make them look good and you keep on keeping on.

sorry to ask, what is a PR?

I think it means Public Relations, same as ..Kissing

Hard descision, which resource we need most to balance our team?
* another technician
* another engineer? which specialty / experience?
* a PR ???

The success of any PDM program is closely related to interdepartmental cooperation. The best programs will have a facilitator whose purpose is to explain the ramifications of detected problems to those that need to know. This may include line supervisors, machine operators and managers in the production department and repair crews, planning and management in maintenance, and even accounting and upper management.

Which department should oversee the program? It makes no difference if there are no interdepartmental barriers to communication or internal political firewalls. In reality, these always exist and it is imperative to reduce them to manageable levels.

As a consultant, my work is requested by three different areas depending on the organization making the request. In some cases I am requested by engineering which is mostly interested in the design criteria and installation specifications. If maintenance requests the work, they are generally interested in large failures that should be planned into scheduled outages. In most cases, I get requests from manufacturing management who tend to be the most interested in reliability and productivity.

I am a bit surprised at the interdepartmental tension that I sense from some of the comments. It is difficult enough to do maintenance without these battles.

To answer the original quest: Who should oversee the program? Every large organization should include a group that is manufacturing support that is best folded into a cross-departmental group. The obvious choice is maintenance or possibly the engineering group, but it may be best to have an independent structure that is not directly managed by any of the folks with political interests in the results.

I predict that NOBODY will like this answer....

Originally posted by Joe B:
I am a bit surprised at the interdepartmental tension that I sense from some of the comments. It is difficult enough to do maintenance without these battles.
---------------------------------------------
Deal with mechanical/ electrical /installation /process /technical problems is difficult enough, enter the human variable in the equation and you get the battle quite common in several industries / locations.

Our plant manufactures chocolate bars. All of our associates are skilled tradesmen (millwrights, Electricians, Electronic techs), and they operate the equipment. We have no "Maintenance" department as a separate entity.

Therefore, when the equipment is running, they are operations personnel. When the equipment is broken, they are maintenance personnel. Each associate is responsible for performing the scheduled PMs for their equipment.

Priorities are set in a short meeting, each morning.The attendees (QC, Operations Manager, Engineering Manager, Shift Manager, Shift Lead hand, storesman, and area tech specialists) determine the priority for work that is generated through Work Orders.

Not a perfect system, but not too far from what you are talking about.

Perfection is measured by results obtained. Given the preparation and skills of your associates being operators and maintainers is a good solution.

In other plants where production operators have different backgrounds (tradesmen, biology, arts, incomplete university studies, just High School) machine operation can be trusted after proper training; but maintenance (PM, CM, PdM, etc) can not.

Wow you guys have been busy overnight (at least overnight to me!)

Again, we have reported experience that says it is possible to get the alignment needed to make the whole 'maintenace thing' work.

Reading through this reminded me that I have experienced both side of the coin - the 'political' and the 'team driven' - in the same company! OK but at different plants.

In the end it came down to local culture. So we go through that loop again. Being technically right or smart is not enough. You need to be savvy about people, communications and motivatation.

Funny thing, when I went to university to study engineering they never said that I would have to deal with people! (Even when I did a Maintenance Management degree)

Maintenance is a doctor.

Predictive maintenance is a specialist doctor - I see no sense in direct link to production, who can either be basically aware of patient's health or not at all.

Well said.
Production is just the parent of the child/patient(equipment). I agree that the parent need to be keep aware of the patient condition/progress, but is the doctor is who need the detailed report from the specialist to be able to dictate the treatment to be applied.

And one huge thing! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s You can talk and everyone agree and "yeap, we need that alright" - until you can put a $sign on it and document pay-back .... good chance it won't fly.

Any take on that?

quote:

Originally posted by Joe B:

I am a bit surprised at the interdepartmental tension that I sense from some of the comments. It is difficult enough to do maintenance without these battles.

To answer the original quest: Who should oversee the program? Every large organization should include a group that is manufacturing support that is best folded into a cross-departmental group. The obvious choice is maintenance or possibly the engineering group, but it may be best to have an independent structure that is not directly managed by any of the folks with political interests in the results.

I predict that NOBODY will like this answer....

Joe B, I like your answer. I'm also keen on the way PeterL's company are handling things, though what luxury to have this level of skill across the op's team.

quote:

but it may be best to have an independent structure that is not directly managed by any of the folks with political interests in the results.

hu..

