Maintenance Handbook

Maintenance
Planning and
Scheduling
Handbook
This page intentionally left blank
Maintenance
Planning and
Scheduling
Handbook
Doc Palmer
Second Edition
McGraw-Hill
New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid
Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul
Singapore Sydney Toronto
Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of
America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publica-
tion may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval
system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
0-07-150155-X
The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: 0-07-145766-6.
All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners. Rather than put a trademark symbol after
every occurrence of a trademarked name, we use names in an editorial fashion only, and to the bene-
fit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. Where such designa-
tions appear in this book, they have been printed with initial caps.
McGraw-Hill eBooks are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promo-
tions, or for use incorporate training programs. For more information, please contact George Hoare,
Special Sales, at [email protected] or (212) 904-4069.
TERMS OF USE
This is a copyrighted work and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw-Hill”) and its licensors
reserve all rights in and to the work. Use of this work is subject to these terms. Except as permitted
under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the right to store and retrieve one copy of the work, you may not
decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based upon,
transmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, publish or sublicense the work or any part of it without
McGraw-Hill’s prior consent. You may use the work for your own noncommercial and personal use;
any other use of the work is strictly prohibited. Your right to use the work may be terminated if you
fail to comply with these terms.
THE WORK IS PROVIDED “AS IS.” McGRAW-HILL AND ITS LICENSORS MAKE NO GUAR-
ANTEES OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY OR COMPLETENESS OF
OR RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED FROM USING THE WORK, INCLUDING ANY INFORMA-
TION THAT CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE WORK VIA HYPERLINK OR
OTHERWISE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. McGraw-Hill and its licensors do not warrant or
guarantee that the functions contained in the work will meet your requirements or that its operation
will be uninterrupted or error free. Neither McGraw-Hill nor its licensors shall be liable to you or any-
one else for any inaccuracy, error or omission, regardless of cause, in the work or for any damages
resulting therefrom. McGraw-Hill has no responsibility for the content of any information accessed
through the work. Under no circumstances shall McGraw-Hill and/or its licensors be liable for any
indirect, incidental, special, punitive, consequential or similar damages that result from the use of or
inability to use the work, even if any of them has been advised of the possibility of such damages. This
limitation of liability shall apply to any claim or cause whatsoever whether such claim or cause
arises in contract, tort or otherwise.
DOI: 10.1036/0071457666
Professional
Want to learn more?

We hope you enjoy this
McGraw-Hill eBook! If
you’d like more information about this book,
its author, or related books and websites,
please click here.
To Jesus and Nancy
For more information about this title, click here
Contents
Foreword xix
Preface xxi
Preface to First Edition xxiii
Acknowledgments xxix
Prologue: A Day in the Life—May 10, 2010 xxxi
Chapter 1. The Benefit of Planning 1

Company Vision 1
Why Improvement Is Needed in Maintenance 3
What Planning Mainly Is and What It Is Mainly Not
(e.g., Parts and Tools) 4
How Much Will Planning Help? 9
The practical result of planning: freed-up technicians 9
“World class” wrench time 12
The specific benefit of planning calculated 13
Why does this opportunity exist? 15
Quality and Productivity Effectiveness and Efficiency 19
Planning Mission 20
Frustration with Planning 21
Summary 22
Overview of the Chapters and Appendices 22
Chapter 2. Planning Principles 27

The Planning Vision; The Mission 27
Principle 1: Separate Department 29
Illustrations 32
Principle 2: Focus on Future Work 33
Illustrations 39
Principle 3: Component Level Files 40
Illustrations 44
Caution on computerization 46
Principle 4: Estimates Based on Planner Expertise 47
Illustrations 53
Principle 5: Recognize the Skill of the Crafts 55
Illustrations 63
vii
viii Contents
Principle 6: Measure Performance with Work Sampling 64

Illustrations 69
Summary 70
Chapter 3. Scheduling Principles 73

Why Maintenance Does Not Assign Enough Work 73
Advance Scheduling Is an Allocation 77
Principle 1: Plan for Lowest Required Skill Level 79
Illustrations 82
Principle 2: Schedules and Job Priorities Are Important 84
Illustrations 85
Principle 3: Schedule from Forecast of Highest Skills Available 88
Illustrations 91
Principle 4: Schedule for Every Work Hour Available 93
Illustrations 96
Principle 5: Crew Leader Handles Current Day’s Work 97
Illustrations 99
Principle 6: Measure Performance with Schedule Compliance 100
Illustrations 102
Summary 104
Chapter 4. What Makes the Difference and Pulls It All Together 107
Proactive versus Reactive Maintenance 108
Extensive versus Minimum Maintenance 112
Communication and Management Support 113
One Plant’s Performance (Example of Actual Success) 115
Desired Level of Effectiveness 117
Summary 119
Chapter 5. Basic Planning 121

A Day in the Life of a Maintenance Planner 121
Work Order System 124
Planning Process 128
Work Order Form 130
Coding Work Orders 133
Using and Making a Component Level File 137
Scoping a Job 138
Troubleshooting 139
Performance testing or engineering 141
Illustrations 142
Engineering Assistance or Reassignment 143
Developing Planned Level of Detail,
Sketching and Drawing 144
Attachments 147
English 101 148
Craft Skill Level 149
Estimating Work Hours and Job Duration 153
Parts 157
Contents ix
Equipment parts list 159

Purchasing 160
Storeroom, reserving, and staging 162
Special Tools 165
Job Safety 167
Confined space 167
Material safety data sheets 167
Estimating Job Cost 168
Contracting Out Work 172
Insulation 172
Other contracted out work 173
Closing and Filing Feedback after Job Execution 174
Summary 179
Chapter 6. Advance Scheduling 183

Weekly Scheduling 183
Forecasting work hours 184
Sorting work orders 191
Allocating work orders 201
Formal Weekly Schedule Meeting 215
Staging Parts and Tools 217
What to stage 219
Where to stage 221
Who should stage 224
The process of staging 224
Outage Scheduling 226
Planning work orders for outages 229
Key concepts in scheduling for outages 229
Quotas, Benchmarks, and Standards Addressed 235
Summary 238
Chapter 7. Daily Scheduling and Supervision 241

A Day in the Life of a Maintenance Supervisor 241
Assigning Names 246
Coordinating with the Operations Group 254
Handing Out Work Orders 256
During Each Day 259
Summary 260
Chapter 8. Forms and Resources Overview 261

Forms 262
Resources 266
Component level files—minifiles 266
Equipment History Files (Including system files and minifiles) 269
Technical Files 272
Attachment files 273
Vendor Files 274
Equipment parts lists 274
Standard plans 274
x Contents
Lube oil manual 278

MSDS 278
Plant schematics 278
Rotating or critical spares program 280
Security of Files 280
Summary 281
Chapter 9. The Computer in Maintenance 283

A Day in the Life of a Maintenance Planner
(Using a CMMS) 284
What Type of Computerization 290
Software already in use 290
Single user or larger network 291
Creating versus purchasing a commercial CMMS 291
Benefits with the CMMS 292
Standardizing work processes 293
Inventory control 293
Information for metrics and reports 294
Finding work orders 295
Linking information to equipment 296
Common database 296
Scheduling 297
PM generation 297
Problem diagnosis and root cause
analysis support 298
Cautions with the CMMS 298
Faulty processes 298
Reliability and speed 299
Backup system 300
Cost assignment 300
Employee evaluations 300
Goldfish bowl 301
Unnecessary metrics 301
Eliminate paper? 301
Jack of all trades, master of none 302
Artificial intelligence 303
Templates 303
User friendly 304
Cost and logistics 304
Selection of a CMMS 305
Team 305
Process 306
Specific Planning Advice to Go Along with a CMMS 308
Advanced Helpful Features for Planning and Scheduling 310
Summary 311
Chapter 10. Consideration of Preventive Maintenance, Predictive

Maintenance, and Project Work 313
Preventive Maintenance and Planning 313
Predictive Maintenance and Planning 319
Project Work and Planning 320
Contents xi
Chapter 11. Control 323

Organization Theory 101: The Restaurant Story 323
Selection and Training of Planners 326
Indicators 329
Planned coverage 330
Proactive versus reactive 330
Reactive work hours 331
Work type 331
Schedule forecast 332
Schedule compliance 333
Wrench time 335
Minifiles made 336
Backlog work orders 336
Work orders completed 337
Backlog work hours 338
Summary 338
Chapter 12. Conclusion: Start Planning 341
Epilogue: An Alternative Day in the Life—May 10, 2010 345

Bill, Mechanic at Delta Ray, Inc. 345
Sue, Supervisor at Zebra, Inc. 347
Juan, Welder at Alpha X, Inc. 348
Jack, Planner at Johnson Industries, Inc. 349
Appendix A. Planning Is Just One Tool; What Are the Other

Tools Needed? 351
Work Order System 355
Equipment Data and History 360
Leadership, Management, Communication, Teamwork
(Incentive Programs) 362
Qualified Personnel 369
Classification 371
Hiring 372
Training 372
Shops, Tool Rooms, and Tools 380
Storeroom and Rotating Spares 382
Reliability Maintenance 386
Preventive maintenance 387
Predictive maintenance 390
Project maintenance 393
Improved Work Processes 396
Maintenance Metrics 397
Summary 403
Appendix B. The People Side of Planning 405

The People Rules of Planning 406
Rule 1: The planning program is not trying to give away the plant's
work to contractors 406
xii Contents
Rule 2: Planners cannot plan the perfect job 407

Rule 3: Planning is not designed to take the brains out of
the technicians 408
Rule 4: The technicians own the job after the supervisor
assigns it to them 408
Rule 5: Planners cannot make the perfect time estimate 408
Rule 6: Management cannot hold technicians accountable to time
estimates for single jobs 409
Rule 7: Showing what is not correct is often as important as
showing what is correct 410
Rule 8: Planners do not add value if they help jobs-in-progress 410
Rule 9: Everyone is an adult 411
Rule 10: Everyone should enjoy their work 412
Rule 11: Everyone should go home at the end of each day knowing if
they have won or lost 413
Rule 12: Wrench time is not strictly under the control
of the technicians 413
Rule 13: Schedule compliance is not strictly under the control
of the crew supervisors 414
Rule 14: It is better to train employees and lose them than to not
train them and keep them 415
Rule 15: Modern maintenance needs to do less with less 416
Summary 417
Appendix C. What to Buy and Where 419

Minifile Folders 419
Minifile Labels 420
Miscellaneous Office Supplies 420
Equipment Tags 421
Wire to Hang Tags on Equipment 422
Deficiency Tags 423
Shop Ticket Holders 423
Open Shelf Files 423
CMMS 424
Appendix D. Sample Forms and Work Orders 425
Appendix E. Step-by-Step Overview of Planner Duties 453
Appendix F. Step-by-Step Overviews of Others’ Duties 459

Maintenance Scheduler 459
Maintenance Planning Clerk 460
New work orders 460
After job execution 460
Other duties 460
Operations Coordinator 461
Maintenance Purchaser or Expediter 461
Crew Supervisor 462
Before job execution 462
During job execution 462
Contents xiii
After job execution 462

Other duties 463
Planning Supervisor 463
Maintenance Manager 463
Maintenance Planning Project Manager 463
Maintenance Analyst 464
Appendix G. Sample Work Sampling (Wrench Time) Study: “Ministudy” 465

Work Sampling Study of I&C Maintenance, October–December 1993.
Final Report, March 25, 1994. 465
Table of Contents 465
Executive Summary 466
Introduction 467
Category Definitions 468
Working 468
Waiting 469
Other 470
Unaccountable 471
Study Results 471
Collection of observation data 472
Analysis 473
Conclusions 480
Recommendations 481
Attachment A: Procedure for Measuring Work Force Productivity by
Work Sampling 481
Attachment B: Work Sampling Calculations 485
Appendix H. Sample Work Sampling (Wrench Time) Study:

Full-Blown Study 487
Work Sampling Study of Mechanical Maintenance, January–March 1993.
Final Report, April 29, 1993 487
Executive Summary 488
Introduction 489
Category Definitions 490
Study Results 494
Collection of Observation Data 494
Analysis 495
Time 517
Conclusions 553
Recommendations 554
Attachment A: Procedure for measuring workforce productivity by
work sampling 555
Attachment B: Work sampling calculations 557
Appendix I. Special Factors Affecting Productivity 561

Wrench Time in Exceptional Crafts and Plants 561
Blanket Work Orders 562
Empowering versus Scheduling 563
Definitions and details 564
xiv Contents
Empowered to do what? 565

Proper empowered responsibility between planning and crew supervision 567
The result of proper empowerment 568
Schedule Compliance 569
Major causes 572
Overloaded schedule 573
Crew not making it 574
Schedule breakers 575
Low producing crews 579
Priority Systems 584
Major causes 585
Choice 587
No priority system in reality 588
Gaming the priority system 589
Summary 594
Appendix J. Work Order System and Codes 595

Company Work Order System Manual 595
Introduction 596
Work Flow 597
Work Order Form and Required Fields 597
CMMS Instructions for Plant-Wide Use 602
Codes 602
Priority 602
Status 604
Department and crew 605
Work type 606
How found 608
Plan type 609
Outage 610
Plant and unit 611
Equipment group and system 612
Equipment type 632
Problem class, problem mode, problem cause, action taken 635
Work Order Numbering System 639
Current numbering system 639
Previous numbering systems 640
Notes 640
Manual Distribution 641
Appendix K. Equipment Schematics and Tagging 643

Equipment Tag Numbers 644
Equipment Tag Creation and Placement 648
Summary 650
Appendix L. Computerized Maintenance Management Systems 651

Planning Principles versus Using a CMMS 651
Helpful Features for Planning and Scheduling 652
User friendly 652
Speed is everything 654
Contents xv
Reliability is second 655

Inventory help 655
Is this a modification? Rework? Call out? 655
Deficiency tag 656
Outage and clearance versus status 656
Priority 657
How found 657
Attachment or link 657
Equipment module 657
Types of Projects 658
Patches 658
Upgrades 658
Changing systems 659
New systems 659
Big Glitches in Real Systems 659
Death March Projects 661
What they are 661
Why they happen 662
Key points to survival 663
Planning a CMMS Project 664
Work Request for a CMMS 665
Planning for a CMMS 665
Staffing 667
Scope 667
Project plan 669
Parts 670
Special tools 671
Procedure 675
Estimated job cost 680
Ongoing Support 681
Perspective 681
Meeting to Review Screen Design 681
Appendix M. Setting Up and Supporting a Planning Group 683

Setting Up a Planning Group in a Traditional Maintenance
Organization for the First Time 683
Organization and interfaces 686
Planners 688
Workspace layout 694
Management and control 695
Redirecting or Fine-Tuning an Existing Planning Group 696
Considerations 697
Older facilities versus newer facilities 698
Facilities under construction 698
Centralized versus area maintenance considerations 698
Traditional versus self-directed work teams 699
Aids and Barriers Overview 700
Major Areas of Planning Management 703
Organize—establish a planning group 703
Plan—plan enough jobs for one week 706
Schedule—schedule enough jobs for one week 710
Execute—execute scheduled jobs and give feedback 712
Ongoing—keep planning and scheduling ongoing 714
xvi Contents
Key Aids and Barriers 717

Management support—sponsor a P&S system 717
Supervisor support—follow a P&S system 719
Technician support—follow a P&S system 721
Right planner—create positions and select the right planners 723
Planner training—have trained planners 725
Urgent breakdowns—utilizing P&S in a reactive environment 727
Technician interruptions—deal with planner distractions 728
Equipment tags—have tags on equipment 730
Files—have effective files 732
Purchasing—buy timely nonstock parts 733
Work order system—have an effective foundation 735
CMMS—have a helpful computer system 736
Special Circumstances 739
Improve existing planning—turn around an existing group 739
New plants or units—establish effective planning 741
Self-directed teams—use planning and scheduling 743
Summary 744
Appendix N. Example Formal Job Description for Planners 745

Maintenance Planner 745
Duties 745
Minimum qualifications 746
Appendix O. Example Training Tests 747

Maintenance Planning Test Number 1 747
Appendix P. Questions for Managers to Ask to Improve

Maintenance Planning 755
Appendix Q. Contracting Out Work 759

Why Contract Out Work? 760
Problems with Contracting Out Work 764
Alternative Forms of Contracting Out Work 767
Contracting out all of maintenance and operations 767
Contracting out all of maintenance 768
Contracting out all the labor within maintenance 768
Contracting out lower skills 769
Contracting out unusual tasks or other tasks requiring
special expertise 769
Contracting out to supplement labor 770
Increasing in-house maintenance management expertise 771
Arbitration Considerations for Contracting Out Work 771
Impact on employees 773
Work type and equipment 779
Reasonableness and extent justified by employer 783
Good faith 787
Summary 790
Contents xvii
Appendix R. Concise Text of Missions, Principles, and Guidelines 793

Maintenance Planning Mission Statement 793
Maintenance Planning Principles 793
Maintenance Scheduling Principles 794
Guidelines for Deciding if Work is Proactive or Reactive 795
Guidelines for Deciding if Work is Extensive or Minimum Maintenance 795
Guidelines for Deciding Whether to Stage Parts or Tools 796
Guidelines for Craft Technicians to Provide Adequate Job Feedback 797
Glossary 799
Bibliography 803
Index 805
Foreword
We are witnessing a major change in maintenance. It is moving from an

equipment repair service to a business process for increasing equipment
reliability and ensuring plant capacity. Its practitioners are trading their
reactive cost center mentality for a proactive equipment asset manage-
ment philosophy.
As editor of a technical business magazine covering the maintenance
and reliability field, I have had an opportunity to track maintenance
during its move from craft to profession. I have had the pleasure of
writing about its leaders, the people, and organizations who are con-
tinually extending the benchmark for maintenance excellence. Many are
well on their way to establishing themselves at a level where mainte-
nance performance is measured not by simple efficiency, but by contri-
butions to plant productivity and profitability.
One of my favorite jobs as an editor is the reporting of best practices
to the maintenance community. I first met Doc Palmer during such an
assignment—a magazine cover story on a plant maintenance improve-
ment program. Since then, I have published some of his articles and
heard his conference presentations, and found that he has a superb
understanding of the practices leading to maintenance excellence.
One belief that the leading organizations hold in common is that
maintenance is a business process and that formal planning and sched-
uling is key to its success. Yet, there is a dearth of practical references
on the subject. Most articles and conference papers on planning and
scheduling stress its strategic importance, but they do not delve into
the practical details because of limitations imposed by article length or
conference programming. Doc has leaped over this hurdle with his
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook. There is now a ready
reference to take the action oriented maintenance practitioner to the
level of understanding needed to install a planning and scheduling
function and make it work.
The book positions planning in maintenance operations and then pro-
ceeds logically to introduce the principles of planning and scheduling and
xix
Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. Click here for terms of use.

xx Foreword
explain how to make planning work. Additional sections cover the

nuances of planning preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance,
and project work. The book concludes with helpful information on how
to get started.
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook is a welcome addi-
tion to the body of knowledge of maintenance excellence and how to
achieve it.
ROBERT C. BALDWIN
Senior Editor
EDTRON.com
Technical Business Communications
Palatine, Illinois
Preface
The welcome demand for the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling

Handbook around the world and repeated printings have encouraged
this second edition. The author is profoundly grateful that maintenance
practitioners across a wide spectrum of industries have found the hand-
book and its principles universally applicable.
The second edition has revised most pages throughout the entire
handbook to clarify and amplify discussions based on the author’s expe-
rience of the last seven years and practitioner feedback since the first
edition. Perhaps the most fundamental of these revisions is moving
the planning strategy from simply relying on craft skills to more of a
procedures-based organization in terms of job plan detail. The second
edition also adds a definitive aids and barriers analysis to virtually
every key aspect of planning. Furthermore, it adds cause maps to inves-
tigate low schedule compliance and priority system problems. Two new
appendices add much discussion on the soft side of maintenance plan-
ning (dealing with people) and the controversial issue of subcontracting
maintenance. In addition, the second edition delves much deeper into
implementing and using a CMMS. Finally, readers should welcome
improvements in overall text format (larger font) and chapter organi-
zation that make the handbook easier to use. All of these changes make
the handbook even more comprehensive and helpful. These changes
should enhance the handbook's usefulness and unique contribution to
this key segment of maintenance.
DOC PALMER
Neptune Beach, Florida
[email protected]
xxi

