Can anyone illustrate the actual dollar and cents benefits for using dedicated maintenance planners?

Terry O

Maybe consultants or vendors have the dollar sign and price tag for planners? It's Friday ite here...

We have some hybrid combination, No dedicated planner, we have a 4-man section called Maintenance Control Center, 1 maintenance veteran supervisor, 1 computer wizard, 1 former female refinery operator, 1 handyman mechanic. This section is responsible for planning and have full control of the CMMS. Sometimes it is called "Internal Control" of maintenance.

I have a few clients with dedicated planners. I'll see if I can get a response from them next week.
Regards,

What I am trying to find out is something like this:

If you have 15 maintenance crafts working without a dedicated planner and they are producing 20%-25% wrenchtime - how much increased productivity can you get if you have a dedicated planner (i.e. 50% wrenchtime). Is there a formula that says for every 5 craft - 1 planner pays etc...?

Terry O

Terry,

I recently produced a report to get rid of planners on one particular site. (Group of sites actually)

Was not the intention going into things, but we were able to provide cheaper ways of doing things using the knowledge and experience of the workforce (sharing the workload so to speak).

Was a very specific case, normally I could see no better role than that of a planner for improving efficiency, and I was surprised once we started to get into this in significant detail.

Ultimately, in this specific case, it was smarter all round to not use a central role but rather devolve the responsibilities throughout the workforce.

The guide ratio of cratfmen to planner is 25 (+-5) craftmen per 1 planner (which is used in maintenance audit under organization).

Ideally the planner must have hands-on experience to be credible to do proper work planning (ie under front-end loading concept) for work exeuction by cratfmen to optimise their wrenchtime.

The work planning can be split by discipline eg mechanical (static & rotating eqpt) and E&I works.

Main tasks by maint planner include:
- daily maintenance planning, scheduling & coordination interdiscipline & interdepartment
- updating maintenance master data such as asset register & hierarchy, eqpt bill of materials, maint plans & tasklists\
- procurement of resources for materials & external services
- generating maint KPIs & drive performance improvement
- turnaround/shutdown planning
- annual budgeting together with disciplines

Unfortunately don't have the figure because the idea of having main planners have been accepted before I came on board (>10 years ago).

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

Just as an example this is how we did it. Our pharmaceutical mfg company has two multibuilding plants. Our Maintenance Engineering section has:
1 Manager,
5 Maintenance Engineers/Supervisors,
1 Maintenance Systems Engineer (Planning Supervisor),
2 Engineers (In charge of special proyects, contracts administration,
1 Stockroom Supervisor,
7 Stockroom personnel (one stockroom in each plant),
5 Secretary/clerks
4 Maintenance Planners.

The rest are craftmen including: mechanics, electricians, instrumentation technicians, building repairers, housekeeping guardians completing a staff of almost 100 resources. That gives you around 18 craftmen/planner. Plus Maintenance Planners also plan jobs to be executed by outside contractors, that maybe equivalent to another crew of technicians to serve.

Our strategy is divide the plant areas / buildings in four sections. Each planner is responsible to plan for all jobs coming from his/her assigned area. Maintenance Supervisors are also dedicated to one area with a multicraft crew with the exception of the instrument technicians which all reports to one Maintenance Engineer and serve to all plants/buildings regardless of area.

How to divide the plant into areas? Use the previous workload of orders generated by production lines, utilities areas, buoldings, areas and start grouping them up until you have balanced areas.

In our case, a complete plant was enough for a planner, the second plant was divided for the three others. One of them was assigned to just one manufacturing building, a second has two buildings with packaging, manufacturing, and office areas. The last planner received a large utilities area, warehouse, and administrative office building.

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

Daryl - I am stunned that you could gain from sharing the load of a dedicated planner and find that project very interesting. I hope we will read more about that work soon! You do some interesting work my friend!

Josh - so planners must come from the area they will be responsible for planning?


Terry O

I share Darryl's opinion about sharing the planners workload, In fact we have worked always that way.
Traditionally our maintenance system was the typical area (geographical) maintenance. The bulk of maintenance (PM) was/is done in the field, drilling rigs, heavy equipment, oilwells etc.
One of our Maintenance Control Center (oilfield) is responsible for the Preventive Maintenance Program, sends out the PM workorders for the appropriate MRC (Maint. Responsibility Center). Since most of the MRC,s are close to the equipment, they had to deal with Operations for equipment custody.In this case there is no central point for maintenance request. The "planners" executioners are the craftleaders.