If they have no "political interest" who guarantees that they will be interested at all?

Not operations, not maintenance, not engineering, the other candidates could be accounting, stores, marketing? The office boys?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: svanels,

"I see no sense in direct link to production"
"Well said. Production is just the parent of the child/patient(equipment)"

OK, let me get this right. Some of the contributers to this thread believe that maintenance and production should be seperate entities with no link. Is that what you are saying? If so, I am amazed that those 1950's attitudes exist in the 21st century.

Surely it is production's role to make quality product in a timely manner. It is maintenance's role to maximise the availability of production capability so that production can do their job and make stuff.

Whether you like it or not (and I guess that you don't like it) you are in this together. Some of you guys complain that management or production won't listen to you but just take a minute to listen to yourselves. You are being as selfish as they are. Why not be the 'bigger man' (apologies to any female readers) and try building bridges?

Nothing motivates people more than self interest. Think of a way to use your considerable maintenance knowledge and skills to appeal to production's self interest. Not what you think they need but what they want. Start small and then build on that. And don't tell me it won't work because I have done it - twice in two different places.

With respect to the payback issue. Again start small, build trust and then keep pushing.

The reason that production or management don't support maintenance initiatives is that they don't understand or beleieve the benefit. You can't just tell them, you need to show them.

And just like Joe B, I bet that not many will like that answer!

Ok, a clarification of my original remarks. Thanks for everone's comments.

Only in a very large organization will there be enough work of a production support variety to build a separate small department. I should have emphasized that the most logical choice is ususally engineering or maintenance. Accounting would work, too, but the implementation would be more difficult. I'll have to think about marketing and sales, though.

As to avoiding politics I should have defined politics. A political decision is made when the interests of the political party or faction supercede the interests of the organization. A business decision maximizes productivity or profitability of the organization with only marginal interest in protecting factions.

If your employer has as its primary goal making money, then most likely the vast majority of that money is made in the production departments. My goal as a maintenance guy is to serve the needs of the production department. I work for the production folks both directly and indirectly.

And, I like the doctor analogy. Except if the child is mine, I want to know what is wrong, how bad is it, what treatment is needed, and what will happen if we delay treatment. I do not need to read lab reports, but you better make sure that your interpretation is accurate. Finally, your bedside manner needs to reflect that my child (the machine) is very important to you and that you are doing everything you can treat this patient correctly. And if I ask you about the lab report details, I expect a respectful attempt to teach me about the conditions and its treatment. After all, either me or my agent is paying for your expertise.

I know it is expecting too much from a lot of the organizations out there, but I travel all over and see a lot of different operations. There are many organizations that build a culture where employees are free to serve the needs of the enterprise and make their needs secondary. They do this because they know instictively that a profitable organization that respects its workers is the most reliable route to job security and good wages. Are they perfect? Of course not. No organization of people is ever error free. But it sure beats the spitting matches and turf battles that are the center of attention in others.

Of course, I am a consultant, so what do I know. Everyone knows that a consultant is just someone that borrows your watch to tell you what time it is and then keeps the watch. Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

We are all a big happy family ,engineering, maintenance production/operations and all others supporting the production process which is responsible for the fat paycheck we bring home.
But just like in any big family, there will be fights at lunch time, family parties and other internal situations.
But if someone touches our little brother, the whole family participates in the vendetta.

In 1950 I was not born yet, but here at maintenanceforums we are all (free) consultants

PS I would love to give productions/operations a vibration analyzer, they are around the equipment all the time, and can relate system problems to equipment malfunction, but the so-called internal political firewalls...

<Maintenance is a doctor>

Maintenance is not a doctor, maintenance is a treatment. The maintenance person is the doctor.

There are lots of ways of using this analogy but production will always be the patient so perhaps they should have a say in when the doctor attends. But arranged "check ups" normally have to suit both doctor and patient.

Even if Operations agree to do the predictive maintenance, they will need mechanical or elctrical-educated people to do it. I don't believe the process or chemical-educated people would be naturally interested.

In fact, a similar subject was asked before: whether reliability should be under Operations or Maintenance? When the operator-based maintenance or TPM was suggested, the big question was who should lead? Will the spotlight has to be moved from Maintenance to Operations?