Preface to First Edition
The Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook shows how to

improve dramatically the productivity of maintenance. For example, a
group of 25 maintenance technicians should be performing the work of
39 persons when aided by a single maintenance planner. This book
clearly and simply sets forth the vision, principles, and techniques of
maintenance planning to allow achievement of this type of improvement
in any maintenance program.
When I began writing articles and publishing papers describing the
success we had achieved in maintenance through maintenance planning,
I was not surprised by the requests for information I received. We had
revamped our existing planning organization and the result was a total
clearance of a large backlog of work that had some work orders in it as
old as 2 years. The clearing took less than 3 months thus freeing up
in-house labor and allowing a scheduled major overhaul to commence
without costly contractor assistance. We had been through a learning
journey in the course of our success. Before we got planning “working”
we had to unlearn about as many false notions about planning as we had
to learn principles to support what it really was. Most of the requests for
information I received primarily centered on a need just to get a handle
on exactly what maintenance planning was. Eventually McGraw-Hill
asked that I write this book.
I believe that maintenance planning has remained an undeveloped
area of tremendous leverage for maintenance productivity for several rea-
sons. The planning function is positioned down in the maintenance group
and does not command the plant manager’s attention, so it is “beneath
the plant manager.” The techniques require an increased degree of organ-
ization, coordination, and accountability as well as a loss of some control
(which some maintenance supervisors might not find appealing), so it is
“unnecessary to the maintenance manager.” Finally, the principles of
planning are not technical in nature, so it is “uninteresting to the plant
engineer.” Nevertheless, a company seeking to be more competitive would
do well to exploit such an area of leverage. A common saying states that
xxiii

xxiv Preface to First Edition
for any endeavor, 1 hour of planning will save 3 hours of work. Maintenance
planning saves more. After a work order system, planning is the biggest
improvement one can make to a maintenance program.
This book considers “planning” as the preparatory work given to indi-
vidual maintenance work orders before assigning them to specific craft-
persons for work execution. This preparatory work, when properly done,
greatly increases maintenance productivity. There exist few actual books
in print for maintenance planning and most do not actually address
planning the way the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook
does. Each of these other books is excellent, but they portray maintenance
planning as overall maintenance strategy or preventive maintenance
instead of as preparatory work before work order execution. For exam-
ple, one book focuses on planning maintenance management rather than
planning work orders. That book emphasizes having detailed work plans
for routine preventive maintenance, but the actual planning described
in detail primarily shows how to schedule outage time for working on the
equipment. Another book defines and presents planning as preventive
maintenance or other work decided upon well in advance of execution.
In other words, there exist two types of maintenance, planned versus
reactive, so by definition there is no planning of reactive work. In con-
trast, my book presents planned versus unplanned and reactive versus
proactive as two separate considerations. Planning of reactive work is
essential. A third book also addresses overall maintenance management
with little distinction on what type of work is being planned. It compares
the accuracy of different types of planner job time estimates, but without
much comment on how using them affects crew productivity. So the few
books available define “planning” in varying manners. Overall mainte-
nance management and preventive maintenance are not the maintenance
planning to which the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook
speaks. Even though these areas are important and my book touches on
them in several ways, they are not “work order planning.” Maintenance
management is using the right tools and using them correctly. Preventive
maintenance is a tool involving some of the right jobs to do. Work order
planning is a tool to get the right jobs “ready to go.” The Maintenance
Planning and Scheduling Handbook, authored by an actual practitioner,
fills the gap in the literature for work order planning.
This book is also important because even when considering work order
planning, industry has a significant problem with the concept. Most
maintenance organizations do not have a planning function and many
that do are frustrated and not getting anywhere near the improvement
they should. Just like learning the computer, planning has been made
needlessly over-complicated. Thomas Sowell (1993) said, “If driving an
automobile were taught the way using a computer is taught, driving les-
sons would begin with an elaborate study of the internal combustion
engine, then move on to the physics of the transmission system and the
Preface to First Edition xxv
chemistry of rubber tires before finally getting around to explaining how

to put the key in the ignition and start the car.” People have not seen a
clear vision of the work order planning function. Until now, most of the
literature that targets the work order planning concept has presented
merely the responsibilities of planning without actually defining plan-
ning in a practical, bottom-line manner. Because that literature does
not know the vision, it fails to translate the responsibilities into exactly
what a planner does. The few previous attempts illustrate this lack of
clear vision: their ideas about everything a planner should do lead to a
job description impossibly full, even for Superman. The great truth is that
the Pareto Principle is alive and well. 20% of what planners should be
doing contributes to 80% of the impact of planning. In actual practice,
organizations have crowded this most important 20% out altogether
with another group of activities imposed upon the planners. Some com-
panies even mistakenly think of planning as simply a software project.
Imagine the computer industry reinforcing this problem where there is
an explosion of software to manage maintenance without a clear under-
standing of what maintenance planning is. As a result, the many com-
panies who have not implemented a planning function miss a great
opportunity and the companies frustrated with planning need to back up
and relearn what planning should be. Because of insufficient under-
standing, maintenance planning remains an undeveloped area of intense
leverage for maintenance productivity in industry.
The Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook clearly sets
forth both the vision and the how-to specifics of maintenance planning.
The handbook carefully explains what maintenance planning is all
about and then nails down what is expected from a planner and why.
It also shows how to measure the success. The handbook includes spe-
cific directions for planners. Readers can grasp the fundamentals of
planning and make an impact in their organizations.
Typically, maintenance managers and plant engineers have called me
with questions after I make a presentation or write an article. One main-
tenance manager called me saying he had 38 craftpersons and was going
to hire 13 more for a major mill expansion. My opinion was that he
should hire no one new (savings of over $500,000 per year) and trans-
form two of his existing craftpersons into planners. His resulting pro-
ductivity would be as if he had hired 20 more persons. I have also received
a significant number of queries from computer system personnel and
planners themselves. My favorite was from the planner who called from
across the nation just to say I was “right on target and to keep up the
good work.” The book is primarily intended for maintenance managers
(including plant engineers responsible for maintenance) and for plant
managers. It is equally valuable for maintenance planners themselves,
as well as for management information personnel working with a com-
puterized maintenance management system (CMMS). Contractors and
xxvi Preface to First Edition
consultants helping others will benefit as well as risk management pro-

fessionals interested in the care of physical assets. Corporate executives,
of course, would benefit in learning what a difference planning can make
as they play a role in getting the interest of these other persons.
The maintenance manager really determines whether planning will be
successful, although to support planning, the plant manager must know
what improvement can be expected, what impact will be made on pro-
duction personnel, and what the maintenance manager must do. The
maintenance manager will use this book to understand and believe the
vision and to apply the principles to obtain the dramatic improvement.
This maintenance manager is usually one of two persons: one is the
degreed person, typically with an engineering background, who has been
placed in charge. The other is the craftperson who worked up into this
latest promotion. This latter manager is many times the only nondegreed
manager on site. (A third possibility, especially internationally where the
distinction between engineering and maintenance is blurred, is the craft-
person who earns a technical degree while working. The resulting main-
tenance manager or plant engineer has much hands-on experience.) All
of these persons need the concepts of maintenance planning very clearly
expressed so that they can easily grasp them, apply them, and commu-
nicate them to others.
Maintenance managers and plant managers are not the only ones
who will appreciate this book. The actual planners themselves will ben-
efit from better understanding their mission and duties. Planners are
typically maintenance personnel directly from the crafts or craft super-
vision, but sometimes they are engineers or construction technologists.
In addition, computer system administrators and management infor-
mation persons will better understand planning and be more able to help
maintenance with a computerized maintenance management system.
Companies that do maintenance for others and consultants that help
improve programs will also use this book to establish superior mainte-
nance performance. Finally, there is the risk management professional.
Those persons in industrial insurance companies are taking a more
active role spreading good ideas and asking pertinent questions. They
have a vested interest in clients adequately protecting their assets; that
is what maintenance is all about.
The Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook is valuable to
any person who wants to pick up a few good maintenance ideas.
Nevertheless, the book is a handbook in its completeness of coverage and
all readers will be able to use it to make their maintenance program dra-
matically more effective and productive. The readers will finally under-
stand the simple truths about maintenance planning. Managers will be
able to implement a new planning group or decisively redirect an exist-
ing one. Planners and supervisors will use this book as a training and
reference tool. Because formalized planning can help any organization
Preface to First Edition xxvii
with more than ten maintenance persons, the resulting maintenance

program can be a competitive edge for the company for utilization of
labor and equipment assets.
Just after this Preface and the Acknowledgments, the Prologue narrates
several typical scenarios of maintenance, some with and some without
planning. These scenarios all have significant problems which many read-
ers will recognize in their own organizations. See if you recognize your own
organization. After the book develops the planning function, the Epilogue
describes these accounts again, but as the events should have transpired,
flourishing with a properly executed maintenance planning effort, a tool
leading to superior maintenance.
DOC PALMER
Neptune Beach, Florida
[email protected]
Acknowledgments
I gratefully wish to acknowledge several persons who made this book

possible. My loving wife, Nancy, who generously gave me time, encour-
agement, and support to write apart from my full time maintenance job.
Dr. and Mrs. Richard C. Palmer (Dad and Mom), who raised me with a
work ethic including a sense of responsibility that things should work.
The late Ralph McCallum (Atlanta lawyer) and Dr. Gary Poehlein
(Georgia Institute of Technology) for patiently explaining the concept of
“bringing something to the table.” Richard Johns, whom I consider the
utility father of planning. Bill Jenkins (utility vice-president, retired)
for empowering me to make planning work. Les Villeneuve and David
Clemons, the planning supervisor and one of the planners who sup-
ported the changes and did the working. David was the model planner.
Hicks and Associates, who helped us format and conduct the first work
sampling studies. Bob Anderson, who gave me valuable advice for outage
and overhaul scheduling. Bob Kertis of Fluor Daniel who taught me the
weekly scheduling routine using a worksheet such as in Figure 6.5.
Pastor Tom Drury for his prayers and encouragement. David Stephens
and my parents-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Paul F. Peek Jr., who allowed me to
spend several weeks of my vacation time in their vacation cabins not vaca-
tioning, but writing. Finally, one never learns maintenance in a vacuum.
I wish to thank all the other persons who taught me along the way includ-
ing those members of the Society for Maintenance and Reliability
Professionals (SMRP). I am especially appreciative of SMRP members, Bob
Baldwin and Keith Mobley, for recommending that such a book as mine
be published to help others.
For the second edition, I would also like to acknowledge six additional
men. Jack Nicholas of Maintenance Quality Systems for his excellent
method of identifying and displaying barriers and aids and for his encour-
agement about becoming a “procedures based organization.” Mark Galley
of ThinkReliability.com for his excellent method of cause mapping. Todd
Seitz of Shell who encouraged me to address the people side of mainte-
nance. And finally, Edward Yourdon (author of Death March), Kevin
Tyler, and Fred Kerber who made surviving a CMMS project bearable.
xxix

Prologue:
A Day in the Life—
May 10, 2010
This section has four short narratives typical of maintenance with inad-
equate or no planning help. These accounts—unfortunate and frustrating—
are sure to be recognized by many hands-on managers who know what
can go on in a workforce. The Epilogue, just before the appendices of this
book, recounts these misadventures, but with each situation flourish-
ing with proper maintenance planning.
Bill, Mechanic at Delta Ray, Inc., No Planning

Bill reported to work on time and went straight up to the crew break area.
There the supervisor gave out the assignments for the day. Bill received two
jobs: one was to take care of a leaking valve on the southwest corner of the
mezzanine floor and the other was to check on a reported leaking flange
on the demineralizer. The supervisor did not think they would take all day
and told him to come back for something else to do when they were finished.
Leaking stuff. Sounded pretty messy, so Bill walked by his locker to
put on his older boots. Aaron was at his locker and the two chatted for
a moment while they got ready. The first thing Bill did was swing by the
jobs. This was always a good idea in case the job needed special tools or
something. Maybe the job would not require him to lug his whole tool
box there. As he went by the first job, he easily found the deficiency tag
matching the tag number on his work order. Bill had the work permit
and there were hold cards everywhere so he knew it was safe to work.
The valve was at chest level so there would not be any scaffolding or a
lift truck needed. The valve was a 4-inch, high pressure globe valve. Bill
decided to look over the other job, then go obtain a valve rebuild kit.
At the demineralizer, the area was also cleared and Bill had the right
work permit. But Bill was uneasy. The deficiency tag was hung near a
xxxi

xxxii Prologue
pipe flange, but Bill wondered if the line was an acid line or a water line.
In either case, Bill knew the operators would have drained the line, but
it would not hurt to put on some acid-resistant gear just in case there
were drops or anything.
Bill headed for the storeroom for a valve rebuild kit and the tool room
for some acid gear. There was a line at the storeroom so Bill changed
direction and went toward the tool room first. On the way, Bill had an
idea. He knew Aaron was an experienced technician and had worked on
the demineralizer many times. Maybe he would know if the flange was
on an acid or water line. After asking around, Bill caught up with Aaron
at the pump shop. After a few minutes Aaron came to a good time for a
break and walked over to the demineralizer with Bill. Aaron was con-
fident that the line was only for water so Bill decided to skip the acid
gear. It was now break time so Aaron and Bill headed for the break room.
After break, Bill got in line at the storeroom. The storeroom hap-
pened to have a rebuild kit for the 4-inch valve. Bill took the valve kit
and his tool box up to the mezzanine floor and got to work. This was an
interesting type of valve. Bill was hoping that it could be rebuilt in
place. After unbolting several screws on the top of the valve, Bill was
able to remove the internals. Bad news. Although Bill had the right kit
to replace the valve internals, it was obvious that the valve body was
shot. The whole valve would have to be replaced. The only problem was
that Bill was not a certified welder and this high pressure valve had
welded connections. Bill went straight to his supervisor and explained
the situation. The supervisor wanted to complete this job today and
called the crew’s certified welder on the radio. The welder could come
over in about an hour and start the valve job. The supervisor asked Bill
to return the valve kit to the storeroom and check out a replacement
valve for the welder. Bill waited again at the storeroom to make the
exchange, then took the new valve to where the welder was and
explained how far he had gotten along. Then Bill took his tool box over
to the demineralizer to be ready to go after lunch.
After lunch, Bill took the flanged connection apart at the demineral-
izer. In order to obtain access to the leaking flange, Bill had to dissemble
two other connections as well. All three flanges looked like they had Teflon
gaskets, so Bill went to the tool room for material to cut gaskets. Since
he was waiting in line at the tool room, it was a good time to call the den-
tist to make an appointment for next month. With the gasket material in
hand, Bill went to his work bench and cut three gaskets using one of the
old gaskets as a template. Bill realized that with these gaskets, he could
finish up this job in no time. He wondered what the next job would be if
he went back to his supervisor. It would probably be cleaning under the
auxiliary boiler. He hated that job. Why couldn’t he be given a pump job
or something important? Well, there was no sense worrying about it. Bill
gathered up his gaskets and started toward the job. On the way he passed
Prologue xxxiii
Gino cutting out some gaskets at his work bench. After stopping to com-
pare notes for a few minutes, they both noticed it was almost break time,
so they decided just to stay in the shop and talk.
After break Bill started reassembling the flanges. Most of the bolts
looked in good shape, but a couple looked a little ragged. Bill thought that
the plant had a good handle on completing most of the maintenance work.
It would probably be a wise use of time to go to the tool room and replace
those bolts. The tool room had an open crib for bolts so he did not have to
waste any time in line acquiring new bolts. Soon Bill finished the job and
he wiped down and cleaned up the area. He then reported to his super-
visor so the work permit could be signed off and taken to the control
room. By then, there was about an hour and a half left in the work day.
It was customary that the crew could use the last 20 or 30 minutes of the
day filling out time sheets and showering. Therefore, instead of starting
a new job, the supervisor decided to have Bill go assist Jan who was fin-
ishing up a job on a control valve. Bill helped Jan complete her job. Then
he filled out a time sheet and headed to his car at the end of the day.
On the way out to his car, Bill reflected how you had to keep busy all
day long just to finish one or two jobs. He wondered if he did enough work.
Sue, Supervisor at Zebra, Inc., No Planning

Sue considered herself a capable supervisor. She knew that to keep the
operations group satisfied, the maintenance crew had to respond to
urgent maintenance requests. She worked the crew hard and kept on
top of high priority work. Whenever a priority-one work order came in,
she assigned it immediately even if it meant reassigning someone from
a lower priority job. The crew knew the importance she placed on com-
pleting high priority work and was always willing to work overtime
when required. In return for their cooperation, Sue did not push the crew
when there were few high priority jobs. She was sure that the crew
would eventually complete the lower priority jobs, but the operations
group really needed the higher priority jobs completed or production
would suffer.
Her normal method of job assignment was to assign one job at a time
to each technician, putting persons on what they did best. Sometimes
this required the art of deciding who would receive which jobs. Since all
she had to go on was the work request from the operations group, it was
sometimes difficult to tell what craft skill was required and for how
long. Her experience came to her aid frequently, but she still preferred
to assign one job at a time and trust the individuals to work expedi-
tiously. She knew the crew worked hard because they rarely lounged
either on the job or in the breakroom. When they finished the jobs they
were on, they would come to her for other assignments. Earlier in the
day, Jim came in for another job. After looking through the backlog in
xxxiv Prologue
the file cabinet, she assigned a pump repair. Jim was great working with
pumps. She noticed a higher priority, air compressor job in the file, but
Donna knew the most about air compressors and she was on leave for
the week. A few moments later, another technician came into the office.
This particular technician had not earned Sue’s confidence so she
assigned that technician to go help Jim.
Lately it seemed that all the work was high priority and production
was suffering. She used to feel that sometimes the operations crews
would exaggerate the priority of minor jobs just to make sure they were
done. However, from looking at the recent work orders, there really
were many urgent jobs, some bordering on near emergencies. She knew
the crew was beginning to tire of working in a near panic mode and it
seemed some of the crew was slowing down. Hopefully, after they com-
pleted this recent batch of jobs, things would calm down. In order to keep
the crew moving along, Sue decided always to make sure that each tech-
nician had a personal backlog of at least two or three jobs to do. Next
Sue began to monitor starting and quitting times closely in addition to
break time. Nevertheless, things did not seem to be improving.
Juan, Welder at Alpha X, Inc., Has Planning

Juan received two jobs for the day. Planning had planned one, but not
the other one. Both were jobs to replace valves that were leaking
through. Eli in the predictive maintenance group had used thermogra-
phy to find the problems. Juan hoped he could finish both jobs before
quitting time.
Juan got to the site of the planned job and looked at the work order
again. The west economizer drain root valve was leaking through. The
work plan called for replacing the valve and gave a detailed plan. The
plan gave the following steps.
■ Obtain valve from storeroom, 15 minutes.
■ Obtain welding machine, welding materials, and chainfall from tool
room, 20 minutes.
■ Make sure the work area is cleared by the operations group, 3 minutes.
■ Clear the immediate area of combustible material since welding is
involved, 15 minutes.
■ Unwire and set aside equipment tag, 1 minute.
■ Support the old valve to be removed with a chainfall from the tool
room, 5 minutes.
■ Use a cutting torch to cut out the old valve, 30 minutes.
■ Prepare both pipe ends, 25 minutes.
Prologue xxxv
■ Check new valve for obvious defects and move into place with chainfall,
10 minutes.
■ Make root pass, 10 minutes.
■ Finish welding, 45 minutes.
■ Grind to smooth edge of weld if necessary, 10 minutes.
■ Heat treat weld areas for 5 hours or as directed by supervisor, 4 hours.
■ (During heat treating, clean up area, 20 minutes.)
■ Replace equipment tag with wire, 1 minute.
■ Take old valve to scrap and return equipment to tool room, 15 minutes.
■ Turn in work permit and fill out paperwork, 10 minutes.
■ Total time: 3 hours 15 minutes plus 4 hours for heat treating.
Juan thought the plan was ridiculous. He did not mind having the valve
identified and reserved. Nonetheless, Juan felt that the planner must
think he was an idiot not knowing how to weld. Juan was a certified
welder for which the plan called, after all. Juan also figured that the
planner being an apprentice explained why the heat treatment infor-
mation was all wrong. This type job required preheating with a torch
and temperature stick for about 5 minutes. A simple wrapping with an
electrical treatment blanket at the end of the job kept the valve from
cooling too quickly. Juan could go on to another job and come back in 2
or 3 hours to retrieve the blanket. Juan also seemed to remember work-
ing on this valve last year. Did he have to drain the water through the
root valve before he could cut out the valve? It just seemed that plan-
ning was not all it was cracked up to be.
Jack, Planner at Johnson Industries, Inc.

