MAINTENANCE Priorities, priorities

In our April issue we examined ways in which the management of a mine can undermine the effectiveness of its first-line foreman. Sometimes management fails to provide any policy guidelines for maintenance. Other times management fails to communicate a company’s long- and short-term objectives in a context that includes contribution from maintenance. Often management appears to be sacrificing good maintenance programs and practices for the sake of short-term production goals and temporary improvements in cash flow. In this article one procedure will be identified, which, if it becomes standard practice, could have wide- reaching effects on the quality of a maintenance program. It could also directly increase the effectiveness of the first-line foreman and the morale of his crew. This concerns the allotment of priorities for running repairs.

Running repairs are quick-fix jobs which usually take a couple of hours and involve one or two people. If these repairs are identified as emergencies, work is started immediately; otherwise they are completed in 2-3 days. They are unpredictable and require a large portion of the labor resources when preventive maintenance is downgraded. Sometimes the portion reaches as much as 80%. (Anything below 40% indicates effective preventive maintenance.)

It must be understood that running repairs invariably consume more labor than either repetitive or non-repetitive work, which make up the balance of the workload and are scheduled weeks in advance.

Each day, shortly after his shift has started, the first-line foreman is presented with a new batch of these repairs. Traditionally he has been responsible for the short-range scheduling of them. He is assumed to be the best qualified to arrange, in priority, these ongoing repair jobs because of his technical knowledge with plant and equipment and because he is responsible for the completion of the work.

The operators in the production departments, mining and milling know their equipment well. With their shift supervisors, they identify necessary, daily repairs. Also, at the end of their shift, underground operators are usually legally required to submit a report on the condition of the piece of mobile equipment they have been using.

Various methods are adopted to convey to the maintenance department the details of the repair work required. These range from verbal communications to log-book records to formal written requests.

Requests for maintenance, other than running repairs, also come to the first-line foreman. The process of sorting out the repair orders, allotting priorities and planning a work day (while constantly being interrupted by phone calls and with most of the work crew waiting for their assignments) is difficult and often frustrating. It requires careful thinking and decision-making under very demanding conditions. It can also drive the foreman to utilize certain criteria in setting up priorities — criteria that are sometimes not in keeping with over- all management objectives. Wrong criteria can result in priorities that lead to conflicts of interest. And we are all familiar with the proverbial squeaky wheel.

There is another important aspect that should never be ignored. Peter Drucker recognized this as early as 1954 when he wrote: “Few things demoralize employees as much as to sit around waiting for work while management fumbles. Few things constitute such conclusive proof of management’s incompetence in their eyes. To schedule so that there is always work to do is not a minor matter. High standards of performance, a high degree of competence in the way the work is organized and managed, and visible signs of management’s concern for good work are among the important things demanded of an enterprise and of it’s management by the worker.”

By delegating to the first-line foreman the responsibility of allotting priorities for running repairs, the operators are relying on skills which the forman cannot possibly have, and they may be unknowingly placing themselves in jeopardy.

The shift bosses, after receiving reports from the operators, are in the best position to decide which should receive immediate attention to correct a safety hazard or prevent an eventual risk of downtime or equipment damage. The shift bosses should allot their individual priorities. Their immediate supervisor, the general foreman or captain, should then decide on priorities for all of the work before the responsibility passes to the maintenance department.

For the afternoon and graveyard shifts, procedure would be similar except that the senior production supervisor in each shift would set the priorities for all the repairs identified during the previous shift and pass them directly to the shift’s first-line maintenance foreman. The day shift’s senior production supervisor would then review their content and progress as part of establishing the day shift priorities.

Requests for running repair work would preferably be made using individual standard work orders that can be passed on, without duplication, to the maintenance worker (a copy can be retained by the issuer for future control). With their record of repair requests and completion, the production departments can update priorities daily, informing maintenance of any changes. Duplication of repair requests can be eliminated.

Ideally, each working day, the first- line foremen would receive a batch of running repair orders with designated priority. The first-line foreman would be free from alloting priorities if this responsibility were placed in the production departments where it could be assessed more accurately. This would not only give the foreman more time in a very crowded shift; it would release him to better direct the activities of his crew at the crucial time — the beginning of the shift.

Running repairs consume 40%-80% of maintenance manhours. Surely they warrant definitive guidelines from management. Keith Bowley is a Toronto-based maintenance management consultant. This is the second of a 2-part article.