If I have to make some policy, put on the wall, describing the purpose of a grease gun, it will be called "management flavor of the month" I'd rather go out myself take the grease gun, give a demonstration. If he still does not grab it, I don't need him.

That's what people tend to do. However, this kind of unwritten practice may score very low when come to best practice aseessment. They said it's not institutionalized in the organization, not systematic and thus, anytime it can stop.

And probably worst no evidence of lubrication program visible to ISO9000 auditors...

3Ps required for a reliable organization ie. Plant, People and Procedure. The lubrication strategy is part of Procedure.

Is this really a bad thing? While I don't dispute the value of lubricating equipment, it seems that the oiler/greaser has typically been the lowest level maintenance employee, and the least respected.

In reality it doesn't take great technical skill to lube equipment. There is certainly value that can be found in inspecting equipment while lubing.

But isn't this a function that machine operators can do since it isn't highly technical and it promotes care and ownership of the eqiupment?

I think Joe is on to a good thing here.
OWNERSHIP.
On a production line letting each individual be responsible for a particular machine in all areas - lube,CBM,cleaning etc.
Harder to have in a manufacturing set up where there are no clear work areas.
However our fitters have taken ownership of areas in Manufacturing and are looking after groups of machines in the same way.
At the end of the day though its all about ownership - harder with split shifts etc though.

Mike.

Why separate a PM task to be performed by a specialized resource rather to maintain it with the other PM tasks perfomed by the Mechanic?
* Task is regulated and a certification or license is required to perform it?
*** does lubrication requires special certification that the mechanics around the crew do not have? No.
* Task requires specialized skills / training
*** does lubrication requires special skills/training that the mechanic does not have? No.
* Assigning the task to another individual makes PM planning/sheduling easier?
*** does assigning lubrication ...? No.

What is the advantage to assign lubrication to "Oilers" over to Mechanics?

Good to hear comments on this. I did not say we should have separate oilers but I appoint lead oilers and his deputy among the existing mechanics or operators. So the duties of oilers are still embeded and ingrained in the mechanics' scope. In terms of numbers, therefore remain the same but the duties of the oilers are clearly identified and specified.

True lubrication tasks like topping up can be done by operators. Simple enough and should remain with the operators. But there are many other lubrication and contamination control tasks which the operators may not do!

And who is leading and owning the lubrication and contamination control program among the shopfloor personnel at your plant?

I'm appointing chief oilman and his deputy (per shift) to lead, own and emphasize the importance of this program. Thus to have an internal organization structure dedicated to lubrication and contamination control program. The appointment is also to recognize the roles of mechanics who are involved in the lubrication and contamination control.

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

Although I like writing, I don't like to overdo it. In most cases people will write for the upper class (read iso auditors, management etc..) and forget that on the workfloor great (reading/writing) skills exist. Sometimes you need to keep it simple. When it comes to ISO most people (read mgmt types, pen pushers) rush to make fancy documents, put it on the wall call it policy and think that everything is solved because it is written and Management has signed it.
The clever auditor goes to the floor and start molesting the troops with "smart" questions.
Then you have an undiscovered "talented" actor amongst them, with the dumbest expression on his face saying: "by the way, what is a grease gun, I thought it was prohibited to carry weapons in the plant" The policy writer assumed that putting something on paper resolved the deeper lying issues on the floor.

There are better ways to bring the message across, training is one of them, making technical literature available for the grunts is a second option. Give your fitters a scientific calculator and let them play with sine, cosine, so they can figure out Pitagoras the practical way, give the performers a pocket technical handbook so they can figure out the difference between a 150 pound and a 300 pound flange, or discover why a metric nut will not fit on an imperial bolt.

This a true story...
Selection process of fitters on a large construction site. The applicant claims he would be working at the Nasa, didn't had the opportunity because of geographical constraints.

The test: 2 flanges on the table, a 4" 300 pound and a 4" 150 pound, tell the difference.
If the applicant took the two flanges of the table and started to weigh, comparing the flanges..
It was a Standard Selection Procedure and very effective..

Yes, we should never overwrite something but I think a guide document is essential for everybody involved in the lubrication and contamination program to refer to as a minimum standard. Training as you mentioned above should be part of the guide. Among others, the content would be lubrication vs CBM like vibration monitoring, onsite tests versus lab tests, lubricant tests for equipment classes, parameter tolerances for settings, equipment to be monitored, lub charts, lub test results & trendings, good sampling, proper storage & usage, training etc.

quote:

In reality it doesn't take great technical skill to lube equipment

In theory, but when you take a walk out there, and see what is going , you might think that lubrication is some part of "rocket science".
First thing what people do when a drive case is running hot, put more oil!!, level plug or even the ones looking like a butterfly nut, with a hole in it? Greek!!
Although I must confess that things have been improving a lot since I started to work years ago

quote:

True lubrication tasks like topping up can be done by operators

Try to implement this on a shift, there are good operators that take pride to take care of their equipment, but if the environment is such as that the equipment outnumber the operators many times, I wouldn't thrust a simple top-up to Operations. When things go wrong it is always Mr. S(omebody) Else working in the previous shift.