Jack came in ready to go. As a planner for 20 technicians, he knew that
each day he needed to plan about 150 hours worth of work orders.
Standard preventive maintenance work orders that needed no plan-
ning would add about 50 hours. That would keep 20 technicians busy
for a 10-hour shift. He could not afford to become bogged down.
Reviewing the work requests from the previous day, Jack got to work.
He decided first to make a field inspection for eight of the most press-
ing work orders. He hoped to have them planned before lunch and start
on another group. He gathered the eight work orders on his clipboard
and headed for the door. At the door he met George and Phil. They had
just started a pump job and wanted the pump manual. Jack agreed to
help them look through the planning files for the book. After some min-
utes they found a copy in the technical file section with the other OEM
manuals.
xxxvi Prologue
Jack had no problem finding and scoping most of the jobs, but one job
was hard to find. Jack made a trip to the control room and waited a few
minutes for an operator to be able to take a look with him. While he waited,
he received a radio call from the Unit 1, mechanical crew supervisor. Jack’s
plan had indentified the wrong valve for a job and the supervisor wanted
him to help the technicians at the storeroom pick out the right one. Telling
the operator he would have to come back, Jack headed for the storeroom.
Once there, Jack agreed that the application called for a globe valve. It was
now about 10 A.M. and Jack decided to meet with the operator after break.
After break, Jack and the operator found the elusive job site. Jack
made a mental scope of the job and headed for the planner office. Once
there, another technician, Jim, caught his attention and pleaded for
help. He was replacing some bearings on an unplanned job and needed
size information. Together, they searched, but did not find a manual nor
any information in the equipment files. This required a call to the man-
ufacturer who was glad to help. Then two more technicians working
unplanned jobs came in and asked his help finding parts information.
Since their jobs were underway, it was logical that he should stop and
help them. After all, he was very adept at finding information and his
job existed to support the field technicians.
So it was after lunch that Jack finally sat down to write detailed work
plans for the jobs he had scoped. The equipment files had parts infor-
mation for two of the eight jobs. Jack went ahead and wrote those work
plans for about 12 hours of technician work. Looking through the store-
room catalog yielded parts information for three jobs. One job needed
no parts and the last two jobs required parts not carried in stock. Jack
requested the purchaser to order them. Technicians twice more inter-
rupted as Jack wrote out plans for the six jobs. Near the end of the day,
he completed the six job plans totaling about 50 hours. Jack realized he
had only completed plans for 62 hours of technician work that day. He
had hoped to complete some of the other work orders. Maintenance
seemed to be in a cycle where crews would have to work unplanned jobs
because there were few planned jobs available. Then crews would need
parts help for the jobs already underway, which kept him from planning
new jobs. Something was not right.
Maintenance
Planning and
Scheduling
Handbook
Chapter
1
The Benefit of Planning
One cannot discuss maintenance planning without first considering an

overall perspective of maintenance itself.
Plant capacity is the lifeblood of a company. Plant capacity must be
reliable for the company to produce a product to stay in business. Yet
Sandy Sutherland and Gordon (1997) of Kemcor Australia point out an
astounding conflict in the business models of many companies. These
models show reliable plant capacity connected with revenue streams
while showing plant maintenance in the fixed cost section elsewhere in
the models. The management and financial groups of these companies
do not realize that reliable plant capacity is by definition an invest-
ment in maintenance. In real life, capacity must be maintained. Capacity
is not reliable by itself. Poor maintenance equals poor revenue streams.
Maintenance provides a competitive edge in many companies. In
1993, good maintenance helped operating crews at a large electric power
station achieve an excellent 93% equivalent availability (a utility meas-
ure of generating capacity), well above industry average. If the capac-
ity were not available, the station could certainly not sell electricity. The
significance of higher availability extends even beyond the daily increase
of sales and reduction of generation interruption. If maintenance can
achieve continued superior availability, then a company can defer con-
struction of new capacity even as annual sales grow. The ability to defer
capital construction as a company grows leads to lower company capi-
tal cost, a financial blessing. Today’s money invested in proper mainte-
nance ensures high capacity and guards against premature future
construction. Proper maintenance makes a company cost competitive.
Company Vision
The purpose of maintenance is to produce reliable plant capacity. The
company vision for producing a profitable product should understand
1

2 Chapter One
that effective maintenance provides reliable plant capacity. Some of the

most important maintenance decisions are made before a company even
builds a plant. Gifford Brown (1993) of Ford Motor Company explains
the 1-10-100 Rule. This rule means that every $1 spent up front during
engineering to reduce maintenance eliminates a later $10 cost to main-
tain equipment properly or $100 in breakdown maintenance. In this
sense, Brown says, “The company vision should be how to prevent main-
tenance, not how to do it efficiently.” Companies should spend more
effort purchasing machines that need a minimum of attention. This is
preferred first over being efficient at either performing work to keep
machines from failing or reacting to repair failed machines. Any com-
pany would prefer machines that run constantly without any attention.
Phillip Young (1997) of DuPont says industry typically does not involve
maintenance intellect up front, a serious fault. By far, the greatest
maintenance opportunities exist before the company installs equip-
ment. Therefore, the first step in dealing with maintenance effective-
ness involves working actively with engineering and construction
departments before installing equipment (Fig. 1.1).
Nevertheless, some maintenance attention will be required after a
company installs equipment. Once equipment is installed and operat-
ing, the second step in dealing with maintenance effectiveness is to be
proactive. Proactive maintenance means to act before breakdowns occur.
It acts through preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance, cor-
rective maintenance, and project work. Proactive maintenance recog-
nizes and addresses situations to prevent them from ever becoming
urgent problems or breakdowns. Urgent maintenance performed under
schedule pressure is rarely cost efficient. Breakdowns interrupt rev-
enue producing capacity and destroy components. Maintenance does
not want to recover plant capacity by repairing broken components.
Proactive maintenance programs stay involved with the equipment to
prevent decline or loss of capacity. In this sense, maintenance produces
a product which is capacity; maintenance does not just provide a repair
service. These concepts of proactive maintenance of John Day, Jr. (1993)
play an important part in planning in Chap. 4.
Figure 1.1 Management must make

this connection in their vision for pro-
ducing a profitable product.
The Benefit of Planning 3
Why Improvement Is Needed in Maintenance

Effective maintenance reduces overall company cost because production
capacity is available when needed. The company makes a product with
this capacity to sell at a profit. This explains the reliability–cost rela-
tionship: focus on overall cost reduction and reliability gets worse, but
focus on reliability improvement and overall cost goes down. Nevertheless,
examining the cost of the maintenance operation cannot be dismissed as
unimportant. After maintenance effectiveness, maintenance efficiency
must be considered. What if the same or better maintenance could be pro-
vided for less cost? What if the company could grow by adding new pro-
duction capacity and maintain it without increasing the current
maintenance cost?
Keeping the purpose of maintenance in mind, one may focus on the
cost of the maintenance operation. Understanding the details of one’s
maintenance system provides the information on how it may be
improved. Many companies trying to become more competitive change
their maintenance budget without any understanding of how their main-
tenance system works. They may increase the budget to add mainte-
nance personnel when making capital plant additions. They may reduce
their budget for an existing plant. They may not increase the budget
when making capital plant additions. They may hope that budget pres-
sure will cause the maintenance force to “work harder” or “do what it
takes.” Nonetheless, to make improvements to the efficiency of a main-
tenance operation, one must understand the details of the system.
What are the details in the maintenance system? The following case
shows a pertinent example of the details involved in a maintenance
system.
In the 12 months resulting in 93% availability, the previously men-
tioned power station spent over $9 million in maintenance. This amount
included more than $5 million in wages and benefits for the mechani-
cal, electrical, and instrument and control (I&C) crafts. A study revealed
that productivity of maintenance personnel was about 35%. That is, on
the average, a typical maintenance person on a 10-hour shift was
making productive job progress for only 31⁄2 hours. The other 61⁄2 hours
were spent on “nonproductive” activities such as necessary break time
or undesirable job delays to get parts, instructions, or tools. The study
only included persons who were available for the entire shift so train-
ing time and vacation time were not even included. For example, if
mechanic Joe Stark had a pump job and a valve job for a 10-hour day,
typically he would have physically performed maintenance on the equip-
ment for only 31⁄2 hours. The rest of the time Joe might have done some-
thing very necessary for completing the job. He may have stopped to get
a gasket or a special wrench, but when he stopped, the job did not
progress. If the job did not progress when it otherwise might have, the
4 Chapter One
company lost an opportunity not only to regain plant capacity, but also
to have Joe perform another job that day. If Joe had not had to stop, the
work would have proceeded much faster. Overall, only 35% or $1,750,000
of the $5 million paid to the employees was for productive maintenance.
The company paid 65% or $3,250,000 for unproductive maintenance.
Considering that training time and vacation time were included in the
$5 million would make the actual amount paid for productive mainte-
nance even lower. The company was surprised to learn that 35% pro-
ductivity was typical of good traditional-type maintenance organizations.
However, the company realized that the average of 61⁄2 hours of non-
productive time per person accompanying the significant cost of main-
tenance was an opportunity to improve maintenance efficiency.
Understanding the details in the maintenance system leads to
improvement opportunities. Understanding what is happening allows
selection of maintenance strategies for the specific opportunities to
improve. Maintenance planning is a major strategy to improve mainte-
nance efficiency with regard to unproductive maintenance time.
Implementing proper planning and scheduling can improve productive
maintenance time from the 25 to 35% of a typical organization without
planning to 50 to 50%, almost doubling the ability to get work completed.
Nevertheless, Brad Peterson (1998) of strategic Asset Management,
Inc. (SAMI), says that “Planning is a discipline that is difficult to achieve
and difficult to maintain. It needs to be nurtured and developed care-
fully. This is the greatest issue to maintenance improvement in most
plants.”
What Planning Mainly Is and What It Is Mainly

Not (e.g., Parts and Tools)
All plants require some maintenance and planning can help mainte-
nance efficiency. Some of the primary aspects of planning are well
known. Maintenance planning involves identifying parts and tools nec-
essary for jobs and reserving or even staging them as appropriate. The
common perception of planning is that after someone requests work to
be done, a planner would simply determine and gather the necessary
parts and tools before the job is assigned. The planner might even write
instructions on how to do the job. With this preparatory work done, the
craftperson actually doing the job would not have to waste time first get-
ting everything ready. This planning methodology would be thought to
increase maintenance productivity.
Figure 1.2 shows the common perception of what a planner would do
for parts. The planner would write a job plan that identified parts needed
such as specific gaskets and impellers along with their storeroom iden-
tification numbers. Then the planner would reserve them in the store-
room to ensure their availability when the job was executed. If any
Figure 1.2 It is commonly recognized that planning

consists of parts.
needed parts were not carried in inventory, the planner would have
them ordered to be on hand when needed. The planner might stage
some of the parts by placing them in a convenient location such as the
job site before the job starts. With staged parts the technician per-
forming the work would not have to wait at the storeroom. The planner
would also provide a bill of materials or an illustrated parts diagram.
These documents would help the technician identify parts unantici-
pated at the time of planning or understand how the parts fit together.
The planner would also work with vendors to ensure good sources of
material supply. Finally, the planner would be involved in quality assur-
ance and quality control of vendor shipments.
Likewise, Fig. 1.3 shows the common perception of what a planner
would do for tools. The planner would write a job plan that identified
special tools needed such as a chainfall or even a crane. The planner
would reserve or schedule certain items such as the crane so everyone
would not be expecting to use it the same time. The planner might even
stage the special tool, such as having the crane moved to the job site in
anticipation of the work to begin.
Unfortunately, most organizations do not see a significant improvement
in maintenance after over 10 years of trying maintenance planning based
on getting parts, tools, and instructions ready. It just seems that something
is missing. “Why is it that when you are driving and looking for an address,
you turn down the volume on the radio?” That something is not working
is obvious when studies show productive maintenance time is never
Figure 1.3 It is commonly recognized

that planning also consists of tools.
6 Chapter One
more than 40%, hardly better than an organization without planning.

In these companies, planning also has a bad reputation among the crafts
for not offering much assistance anyway.
One must first understand the system of planning to use it effectively.
Maintenance planning is a system analogous to the bubble in the carpet.
If one simply pushes down the bubble, it will only appear elsewhere.
Understanding the carpet as a system allows focus on the edge of the
carpet, the leverage point, to pull the slack areas and eliminate the
bubble. One must understand the planning system with its specific
important characteristics. Fortunately, these characteristics are not
complicated. This book explains the characteristics of the system with
principles, guidelines, and specific techniques so one can work with
planning to improve maintenance productivity.
It turns out that identifying parts and tools is not the purpose of plan-
ning. This concept is important to state. If planning does not increase
overall maintenance effectiveness or efficiency, it does not matter that
planning expends effort gathering parts and tools. The purpose of plan-
ning must focus on the high productivity desired from the application
of the planning and scheduling principles.
In the proper planning system, the maintenance process proceeds
this way. After someone requests work to be done, a planner plans the
work order by specifying job scope, craft and skill level, and time esti-
mate, as well as specifying anticipated parts and tools. The planner
does not necessarily specify a detailed procedure. By including the skill
levels and time estimates on jobs, scheduling can assign the proper
amount of work to the crews. In actual practice, scheduling control con-
tributes more to managing productivity than do parts and tool delays
in and of themselves.
Consider a one-person company: the owner works extremely hard, con-

scious of every job needing completion. If he finishes one more job, the
owner makes more profit and pays the house mortgage once again. After
several years of prosperity, he hires ten salaried technicians. The owner
later senses that less work per person is accomplished than before. The
conversation goes like this:
OWNER: How did it go this week?
TECHNICIAN: We did a lot!
OWNER: Well, how much was that?
TECHNICIAN: We turned out 50 jobs which was more than we ever did
before!
OWNER: But how much was that compared to how much you should
have been able to turn out?
TECHNICIAN: But you don’t understand…We really worked hard!
So the next week the owner looks at every job in the backlog and
estimates how long each should take. Then on Friday the owner selects
400 hours worth of work and tells the crew, “There are ten of you each
working 40 hours next week, so here are the jobs we need to complete.”
The next Friday, the owner has some basis for knowing how much work
should have been done and has another conversation:
OWNER: How did it go this week?
TECHNICIAN: We did a lot!
OWNER: How much of the work that I gave you last Friday is done?
TECHNICIAN: Well, most of it.
OWNER: Let me have the jobs back that you haven’t started yet. [Then
after a minute] I see you didn’t start about 100 hours’ worth of the jobs.
What happened?
TECHNICIAN: Let’s see. On three of the jobs we didn’t have the right
parts in stock so we had to order them. On one of the other jobs that
we did complete, the time estimate you gave us just didn’t work out;
that job ended up taking George and John twice as long even though
the job didn’t have any special problems. Then on one of the other jobs
Fred completed, the work took extra long because he ran out of solvent
and had to run to the supply center and buy some. So overall, we didn’t
finish all the work you had wanted.”
OWNER: Well, that’s okay. On some weeks that just happens. I know
we were working hard because I was on the shop floor several times this
week. But I am concerned a little bit about three jobs not having parts
available. When I scheduled them, I didn’t think they would require any-
thing special. We probably also need to look at how much solvent we
normally carry; that’s not something we should be running out of. Also,
if we didn’t start on three jobs, were we able to work in any other jobs
that we didn’t think we would start this week?
The owner utilizes a basis for controlling the work force. The word con-
trol in this context means that the owner can compare the actual amount
of work done against something. In this case the something was the
amount of work hours the owner had originally assigned for the week.
The crew may not have been able to do all the assigned work, but the
point is that now there is a basis for questioning and examining the work
done. Could the owner gain this information without having assigned
a specific amount of work and just by asking if there had been any prob-
lems or delays? He could have, but consider if the technician had said
“No, it seemed to be a normal work week. We worked pretty hard.” The
technician may well have presumed it was just part of the job to scram-
ble for parts or supplies here and there. He may accept that jobs some-
time seem to run on forever. The owner or manager of a maintenance
8 Chapter One
group cannot accept that delays are normal before any scrutiny. It is a
fair question to ask why 40 hours of work are not accomplished in the
40 hours a technician works. But the question cannot be asked if the
amount of work assigned and completed is unknown. Planning and
scheduling assigns the proper amount of work to the crews and a con-
trol tool becomes available for managing productivity.
Maintenance managers greatly need the information just to allow
scheduling. If a crew has 1000 person hours available for the upcoming
week, a planning system allows 1000 hours of work to be scheduled. In
actual practice without such a systematic approach, supervisors typi-
cally assign much less work than should be done during the course of
the week.
Note that the context of discussion is not major plant outages or
turnarounds. The book touches on outage scheduling in Chap. 6, but
that is not the book’s focus. Outages are very important, but very well
managed already. Management gives much attention to the execution
and improvement of outage maintenance. On the other hand, consider
a week of routine maintenance. How much work should be done? How
would one know? And if one did know, how would it be done? The system
of planning and scheduling answers these questions. The Maintenance
Planning and Scheduling Handbook focuses on the planning and sched-
uling of the routine, day-in and day-out maintenance. This mainte-
nance most affects the reliability of plant capacity and makes up the
bulk of the budget, yet so far it has received the least attention. This
undeveloped area of maintenance provides the greatest opportunity
for leverage.
Proper planning also provides identification of parts and tools, but not
as commonly perceived. Planning departments usually maintain a list of
parts for each piece of equipment. The planner would send this list out
with the planned work order. On the other hand, if parts identification is
not readily available the first time the plant works on a machine, the plan-
ner does not necessarily create a list. The planner knows the technicians
can determine what is needed and provide identification through feedback
to help future jobs. The planner accumulates the feedback from com-
pleted jobs to establish a parts or tool list over time. So the planner
becomes somewhat of a file clerk for the 20 to 30 technicians.
In the broadest view, a maintenance planner gives the maintenance
manager information to allow scheduling enough work and gives the
field technicians file assistance. The planners do not necessarily place
first priority on extensive research to determine possible parts and tool
requirements.
Nevertheless, knowing what constitutes planning does not make it
happen. One must know the specific results to expect and the principles
and practices involved.
How Much Will Planning Help?

Planning provides dramatic, tangible help. The amount of work accom-
plished rises. The work force is freed up. The extra labor power can be
reallocated to added value activities. One can calculate and measure the
actual amount of increased productivity.
The practical result of planning:

freed-up technicians
After 1993, the previously mentioned power station examined its posi-
tion. The station had achieved reliable plant capacity with a year of supe-
rior availability, but studies showed an opportunity to improve work
force productivity. Management decided to redirect its existing main-
tenance planning group. They implemented a planning system accord-
ing to the guidelines in this handbook for its mechanical maintenance
craft (approximately 30 persons). Less than a year later in 1994 the prac-
tical result of planning was 30 maintenance persons yielding the effort
of 47 persons. Figure 1.4 is the central statement of this book and the
subject of planning: how planning leverages 30 persons to produce as
much work as 47 persons. They did not hire anyone new. The benefit
received was as if 17 new persons suddenly started helping. These new
persons did not cost the company any money because they were free.
Although planning had existed since 1982, planning according to the
system principles began in 1994. The start of weekly scheduling began
in the middle of May 1994. The maintenance group completed so much
work that in mid-June there started to be insufficient backlog to sched-
ule for the entire amount of work hours available for each crew. This hap-
pened because in about a month the crews had worked down their entire
outstanding backlogs. These backlogs had even included some work
orders that were over 2 years old. The power station was thus able to
proceed into its Fall 1994 major overhaul of its largest unit with the
other units caught up in backlog.
Figure 1.4 The practical result of planning.

10 Chapter One
Emerging from the overhaul of the unit, the utility included the elec-
trical and I&C crafts as well as two other plants into the planning system.
The total of the maintenance force at this point was 137 personnel.
With the productivity improvement from planning and scheduling assis-
tance, the utility could expect to free up in effect 78 technicians. These
technicians could be available for work to stay ahead of the maintenance
backlog. They could do work previously outsourced or given to contrac-
tors for outages and projects. They could even build parts in-house. They
could also do more preventive maintenance and do maintenance for
others at other stations. They could accept attrition without rehiring.
Planning achieves this effect for improvement in maintenance produc-
tivity. How would you like to have 17 extra persons for free? How about 78?
The reduction of delays is where planning impacts productivity.
Productivity of 25% to 35% is typical of traditional-type maintenance
organizations using “wrench time” as a measure. Remember the case of
35% productivity of available maintenance persons where, on the aver-
age, a typical person on a 10-hour shift is only making productive job
progress for 31⁄2 hours. The other 61⁄2 hours are spent on nonproductive
activities such as necessary break time or undesirable job delays such
as getting parts, instructions, or tools. Simply implementing a funda-
mental planning and scheduling system should help improve produc-
tivity to about 45%. Then as files and information become developed to
allow avoiding problems of past jobs, productivity should increase to
50%. The last improvement to over 55% is attributed to special aids, such
as inventory or tool room sophistication or perhaps computerization of
certain processes. This last improvement is only possible after the basic
processes leading to the first improvements are well utilized. [A men-
tion of computerization is appropriate at this point. Planning is obviously
more than computer data collection and research. Planning leverages
maintenance productivity. Whether or not a computer is employed, there
are certain principles necessary to make planning and scheduling effec-
tive to provide leverage (see Fig. 1.5).]
Figure 1.5 Improvement in productivity.

Paradigm shift: Immediately one may be thinking “There is no way

our wrench time is below 80% in the first place because we are always
busy. We are working as hard as we can. Sure, there are some delays,
but they are unavoidable.” See Fig. 1.6.
In reality, productive maintenance time is not nearly that high.
Many studies classify work activities differently. For example, should
break time be included in the study? How about lunch? Regardless,
there is wide agreement across most industries that productive main-
tenance time is less than 35%. Productive work is commonly reported
between 25% and 35%. It may actually be less. Keith Mobley (1997) of
ISI says that “Typical maintenance technicians spend less than 25%
of their time actually maintaining critical equipment. The balance of
the time is spent on nonproductive tasks.” Yes, one can be busy, but if
one is obtaining a part instead of working on the job site, one is in a
delay situation that might have been avoided. One would think it
would be hard to get only 31⁄2 hours productive work from the average,
10-hour shift mechanic. Where does the other time go? Unfortunately,
a minute here and a minute there getting tools, traveling, and the
like add up to significant delays. That is why the results of statistically
valid studies are so important, because of this great false notion of high
productive time.
Statistical work sampling studies properly measure productive time,
also known as wrench time. Separate studies done over time indicate if
planning is getting better or worse. At issue is not so much the time the
technicians spend doing productive work. Figure 1.7 shows there is a
significant proportion of time involved with delays. To determine if any
of the delay time is avoidable requires analysis of the nonproductive
time. For example, how much time is spent waiting for parts? What are
the specific delay areas? Can these delay areas be avoided? Analysis
of the nonproductive time is one of the most valuable parts of a work
sampling study.
A key point has been uncovered. Where there is a great difference between
reality and perception, there is great opportunity for improvement. Here is
Figure 1.6 False common perception.

