Expectations were different

Maintenance organizations were expected to perform a good amount of ‘capital’ investment work as part of their routine.

The question has always been under these circumstances…was this objective driven by union contract obligations and past practices, e.g., a preference not to use ‘other’, ‘outside’ labor and a false narrative that maintenance workers could do the same, arguably better, work as constructors, but cheaper?

Or, might it have been driven by the fact that on the P&L statement ‘fixed’ costs diverted to ‘capital’ projects does not show.

What better way to adjust that burdensome, ever present ‘fixed cost’ on our monthly financial KPI than by pushing costs off the P&L (OPEX) and on to a capital investment expenditure (CAPEX)?

Squeezing capital project work into maintenance workers schedules assumes there is excess labor time available and that the labor is skilled in construction activities. There is also an assumption that doing so will not impact the efficiency nor effectiveness of the output compared to contracted labor.

When the VP of Manufacturing asks to have 25% of maintenance labor (and corresponding materials) expended on capital projects, compliance is expected regardless of an opposing argument, especially when the union president supports the concept.

The games people play.

Stop and think this scenario through.

When you can devote 25% of your maintenance labor resources to capital work what happens to your true maintenance workload, as determined by some simple measure such as number of open uncompleted work orders?

Does it come down?

How skilled is your maintenance crew with concrete work, or steel placement, roofing, machine frames, rigging, new equipment installation, controls and power distribution and how skilled is your planning organization in these activities?

Construction and maintenance are two different activities with different planning, supervision and skill sets.

Construction crews have dedicated planners and supervisors totally focused on completing the well-defined project without no distractions caused by operations or other ‘outside’ sources.

Maintenance crews should also have dedicated planners and supervisors totally focused on an ever-changing, dynamic, interdependent operation filled with failing assets caused by ‘conditions’, many of which are usually ill defined.

So why would you as a maintenance manager not disagree and argue when the suggestion to divert maintenance resources to capital work is presented, especially when the action is only used to balance a fixed cost within the P&L statement and/or to satisfy an organized labor request devoted solely to keeping labor resources jurisdiction totally in-house?

Sure, maintenance crews have excellent capabilities and likely left to their own, with good single-minded, focused planning, logistical support and knowledgeable supervision can outperform many contracted resources.

But, is that what you employed them to do?

What happens when the capital project is complete? Are you going to lay the workers off?

Obviously, if you could ‘get by, good enough’ without these resources during the construction project, why not continue getting by without the same resources after completion?

Imagine the fixed cost reduction on the P&L and, further, the Balance Sheet with reduction of long-term liability obligations.

Of course, the complete reversal of this situation is also worthy of introspection.

You build a greenfield installation of production equipment. Many of the construction workers live in the area and they have some desirable skills. They placed the equipment, supposedly balanced, aligned, calibrated before turning over to the owners.

Might they make good ‘maintenance’ employees?

How many of these knowledgeable, local candidates have any experience:

·        with preventive maintenance routines such as proper lubrication practices,

·        troubleshooting operating equipment,

·        troubleshooting control and power systems,

·        have used a CMMS system,

·        analyzed data collected for condition monitoring,

·        understand the process of manufacturing a product?

How many greenfield sites have hired the contractors who built the place because they ‘knew the equipment’?

When it comes right down to it, installing new equipment is totally different than maintaining operating equipment. Different:

·        craftsperson skill sets

·        planning requirements

·        supply chain logistics

·        supervisory management

·        objective.

So why then, wouldn’t reliability centered maintenance (RCM) be used as the guiding tool for determining the basic maintenance requirements, including operational basic are actions, for a site either existing or brownfield or greenfield?

And then periodically adjusted to suit the unanticipated conditions that arise as the equipment is operated?

Otherwise, using some other determination, too many people will be assigned to the activity and the objective of accomplishing sustainable, continuously improved reliability at the least possible costs.