Disclaimer
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental

quote:

I'm appointing chief oilman and his deputy per shift

And the recently "promoted" employees start claiming more money, revision of job description, and the "poor" boss has to battle with HRM to get this function weighted and fitted in the system, career plan, other employees not picking up a grease gun because that is the chief oilman JD, the union gets involved, certification..
humpf, paper pushing, at the end of the day the plant shuts down, because people are quarelling about grease.

Appreciate the views here. However, I feel appointing them is better than not. I will solve the problems highlighted along the way.

Even without the simple appointment of chief oilman, the boss still has to manage staff compentency and career plan. Do you really foresee a war between the boss/HR and the employees? Maybe in the first place, they are not paid well?

Anyway, have you ever got a shutdown because of people quarrelling about a grease gun?

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

Josh appointing is good, but doing something is better.

How would you handle a situation, when an older mechanic says to you "that is not my job", and you are the "new kid on the block". They only know that you are one of the "white hats" ,he is twice your size, and the spectators are watching.
You want to "promote" him to chief oilman, and he probably will be called "boss's pet" by his mates. Are you going to let the inmates run the assylum?

quote:

Anyway, have you ever got a shutdown because of people quarrelling

I am a very peaceful person, appreciate a good joke, kind, people adore me because of my manners, well educated, probably I would be elected employee of the year

[sarcasm]
But sometimes my tact is at the heavy side of a sledgehammer
[/sarcasm]

quote:

Do you really foresee a war between the boss/HR and the employees

That is likely to happen everybody is already armed with (gr..) guns

Appointing is a start to do something... Won't a good management start with an good organization chart with appointments to be made?

How to handle the worst case scenario you mentioned above which I think is about the resistance to change or improvement program?

Normally, a majority will embrace a change or improvement program well except a few who are the hardcore resistance. Any change for good is meant for those accept it, not for the few who reject it.

The majority are probably easier to handle.The whole scenario may be avoidable if the change or improvement program is introduced properly via a sufficient program communication plan such as a clear statement of objectives and benefits to all stakeholders, appointment of a program champion or sponsor (normally a topman like a relevant VP), a change management team (ladies could be good at "converting" male mechanics to embrace change via training), proper guidance during the expected steep learning curve, objectives & benefits tracking & celebration, certificates or recognition, etc.

So how to handle the change-resistant person? This needs a special treament espcially if he has followers and influence. Talk to him. What are his interests? Find out his reasons or concerns for disagreeing. Answer his what's in it for me?. A group of management may need to talk to him if necessary. This is where a top management support is required if the person may affect the program's success. Otherwise he may be good for other works of his interests eg repairs.

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

Josh you are giving a political answer, but in big lines that is the way to do it,
but:

quote:

A group of management may need to talk to him

Are you not part of management? I can't imagine the VP of the company coming down from mount Olympus and have a chat with the crowd.

Management assigned, you (Josh) to get things straighted out, and now you are amongst the wolves.., how to proceed...

I don't know whether it is a political answer or not but I have done that kind of course of actions before. Pls give the non-political answer then...to hear your views.

Yes, I'm part of management but hopefully not wolves. Of course, I have to deal with the problem first before engaging the higher management. It's important to deal with the guy amicably but an escalation to higher levels is inevitable if the problem persists including getting the next top guys involved. Why can't the top guys "walk the talk" to the ground, even from Mt Everest?

I think there is a series of actions to be tried and tested for positive engagement to find the workable solution including knowing his interests eg if his children want to go to University, will he say "It's not responsibility!"? Or does he like to catch piranhas to be bbq with a few can of beers? Put simply, need to know his factor X!

Actually I kind of faced the scenario you mentioned before. One good, older welder attending a CMMS enhancement training said in the class full of his peers "I don't like computers so I bought one but I chucked it under my bed!". And you know what after that? He won't do any jobs without a work order being issued to charge his manhours! I didn't tell much except to tell him personnally the objectives and benefits of the program to him but we worked together in the same reactor well before that. So I guess friendship and teamwork helps to respect each other's works.

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

I liked your answer

btw, the wolves are on the floor, the sharks are flying in the air and are based at Mt Everest

Appointment in my plant is easy. The Maintenance Supervisor gets the PM orders list from the system, sort it out among his/her crew. If the lubrication task is on the PM Orderassigned to Joe Mechanic, he is the oiler for that equipment on that month.