Now we have a Refinery, which would be great for "centralized maintenance", but we use the same method as in the oilfields, but in this case the MCC has more control over the workorder system. Still no central point, the owner deals with the MRC, PM is sent out and monitored by the MCC, and no dedicated planner. Works wonderly well, I have seen the classic job descriptions of planners and supervisors and ours do not match 100%.
Maybe we had the luck to do it our way, but I think that we are not the only ones who "have seen the light".
Especially in this time where we have to do more with less people and more computers, there is no place for rigid job descriptions.

Recently I developed my Department Profile, A HR Project, with roles and responsibilities, and that is the basis for determining funkties and job descriptions. It stimulates thinking in systems and not traditional way in thinking in terms of persons/functions.

Terry,

It was a fascinating case actually, again not something that I would have supported outright but after the analysis I had to change my tune.

Will post something here over the weekend on the pros and cons as we saw it and what the conclusions were if thats okay. (With all names removed to protect the innocent of course)

Terrence and others,

I think it is always useful to separate the role from the person. What I mean is this:

1. Planning is an essential activity, but it does not always have to be done by somebody designated as 'Planner'. I view planning as defining the work, its frequency, procedures and documents/drawings needed, resources required, materials and spares required, logistic support needed.
2. Similarly, Scheduling is also such a delegatable activity. Scheduling, in my view, identifies the right time to start and finish work, so as to minimize production losses. It also ensures that all the items listed in the plan are in fact available before commencing work.
3. Depending on size, complexity and depth of knowledge and experience required, it is often desirable to have dedicated planners/schedulers. Where this is not the case, there must be clear guidelines to those to whom such work is delegated, and periodically audited for consistency and completeness.
4. If the scheduling activity is delegated, to say, the Technicians, that is often better in quality, for most work. However, where production losses are very sensitive to timing, Technicians may not always have access to the Production Scheduler to take optimal decisions. The use of CMMS has greatly advanced the cause for delegating Scheduling.
5. My personal view is that the bulk of planning work is a 'one-time' activity, though it needs continuous adjustment to changing dyanamics. For this reason, a single-point accountability is the better solution (in most cases).

Lee Solomon, the founder of Solomon Associstes, the large Maintenance Benchmarking Consultancy, used to comment often about the lack of Planners/Schedulers in (especially) Shutdown Maintenance, when compared to those in Project Management. The daily spend on Shutdowns is often quite comparable to and sometimes exceeds that in large Construction Projects. Yet the Planning resources and hence effort put into maintenance is much lower, resulting in low productivity, quality and reliability.

One advantage of having dedicated schedulers is that their priorities are clear. With a Technician doing the job, 'as part pf' his activities, his focus may shift quite quickly to 'getting the job done', which is the visible tip of the iceberg. If we can get Techs to be willing to be accountable for reliability rather than volume of 'earned manhours' or 'response time', we can overcome this hurdle, and instill pride in work at the same time. When Toyota reversed 80 years of Frederick Taylors methods of dividing work into elements to produce the production line, their productivity went up by leaps and bounds. A similar thing can happen in Maintenance, if people are allowed to do the 'whole job', but this change needs careful thought and implementation.

V.Narayan.

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

Sometimes it is worth trying a simple pilot project to show the value of a planner. At one site, historically with negligible planning in the true sense of the job, I watched a group of trades and operators plan a large gearcase rebuild in a word processor (no CMMS). It took them 2 hours. They had to do multiple gearcase rebuilds over the year due to decades of neglect.

Past history indicated the average rebuild was 24 hours. First time using their planned work? Less than 8 hours, start to finish. Further room for improvement? Yes.

Over 10 gearcases required rebuilding. They did not bother calculating labour savings, reduced downtime, and so on. The business case for a planner was justified. The question became how many did they need!

Though not an expert on the subject, I would like to add that while it is conceivable that maintenance mechanics can do a fine job of planning work, they very well may not have the communications skills required to do the planners job efficiently. After all, they chose to be mechanics for a reason and that is most often because that is what they do best. Suppose you have six mechanics all with high school educations and millwright apprenticeships completed. Out of those 6, I would guess that at least one , maybe an excellent mechanic, is lacking in communications skills to the point that he would not prove reliable as a planner. Who does his planning then?