12 Chapter One
Figure 1.7 Reality of productivity.
an opportunity to improve productivity. Maintenance planning addresses

this opportunity to reduce delays and free up technicians for more pro-
ductive work.
“World class” wrench time

Not only is there a widespread mistaken belief among maintenance prac-
titioners that wrench time is not very low, but many industry consult-
ants believe this as well. There have been numerous consultant surveys
passed among maintenance organizations asking about wrench time
among other plant workforce questions. A typical wrench time question
asks the respondent to score their own wrench time with the following
choices: ___30%, ___40%,___50%, ___60%,___70%, ___80%,___90%. The
availability of such high choices could be a leading question, in case
the respondents have the mistaken belief that wrench time could even
be so high. However, the absence of choices below 30% indicates that
the consultants who drafted the questions do not understand the sever-
ity of typical low wrench time as well. Furthermore, sustained achieve-
ment of wrench times above 60% averaged across a workforce is nearly
impossible. The world class performance target for wrench time is prob-
ably keeping a workforce average between 50% and 55%. Does this
mean that although low wrench time is a reality, it is too difficult to
improve performance? Not at all. This book has its roots in the real
world improvement experienced as a good performing workforce moved
from 35% wrench time without planning to 55% with planning. In addi-
tion, the following section calculates the benefit of planning with a more
typical improvement of a plant at 25% wrench time improving to only
50%, a doubling in labor productivity!
Beyond any rigorous calculation of improvement based on wrench
time, knowledgeable reliability professionals acknowledge the value of
planning. Brad Peterson (1998) of SAMI reports that planned work typ-
ically requires only one-third as much labor as unplanned work. Another
highly respected reliability manager of an international company told
the author that because of the intangible benefits of planning provid-
ing better control of maintenance work, if he had only two or three
maintenance persons, he would make one a planner!
The specific benefit of planning calculated

How does one measure the leverage of work order planning?
The specific improvement in maintenance can be quantified as shown
in Fig. 1.8.
Consider three persons working without the benefit of planning, but
placing them at the highest productivity common in such organizations
(35%). Their combined productivity (105%) can be thought of as one
person always working productively who never has a delay and even
gives the company some extra time at the end of the day.
Without Planner:
3 persons at 35% each = 3 × 35% = 105% total productivity
Now, take one of those persons away from the work force and make
that person into a planner. The planner helps boost the productivity of
the remaining two persons up to 55% each. The planner’s productivity
is considered to be 0% because productive time is defined as time phys-
ically working a job. Envision turning a wrench. The planner no longer
turns a wrench. The combined productivity of all three persons is now
110%, a little better than all of them working without planning.
With Planner:
2 persons at 55% and 1 planner at 0% = (2 × 55%) + (1 × 0%)
= 110% total productivity
How many planners? It is intuitive if a planner could help multiply

the productivity of a single craftperson by a factor of 1.57 (55% divided
by 35%), that a breakeven point would be to take one of every three craft-
persons and convert them to planners. Furthermore, experience has
shown that a single planner can plan for 20 to 30 persons. Consequently,
there should never be any question that a person cannot be taken out
of the work force to become a planner. This area is a big problem for
many companies. They fail to provide enough planners for one of two rea-
sons. One, they might select one planner for a group of 50 technicians,
a serious underinvestment. Two, they may select two planners, but then
dump extra duties on them preventing them from the real work of
Figure 1.8 The mathematics of the lever-

age of planning.
14 Chapter One
proper planning. In either case, planning fails because management

does not really believe that they could take out one of every three tech-
nicians and keep the same productivity.
A 30-person maintenance force is leveraged as 30 persons times 1.57
to yield a 47-person effective work force. Instead of 30 persons working
at 35% productive time each, the work force is boosted to be equivalent
to 47 persons working at 35% each. This means that one is obtaining
the effect of having 17 extra persons on the team without having to hire
anyone new; 17 persons for the cost of one planner.
Another way of examining this benefit is that the old, 30-person work
force averaged 35% productive time each for a combined total of 1050%.
The new, planning assisted, 30-person work force averages 55% each for
a combined total of 1650%. The difference of 600% divided by 35% equals
17.1 showing the extra persons.
Seventeen persons at $25 per hour (including benefits) for a year are
worth $884,000. (17 persons times 2080 hours per year times $25 per
hour equals $884,000.)
Consider a 90-person work force, leveraging to get a 1.57 improvement
yields a 141-person work force. The extra 51 persons are worth
$2,652,000 for a year.
The above cases are conservative in considering a boost from 35%
wrench time to 55%. The above cases are fantastically improved if start-
ing at 25% wrench time and moving to only 50, which is a 50/25 = 2.0 factor
improvement. The 30-person work force is increased to 60 persons in
effect; the 30 persons are worth $1,560,000 annually. The 90-person work
force is increased to 180; the extra 90 persons are worth $4,680,000. What
an improvement to the maintenance force!
What do these “extra” persons do? In the company with much reac-
tive work, one leverages or uses them to put out all the fires. In the com-
pany with reactive work under control that is focusing on planned work,
one leverages them to do more proactive maintenance work avoiding
fires. Finally, in those world class companies with preventive mainte-
nance well in hand, one leverages them to invest in training to increase
labor skills and in projects to improve equipment or other work
processes. Each of these companies has the ability to grow or allow nat-
ural attrition without hiring.
While the measure and value of the “extra” productivity can be cal-
culated rather easily in terms of work force, how one uses this extra labor
is what matters. Getting more work done and done right leads to other
significant savings that are as easy to calculate, but are more difficult
to attribute. Planning does not work in a vacuum, but brings the other
aspects of maintenance together. Nevertheless, these are important
considerations. Beyond just performing enough maintenance work to
keep the plant on line and stay in business, there are considerations of
increased reliability of existing capacity, improved efficiency, and
deferred capital investment for more capacity. The monetary value of

these benefits is company and situation specific. For example, for an elec-
tric utility with a 1000-MW steam system, each 1% availability improve-
ment might be worth over $300,000/year in power transaction capability.
Each 100 Btu/kWh improvement in efficiency might be worth over
$600,000/year. A single 1% sustainable improvement in availability
means not having to build 10 MW of future power plant capacity. At
$1800/kW construction prices, that is $18 million.
One can measure the leverage of work order planning on mainte-
nance to see that it is definitely a good investment.
Why does this opportunity exist?

To understand further why the opportunity of improving productiv-
ity through planning exists, this section considers an “organization”
(see Fig. 1.9). An organization is a group of coordinated specialized per-
sons with a common goal. Everyone understands a group; everyone
involved in the area of the company being considered. Everyone also
understands a common goal; in the context of business, the group wants
to make a profit with decent wages while being environmentally, socially,
and legally responsible and safety conscious. The reason to organize is
to allow specialization, but with specialization comes a need to coordi-
nate. Everyone also understands specialization, but no one understands
coordination.
Organizing allows specialization. Companies understand that divi-
sions of labor where different persons perform different tasks offer great
improvements in overall productivity. For example, hundreds of years
ago, Adam Smith published his classic text The Wealth of Nations (1776)
wherein he studied a plant manufacturing industrial pins. There were
18 distinct tasks involved in making a single pin. The tasks included
activities beginning with drawing and cutting the metal to length and
continuing all the way to finally inserting the pins into paper and pack-
aging them. However, the plant had specialized by identifying different
tasks associated with the pin making and grouping them into 10 dif-
ferent jobs. To each job, the plant assigned a different person to spe-
cialize. Management had set up an assembly line of sorts through which
each pin passed. Ten persons together could manufacture 48,000 pins in
An “organization” is
a group of coordinated
specialized persons with a
common goal.
Figure 1.9 Definition of an
organization.
16 Chapter One
Less than 20 Pins per Person

+
Specialization
=
4800 Pins per Person
Figure 1.10 Adam Smith’s result
in 1776.
a single day. Average daily pin production achieved 4800 pins per person.
Upon investigating, Smith deduced that had each employee performed
every task necessary to make each pin alone, each employee could have
made less than 20 pins in a day. Specialization increased per person pin
production from less than 20 to 4800 (see Fig. 1.10). Obviously, industry
to this day continues to use specialization to maintain high productivity.
That is why companies train and maintain separate groups of mechan-
ics, electricians, and instrument technicians. Companies have many spe-
cial needs where it makes sense to have a dedicated group of experts. This
may include persons that maintain buildings and grounds, machine shops,
storerooms, tool rooms, and a myriad of other specialties (see Fig. 1.11). The
only key is that there is enough distinct work to keep the persons occupied.
On the other hand, where there is specialization, there must be coor-
dination. In practice, coordination is much less understood than spe-
cialization. A group must coordinate the different areas of specialty. The
typical maintenance organization affords an obvious illustration of both
specialization and coordination. The specialized groups of mechanics,
electricians, instrument technicians, and others need coordination. The
maintenance superintendent, maintenance clerk, and supervisors of
each specialized group in Fig. 1.11 coordinate the specialized efforts of
the craftpersons. Figure 1.12 shows that it is in this area that planning
belongs.
Maint Supt
Maint Clerk
Bldg & Machine Instrmnt

Mech Electrical
Grounds Shop Shop
Figure 1.11 We understand specialization very well.

Maint Supt
Maint Clerk Planning

Mech Electrical
Grounds Shop Shop
Figure 1.12 We do not understand coordination at all.
Specialization cannot function in a vacuum. Coordination must exist

over specialization. That companies acknowledge coordination is evident
from the typical company reorganization every 5 years or so. However,
that they do not understand coordination is evident from their state-
ments that “As soon as the organization settles down, we can lessen the
numbers of clerks, secretaries, ...” that were in special need during the
reorganization. In fact, many reorganizations combine crews and elim-
inate supervisors. Simply by specializing tasks, a company reaps an
extreme increase of productivity over having all the maintenance
employees exist as “jacks of all trades.” Specializing is not a competitive
edge because all companies do it. Yet companies commonly do not prop-
erly coordinate the efforts of maintenance specialization and therefore
experience low wrench times. By using planning to coordinate the efforts
better, they could further increase the productivity of maintenance, per-
haps as much as doubling productivity. Proper coordination could be a
competitive edge.
With this recognition of the purpose of a coordinating function, this
handbook can properly address maintenance planning. Maintenance
planning functions as a coordinating mechanism within the mainte-
nance department. A maintenance planning group helps coordinate
many of the specialized activities of maintenance. After a person writes
a work order for the maintenance department, maintenance planning
takes action. A maintenance planner takes the work order and does
preparatory planning for the crew supervisor and craftpersons who will
ultimately execute the work. The planner considers the proper scope of
work for the job. The work requester may have identified a noisy valve.
The planner judges whether the valve should be patched or replaced.
The planner also identifies appropriate materials for the specified job
and whether they are available or must be specially ordered. In addi-
tion, the planner specifies the appropriate craft skills for the job. Having
these determinations made before the crew supervisor assigns a job for
execution helps avoid problems such as delays stemming from assign-
ing a person with insufficient craft skills or from not having required
18
Management
Where Planning Fits into Maintenance Leadership & communication
Strategy master plan
Engrg Project work Organize
eliminate problems
Staff "how much capacity"
Control Train "skills capacity" quality
Opns Weekly sched "how much this week" Control to master plan
encounter problems by Planning
Planning Daily sched "who" by Supvrs Metrics "how well"
resolve or report problem head start Process improvement
scope
PdM "skills need" Work execution Production &
seek problems hrs "how much" fix problems quality
part need do PM Supvrs in field
RCM tool need
"what" PM & PdM PM procedure
prevent problems Plant files Support TPM
Storeroom "who" does work execution
seek problems
purchasing maint vs opns
tool room
hand tools
shops
improve plans
Systems
Work Order System "how"
(CMMS "facilitate")
additional problems found

improve PMs Feedback
Legend
Solid boxes are direct process steps
Dotted boxes are indirect areas
CMMS - Computerized maintenance management system
TPM - Total productive maintenance philosophy
Figure 1.13 An example of overall maintenance process showing planning’s coordination role.
materials or tools available. Having time estimates also allows crew

supervisors to judge how much work to assign individuals and thus
better control their work. Control in this sense means that the planned
information gives the supervisors a reference for expected work com-
pletion time and thereby helps them more quickly to become aware of
any problems that might lessen productivity. Consequently, mainte-
nance planning brings together or coordinates the effort of many other
aspects of maintenance.
Figure 1.13 gives an idea where planning in a coordination role fits
into the overall maintenance process. Appendix A further describes
many of these aspects of a modern maintenance organization and their
relationships to planning.
Quality and Productivity Effectiveness

and Efficiency
Planning pushes hard for productivity. However, it is very dangerous to
push for productivity if there is not a quality focus in the work place.
Figure 1.14 shows these sometimes opposing considerations. If one is not
effective, it does not matter how efficient one is. If one is not doing the
right thing, it does not matter how fast one does it. Presume technician
Barbara Smith is assigned to a 5-hour, planned work order. She gets over
to the equipment needing attention and soon finds herself staring at a
job that is going to take at least two days to do right. One does not want
Barbara to say “Well, if they want a 5-hour job, that’s what I’ll give
them!” No, Barbara has to speak up and say to her supervisor, “Look
here, this is the situation,” so the matter can be resolved. Perhaps the
Figure 1.14 Stop! Quality is still most important.

20 Chapter One
planner was wrong in the time estimate or the technician is reading the
scope wrong. The supervisor may point out that the work order calls for
a thorough lubrication, not an overhaul. Among other possibilities, maybe
the initial scope did only call for lubrication, but after opening up the
equipment, it obviously needed an overhaul. The point is that the shop
floor understands the need to do the right job in the right way before con-
sidering how fast to do it or just blindly following a work plan. If a com-
pany does not have a quality focus, it must hold up on pushing for
productivity itself. It is wrong to push for productivity if there is not a qual-
ity focus present. Craft personnel must have the attitude that work being
done in a quality fashion is more important than meeting a production
schedule. The individuals on the floor must communicate concerns with
the crew supervisor if they need more time to complete work properly.
Nevertheless, while it must be emphasized that quality is more impor-
tant than productivity, the benefits of planning actually involve qual-
ity as well as productivity.
Tangible quality savings come from planning in two ways. First, plan-
ning focuses on correctly identifying work scopes and provides for proper
instructions, tools, and parts being used on the jobs, thereby facilitat-
ing quality work. Second, productivity improvement frees up craft,
supervision, and management time to do more proactive work. This
proactive work includes root cause analyses on repair jobs, project work
to improve less reliable equipment, and attention to preventive main-
tenance and predictive maintenance.
Planning Mission
When making any decision the ultimate question is, “Will this decision
help improve maintenance performance?” The mission statement should
guide the planning organization. One must first understand the mission
and what planning is trying to accomplish. Then one can further try to
understand the system in order to determine how to set up planning.
A planning mission statement might read: “The Planning Department
increases the Maintenance Department’s ability to complete work orders.
Work plans avoid anticipated delays, improve on past jobs, and allow
scheduling. Advance scheduling allows supervisors to assign and control
the proper amount of work. A work crew is ready to go immediately to
work upon receiving a planned and scheduled assignment because all
instructions, parts, tools, clearances, and other arrangements are ready.
The right jobs are ready to go.”
The last sentence really captures its overall meaning. “The right jobs
are ready to go” sums up the planning mission statement. Having the
“right jobs” involves job priorities, crew schedules, and work type such as
preventive maintenance versus breakdown work. Having the jobs “ready
to go” involves correctly identifying the work scope, considering the safety
Figure 1.15 Summation of the planning

mission.
aspects of the job, and planning to reduce anticipated delays. When a crew
gets a planned job, they should be able to go to work. They should not have
to ask, “What exactly am I supposed to do? I’m not sure what parts I need.
Do I need a crane for this or do I just use come-alongs?” They should be
able to receive the assignment and perform the work.
Note that planning is not so much “Information Central,” but “Control
Central” or “Coordination Central.” Planning uses information, but its
primary mission is not that of a research function. Planning brings
resources to bear on leveraging productivity. See Fig. 1.15.
Frustration with Planning

Disenchantment in implementing a planning organization is frequently
due to an attempt to provide detailed work plans on reactive jobs. Since
reactive jobs by their nature are urgent, it is frustrating to everyone to
wait on a planning group to turn over the work. Once equipment has actu-
ally broken down and is interfering with operating the plant, a planning
group adds an extra step in the repair process supposedly “to speed the
job up.” Planners try to write detailed job plans and come up with parts
lists from scratch. This effort delays the execution of urgent work and
results in frustration. Successful planning organizations concentrate on
planning proactive work. By concentrating on work to circumvent later
breakdowns, the planning organization can produce good work plans
without schedule pressure. Reactive work receives minimal planning
attention before crew assignment. At the same time, the entire mainte-
nance organization should be committed to schedule proactive work as
well as to give feedback after every job to aid future job plans. In this
manner, the overall percentage of reactive-type work should decrease.
Many companies have planning organizations that are sources of con-
siderable frustration to the maintenance effort. Most supervisors do
not realize the great value of a planner simply writing down a proper
job scope along with craft skill and time requirements. The supervisors
22 Chapter One
feel that “if a detailed job procedure and parts list are not provided, then
planning has not done anything.” Nevertheless, with the “minimal”
planning even on reactive, urgent jobs the supervisor has schedule con-
trol and avoids problems such as assigning a mechanic to a job needing
a welder. The correct assignment avoids subsequent job reassignment
and delay. Planning still has a job function for these reactive jobs and
the concept of how planning handles reactive versus proactive work is
extremely important for making planning leverage the maintenance
productivity. The concept of reactive versus proactive work is not the
same as unplanned versus planned work. After the planning and sched-
uling principles are developed, this important area is discussed in more
detail in Chap. 4.
Summary
Effective maintenance is vital to provide reliable plant capacity. The
application of maintenance planning makes possible dramatic improve-
ment in maintenance productivity. Moreover, the aspects of planning
must be understood in the context of a system in order to avoid the
frustrations of many companies that have tried planning without suc-
cess. The Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook explains
how the planning system works and the principles and techniques that
make the dramatic leverage possible in any maintenance program.
Overview of the Chapters and Appendices

Following the Preface, the Prologue narrates several typical scenarios
of maintenance, some with and some without planning. These scenar-
ios all have significant problems which many readers recognize in their
own organizations. At the end of the book, the Epilogue recounts these
misadventures with every situation flourishing because of proper main-
tenance planning.
The book progresses directly through the vision, the basics, and the
application of planning in the main body of the text. Where does plan-
ning fit into maintenance? What principles make it work? And exactly
how is planning done? Then, extensive appendices provide additional
resources for planners and persons otherwise responsible for mainte-
nance planning.
Chapter 1, The Benefit of Planning, shows the importance of main-
tenance on plant profitability and the opportunity for better labor pro-
ductivity. The chapter quantifies the improvement in labor productivity
possible through planning. Planning is described as a coordinating role
within the maintenance organization.
Chapter 2, Planning Principles, begins with the vision and mission of
planning, then presents the principles or paradigms that profoundly
affect planning. These principles must be understood to have effective

planning. The principles are having planning in a separate department,
focusing on future work, having component level files, using planner
expertise to create estimates, recognizing the skill of the crafts, and
measuring performance with work sampling for direct work time. There
is a thorough discussion of what is commonly known as wrench time, a
frequently misunderstood measurement. The chapter concludes by
showing why scheduling is a necessary part of planning.
Chapter 3, Scheduling Principles, presents first the vision, then the
principles or paradigms that profoundly affect scheduling. Effective
scheduling is inherent in effective planning. The principles are planning
for lowest required skill levels, respecting the importance of schedules
and job priorities, forecasting for highest skills available, scheduling for
every forecasted work hour available, allowing the crew supervisor to
handle the current day’s work, and measuring schedule compliance.
Chapter 4, What Makes the Difference and Pulls It All Together,
explains the final ingredients necessary to make planning work. Several
of these factors make planners do different things for different types of
jobs, and several factors greatly influence the overall application of the
principles. Lack of appreciating these factors frequently makes planning
programs fail. The programs fail because the programs are trying a
“one size fits all” approach to different types of jobs, and the programs
are not sensitive to the immediate needs of reactive jobs. The chapter
distinguishes proactive versus reactive maintenance. It distinguishes
extensive versus minimum maintenance. It describes the resulting plan-
ning adjustments. The chapter also further discusses communication
and management support regarding these adjustments.
With the principles of planning and scheduling well in hand, Chap. 5,
Basic Planning, proceeds into the nuts and bolts of exactly what a plan-
ner does and how in the context of the preceding chapters. The chap-
ter resolves the question: “We know the purpose of planning, but what
exactly does a planner do?” The chapter follows the actual planning
process and includes such areas as when and how a planner scopes a
job, what the planner writes on the work order form, and how the plan-
ner files information.
Chapter 6, Advance Scheduling, continues the nuts and bolts of
making the planning system work with regard to a weekly schedule cre-
ated in the planning department. The chapter shows a specific method
to create the schedule.
Chapter 7, Daily Scheduling and Work Execution, goes beyond the
duties of the planning department. The craft crew supervisors create the
daily schedules and manage daily work execution. Yet because these are
critical elements of the overall planning system, this chapter provides
specific details pertinent to planning and scheduling.
Chapter 8, Forms and Resources Overview, explains with discussion
and examples the types of forms and resources a planner uses and why.
24 Chapter One
Forms help collect and use data and information. Resources include
areas such as the plant files and plant schematics, what they are and
how they are used. Reference is made to App. D containing blank copies
of useful forms.
Chapter 9, The Computer in Maintenance, speaks to why a computer
“might” be used in planning and how. Appendix L contains more infor-
mation on computerization so as not to distract from the presentation
of planning in the main body of the book. Maintenance planning is not
simply using a computer.
Chapter 10, Consideration of Preventive Maintenance, Predictive
Maintenance, and Project Work, covers the specific interfaces of these
important areas with planning for the overall success of maintenance.
Chapter 11, Control, finally gets to the all important issue of how
does one make sure planning works from a management and supervi-
sory standpoint? Surprisingly, it is not on the basis of indicators;
although two of the twelve planning and scheduling principles describe
indicators. It is on the basis of the selection and training of planners.
The summary of the matter in Chap. 12, Conclusion: Start Planning,
and the Epilogue help to tie together all the principles and techniques
to achieve the vision set forth for planning. Then the appendices pro-
vide additional help for the interested reader. The various appendices
are helpful to planners, analysts, planning supervisors, and mainte-
nance managers responsible for planning.
Appendix A explains why planning is a “tool” and where it fits into the
maintenance picture. Planning does not solve everything, but planning
certainly brings together many of the other aspects of maintenance. The
appendix describes other necessary maintenance tools and their rela-
tionship and relative importance to planning. Other tools needed include
a work order system; leadership, management, communication, and
teamwork; qualified personnel; shops, tool rooms, and tools; storeroom
support; and maintenance measurement. In addition, consideration of reli-
ability maintenance as preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance,
and project maintenance is essential.
Appendix B addresses the people side of maintenance planning. The
appendix identifies and discusses important soft aspects of maintenance
that are critical to mindsets and attitudes for making planning success-
ful. Management must work within the real world of real people.
Appendix C gives a starting point for what to buy and where to buy it
when starting a planning organization.
Appendix D provides sample datasheets and forms that can be used
directly by the purchasers of this book for maintenance in their organi-
zations. It also illustrates sample completed work orders for planned
jobs. These very helpful samples illustrate the proper information included
at various stages of the maintenance process including requested work,
coded work, planned work, and completed work.
Appendix E overviews the specific duties of a maintenance planner

