Up Time Magazine - December 2008/January 2009 - (Page 35) tors will tell us if the lagging indicators will get better or worse. There are three sets of measurable components that make up the maintenance and reliability process at Cargill (See Figure 1: Components of the Maintenance and Reliability Process). • Behaviors and management processes (people skills, mission and vision) • Operational execution (operations, design and maintenance) • Manufacturing performance (availability, quality, cost and benefits) Each component is a process on its own, which can be measured using both leading and lagging indicators. To determine the quality of each process, the results of each process need to be measured using lagging indicators. To assure good results, we must have good leading indicators – if you do the right things, the right things will happen for the business. The components of the maintenance and reliability process can also be explained as: approach, deployment and results. Manufacturing performance is a (end) result of the (correct) deployment of operational execution. Operational execution is, in part, the deployment of maintenance planning and scheduling, defect elimination, predictive and preventive measuring and follow up. To understand if these manufacturing performance (results) are sustainable, it is important not only to measure the deployment (operational execution) but also the approach (behaviors and management process). Without having a clearly defined approach, the result can be, and often times is, based on individuals deploying to their best effort, but without any vision and strategy for the future. In this context, and as a supply chain, the components of the maintenance and reliability process are both leading and lagging indicators depending on where in the process the indicators are being used. This simplified view of leading and lagging measures betrays the full value the definition can have. There is a cause and effect relationship between leading and lagging; the action being measured will cause a resulting action or effect, which is also being measured. This means that a given measure could be both a lagging measure for a previous cause in the chain, and a leading measure for a following effect. There are a series of causes and effects in the chain until the final lagging measures are reached. The Leading and Lagging Indicator Mapping in Figure 2 shows the concept of an indicator being both leading and lagging. Preventive Maintenance (PM) Compliance is a lagging indicator, or a result of how much PM work is completed when viewed in the context of work execution. However, when viewed as an indicator of equipment reliability, PM compliance is a leading indicator of the reliability process. The better or higher an organization’s PM compliance, the more likely this will lead to or predict improved equipment reliability. Similarly, improved equipment reliability will lead to reduced Maintenance Costs, which is a lagging indicator of the maintenance process. Before applying and implementing leading and lagging indictors, the maturity of the facility or company needs to be understood. For example, if you are in a transition stage from reactive to pro-active, then KPI’s like training compliance and percent pro-active work completed are more applicable to use than inventory turns increasing, or maintenance rework reducing, which are typically results of a more mature reliability process. To implement which KPI at which particular moment is unique for each business or location. Some ground rules need to be considered: - Focus on leading and lagging indicators for each reliability process component, see Figure 1 - Provide clear definitions and examples - Assess the operational readiness to implement the KPI. How Should We Measure? When implementing key performance indicators and setting goals, it is a natural human behavior to produce the results you are aiming for. This induces a natural bias to get the results you are targeting. For example, at our company we are measuring percent pro-active work completed, and we are aiming to achieve 80% pro-active work. Clear definitions with examples are set and the unit of measure is hours. When starting the measurement, plants were only asked to report the percent pro-active work done, and within several months, almost all plants were achieving this number, even though we knew it could not be possible considering the maturity stage of some plants. A thorough review showed that not all plants used “work hours complete” as a unit of measure; that is, some used number of work orders complete, some used actual cost, some included contractors, and some not. Maintenance and Reliability Process Process Measuring Behaviors & Processes People Skills Mission & Vision Operational Execution Operation & Design Maintenance Manufacturing Performance Quality & Availability Cost & Benefits Lagging Lagging Leading Lagging Leading Results Measuring Figure 1 - Maintenance and Reliability Process Components www.uptimemagazine.com 35 http://www.uptimemagazine.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.