Not only that but there are efficiencies to be had by having a planner. The planner can coordinate multiple jobs at one time and knows all the right people to call to get the parts, labor, rental equipment, etc. at the right place at the right time. Considering that much of the work is somewhat redundant in requirements, much of it can be done with one contact between the planner and vendor, production, etc., rather than multiple ones from several mechanics.

I'm probably not telling you guys anything new, but like Vee said "this change needs careful thought and implementation".

We also have groups organized by trades, like millwrights, Electrical/instrumentation mechanics, mechanics etc.. These groups have leaders call it foremen, supervisors, crewboss, gangboss, leadman, enfim you name it. Where do they fit in the scheme? When I hear things like 15-20 craft per planner, I raise my eyebrows.
Even in the military service they have small units, to conduct their duties and have mission critical communications.

Just dived in the my download bin and found a paper I came across when hanging around in cyberspace.

Trying to trace where I found it

The_CentraI_issue.pdf (23 Kb, 70 downloads) The Central Issue

Terry, the way I see it the planner has to be well-versed (conversant) in the areas under his planning (at least in his own discipline). The planner can come from "rank and file" or senior engineer. In fact, I think the experience and competency of the planner will determine the amount of centralized and coordinated planning in the maintenance organization. The planner preferably has to know what to do in advance in thought and mind which can be formulated into:
1) work list in view of reliability, availability, maintenability, capacity utlisation, efficiency, production plan, lifecycle cost/total cost of ownership etc
2) work sequence and schedule for S-curve for routine work planning or turnaround/shutdown.
3) required materials & external services list
4) QA/QC plans for each major/project/overhaul/package works or small but repetative jobs
5) HSE plan
6) cost estimate for budgeting purposes etc
In reality, this would be achieved through consultations with various disciplines, contractors, other departments and the maintenance manager of course.

It's important to differentiate planning from doing/execution in the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act)cycle to which I think ISO9000 subscribes to.

Under each maintenance section (eg static, rotating, electrical, instrument), we may have a team leader who is basically responsible for execution (progress/schedule-compliance, quality control, compliance with procedures & instructions, specifications, codes & standards, statutory rules & regulations, chief craft/competency/best practice expert, site supervision & leadership, troubleshooting & diagnostics, HSE/PTW, cost control for works under him, training his craft, feedback/report to maintenance planning & improvement, ensuring proper data entry into CMMS, morale/motivation/evaluation of his craft).

In brief, I tend to believe the craft are employed for their skills/competencies for which they are the best! Perhaps promote those who have management and leadership skills into executive positions like line trainers (incl apprenticeships), planners, senior inspectors etc if they wish.

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

quote:

Josh - so planners must come from the area they will be responsible for planning?
Terry O

They may not be the most experts but must have enough knowledge on the assigned area (mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, facilities, etc) to be able to:

• Analyze the needs reported by the equipment owner on the request and traduce them into work steps in the maintenance order.
  
• Determine materials, special tools, rental equipment required to complete tasks
  
• Calculate crafts required and how many resources
  

If the workload does not justify a second Planner, and the first one does not have expertise in (for example) electrical jobs; the Planner should consult with the electricians supervisor/craftleader to review electrical jobs plans. Eventually the planner will pick up experience/confidence on that area.

Also, the planner could create an order at the CMMS system to require the assistance of an electrician to plan the complex electrical work requests received.

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

Terry, I have a system dynamics model that accurately determines the impact of planners. I have modeled several different maintenance organizations of various sizes and levels of effectiveness. The model has proven to be a good indicator of current planning/scheduling effectiveness as well as showing improvements still possible, or even what can be expected in an organization that is not doing any P&S. I originally used it to make the case for redesigning the planning and scheduling structure at the facility where I work. I was able to demonstrate that we only needed 50% of the planners we were currently using and that we could expect overall wrench time (effectiveness) to increase substantially with the redesign. Via the model, I was able to show gains in FTE (Full Time Equivelent) numbers. Modeling a maintenance crew or department takes about a day providing some basic data is readily available. I have thought about submitting an article to you on this topic, but wasn't sure there would be much interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry:
I have thought about submitting an article to you on this topic, but wasn't sure there would be much interest.

I'm interested in reading it.