in a more step by step fashion and with less reasoning behind each step
than does Chap. 5.
Appendix F overviews the planning-related activities of other employ-
ees besides the planner. This appendix covers the job steps of scheduler,
clerk, operations coordinator, purchaser, crew supervisor, planning
supervisor, maintenance manager, and maintenance analyst as well as
a potential project manager to implement a new planning group.
Appendices G and H contain the reports of actual work sampling
studies. This type of productivity study is the primary measure of plan-
ning and scheduling effectiveness. Consultants typically conduct them.
Both sample studies contain complete procedures for conducting an in-
house study. Appendix G shows a streamlined, simple study requiring
a minimum of effort. Appendix H contains a more traditional study with
many more measurement observations. The traditional study contains
a section validating the accuracy of streamlined studies.
Appendix I on special factors affecting productivity covers in more
detail how the scheduling system affects productivity. For example,
what happens with blanket work orders?
The appendix also provides and discusses detailed cause maps that
identify the underlying roots of schedule compliance and priority system
problems. The practitioner can utilize these maps to help zero in on
and overcome the key sources of trouble in their own unique mainte-
nance environments.
Appendix J on work orders is a must. Planning follows a work order
system as the most important improvement one can make to a mainte-
nance program. The work order system is a process which maintenance
uses to manage all plant maintenance work. The system assists the
plant in keeping track of, prioritizing, planning, scheduling, analyzing,
and controlling maintenance work. The plant must have a viable work
order system as a foundation to planning and this appendix develops a
typical system.
Appendix K on equipment, schematics, and tagging sets forth guide-
lines for equipment identification and tagging. Planning uses the equip-
ment tag numbers in its filing system.
Appendix L on computerized maintenance management systems gives
additional information on utilizing and implementing a computer appli-
cation to assist planning. It provides essential guidance including critical
cautions concerning initial implementations, patches, major upgrades, test-
ing, training, consultants, and interfaces with other company software.
Appendix M on how to go about implementing a planning organiza-
tion is a valuable feature in the book for its practicality. This appendix
addresses how to organize the planning department as well as how to
select and train the planners. Special topics are covered: traditional
versus team environments, older versus newer facilities (even under
26 Chapter One
construction), and centralized versus area maintenance. The appendix

also provides an exhaustive aids and barriers analysis for setting up a
planning group. It identifies aids and barriers to establishing each of the
major functions of a successful planning and scheduling system. The
analysis allows the practitioner to develop successful action plans to use
these aids and avoid these barriers to ensure success. The analysis fur-
ther breaks down critical aids and barriers themselves to provide in-
depth implementation help.
Appendix N shows an example of a formal job description for planners
to give a company that must establish one, a head start.
Appendix O has example training tests and illustrates the type of
knowledge a planner should be gaining when becoming familiar and
adept with planning techniques.
Appendix P illustrates the type of questions and information a main-
tenance manager uses when implementing a planned maintenance
process and culture.
Appendix Q thoroughly examines contracting out work, one of the
most controversial issues in labor relations. Great pressures exist for
companies to contract out some or all of their maintenance and these
companies typically involve the planning group in any effort to utilize
contractors. Therefore, this appendix provides the practitioner of main-
tenance planning with the information to judge the potential benefits
versus risks of different levels and approaches for contracting out plant
work. The information of necessity also covers modern arbitration deci-
sions regarding contracting.
To conclude the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook,
App. R is a concise recap of the text of the many principles and guide-
lines pulled together from throughout the book and helpfully put into a
single place for reference.
Chapter
2
Planning Principles
This chapter recaps the vision and mission of planning and then pres-
ents the principles of effective planning. Each principle identifies an
important crossroads. At each crossroad, the company has to make a
decision regarding alternative ways to conduct planning. The decision
the company makes regarding each situation determines the ultimate
success of planning. Each principle presents the recommended solution
to the crossroads.
Six principles greatly contribute to the overall success of planning. First,
the company organizes planners into a separate department. Second, plan-
ners concentrate on future work. Third, planners base their files on the
component level of systems. Fourth, planner expertise dictates job esti-
mates. Fifth, planners recognize the skill of the crafts. And sixth, work sam-
pling for direct work time provides the primary measure of planning
effectiveness. Figure 2.1 shows the entire text of these principles.
The Planning Vision; The Mission

As presented in Chap. 1, the mission of planning revolves around making
the right jobs “ready to go.” Maintenance management uses planning as
a tool to reduce unnecessary job delays through advance preparation. To
prepare a job in advance, a planner develops a work plan after receiving
a work request. The work plan is nothing more than the assembled infor-
mation that the planner makes ready for the technician who will later
execute the work. Some organizations call the work plan a work package
or a planned package. At a minimum, the work plan includes a job scope,
identification of craft skill required, and labor time estimates. The plan-
ner may also include a procedure for accomplishing the task and identify
any parts and special tools required. With the proper planning or prepa-
ration for each job, this effort sets the stage to increase the productivity
of the maintenance force.
27

28
2. The Planning Department concentrates on future work--work that

has not been started--in order to provide the Maintenance Department 3. The Planning Department maintains a simple, secure
at least one week of work backlog that is planned, approved, and file system based on equipment tag numbers. The file
ready to execute. This backlog allows crews to work primarily on system enables planners to utilize equipment data and
planned work. information learned on previous work to prepare and
Crew supervisors handle the current day's work and problems. Any improve work plans, especially on repetitive maintenance
problems that arise after commencement of any job are resolved by tasks. The majority of maintenance tasks are repetitive
the craft technicians or supervisors. over a sufficient period of time. File cost information
assists in making repair or replace decisions.
After every job completion, feedback is given by the lead technician
or supervisor to the Planning Department. The feedback consists of Supervisors and plant engineers are trained to access
any problems, plan changes, or other helpful information so that future these files to gather information they need with minimal
work plans and schedules might be improved. The planners ensure planner assistance.
that feedback information gets properly filed to aid future work.
MAINTENANCE 4. Planners use personal experience and file information

1. The planners are organized into a separate department to develop work plans to avoid anticipated work delays
from the craft maintenance crews to facilitate specializing in
planning techniques as well as focusing on future work.
PLANNING and quality or safety problems.
As a minimum, planners are experienced, top level technicians
that are trained in planning techniques.
PRINCIPLES
6. Wrench time is the primary measure of workforce 5. The Planning Department recognizes the skill of the
efficiency and of planning and scheduling effectiveness. crafts. In general, the planner's responsibility is "what" before
Wrench time is the proportion of available-to-work time "how." The planner determines the scope of the work request
during which craft persons are not being kept from produc- including clarification of the originator's intent where necessary.
tively working on a job site by delays such as waiting for The planner then plans the general strategy of the work (such
assignment, clearance, parts, tools, instructions, travel, as repair or replace) and includes a preliminary procedure if
coordination with other crafts, or equipment information. there is not one already in the file. The craft technicians use
Work that is planned before assignment reduces unnecessary their expertise to make the specified repair or replacement.
delays during jobs and work that is scheduled reduces delays The planners and technicians work together over repeated jobs
between jobs. to develop better procedures and checklists.
Figure 2.1 The six maintenance planning principles.

Planning Principles 29
The vision of planning is simply to increase labor productivity. The

mission of planning is to prepare the jobs to increase labor productiv-
ity. As simple as this sounds, when management implements planning,
it becomes apparent that the planning system abounds with many sub-
tleties. The inability of many companies to recognize or deal with these
subtleties prevents their planning organizations from yielding produc-
tivity improvements. The following principles guide planning through
these particular difficulties to be effective.
Principle 1: Separate Department

Planning Principle 1 (Fig. 2.2) states
The planners are organized into a separate department from the craft
maintenance crews to facilitate specializing in planning techniques as well
as focusing on future work.
The first principle dictates that planners are not members of the craft
crew for which they plan. Planners report to a different supervisor than
that of the craft crew. The company places planners into a separate
crew of their own. They have their own supervisor. With a small number
of planners, the planners might report to the same manager who holds
authority over the crew supervisors. There may be a lead planner with
some responsibility to provide direction and ensure consistency within
the planning group.
The problem with giving the crew supervisors authority over their
respective planners is that the crew focuses almost exclusively on exe-
cuting assigned work. The crew members execute work; the planners do
not. The planners must be engaged in preparing work that has not yet
begun. In actual practice, the crew supervisor receives too much pressure
for the supervisor not to use the planner to assist work that has already
begun. The crew supervisor must have repairs completed. It is tempting
to reassign a planner to a toolbox and say, “The planner is a qualified
welder who can come help us.” Even in a plant with few reactive jobs, the
supervisor should still have significant motivation to keep actively com-
pleting an assigned backlog of work to keep the plant out of a reactive
maintenance mode. The supervisor has an obligation to complete the
assigned work in an expeditious manner with a minimum of interruptions
Figure 2.2 Separation reduces tempta-

tion.
30 Chapter Two
or delays. Once any job encounters delays, the supervisor feels pressure
to minimize them. With direct access to the superior craft skills of a
maintenance planner, the supervisor would always have significant moti-
vation to take a planner away from planning duties. To the crew super-
visor, the present is always more urgent than the future. The work in
progress is always more important than the job not yet begun.
Management may contribute to this problem when planners report to
crew supervisors. The pressure is especially intense if the maintenance
manager has given a specific direction to the crew supervisor, such as
“Put that pump back on line today!” How does the supervisor balance
this instruction against the manager’s admonition last year, “Try not to
use the planner on field work unless necessary”? There will always be
important work to complete today and the temptation to delay prepar-
ing for tomorrow’s work.
Not only does the crew supervisor favor assigning craft work to the
planner, the rest of the crew members as well place more relative impor-
tance on the work in progress than the paperwork of the planner. Such
peer pressure encourages the planner to assist on jobs already begun or
to take assignments directly for craft work willingly.
The natural inclination of the crew supervisor to place highest impor-
tance on assigned work, the unconscious pressure from management to
encourage supervisors to give craft work to planners, and the peer pres-
sure from fellow crew members all contribute to taking planners away
from planning duties. In actual practice, planners on maintenance crews
frequently work craft jobs and devote inadequate time to planning activ-
ities. As a result, crews have insufficient work to execute on a planned
basis merely because planners do not have time to plan much work. This
situation may also lead to another problem that manifests itself in an
insidious fashion. Because planning contributes to scheduling, the lack
of planning effort may decrease the number of work assignments to
crews. The amount of work the company expects from each crew
decreases. The work assigned becomes more reactive in nature because
the plant executes less proactive work to head off problems. Gradually,
the plant returns to a situation in which crews routinely repair equip-
ment under urgent conditions and with little time remaining for main-
tenance to prevent equipment problems.
A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs for the manager who assigns planners
to field crews. Supervisors frequently put planners on their tools to pull
wrenches instead of plan. Planners plan less work. Less work is assigned.
Work that is assigned is more reactive in nature, needing more on the
job assistance. An apparent, but false, validation results showing that
planners need to be on crews to help.
The problem is not managers, supervisors, or crew members with
inadequate organizational discipline or inadequate understanding of
the nature of planning. The problem is poor alignment of the company
organization with the company vision. Simply removing the planners out
from under the crew supervisors allows the planners to perform plan-
ning duties. The problem is not having persons who can resist the temp-
tation to use a planner’s craft skills. The problem is creating a situation
where the temptation exists. The company avoids this situation by
removing the planners from direct control of the maintenance crews.
Then when the supervisor presumes it necessary to use a planner as a
technician on an emergency job, the maintenance manager makes the
call, not the supervisor.
If problems do arise where extra craft help is necessary, the supervisor
has several options besides using a maintenance planner. The supervi-
sor may assign more capable technicians to difficult jobs. The supervisor
may decide overtime work is appropriate. The supervisor may decide to
extend the job duration and not complete the job on schedule. The super-
visor may decide to take advantage of an existing contract to provide con-
tract labor assistance. The supervisor may decide to contract the job
altogether. Perhaps the supervisor could increase productivity by per-
sonally supervising the work. The supervisor might request help from
another crew. The labor contract might allow the supervisor to use another
craft as a helper. For example, an electrician might be an adequate helper
for a machinist on a particular task. Supervisors might also contribute
their own hands to the execution of the work. Many options besides using
the planner exist to expedite pressing field assignments.
Only after considering other avenues of help might the supervisor
request using a planner as a technician through the maintenance man-
ager who applied the job pressure in the first place. It is one thing for
a manager to say “Fix that pump today!” and another thing for the
maintenance manager consciously to redirect other resources to the
task. Because a single planner helps leverage 30 technicians into 47,
the planner in effect is worth 17 persons. The planner is the last person
the manager would want to pull away for a field assignment. Compare the
cost of time and a half overtime paid to a mechanic versus 17 times
straight time opportunity lost to the company for using a planner on a
field assignment. Even triple overtime does not compare to the economic
waste of using a planner for execution of work. Pulling a planner for
a field assignment must be the absolute last resort for the manager
who understands and believes in the leverage of planning. Making
the manager involved in each case for such a decision helps prevent
such reassignments.
The manager might expect the crew supervisor to complain that man-
agement took some of the best technicians from the work force to create
the planner positions. The manager must understand that for each tech-
nician transformed into a planner, the work force receives the equiva-
lent of 17 technicians in return. It is in everyone’s best interest to make
planning work. Time spent in explaining the leverage and benefit of
32 Chapter Two
planning to supervisors both at these times of questioning and at the

outset of initiating planning is time well spent.
Another reason the company organizes planners into a separate group
is to facilitate or help the planners become specialized in planning tech-
niques. Planners need to work closely together to ensure proper execution
and consistency of planning work itself. There are ample opportunities to
conduct planning in different manners. Planners need the reinforcement
of each other’s help to plan jobs and follow the planning principles in a
common fashion. Preparing work to be accomplished in the future while
the field technicians on crews scurry after jobs-in-progress is a new expe-
rience and is difficult to master alone.
Illustrations
The following illustrations demonstrate this principle of planning. The
first section shows problems occurring as a result of not following the
principle. The second section shows success through application of
the principle.
Not this way. Maintenance Manager Scott Smith walked over to the
office of the mechanical crew supervisor. Each crew had its own plan-
ner who had a partitioned section of the supervisor’s office with a desk
and computer. Smith did not expect to see the planner necessarily
because he knew that planners had to travel quite a bit to go to all the
jobs for scoping. So it was not unexpected that the planner was not at
the desk. The crew supervisor was not there either, which was appro-
priate, because Smith likewise expected supervisors to spend time in the
field with their crews. However, on the way back to the front office,
Smith happened to pass the fuel oil transfer pumps and saw the mechan-
ical crew planner on a scaffolding assisting another mechanic hoist a
valve into place. After questioning the planner, it appeared that the
crew supervisor wanted to have the valve job completed today. He had
directed the planner to help the mechanic who was having trouble man-
aging the bulky valve alone. Smith could understand that the planner
was under the direction of the supervisor, but Smith had begun to notice
an uncomfortable trend. At least half of the time when he saw a plan-
ner, the planner would be working on a crew. This probably contributed
to the indicator Smith tracked showing that the crews spent most labor
hours on unplanned work. Last week Smith had even seen one of the
planners working as a tool room attendant. The supervisor of the tool
room had borrowed the planner from one of the crews because the tool
room was suddenly short-handed that day. Smith was somewhat reluc-
tant to counsel his supervisor because the supervisors took such great
pride in managing their own work. However, in order for planning to
work, obviously there had to be some planners doing planning. Smith
decided to meet with his supervisors again regarding the matter.
This way. Maintenance Manager Scott Smith walked over to the office
area of the maintenance planners. Each planner had a partitioned
office cubicle with a desk and computer. Smith did not expect to see all
the planners necessarily because he knew that planners had to travel
quite a bit to go to all the jobs for scoping. So it was not unexpected that
only two of the four planners were at their desks. One of the planners
present appeared to be attaching plan information to a work order and
the other planner was going through a file to find equipment informa-
tion. On the way back to the front office, Smith happened to pass the
fuel oil transfer pumps and saw two mechanics hoisting a valve into
place. After questioning the mechanics, it appeared that the job plan
was helping them expedite the job. The plan had given the valve weight
so that the right straps could be checked out of the tool room before the
job started. The plan had also advised the supervisor ahead of time that
the job required two persons because of the valve’s bulkiness. After
talking to the mechanics, Smith started again back to his office. As he
was crossing the pump yard he noticed one of the remaining planners
carrying a clipboard with a stack of work order forms. This planner
claimed to be en route from the power house where three jobs had been
scoped and was heading toward the chemical waste treatment system
to scope four more work orders. Smith was comfortable that the plan-
ners were engaged in planning activities as he wanted. Smith knew that
the supervisors also knew the importance of completing the planning.
This morning he had turned down a request for a crew supervisor to
borrow a planner for a field assignment. After discussing the particu-
lar work order, Smith had advised that the crew supervisor would have
to extend the schedule for its completion.
Managers need to place maintenance planners out from under the con-
trol of crew supervisors to prevent the planners from being assigned field
work as technicians. The temptation to use planners as field technicians
on current jobs is usually too strong to allow the planners time to do help-
ful planning for future work. A separation arrangement allows the plan-
ners to concentrate on planning future work.
Principle 2: Focus on Future Work

The Planning Department concentrates on future work—work that has not
been started—in order to provide the Maintenance Department at least one
week of work backlog that is planned, approved, and ready to execute.
This backlog allows crews to work primarily on planned work.
Crew supervisors handle the current day’s work and problems. Any prob-
lems that arise after the commencement of any job are resolved by the
craft technicians or supervisors.
34 Chapter Two
Figure 2.3 The snowball of improvement.
After every job completion, feedback is given by the lead technician or

supervisor to the Planning Department. The feedback consists of any prob-
lems, plan changes, or other helpful information so that future work plans
and schedules might be improved. The planners ensure that feedback infor-
mation gets properly filed to aid future work.
The reason the planners need to be separate is they need to focus on

future work. Planners do not become involved in work that is already
ongoing. A simple definition of future work is when the crew has not yet
been assigned to start on the work order. Once a crew has started work-
ing on a job and they find out they need more information, they do not
come to the planner for assistance, but work it out themselves. Then
after the crew successfully completes the current job, feedback to plan-
ning helps avoid similar problems in the future.
The problem with the planner having the duty to help technicians
find file information for jobs already under way is that the planner soon
has no time left to plan or gather job information to help future work. A
vicious cycle is then in place. No jobs receive the benefit of advance plan-
ning because there is no time to refer to past feedback or otherwise antic-
ipate problems ahead of time. The question at the crossroads is whether
planners are really in the business of planning or are they in place to help
technicians quickly find information to help resolve problems for work
that has already started. The planners are most knowledgeable about the
plant technical documents, and jobs that are underway need help fast
when problems arise. Nevertheless, this use of planning is almost as
short-sighted as using planners as field technicians.
Think of the circle in Fig. 2.3 as a repeated cycle of maintenance over
the life of a piece of equipment. Maintenance does a job to maintain the
equipment. During the course of the work the field technicians learn
about the equipment or task. For example, they may learn that a cer-
tain pump bearing can only be removed from the inboard side because
of an almost imperceptible taper in the design. The technicians learned
this fact from trial and error and spent most of a morning doing it the
wrong way. After the job the technicians give feedback on the work
order form about the design and delay. Then the next time that partic-
ular pump needs maintenance, the planner can refer to the previous
problems and the resolution because the planner filed the previous feed-
back. The planner reports this information as part of the job plan before
the crew starts the task. As a result, previously encountered delays
might be avoided on the subsequent maintenance operations. In the
example of the tapered bearing, the second time the crew replaces the
bearing, they should not have to waste time trying to remove the bear-
ing from the wrong side. The crew avoids an entire morning of wasted
time. Each time the crew works on a particular piece of equipment,
they might learn something new that could help future jobs.
This cycle of maintenance and planning concept carries some important
implicit presumptions. The first and most important presumption is that
a planner is available to review feedback from previous jobs and other-
wise plan for new work. Another presumption is that feedback is not only
obtained, but kept after each job. The final presumption is that equipment
is worked on repetitively. These presumptions are not taken lightly.
The first presumption is that a planner is not only willing, but available
to plan new work. As planning recognizes the need not to be on the tools
(Principle 1), they are still frequently hindered from focusing on future
work. As the planners leave their tools and arrive in the office to focus on
future work, they meet a new challenge. The problem that arises is that
if a planner is planning for 20 to 30 technicians, how many of those tech-
nicians are going to want some additional information? Probably at least
two or three will do so. So these two or three technicians come to the plan-
ning office and ask the planner for help; after all, the technician regards
the planner as the information finding expert. With this constant inter-
ruption, the planner does not have the time for the filing or work neces-
sary to focus on future work. The planner helps with work-in-progress, not
future work. Figure 2.4, Chasing Parts, illustrates what happens.
Figure 2.4 Chasing parts for today’s jobs cannot help

as much as focusing on future work in the long run.
36 Chapter Two
Figure 2.4 presents a variation of the common product life cycle that
illustrates the planning effectiveness challenge. As management takes
good technicians out of the work force (Principle 1) to be planners, the work
force’s effectiveness initially suffers. Then as the planners become profi-
cient at finding file information (albeit on work-in-progress), there is over-
all improvement for the work force. However, the first curved line shows
an upper limit to how much help this practice can deliver. The second
curved line shows when planners turn away from constantly helping
work-in-progress and focus on future work that maintenance effective-
ness can improve further. Opportunity for further improvement exists
because when the planners only help work-in-progress, they are not
helping the crews avoid previously encountered delays. Every job
becomes a new job without any history advantage. No wonder so many
techs need help with work-in-progress; they have no opportunity to avoid
what has happened in the past. It is no wonder the planner cannot focus
on future work. Every job in progress runs into problems creating another
vicious cycle. The planners become known as “parts chasers” excitedly
helping technicians find parts information or solve other problems on
most jobs. Every job is urgent once it starts.
This is a very sensitive area for existing planning departments.
Management may have started the planning department with the pub-
lished intent of helping everyone with obtaining information at any
time. A planner soon learns the impracticality of planning in advance
for 20 persons while at the same time helping with work-in-progress.
The best alternative at this point is to try to designate one of the plan-
ners for helping all jobs-in-progress to shield the other planners.
It is best to start out with the understanding that “planners will not
replace the need for a tech (or supervisor) to find technical information.”
However, once a technician has found information the planner will save
and reissue all job feedback on future work. This arrangement is also
necessary for the crew supervisors to maintain their familiarity with the
files and also encourages feedback from the technicians. Once techni-
cians have to find technical information for a job, knowing that they will
have to find the information again themselves the next time unless the
planner can extract the data from the files, encourages feedback.
The future work concept is important. If a crew has already started
working on something and they find out they need some more parts, they
do not come to the planner to help find those parts. That would be coun-
terproductive overall. Think back to before the company had planning;
then the crew supervisors knew how to obtain parts. The crew super-
visors knew how to find file information. That previous familiarity should
be maintained. Management wants the “added value” of looking at
future work. Therefore, after the job starts, the techs or crew supervisors
must find any additional information just as they did before planning
existed. That lets the planner focus on getting all the jobs planned.
Principle 2 does not accept planning being a highly efficient depart-

