POWER August 2012 - 17

the EAM system is navigationally based. Key processes and
roles are left out of the discussion. This approach leads to bad
data on day two.
Facing Fears
Unspoken fears can also hinder proactive maintenance. Many
power plant managers and supervisors do not welcome criticism.
They may not be keen on setting up advanced key performance
indicators such as percentage of reactive maintenance, weekly
schedule compliance, and backlog growth trends. Similarly, managers
may fear that creating an EAM work order (and entering
actuals) for all their work means they will come under constant
and potentially crippling scrutiny. The best advice is to get 100%
on board and dive into the process. The primary purpose of measurement
is to find opportunities for improvement in a very competitive
world.
Getting Started
To institute proactive maintenance, power plants need to
clearly define their goals and objectives, and from this, all
of the prerequisites to reach those goals. It is important to
remember the EAM system is much more than software. Eighty
percent of all potential improvement lies in process and procedure.
Be absolutely sure that working-level staff are on
board and fully committed. Verify key processes to be adhered
to via spot checks, auditing, work sampling, and EAM
system error checks. Tie all of these actions together using a
road map for the future. And remember that real ROI comes
with implementation of advanced EAM processes, which include
work order feedback in support of reliability centered
maintenance, basic failure analysis, maintenance planning/
scheduling, and (major) project scope/cost control tracking
(including outages).
Gather up all of the representative user groups and form a
Core Team. From this team, create formal business rules and
EAM system operating procedures. Identify " sore points " in
the form of inadequate training, missing foundation data, or
missing reports. Even the meaning of planning and scheduling
must be defined. The definition of planning can be quite
involved, but for the purposes of this article it includes task
steps, craft/skills codes, number of workers, and estimated
hours and materials.
Reality Check: Key Points
Some power plants will only focus on emergency/urgent work and
never choose to plan any work. Some plants may plan work, but
never schedule work. Some plants might not have any records
in their maintenance backlog. In this case, a paradigm shift is
needed. Not all power plants have a full-time planner/scheduler
or reliability engineer. Yet, for an EAM system to contain accurate
data, someone must accept responsibility for data input
and analysis. Clever and efficient use of the system requires your
input.
The overall maintenance program needs to include a proper
balance of preventive, corrective, and emergency/urgent maintenance.
Worker feedback should be enabled and expected. Through
a formal feedback loop, the maintenance strategy should be
continually reviewed and refined. All PM templates should be
fully planned (including those for labor and parts). PM schedules
should be near 100% compliance. Emergency/urgent work should
have quick response times, but all other work should be planned
and scheduled. Key performance indicators should help identify
areas of (needed) improvement.
18
Operational Excellence Is the Goal
Power plant maintenance is necessarily complex and carries significant
risk and responsibility. Yet, much of the promise of an
EAM system in terms of efficiency and reliability gains has not
been realized by the industry. As the energy industry faces a
transformative 21st century, power plants that are not fully leveraging
their EAM system risk falling behind the industry average.
Changing culture is hard and may take months (or years), but it
is never too late to start trying. To ensure success, power plant
leaders must begin with process improvement initiatives, carefully
manage and implement changes, and follow up with periodic
audits. By creating a long-term strategic road map, power plants
can achieve operational excellence, optimize expenditures, and
provide a substantial return on investment.
-Contributed by John Reeve (jreeve@cohesivesolutions.
com), manager and senior consultant for Cohesive
Information Solutions Inc.
Safety Measurement: Culture Shaping or
Failure Avoidance?
" It is a new month. I want you all to work very hard to fail less
than previous months. I'll be measuring. Failures will not be tolerated.
Anyone caught doing so will be disciplined by his or her
peers and/or leadership. "
Leading and measuring with the approach characterized by
this comment creates malicious compliance, avoidance behavior,
a have-to mentality, and disdain toward the organization. Teamwork
becomes a pointless buzzword, and fear of measurement
sets in. When organizations measure only incidents and establish
and reward incident reduction goals, " fail less " becomes the message.
Are your safety measurement systems focusing on motivation
and excitement, or evaluation and reactive accountability?
Lagging Indicators Create Hope
Incident metrics are prescriptive when there are many kinds of
data. As safety improves, the data used to advance results lose
statistical significance, which leads to a multitude of random
data points. As an organization matures in its safety management
systems and culture, reported injury data often move from
prescriptive to descriptive, then to demotivating, and then become
borderline pointless. When you achieve zero incidents, how
do you continue to improve? Most importantly, are the results
due to purposeful initiatives and accountability, or luck? What
sense of comfort does the organization have that it can repeat
the same results next year?
An injury or incident is a failure in your prevention process.
When the strategy or measurements are focusing on reducing injuries,
the culture is being motivated to avoid failure rather than
achieve success.
When a failure occurs and tactics are deployed quickly to prevent
recurrence, there is an impression that " leadership is reactive
when it comes to safety " or " someone has to get hurt for
safety to improve. " Rarely are high-performing cultures motivated
by measurement of such an approach.
Measurement: Motivational or Demotivating?
Safety measurement is supposed to direct, align, and motivate
behavior. What percentage of employees in your organization are
motivated, or even excited, by safety measurement compared to
those who are fearful of it?
Executives deploy a multitude of measurement systems to validate
the health of operations. Safety is no different than any other
operational priority, yet few leverage balanced scorecards or transwww.powermag.com
POWER
| August 2012
http://www.powermag.com
POWER August 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER August 2012