ment of persons to help crews look for parts once jobs start. The craft-
person who changes the plan or has problems should write that
information down after she finishes the job and give it back to planning
for filing. The next time that piece of equipment needs work the plan-
ner will take the filed information and insert it for an improved job
plan.
Management needs to monitor the time planners spend planning
future work versus helping jobs-in-progress. If using a timesheet system,
management may consider planners using a one time accounting
number when planning and another number when providing technical
assistance. A balance should be struck between the use of separate num-
bers legitimizing “chasing parts” and showing that “chasing parts” is not
planning.
The second implicit presumption is that feedback will be received and
used. Many companies almost hopelessly damage their planning effort
with misconceptions regarding this point. These organizations start
their planning groups with the expectations that field technicians would
never have to look for information and that planners would always plan
perfect jobs from scratch. In other words, their concept is that each
planner would pick through the technical manuals every time a job
came up to support the planner’s 20 to 30 technicians. The field tech-
nicians thereby never have to find information because the planner
always has it ready. This approach fails for two reasons. The first is that
a planner cannot keep up with the work load researching each job from
scratch. This is why planning organizations have a difficult time in
their first 6 months of existence. In effect, every job is being built from
square one before the files slowly become built up and useful. The second
reason is that the most valuable information needed on plans is not
available from equipment manuals. Information such as potential work
permitting problems, the probability that certain parts will be needed,
and corrected local inventory stocking numbers are learned from past
jobs. A planner must be able to find the helpful feedback on those last
three work orders from the last 3 years to help the crew avoid previous
problems. For example, if the planner finds that the last time the crew
worked on this job they did not have a certain part, the planner makes
sure they have that part this time. Each and every job is on a learning
curve. Looking to the files helps achieve that improvement opportunity.
The correct concept is that the planner to a large degree is essentially
a file clerk for the technician. The planner promises that if the techni-
cian reports any information, the planner will have that information
available for next time. The field technicians must be willing to research
and resolve problems as they come up on jobs-in-progress and report
feedback to their file clerk. The technicians must not have the false
impression because certain information was unknown that the planner
38 Chapter Two
failed to adequately plan the job. On the other hand, the planner must
understand the importance of saving and referring to this important
feedback. The planner does not plan each job from scratch. By using feed-
back in the plant files, the planner not only has the opportunity of con-
tinuously improving job plans, but has time to plan all the work orders.
The last presumption concerns doing work repetitively. Working on
equipment repetitively is a reality. One typically thinks of preventive
maintenance as the only repetitive work in the plant. Yet the 50% rule
says that if a piece of equipment requires work, there is a 50% chance
it will require similar, if not the same, work on it again within a year’s
time. Moreover, the 80% rule says that there is an 80% chance the
equipment will be worked on again within a 5-year period. These per-
centages are not for preventive maintenance. Why are these percentages
so high? One reason is “infant mortality.” After any work on any equip-
ment, there exists an increased chance of additional maintenance soon
being required. Problems from the initial job might include faulty mate-
rials or maintenance practices. The feedback from these jobs is especially
important for the planner to scrutinize for opportunities to avoid
repeated problems. Another reason is that some equipment simply
requires more attention than others. Out of 10,000 different pieces of
equipment, 300 might continuously need attention while the other 9000
or so never seem to need work. On the other hand, there is a common
perception that “Nothing is ever the same” or “It is always something
different.” These statements reflect a perception that none of the equip-
ment receives repetitive maintenance attention. This perception is false,
but understandable. For one thing, the exact same technician might not
be involved each time. For another thing, working on a piece of equip-
ment only once or twice a year just does not seem to be very repetitive,
especially if the exact same task is not involved. Nonetheless, one must
move beyond the horizon of a crew thinking of one week at a time. The
30 plus years of a plant’s life mean that the vast majority of maintenance
tasks will be executed repetitively. And if the vast majority of jobs are
repetitive, each presents the potential opportunity of contributing to
increased labor productivity through heeding the lessons of the past.
That means there is a tremendous opportunity to improve through
avoiding past delays. There is a cycle and a snowball effect. As mainte-
nance crews work jobs, they learn helpful information about delays.
Then they give that information to planning as feedback at the end of
a job. Planning references this information when the next job comes up
for that equipment and the snowball picks up momentum as repeated
jobs avoid past delays.
A final comment is appropriate regarding future work. Even without
regarding the repetitive nature of maintenance work, there is a serious
problem when the plant overfocuses on helping jobs-in-progress. When
technicians run into a problem, there is generally a job delay while they
resolve the matter. Unless these technicians can quickly move to other
work, there will be several technicians standing around wasting time
even if the planner rapidly resolves the problem. It is undeniably much
better to have the planner anticipate problems ahead of time and spend
time resolving them while no one is waiting.
Illustrations
the principle.
Not this way. Sally Johnson was the planner for the mechanical work
for Crew A’s ten mechanics and ten welders. Since it was Monday, she
planned to scope and compile plans for all the jobs that the weekend
operating crews had reported. In addition, there were a number of jobs
completed last week for which she needed to file the work orders. Before
she could complete checking her email, however, two welders came into
the office requesting her help to run pick tickets for them to receive a
valve out of inventory. Soon after she provided this help, a mechanic
called her on the radio for assistance obtaining bearing clearances for
the forced draft fans. She knew this would be a problem and she spent
the better part of the morning locating and talking to the manufac-
turer. By midafternoon, the interruptions had kept coming and Johnson
still had not scoped the first job. At least she felt a sense of accom-
plishment that she kept important jobs going through her efforts.
This way. Sally Johnson was the planner for the mechanical work for
Crew A’s ten mechanics and ten welders. Since it was Monday, she
planned to scope and compile plans for all the jobs that the weekend
operating crews had reported. In addition, there were a number of jobs
completed last week for which she needed to file the work orders. After
checking her email, she began filing. As she started to assemble infor-
mation for the new jobs, she again returned to the files. Good, she
thought, here is a list of parts for the air compressor job. That will help
the mechanics when they start that job. On about half the jobs, she
found useful information from previous work orders. After compiling the
information and making field inspections, she finished the required
planning by about midafternoon. That left part of the day to talk to one
of the plant engineers from whom she had asked some material selec-
tion advice. She felt a sense of accomplishment that she was part of a
new service for maintenance that boosted productivity and ultimately
company profits. She could feel that her efforts were part of a better
process than the old “Just work harder” mind set.
40 Chapter Two
As one can see, the repetitive nature of equipment maintenance pro-

vides great opportunity for planners to give technicians a head start in
avoiding past problems. Technicians need to be mindful to resolve prob-
lems without planner assistance and provide feedback on circumstances
encountered and information gained. Planners need to be heedful to
their task of keeping and utilizing past work order information to
improve jobs being planned. To make the cycle of job improvement work
through avoiding past delays, planners must be allowed to focus on
future work. Nevertheless, past delays can only be avoided if they are
remembered, which leads to the next principle.
Principle 3: Component Level Files

The Planning Department maintains a simple, secure file system based on
equipment tag numbers. The file system enables planners to utilize equip-
ment data and information learned on previous work to prepare and
improve work plans, especially on repetitive maintenance tasks. The major-
ity of maintenance tasks are repetitive over a sufficient period of time.
File cost information assists making repair or replace decisions.
Supervisors and plant engineers are trained to access these files to gather
information they need with minimal planner assistance.
The concept of component level files or “minifiles” is a vital key for suc-
cessful planning. Principle 3 dictates that planners do not file on a
system level or basis, but on an individual component one. A minifile is
a file made exclusively for an individual piece of equipment the first time
it is maintained. The term minifile helps convey the understanding that
the file does not keep information for multiple pieces of equipment
together. Planners make new equipment a minifile when it is purchased.
Planners label the file with the exact same component tag number
attached to the equipment in the field. Planners consult the minifile for
each new job to take advantage of the lessons and information gained
on previous jobs. This principle takes advantage of the fact that equip-
ment requires repetitive attention over the life of the plant. In particu-
lar, cost information available through the files helps planners and
Figure 2.5 Filing so that information

can be used.
others make important decisions on replacing or modifying troublesome

equipment. The files are arranged in a secure fashion to keep data from
being taken away unadvisedly and lost, but are arranged simply enough
for other plant personnel to be able to access their information.
Engineers and supervisors directly use the files for obtaining informa-
tion for projects or jobs-in-progress rather than interrupt the planners
from planning future work.
The crossroads, so to speak, in this instance is whether to file infor-
mation by systems or by individual equipment. A simple few files make
it easy to put certain information in, but later difficult to find and take
out that information. A complex, multiple file arrangement would
require more time to find the right file in which to put the information.
On the other hand, later it would be easier to find the information again.
Starting from the extreme, the easiest arrangement into which to place
information would be a single repository or file for the whole plant.
Planners would have no trouble filing information because it all goes into
one place together. However, later if a planner wanted information
saved last year for the clarifier drain valve, it would be impractical to
find it amidst the mass of other saved data. Moving to a slightly less
simple arrangement, the plant could file information by building or
plant area. A planner would file all the waste treatment information
together and later might have a less difficult time finding the clarifier
drain valve data. Continuing to how many plants do actually file data,
a plant could file by equipment system such as the liquid waste system,
the high pressure steam turbine system, and the polisher system. This
makes the planner have to take a little more care filing the information
to place it in the right place. Later the planner has a much easier time
finding the information if needed. The next less simple filing system
would be filing information by the equipment itself such as the clarifier
drain valve. Obviously, the planner would have little trouble later
retrieving information, but to begin with the planner would also have
to exercise considerable care filing information. The extreme case would
be to file information separately even by nearly every discrete subcom-
ponent such as a valve body, a valve actuator, a pump, or a pump bear-
ing. These arrangements become too complicated for filing or retrieving
information. Alternately, the plant may file equipment information by
manufacturer or vendor. Filing by manufacturer or vendor is common,
but generally not favored because manufacturers and vendors change
over time for particular pieces of equipment.
Consider a road or street address system in a town or city. Persons
might take a multiple lane highway to arrive at the town. They turn
off the highway onto a major road to go to the neighborhood. Then they
look for particular side streets leading to the street of interest. Once at
the specific address of the home of interest, they turn onto a specific
narrow driveway. The seekers can locate all of the occupants of this
42 Chapter Two
home because they are at a specifically numbered address within the

city. One cannot find any of the occupants of the home by simply arriv-
ing in the city. Planners likewise cannot find any of the work orders for
a piece of equipment if the population of total work orders is significant
at all.
Consider a doctor’s office. Many physicians have a paper file system
directly behind the receptionist. There is a separate paper file for each
patient or, at most, family. The physician can easily determine the
patient’s medical history by looking at the filed information. A patient
would also be uncomfortable if the physician did not think any past his-
tory was ever important. A patient would also be uncomfortable if the
physician filed all history by single neighborhood files. Similarly, plan-
ners know that history is important for all equipment and there is not
too much trouble in filing by equipment.
The conventional wisdom is threefold for filing. Do not file informa-
tion that one knows will not be needed in the future. File in fat files what
probably will not be needed in the future, but if needed must be found.
File in skinny files what will be needed and used in the future.
Maintenance work orders decidedly fall into the last category con-
sidering that the majority of equipment maintenance is repetitive over
the years.
It turns out that once management takes the planners off their tools
(Principle 1) so they may actually focus on future work (Principle 2), a
new situation arises. The files where everything has been put for years
are not useful unless information is filed by individual pieces of equip-
ment. Say a planner is planning a job on the polisher cation regenera-
tion valve. According to the 50% rule, there should be at least one or two
previous work orders from the past couple of years that would help.
The problem is that the plant used a single file to place all the work
orders from the polishers; there must be 250 work orders. The planner
does not have time to dig through them looking for the several cation
regeneration valve ones if this situation is the norm encountered for
every piece of equipment and job planned.
As planning is implemented, it soon becomes evident that it is not fea-
sible to check individual equipment history and technical information
if they are kept in system files. System files have too much information
to allow quick reference for individual equipment. Once the planner
receives job feedback for future reference, it cannot go into a system file.
A system might have 20 to 100 or more different components alone with
multiple work orders for each. When a file is that large, planners cannot
practically find information on a single piece of equipment. Therefore
planners use a component level file for each piece of equipment. When
the planner receives a work order, the planner consults the specific file
to find the previous work orders for that equipment. The filing mirrors
the obvious work order arrangement. Normally, planners plan work
orders for discrete pieces of equipment. It makes sense to file informa-

tion in the same manner.
Consider a simple, paper file system. This file system is the equipment
database complete with work order history for each piece of equipment.
With a minifile, the first thing a planner does when a job comes in is go
to the minifile, pull it out and find the previous work orders for the
equipment. If the planner finds that the last time the crew worked this
job they did not have a certain part, the planner makes sure they have
that part this time. The job is on a learning curve.
As discussed in the previous principle, many persons think a crew
never works on the same thing over again, that it is always something
different. Yet in reality they work on the same things over and over
again, just not every day. It might be 9 months to over a year before a
crew works on it again and even then with a different technician. So per-
sons just have a feeling that they are working on different things all the
time. Notwithstanding popular opinion, if a planner can find those last
three work orders over the last 3 years, the planner can help the crew
avoid previous problems. Furthermore, if a planner can tabulate the pre-
vious cost, the planner can make better repair or replace decisions. For
example, “The last two times we worked on that, it cost $1000. I know
I can buy a completely different valve for $500 that probably will not
need as much maintenance.” Looking to the files helps the planner
reach that improvement opportunity. In addition, since the majority of
jobs have been worked on before, most of the jobs currently in the plant
would benefit from a planner being able to review past information
through an adequate file system. Filing information by the individual
equipment allows that opportunity.
Experience has shown that after only 6 months of conscientious feed-
back and planning, most jobs in the plant receive a benefit from feed-
back learned on previous jobs.
The next issue concerns how the planners should physically arrange
and number the files.
First, an intelligent numbering system of some sort is preferred. Many
plants might have the equipment files labeled by the written names of
the equipment. For example, one file might have Polisher Cation
Regeneration Valve as its label. The plant may order these files within
systems alphabetically or by process location. However, using the filing
system becomes somewhat cumbersome as the quantity of equipment
rises. For one thing, not everyone may refer to the equipment by the
same name. On the other hand, a plant-wide coding system allows better
file arrangement through intelligent numbering. For example, from the
number N01-CP-005, one could tell that the equipment is a part of the
Condensate Polisher system of North Unit #1. This number allows not
only a unique, file reference number, but also the grouping of all polisher
44 Chapter Two
equipment together. This system is preferred although some thought will

have to be spent on developing an appropriate numbering system. Some
companies have already tagged their equipment with unique numbers
just for the benefit of ensuring maintenance does their work on the cor-
rect machines. Planning should use these existing numbers as the basis
for the filing system whenever possible. Appendices J and K give prac-
tical advice on setting up a numbering and tagging system.
Second, when using a numbering system, the company must make sure
to follow through on one action. Not only must they label the files, but
it is almost imperative that they hang matching equipment tags on the
field equipment. This simple step greatly assists the operators and other
writers of work orders tie the equipment number to the work order. This
tie helps the planner find the correct equipment files. Some filing pro-
grams have failed not because the filing system was somewhat complex,
but because there were no corresponding equipment tags.
Third, the planners must set up the files so that the supervisors and
plant engineers do not ask the planner to look in the files; they look in
the files themselves. The planners intend for these persons still to work
with files and information. For this reason, paper files should be open
and easy to see with side labels on individual folders. Files that are
enclosed within closing file cabinet drawers tend not to be inviting or
as user friendly as possible. Large labels should clearly declare the con-
tents of different shelf areas. For this same reason, planning should keep
all the files in a common area, not within individual planner cubicles.
Fourth, if other persons have access to the files, management may
have some concern for security. Generally, having the file area located
so that persons must first pass through the planner area is acceptable.
This arrangement strikes a balance between making the files accessi-
ble and making the files less prone to wander off by knowing who is
there. Supervisors may want to designate that only certain individual
technicians may access the files depending on the competence of the
technicians in this regard.
The objective of this principle is to create a file system that delivers
useful information to the planner and the rest of the plant personnel.
Illustrations
the principle.
Not this way. David needed to plan two jobs. One job required a simple
filter change and the other required stopping a drip on the hypochlorite
discharge piping. Both jobs were fairly routine. The filter was not on a PM
route because varying operating modes caused the filter to plug at different
intervals. The operators monitored the pressure differential and wrote a
work order whenever the filter was beginning to show signs of clogging.
David first skimmed through the thick system files behind his desk for past
work orders, FC for Fuel Oil Service System and IR for Intake Chemical
Treatment System. He was sure there were at least some for the filter. After
several minutes he was able to find one for the filter, but not the piping.
David copied down the filter and gasket inventory numbers off the previ-
ous work order plan. From his field inspection of the discharge piping, he
determined that maintenance needed to cut away and replace the PVC
piping. David included PVC piping inventory numbers and a statement
to obtain PVC glue from the tool room in the job plan.
As David was finishing up the job plans, Supervisor Juan asked where
the equipment information was for the hypochlorite pumps. David
explained that all the information from past work orders was together
in the system file and waited patiently as Juan shared his cubicle look-
ing through the file.
This way. David needed to plan two jobs. One job required a simple filter
change and the other required stopping a drip on the hypochlorite dis-
charge piping. Both jobs were fairly routine. The filter was not on a pre-
ventive maintenance (PM) route because varying operating modes
caused the filter to plug at different intervals. The operators monitored
the pressure differential and wrote a work order whenever the filter was
beginning to show signs of clogging. The operators had written the
equipment tag numbers on the work orders so David was able to walk
over to the planner file area and immediately locate the two pertinent
file folders, N02-FC-003 and N00-IR-008. As he had suspected there
were several work orders for the filter and one for the piping.
David noticed that out of the three times the plant had changed the
filter, two times the technician had reported having to redo the job
because the assembly had leaked upon pressurization. David decided to
change the work plan and include a reminder to tighten the strainer
cover in a criss-cross pattern. David also included a step to request the
operators to pressure test the line before the technicians packed up and
left because of past trouble with the lid. David also copied down the filter
and gasket inventory numbers off the previous work order plans. From
his field inspection of the discharge piping, he determined that main-
tenance needed to cut away and replace the PVC piping. David included
PVC piping inventory numbers and a statement to obtain PVC glue
from the tool room in the job plan. David also noticed that the previous
job in the file for this piping had recorded a job delay to wait on the oper-
ators to drain the pipe. Apparently the pipe was not self-draining as pre-
viously thought. David included a note in the plan for the supervisor to
remind operations about the potential clearance problem.
46 Chapter Two
As David was finishing up the job plans, Supervisor Juan asked where
the equipment information was for the hypochlorite pumps. David
pointed to the file area and explained that any information they had
from past work orders was in the N00-IR section in several specific
pump files. If Juan could not find what he wanted there, Juan might
want to try the O&M manuals on another shelf area in the same room.
David asked that if Juan found anything useful, to make David a copy
and he would file it in an equipment specific minifile.
Caution on computerization
A computer certainly gives more capability to the maintenance effort.
For instance, a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)
might allow accessing work order information away from the planning
shop (by operators, engineers, and managers). It might allow sorting
work orders (such as for specific types of outages). A computer might be
able instantly to tabulate previous work order histories with costs and
even eliminate a paper file system altogether. However, these benefits
are not the specific leverage of planning. They are either additional
points of leverage or acceleration of the manual planning operation.
Planning itself is not the use of a computer. First one must learn to add,
subtract, multiply, and divide before employing a calculator. The calcu-
lator simply helps the existing process.
Be cautious in thinking that having a computer system is itself plan-
ning. Planning multiplies a work force by 157%; it transforms 30 techni-
cians into 47. Is management properly thinking that the computer system
may help reach the top of this percentage increase or is management
only thinking in terms of replacing two clerks currently entering work
orders or typing PMs? Management needs a sense of perspective. Do not
be unnecessarily eager to abandon a paper file system.
Figure 2.6 declares that computerizing a poor maintenance process will
not help maintenance. This is especially true of the planning process.
As one can see, having unique numbers for equipment and then filing
equipment work orders and information by those numbers make it pos-
sible for the planner to file and retrieve information as needed. Planners
serve as file clerks to a large degree and need an accurate filing process.
Figure 2.6 First learn planning, then computerize.

Principle 4: Estimates Based

on Planner Expertise
Planners use personal experience and file information to develop work
plans to avoid anticipated work delays and quality or safety problems.
As a minimum, planners are experienced, top level technicians that are
trained in planning techniques.
Principle 4 dictates that the plant must choose from among its best
craftpersons to be planners. These planners rely greatly upon their per-
sonal skill and experience in addition to file information to develop job
plans.
The crossroads that this principle addresses is twofold. First, the
plant has to decide what level of skill planning requires. The choices
range from using relatively lower paid clerical skill all the way up to
higher paid engineering skill. Second, the plant must decide the appro-
priate method of estimating job time requirements. A wide range of
choices also exists for this issue.
It would seem that with the feedback and file system in place, clerks
might be utilized as planners. However, as a minimum, planners need
to be top level, skilled technicians, so that they can best scope a job or
inspect the information in a file for its applicability to the current job
being planned. One issue at stake is in whether to have (hopefully) good
execution on an excellent job scope or have excellent execution of per-
haps the wrong job scope. Identifying the correct job scope is of primary
importance. One of the best persons to scope a job is the skilled craft-
person who has successfully worked the job or ones similar many times
in the past. Even if the planner has not worked the particular task, a
skilled craftperson can research or make an intelligent estimate for
what the task might require. A second issue involves the files. Planners
cannot simply be clerks or librarians in this regard, either. Again as a
minimum they need to be skilled craftpersons so that when they review
information in a file, they can gather all possible help for the current
job. They can look and see if a part used on a previous job was a “one in
a million” type of part or whether it really needs to be a part used on
most future jobs.
Figure 2.7 Estimates are easy for plan-

ners that are accomplished craftpersons.
48 Chapter Two
Companies have considered apprentices for planner positions. These

appointments run into two problems. First, an apprentice rarely has the
experience to scope jobs properly simply from a lack of experience. An
apprentice has also not had the opportunity to develop a top level of skill.
The second problem is that experienced craftpersons receiving a job
plan from an apprentice tend to cast doubt not only about the job plan,
but management’s support of planning as well.
A newly promoted technician rising from the apprentice class has
essentially the same weaknesses in the planner position as an appren-
tice. There is more possibility that an experienced technician may make
a good planner, but consider that the planner will be dictating certain
job requirements to all of the field technicians. If an existing technician
is not a star performer, the technician may not have the skill desired to
be scoping all the plant work. The rest of the technicians also have some
reason to doubt the specifics of any job plan based upon their percep-
tion of the talent of the planner as a technician.
Companies have also used engineers and technologists as planners.
However, they typically do not possess the skill to plan most mainte-
nance jobs. Most maintenance jobs consist of routine valve replace-
ments, filter changes, or equipment adjustments that the technical
experience of the engineer or technologist does not encompass. Each of
these seemingly simple tasks is laden with potential job problems and
delays beyond their experience. On the other hand, even if these per-
sonnel have actually risen through the ranks of the maintenance force
while earning their degrees, they are not cost effective to utilize as plan-
ners for routine maintenance. Routine maintenance offers the highest
potential for planner contribution to company success because more
intricate or unusual maintenance tasks normally already receive help
from plant engineering.
Supervisors make excellent choices for maintenance planners because
they were typically experienced, top level technicians before promotion.
Because planners also must have a high degree of self-initiative, they pos-
sess another of the qualities mandatory for supervisors, but possibly
lacking in some technicians. Existing company guidelines for selecting
supervisors frequently are satisfactory for selecting the best planners.
Because companies realize that they must attract the best technicians
to make planning work, many companies pay planners at or above the
first-line supervisor level. A recent survey indicates this is the case for
over half of the electric utilities with maintenance planning. A company
might want to consider moving an existing supervisor into a planner role
or providing an additional promotion opportunity for its existing tech-
nicians. Making the planner position a step toward supervisor may also
increase support in maintenance for planning. Another argument for
paying planners at the level of supervisors is that the planners deal with
the crew supervisors, not the technicians, at a peer level.
Companies not accepting that planners should be supervisor level

might have one or two other considerations in mind. The company might
feel that responsibility over personnel is more difficult than responsi-
bility over a process. This thought has some merit, but consider that
companies typically pay engineers higher than crew supervisors because
of market demand. The market might also attract away some of the com-
panies’ best technicians if there is not ample room for growth. Paying
planners as supervisors offers one solution to keep company strength
in technical talent. Another consideration might be that the company
does not support planning all the way. The company is keeping open an
option to revert the planners back into the work force if planning does
not work. The company might also be leaving an avenue to replace one
or two planners that do not do well. The company so inclined must be
very careful that it is not holding back the support a planning organi-
zation must have to succeed. The company might also have a weakness
in not being able to remove unqualified supervisors. If the company’s
strategy does not select the best planners, the company does not follow
this principle at the peril of planning.
Appendix M, Setting up a Planning Group, gives more guidance on
selecting maintenance planners.
Another issue is the development of time estimates. The opinion of the

skilled technician-planner is preferred over strict file information, pigeon
holing, or other built-up time estimates.
File information yields historical data about past jobs, but can only
offer general guidelines for current estimates. For example, the same
job to clean an oil burner gun showed the following actual time require-
ments. One time the job took one person 20 hours. The next time the
job took two persons 4 hours each. The last time took two persons 6 hours
each. A planner might be tempted to average the times and plan for two
persons at about 7 hours each. However, it is difficult to understand why
the past jobs were so different especially if feedback was minimal as in
these cases. The longest job might have had an inexperienced techni-
cian assigned or the person assigned was given no other jobs or sched-
ule pressure. In the latter case, the person may have simply taken all
of two 10-hour days to complete the work. If this was the case the plan-
ner might be more inclined to average only the two shorter jobs and plan
for two persons at 5 hours each. Alternately why might not the planner
insist that the target should be two persons at 4 hours each since that
rate had been achieved once? On the other hand, what if the technician
feels that from personal experience that, if done properly, the job should
take two persons an entire day, 10 hours each?
Perhaps the planner could use the historical time estimates to create job
standards for certain repeated tasks. The problem with this approach is
first that historical time estimates might not reflect the appropriate time
50 Chapter Two
to do the job right. Second, other than for routine PMs, the day-to-day
maintenance tasks are typically not repeated often enough or with enough
similarity for studied measurements. In addition, management might be
reluctant to press for early PM completion where one of the objectives of
PM is to take care of all necessary minor adjustments.
Pigeon-holing offers another option for estimating jobs. Pigeon-holing
involves estimating a job’s time requirements by referring to a table or
index of similar jobs and making adjustments for particular job differ-
ences. For example, if the job at hand is to rebuild a 25-GPM pump, the
planner might refer to a table for pump work. The planner finds a suit-
able chart showing overhauls for 20-, 50-, 100-, and 200-GPM pumps. The
planner figures that a rebuild is probably about the same as an overhaul
and adds a little time to the estimate offered for the 20-GPM pump. The
problem with this effort is its complexity and the time consumed find-
ing and using the correct tables even if they are available and accurate.
There are industrial engineering estimates available for minute por-
tions of tasks that are generic to many jobs the planner is planning.
Times for taking off individual bolts of various sizes, walking certain dis-
tances, and particular hand or body motions are given. The planner could
build up a time estimate for different maintenance operations using these
standards. It is doubtful that the estimates these built-up estimates
would yield would be worth the planner’s time in creating them.
In certain industries such as maintenance of automobiles, auto shops
have available books of standards for almost any maintenance task
regarding almost any car. The great numbers of identical cars make
these books possible.
The jobs in many industrial plants do not yield themselves as well to
such universal standards. These plants use a variety of equipment in a
host of different applications. The plants also have unique spatial or geo-
graphic layouts and unique maintenance facilities and personnel skills.
In practical application, the estimates that a qualified planner can make
based on personal experience supplemented by file information are entirely
adequate. The objective in planning is to help boost labor productivity, not
create perfect time estimates or meet standards. On the bottom line, main-
tenance supervisors need estimates to help schedule and control work
assignments. The planners’ estimates are therefore considered the plant’s
standards for jobs even though they are not “engineered standards.”
This need for an easily determined time estimate that the field tech-
nicians will respect is one of the reasons a planner must possess the
skills of a top level technician.
Two issues arise after accepting how the planner determines the job
estimate. Should the planner plan for a certain skill level and should
the planner allow time for delays? The resolution to both of these con-
cerns is that the planner estimates how long the job should take a good
technician without unanticipated delays.
These issues are discussed briefly here and more thoroughly in the
Chap. 5 section on estimating work hours and job duration. First, the
planner wants to set a standard for performance through the estimate.
The planner does not want to set an ambitious target or goal. The plan-
ner wants the standard to be met, but at the same time provide for
proper maintenance execution of the work. The planner does this by
deciding that every job will be done by a good technician. This method-
ology encourages most technicians on most jobs although it requires the
supervisor to shore up weaker technicians on certain jobs. Second, the
planner does not allow extra time for delays that the planner does not
expect. This keeps the estimate accurate when the technicians
encounter no delays, and provides the supervisor a reference time for
controlling the work when unexpected delays do occur. The supervi-
sor can judge the appropriateness of the performance taking into
account the specific delays dealt with and the time estimated for the
job without those delays. Setting time estimates for jobs not to include
extra time for unanticipated delays also sets forth the expectation
that maintenance should proceed as expeditiously as possible under
normal conditions.
At this point, it is appropriate to discuss the accuracy of such esti-
mates determined by the planner with extensive technician experience.
Experience has shown that job estimates for individual work orders
may be off plus or minus as much as 100%. That means that on the aver-
age, a job planned for five labor hours has as much chance of being
accomplished in 1 or 2 hours as it might in 10 hours. This is especially
true of the smaller work orders that make up the bulk of many main-
tenance operations. Does this mean that planner estimates are worth-
less? Absolutely not. On the contrary, the planner estimates are more
accurate overall as the work horizon widens out because as many jobs
run over as run under the estimate. (Statistically speaking, that means
that such estimates are very accurate and give the average of any indi-
vidual job performed many times under the same circumstances.) A
supervisor can use these estimates to assign and control work. Instead
of simply assigning a single job at a time, a supervisor should be assign-
ing a day’s worth of work. Instead of assigning a single 5-hour job to a
person on a 10-hour shift, the supervisor might assign the 5-hour job,
a 3-hour job, and a 2-hour job. The 5-hour job might only end up taking
3 hours, but the 3-hour job might take 4 hours and the 1-hour job might
take 2 hours. This is an idealistic example, but makes the point that if
the supervisor does not hold technicians accountable to a single job, but
a day’s worth of work, the supervisor can use the planned estimates to
control work. In addition, the supervisor does not get too excited about
any single day’s work being overrun and is interested more about the
long-term performance of technicians against job estimates (standards).
Experience also shows that over a week’s worth of crew labor, the over-
all estimate of planned hours becomes extremely accurate, only off as
52 Chapter Two
much as 5% or less. The objective of planning at this point is to provide

the supervisor and technicians useful information for helping control
their work, not to produce a perfect estimate. The planner’s estimate is
entirely adequate for this purpose.
Is there a better way to produce a more accurate estimate for routine
maintenance work? Perhaps not. This is the nature of maintenance
work. Maintenance work is not assembly line repetitive task work.
Anyone that has ever worked on their own car in their driveway can
attest to this. Has anyone ever planned to do a simple task under the
hood for a couple of hours on a Saturday morning and still been engaged
after dinner? How about planning to take all day the next Saturday to
do something else, but for some reason the job is finished before lunch?
This is the nature of maintenance where different technicians are per-
forming different tasks all the time on a very wide range of equipment.
Thus, the simple labor estimate of a planner with significant craft expe-
rience is preferred over methods that are more complex simply because
it yields an estimate that is as accurate as possible. Nevertheless, as a
planning program progresses in experience over time, it does produce
procedures and checklists that help better standardize and define spe-
cific maintenance tasks. These “evolved” job plans help provide better
consistency in maintenance practice and time expended, lowering the
uncertainty of the accuracy of individual estimates.
Another concern regarding the expertise of the planner involves skills
outside the normal experience of the planner. Some jobs require crafts
outside the background of the planner. An example might be a require-
ment of electrical work on a mostly mechanical job. The mechanical
planner has several options. The planner might ask an electrical plan-
ner for input. If there is no established planner for electrical work, the
planner might also consult an electrical technician or leave it up to
the electrical craft supervisor to coordinate the electrical input at the
time of work assignment. The planner might also be able to provide basic
file information from previous jobs that might be helpful to the electri-
cians. A mechanical planner might even have difficulty planning certain
mechanical tasks. Many pieces of equipment have become so specialized
that not all technicians within the same craft might be familiar with
them. In these cases the planner simply consults with the specialists who
have knowledge. The planner attempts to provide useful information
regarding scope, schedule, and file data even on these jobs to help the
later scheduling and execution efforts. In certain plants planners may
become specialists in planning different work and do not attempt to plan
all the jobs. Jobs requiring the expertise of another planner are referred
appropriately.
Two final concerns regarding planner training include maintaining a
planner’s craft skills and developing skills in specialized planning tech-
niques. First, experience has shown that a planner retains practical
knowledge of craft skills even when not applying them in the field. This
is because of the close association to the actual maintenance through the
planning duties. These planning duties allow the planner continually to
develop strategies for jobs and review feedback from actual execution.
The planner also spends significant time in the field talking to techni-
cians and supervisors. Second, there are formal courses available for
training planners in planning techniques, but on-the-job training pro-
vides the most effective training of planners. An experienced planner
guides the new planner through the processes. The first planning prin-
ciple to keep the planners in a separate group together facilitates this
learning.
Illustrations
the principle.
Not this way. The planner sat down to estimate ten jobs. Lynn was by
classification an apprentice who had completed all of the requirements
necessary for promotion to technician and was waiting for a technician
job to become available. He had been one of the few persons interested
in the job as planner when it became available. The first job was a pump
alignment. He had been trained and done several alignments, but never
on a pump of this size. He looked in the file and was able to find a pre-
vious alignment work order for this very pump. The previous work order
had estimated 10 hours for the task and the actual field technician had
reported taking 10 hours. Lynn therefore used 10 hours as the job esti-
mate. The second job required rebuilding a fan and there was no pre-
vious information available. Fortunately, Lynn had personally been
involved in two rebuilds of either this same fan or its redundant spare
nearby in the same service. He felt very confident that the job should
take two persons a total of 2 days. However, just in case something
came up, Lynn put an extra half day into the estimate. Lynn continued
to estimate times for the remainder of the jobs.
Later the mechanical supervisor who was about to assign several of
the jobs looked at the pump alignment and fan rebuild work orders.
Brittany had not had a chance to see the jobs in the field and was
inclined to accept the estimate of the planner who had. Still she won-
dered why the alignment procedure should take so long.
The technician received the pump alignment work order and knew
right away that the alignment would only take 4 or 5 hours. Dana
decided she would spend the morning setting up for the job and complete
it in the afternoon. That would ensure a quality job. After completing
54 Chapter Two
the alignment, she reported to her supervisor an hour before the shift
ended. The job had only taken 9 hours instead of the estimated 10.
Meanwhile, Scott and Fred had received the fan rebuild assignment.
Surprisingly, the total job lasted exactly 21/2 days as estimated even though
there had been several unexpected delays. Fred had been temporarily
reassigned for several hours at one point. One bearing had also been
damaged beyond repair and a new one had been obtained from inventory.
Several days later Lynn received the completed work orders for both
jobs for filing. The alignment had only taken 9 hours Lynn observed and
the fan rebuild had apparently gone off exactly as planned since no
unusual feedback was reported.
This way. The planner sat down to estimate ten jobs. Lynn had been a
certified mechanic with over 15 years of experience. He had competed
for the job of planner when it became available since it was a promotion.
Lynn had been able to pass the test and interviews successfully. The first
job was a pump alignment. He had aligned most of the pumps in the
plant in his 15 years including this one. He looked in the file and was
able to find a previous alignment work order for this very pump. The
previous work order had estimated 10 hours for the task and the actual
field technician had reported taking 10 hours. There did not seem to be
any unusual reasons the alignment had taken so long for the last person.
Lynn thought that most good mechanics ought to be able to align the
pump in about 5 hours. Lynn used 5 hours for the estimate. The second
job required rebuilding a fan and there was no previous information
available. Fortunately, Lynn had personally been involved in two
rebuilds of either this same fan or its redundant spare nearby in the
same service. He felt very confident that the job should take two per-
sons a total of 2 days. Lynn used that for the estimate. Lynn continued
to estimate times for the remainder of the jobs.
Later the mechanical supervisor who later was about to assign sev-
eral of the jobs looked at the pump alignment and fan rebuild work
orders. Brittany had not had a chance to see the jobs in the field and
was inclined to accept the estimate of the planner who had. She had con-
fidence in Lynn’s ability to estimate the jobs.
The technician received the pump alignment work order and knew
right away that the alignment would take 4 or 5 hours. Dana spent the
morning setting up and aligning the pump. No unusual delays came up
and she reported to her supervisor an hour after lunch. The job had
taken 6 hours instead of the estimated 5.
Meanwhile, Scott and Fred had received the fan rebuild assignment.
The total job had run over about a half day because there had been sev-
eral unexpected delays. Fred had been temporarily reassigned for sev-
eral hours at one point. One bearing had also been damaged beyond
repair and a new one had been obtained from inventory. Scott, the lead
technician, carefully explained the delays on the work order after the
job was completed.
Several days later Lynn received the completed work orders for both
jobs for filing. The alignment had taken an extra hour Lynn observed
and the fan rebuild had run into problems according to the feedback. An
extra hour shorter or longer was not unusual nor was a problem for most
jobs since estimating was not an exact science. The bearing damage
was a concern, however, and Lynn knew that it would be advisable
either to have the bearing inventory number available or stage the bear-
ing the next time the crew rebuilt the fan.
The experience of the planners makes a big difference in the suc-

cess of planning. Planners must have the skills of a top level techni-
cian to create timely, useful estimates necessary for increasing labor
productivity.
This discussion has concentrated chiefly on the general scope and
time estimates of the job plans. The following principle addresses the
specific content of the job plans regarding maintenance procedures and
specific details. Although top level technicians should be utilized for
planners, there is still a great reliance on the craft skills. The utiliza-
tion of superior skilled planners does not mean that unskilled techni-
cians are acceptable in the work force.
Principle 5: Recognize the Skill of the Crafts

The Planning Department recognizes the skill of the crafts. In general, the
planner’s responsibility is “what” before “how.” The planner determines the
scope of the work request including clarification of the originator’s intent
where necessary. The planner then plans the general strategy of the work
(such as repair or replace) and includes a preliminary procedure if there is
not one already in the file. The craft technicians use their expertise to make
the specified repair or replacement. The planners and technicians work
together over repeated jobs to develop better procedures and checklists.
Principle 5
Plans Recognize the
Skill of the Crafts
♦ What, Why, before How
♦ Evolving Standard Plans
♦ Coordination of Engineering
Figure 2.8 The planning depart-
ment’s guidelines on level of detail.
56 Chapter Two
This principle dictates that planners count on the workforce being suf-
ficiently skilled so that the planners can get all the work planned
through putting a minimum level of detail into initial job plans. Strict
adherence to the job plan is not required of technicians as long as feed-
back is received at job completion.
The crossroads encountered regarding this principle is primarily a
choice between producing highly detailed job plans for minimally skilled
crafts or producing less detailed job plans for highly trained crafts. An
associated issue involves whether all the work should be planned or are
there only certain jobs that would benefit from planning. Another issue
is whether strict adherence to a job plan by the technicians is required.
The resolution of these questions regards considering the company’s
desire for productivity and quality.
Planning promotes productivity by examining work for potential
delays and scheduling work. Planning and scheduling more work
increases labor productivity. Nearly all work has potential for delays and
learning from past history and so most work merits planning attention.
The plant has better control over work that is scheduled and so most
work merits some schedule control. To assist the plant in completing
work, planners need to plan most of the plant’s work. Planners have to
be careful not to put so much detail in each plan that they cannot plan
most of the work. A general strategy for 100% of the work hours is
preferable to developing a detailed plan for only 20% of the work hours.
How much detail should planners put into plans? If there is a procedure
already in the file or the persons who worked on the equipment previ-
ously wrote down some things that are important, the planner should
include those items in the work package. If no file information exists,
planners might only have time to develop a rudimentary procedure, in
some cases only one or two steps. The planners must respect that the
craftpersons know how to work within their expertise. The planner may
in a sense develop a “performance spec” on certain jobs. That is, the plan
describes the intent of what needs to be done, not necessarily how best
to accomplish it.
In addition, there are frequently different ways to do the same job.
Classical industrial engineering sets forth that there is one best way
to perform each job. However, engineered standards help productivity
for jobs that are repeated twice per day, not twice per year or less.
Maintenance planning seeks more to avoid past delays and provide
scope and scheduling assistance than to minutely examine each welder’s
technique on any individual job. In addition, individuals sometimes
have perfected their individual methods of accomplishing some routine
tasks. Requiring a technician to perform a particular minor task in a way
less familiar, though not necessarily superior, may lead to lower qual-
ity simply from unfamiliarity. It is the supervisor’s job to help promote
good work practices, not the planner’s job to dictate consistency among
them every time.
Even when including a minimum of detail on an initial job plan, the
planner must be cognizant to include certain information. First, a plan-
ner should include information as to “why” the planner chose a certain
job strategy, especially when the file history helped make the decision.
For example, “This valve is being replaced since patching it in the past
has not worked well” (the planner knows the file history). The techni-
cian needs this information to avoid making unwise field decisions. A
planner at one company reviewed the history file and recommended a
valve be replaced because of past unsuccessful repair attempts. The
planner did not mention the history leading to the replacement decision
on the job plan. Consequently, when the technician finished the job, he
returned the completed work order with the following feedback, “I saved
the company money by repairing the valve instead of replacing it.”
Second, the planner should include known legal or regulatory require-
ments if adherence to a particular procedure is necessary and not com-
monly known by technicians.
Nevertheless, the plant is also vitally interested in the quality of main-
tenance. (Remember Chap. 1’s admonition that effectiveness comes before
efficiency.) Jack Nicholas (2005), a long-time proponent of procedures-
based maintenance, reminds us that we cannot always count on suffi-
ciently trained craftpersons.
Nicholas reported that the U.S. Navy moved to a procedures-based
maintenance effort after it found causes of some disasters rooted in
relying too heavily on the field technicians. In particular, the military
moves persons from base to base and duties change upon promotion.
“Word of mouth and on-the-job training were simply too unreliable to
ensure safety and consistency in maintenance practices.” And there was
not enough time for formal training to train sufficiently. In the subma-
rine program, maintenance policy required detailed procedures for crit-
ical equipment and safety systems. The policy allowed “skill-of-the-craft
maintenance practices” for less essential systems. The submarine pro-
grams in the 1970s and surface ships in the 1980s greatly reduced their
infant mortality failures of equipment, very likely from maintenance and
operations personnel having and complying to detailed procedures. They
repaired equipment correctly “the first time.”
Nicholas also reported that after the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
mandated that nuclear powered electric stations use detailed procedures
and checklists, overall reliability and capacity improved.
Keith Young (2001), an associate of Jack Nicholas at Maintenance
Quality Systems LLC, very neatly sums up the level of detail versus craft
skill trade-off with several statements. “As a general rule, the greater
potential consequences of performing the task incorrectly, the greater
58 Chapter Two
degree of formality required in the execution of the procedure.” “The

higher the level of knowledge of the craft which the worker possesses,
the less detail required within the procedure. The ‘skill of the craft’ is a
necessary starting point from which procedures grow, however the req-
uisite ‘skills’ should be defined and not left to chance.”
If detailed procedures and checklists contribute to better reliability,
performance, and safety, how does a company move toward this objec-
tive? The preferred method to become a procedures-based organization
might be for a company to assemble teams of experienced technicians,
planners, engineers, and even vendors to create detailed procedures for
most of the common maintenance tasks on critical equipment and safety
equipment. In lieu of using crew technicians, the plant could bring back
recent (or soon to be retired) technicians for the express purpose of
developing procedures. A facilitator familiar with the standard format
for proper procedures and other plant and personnel characteristics
might assist with much of the paperwork or administrative tasks of
such an effort.
Although such efforts by a plant are desirable, the Maintenance
Planning and Scheduling Handbook presumes a typical plant situation
wherein the planners have no such help and much of the large amount
of work to plan is reactive. In this scenario, the planning department
establishes a system that utilizes the skill of the crafts to improve job
plans and their procedures over time.
First, within a constraint of planning most of the jobs, the planner
chooses where to put more time. The planner should give more atten-
tion to critical equipment and safety areas. The planner should help
describe job circumstances where misunderstandings may be common.
Other jobs perceived as less complicated or on insignificant systems
might get only minimal planner attention. (Chapter 4 deals much more
extensively with the issue of planning reactive work versus more proac-
tive work of lesser urgency, but more plant importance.)
Second, the planner calls for a minimum craft skill on a job plan. The
plan dictates the skill set necessary to accomplish the work given the
state of the job plan.
Third, having planners with experienced craft backgrounds and skills,
allows a planner to leverage that expertise into job plans to make help-
ful initial job plans. And remember, this is only for initial job plans.
There may be a procedure already in the file or at least, important infor-
mation that persons who worked on the equipment previously recorded.
The planner would include those filed items in the planned package.
Fourth, the plant does strive to maintain technician skills with proper
hiring and training practices. At some level, planners must count on the
skill of the crafts. Supervisors must shore up technicians with deficient
skills rather than the planners planning every job for the lowest skill
level of the workforce.
Fifth, the plant counts on experienced supervisors to help ensure that

field technicians get proper support and guidance.
Finally, the planning system counts on the skilled technicians giving
feedback on job plans so that their expertise and the planner's expert-
ise both contribute to adding information to future plan.
Thus, the planning system is designed to move toward a procedures–
based organization over time by a systematic method of improving job
plans. In the case of larger, more complex jobs such as a large pump over-
haul, the planners and supervisors should work together if a carefully
prepared plan cannot be developed in advance. The plan should help
guide the technicians toward relevant O&M manuals and other refer-
ences. At the conclusion of such large tasks, the supervisors should
allow the technicians to take time to assemble important information
together to form the basis of a more standard job plan.
Planning concentrates on adding value. Before there was a planning
function in existence, the technicians had to decide how to accomplish
work requests. Planning does not take over this function, but rather adds
a new function of value. The planners give the technician a head start
from scoping the field situation and reviewing the history file review, and
planners give the supervisor information for scheduling control. The
planners also use their own expertise with that of the technicians to for-
malize best practices on individual job plans.
There are different schools of thought for ownership of work orders.
In one, technicians must execute jobs exactly as planned. In the other,
there is freedom for technicians to change the plan.
One school believes that technicians must execute the job precisely as
planned for two reasons. One reason is that the planner had access to
the necessary information including specifications, history, and engi-
neering to develop the proper job plan. Any recommended deviations
from the job plan must be approved by planning before execution. A
second reason is that restriction promotes consistency of job execution.
A third reason is that restricting execution to the plan ensures reliable
history records without having to count on accurate job feedback. One
can sometimes recognize this school by work order forms or computer
systems that have limited or no space for reporting job feedback. An
example area where this may be appropriate would be an automobile
repair shop. One would like to approve any work done to one’s car before
it is begun. This type of arrangement normally has a larger planning
staff because of the iterations sometimes necessary before a job can
commence. So in this school where the planning department essentially
owns all jobs throughout the work process, a more substantial planning
investment is required and less emphasis is placed on technician com-
petency for determining the job scope and procedure for execution.
On the other hand, this book follows the other school of thought.
While a methodology of strict adherence to job plans may be necessary
60 Chapter Two
for some industries (nuclear power comes to mind), it could be counter-

productive. In the first place, planners do not possess perfect informa-
tion. Without an internal inspection, planners “guess” at what is wrong
with equipment based on file information and personal experience.
Frequently, they ask others for opinions. Nevertheless, they do not
“know.” They plan the job around their guess and let the technician go
to work. The technician later finds out the real source of trouble and
must modify the plan based on actual conditions encountered. In the
second place, planners do not have the time to review these technician
reasons for changing the job plan for improvement during the course of
each job while in progress. The technicians and their supervisors must
take ownership of the job after they receive it to make necessary deci-
sions. Finally, the planners simply do not have the time to develop a
detailed step-by-step procedure for every job the first time. As discussed
previously, the planner must divide time in favor of jobs on more criti-
cal equipment when there is time to add more details to job plans.
The first school of thought keeps ownership in the hands of the plan-
ners for control of the work. On the other hand, the second school of
thought keeps moving the ownership of the job to the current holder of
the work order. This second school is the accepted model for this book.
When the job is being planned, the planner owns and controls the work
order. Later, after assignment, the field technician owns the work order
and is responsible for it. When the job is being planned, the planner uses
field scoping, file information, and personal experience to develop a
good job scope with the best procedure possible under the circumstances
and pressure of time. Planning gives the technician a head start.
Scheduling gives the technician a time requirement. When the techni-
cians receive the work order in the field, it is their job. They own it. The
technician is part of a team in the process, however, and this process
requires good feedback for file history to help future work. In the second
school adopted by this book where the ownership actually passes to the
field technicians, a leaner planning effort requires competent field tech-
nicians. A higher reliance is made on receiving good feedback to make
history records accurate and allow avoiding future job delays. After plan-
ning the job, the planner no longer “owns” the job. The planner gives the
technician a head start on the job, but the technician now “owns” the job.
After beginning the job, the technicians are free to accomplish the job
scope as they see fit. They may have a closer intimacy with the job than
the planner had time to develop. The technicians must give feedback on
any job changes or delays encountered so that future plans can benefit.
Keep in mind that recognizing the skill of the technicians does not
mean that “anything will do.” The principle requires that skilled tech-
nicians employ appropriate practices for their craft specialty. This may
involve their being able to follow a provided technical manual correctly.
A certified welder will know how to perform simple weld heat treatment.
A skilled mechanic will be able to follow and perhaps improve upon a

guide to rebuild a boiler feed pump. The planner may have to provide
particular standards for particular jobs such as unusual safety precau-
tions or machine tolerances. Warren Riggs (1995) of Eastman Kodak cor-
rectly notes that empowerment is in direct conflict with standards and
that some jobs require standards.
This ownership passing to technicians could be a stumbling block for
the planning group that feels they “own” all the jobs from start to finish
and are responsible for making sure the crews execute the jobs properly.
Explicit advice is necessary for these planners to reorient their think-
ing to the team concept.
Once planning accepts this principle, planned coverage can take a big
leap as shown in Fig. 2.9. Planned coverage is the percentage of all work
hours spent on planned jobs. One hundred percent planned coverage
would indicate that the company spends all labor hours on work assign-
ments only on planned jobs. Fifty percent planned coverage would indi-
cate that the company spends half of the labor hours on planned work.
This company was able to move from work crews spending only about
45% of their work hours on planned work to about 65% of the work. The
company made the improvement simply by changing its approach to
allow more dependency on the skill of the technicians. Planners were able
to plan more work for the crews by spending less time specifying unnec-
essary details. Craft satisfaction with the work plans also increased as
technicians felt more responsible for making decisions in line with their
craft expertise and more a part of the system for helping improve the job
plans. Not only were planners planning more of the work, but also they
were no longer insulting the technicians with excessive details.
Two final issues include technicians desiring the extra detail every
time and jobs requiring engineering.
Figure 2.9 Putting less detail on initial plans.

62 Chapter Two
A sensitive area for an existing planning group is when the previous

management direction and craft expectation had been having total infor-
mation on every plan. It does not matter that the planning group was only
planning about one in five jobs. The plans that they did complete were often
favored by some technicians. The less skilled technicians may complain
when fewer details start to appear on job plans. Communication and man-
agement commitment to the program must focus here on the purpose
of planning. One of the problems is that unless they are informed, techni-
cians and supervisors either may not understand how helpful a simple job
plan is or may not understand the cycle of improvement. A simple job plan
may have a good job scope, craft identification, and time estimates along
with a knowledge of previous job delays to avoid. The supervisor must
accept the responsibility to assist weaker technicians on certain jobs.
The crew supervisor still has an option regarding work plans deemed
unsatisfactory. The supervisors can return job plans to planning for
additional detail or information as long as they have not yet assigned
the work. Once the work has been assigned or has commenced, the crew
owns it and must resolve problems and give appropriate feedback to
improve future planning efforts.
Engineering assistance also merits some comment. Planners should
plan work within their level of expertise. Planners should recognize, but
not become bogged down with design considerations beyond their expert-
ise. The planner is responsible for coordinating work requests to plant
engineering where appropriate. The planner still owns the job at this
point and should request a quick turnaround of answers to routine ques-
tions. If the questions point to an extended effort on the part of engi-
neering, the planner should take other steps. The planner should
formally assign the work order to the engineering group or otherwise
request that a project be initiated. A few plants have an engineer
assigned under the planning supervisor to provide easy access to engi-
neering support. This engineer would answer uncomplicated questions
and coordinate questions requiring more extensive research or deter-
mination. Utilize caution when mixing a staff engineer into the pro-
duction environment of the planning department. The planners must not
become staff assistants to the engineer gathering file information.
Planners must not become distracted from their planning chores.
The bottom line is that planners must try to plan all the work. Not
planning all the work allows some jobs to go into the field without the
benefit of any field scoping or file review. In this case, planners must put
fewer details into some or all of the job plans. Planners might choose jobs
on noncritical equipment to rely more heavily on skilled craftpersons and
write fewer procedural job steps so that they have relatively more time
for jobs on more critical equipment. If the planners are planning all of
the jobs, they can put more details into some of them.
Illustrations
the principle.
Not this way. Typically it seemed the crews worked only about one out
of five jobs on a planned basis. This distressed Hosea, the supervisor of
planning. The problem was not so much that the supervisors did not
want the planned work, but that planning simply could not get to the
jobs before the crew had run out of planned work. In these cases the crew
naturally turned its attention to the unplanned work backlog. There
were ample planners. There were five planners for only 100 techni-
cians. The planners were busy as well. The planners continually worked
to provide very detailed procedures on every plan.
The problem with the crews working unplanned work was that they
were simply not able to take advantage of parts lists or other informa-
tion the planners had available from past work. Supervisors also had
inadequate information to control schedules. That brought up another
problem. With the planners being so busy, they were not filing all of the
completed work orders. So even on planned jobs, the files were not as
helpful as they might be.
There were also some indications that particular members of some of
the crews thought planning was a “waste of time,” in their words. Hosea
had talked to one electrician who told him flat out that he did not need
to be told how to run a conduit. This electrician had felt irritated at the
thought that he had to be baby sat.
One of the planners had also expressed irritation recently, but not for
the same reason. This planner was upset that the crew supervisor had
not taken the plan’s advice to rewind a motor in-house. Instead the super-
visor had agreed with the technician to send the motor out to a local
motor shop. The planner wanted to know why the supervisor did not
understand that in-house work could provide better quality. The planner
asked if Hosea would bring the matter to the plant manager to resolve.
This way. Typically it seemed the crews worked about four out of five
jobs on a planned basis. This was acceptable to Hosea, the supervisor
of planning. The problem was not so much that the supervisors did not
want the planned work, but that sometimes the supervisors directed
technicians to unplanned work. The unplanned work was pressing and
did not appear to require much planning. Hosea knew that after becom-
ing more used to planning, they would want even more of their jobs
reviewed by planners before starting them. There were ample planners.
There were five planners for only 100 technicians. The planners were
busy as well. The planners continually worked to provide adequate job
64 Chapter Two
scopes, time and craft estimates, file parts information, and other notes
to help avoid previous job delays. The planners were able to provide plan-
ning for all the work orders that the supervisors had not immediately
written up and started themselves.
The advantage of the crews working mostly planned work was that
they were able to take advantage of parts lists or other information the
planners had available from past work. Supervisors also had adequate
information to control schedules. The planners were busy, but still filed
all of the completed work orders. So to improve all of the planned jobs,
the files were becoming ever much more helpful.
There were still a few technicians that did not understand how help-
ful the scoping and file information were to them or the scheduling infor-
mation was to their supervisor. Some technicians thought that without
an extremely detailed, step-by-step procedure, planning was a waste of
time, in their words. Hosea had talked to one electrician who told him
he did not receive a diagram on how to run some field conduit. Hosea care-
fully explained to the technician that the planner had considered this to
be a field decision. On the other hand, the planner had reserved 60 feet
of conduit to avoid a parts delay, enough to satisfy any layout.
The planners had accepted their roles of giving the technicians a head
start and the planner duty carefully to save any feedback on actual job per-
formance. One of the planners had recently received feedback that a plan
to rewind a motor in-house had been contracted. The planner made sure
to record the contract motor shop’s address and warrantee information for
the files. The planner also checked with the supervisor to see if future plans
should consider such an option or if this was just a one-time event.
Planning provides the what and the technicians provide the how for
many initial job plans. This ensures that the company best leverages the
skill of the technicians. The company wants the technicians to do what
they were trained to do. At the same time, this allows the planners to
ensure planning all the work so that every job can have the benefit of
advance planning. This principle presumes the company invests in the
acquisition and training to produce and maintain a staff of skilled tech-
nicians. Planning gives skilled technicians a head start. However, the best
quality and consistency of work comes from a procedures-based mainte-
nance effort. Planners and technicians work together over repeated jobs
to improve and formalize procedures.
Principle 6: Measure Performance

with Work Sampling
Wrench time is the primary measure of workforce efficiency and of plan-
ning and scheduling effectiveness. Wrench time is the proportion of available-
to-work time during which craft technicians are not being kept from
productively working on a job site by delays such as waiting for assignment,

clearance, parts, tools, instructions, travel, coordination with other crafts,
or equipment information. Work that is planned before assignment reduces
unnecessary delays during jobs and work that is scheduled reduces delays
between jobs.
Principle 6 ordains that measuring how much time craft technicians

actually spend on the job site versus other activities such as obtaining
parts or tools determines the effectiveness of the maintenance plan-
ning program. This principle holds that delays are not simply part of a
technician’s job and should be avoided. Figure 2.10 shows an example
of the distribution of technician time. Only category 1 is productive time
on the job. All of the other categories identify delay time.
The mind of management must resolve two crossroads considera-
tions. (1) Does management have a specific mission for planning to keep
technicians on job sites or does management have a more vague idea of
planning somehow contributing to effectiveness? (2) Is working in a
delay area such as obtaining parts or tools merely part of the job or is
it a delay to be avoided? Does management’s strategic vision involve
moving technicians out of delay areas and onto job sites or does the
vision only have technicians working hard to do everything?
The purpose of planning is to help put everyone on their tools in front
of a job instead of traveling, waiting for parts, or otherwise being
delayed. The purpose of planning does not include making sure persons
are productively working once they are in front of a job and not being
delayed. The issue of productively working once on a job is important,
but it is not centrally associated with planning (other than the planner
setting an informal time standard through the estimate). Nevertheless,
Figure 2.10 This company’s time on the job is only 35%.

66 Chapter Two
consider that whether or not time in front of a job is as productive as

possible, simply increasing the proportion of time so spent by a work-
force should increase the number of jobs completed by maintenance.
That improvement is the purpose of planning. Similarly, planning is not
concerned with administrative time spent for activities such as train-
ing, meetings, or vacation. Planning concerns itself with the time tech-
nicians do have available to work under the control of their supervisors.
Work sampling to determine wrench time gives this measure of how
much planning helps. The time the employees are at their job sites
working is called direct or productive work. At issue is not so much the
time the technician spends doing productive work. What is actually
important is the analysis of the nonproductive time. For example, how
much time is spent waiting for parts; how much time for tools; how
much time for instruction? If the technician is obtaining a part, instruc-
tion, or tools, the job is actually not progressing. Separate studies done
over time indicate if planning is becoming better or worse with regard
to reducing these delays. Has the time waiting for parts gone down; has
time waiting for tools gone down; has time waiting for instruction gone
down? Interestingly, measuring the technicians tells about the plan-
ning function, not the technicians. The planning tool should have an
effect on the technicians.
The interesting thing about this principle is that it does not make
planning work per se, it only measures how well planning is working.
A company could believe in planning and successfully implement plan-
ning according to the other planning principles without ever conduct-
ing a wrench time study. Similarly an automobile could function
flawlessly without a speedometer. Nonetheless, measuring wrench time
does tell directly if the objectives of planning are being met. The objec-
tives of planning are to reduce delay times and put technicians on their
tools. Measuring wrench time thus also gives an overall indication of how
well the other principles have been implemented or accepted. The other
principles must be in place for planning to succeed. Wrench time analysis
is an indicator, not the control of planning or the work force. Chapter 11
deals exclusively with the control of planning.
While management might not use wrench time measurement to con-
duct or control planning, it might use it to demonstrate the need for
planning. Maintenance planning effectively helps improve labor pro-
ductivity exactly because there is such a great misunderstanding of the
current level of direct work time. That is why analysts present the
results of work sampling studies to management, supervisors, and
technicians. The realization that delays consume over 70% of workforce
time and direct work is less than 30% generates extremely beneficial
dialogue toward accepting the concept of planning and productivity
improvement. An important issue is that everyone understands while
technicians are being paid by the hour to handle delays, the company
is not receiving any benefit from such activities. The company bene-
fits when productive maintenance keeps equipment in service to make
a product for market. The company does not benefit from avoidable
activities that consume over 70% of its workforce labor hours. Such a
discussion time is a marvelous opportunity to explain that delays are
undesirable. The technicians view the results of the initial wrench time
studies as even more remarkable when they realize that during the
course of the study, they had made a special effort to be productive.
That means the observation effect of the study showed the results to
be even more confirming that at best the productivity had been less
than 30%.
Simply conducting a wrench time study to illustrate what planning is
all about and why the company employs technicians (to work on equip-
ment) could be worth more than the results of any study itself. The meas-
uring of wrench time does not yield planning improvement, it only
quantifies it. A properly structured planning system within a mainte-
nance organization yields the improvement whether or not it is measured.
It is difficult to agree with industry claims that productive time could
possibly be so low without the results of a valid study. One supervisor
submitted a scenario showing how hard it would be for an employee to
try to have such a low wrench time. This supervisor showed a theoret-
ical technician through an average day. The tech first took 30 minutes
to start going in the morning. During the course of the day the tech spent
45 minutes receiving instructions from the supervisors and 60 minutes
waiting at either the tool room or storeroom. 45 minutes were consumed
traveling. The tech took a total of 90 minutes in breaks and 30 extra min-
utes for lunch. The tech also took 90 minutes for showering and other-
wise getting ready to go home at the end of the day. With all this wasted
time, the tech had only 210 minutes left out of the 10-hour shift for
work. This time arrangement netted the tech a 35% wrench time and
65% delay time. Incredible as it seems, the typical wrench time reported
in industry ranges between 25% and 35%. While some employees at each
plant are in more productive situations than others, studies show over-
all productivity measurements are in this range. A few minutes here and
there add up to a productivity problem with significant delays.
Wrench time is accurately measured with a properly structured, sta-
tistical observation study. The study sets up statistical procedures to
ensure proper observation techniques. Generally, a study conducts obser-
vations over several weeks or months to ensure a time period repre-
sentative of the workforce’s normal activities. An observer has a list of
maintenance employees at the plant each day of the study and has a
methodology for selecting a sample of employees to locate each half
hour or other time period. The first moment the observer locates a
selected employee, the observer categorizes the activity as a type of
work or delay. The observer does not merely follow an employee around
68 Chapter Two
to gain observations. The observer also does not locate jobs instead of
persons because some persons may not be even assigned to work. At the
end of the study, the study reports the proportions of observations in
each category. Appendices G and H present actual work sampling stud-
ies conducted at an electric utility.
Other less formal methods of measuring wrench time have been
explored. One method has been to have several individuals in the work
force carry special scorecards. A clerk pages these individuals at speci-
fied random times during the day. When a person’s pager goes off, that
person records the appropriate category on the scorecard. The problems
with this method are several. First, there is not a single person decid-
ing the appropriate category to use. Second, there tends to be great
reluctance on the part of any but the most productive employee to par-
ticipate and carry a scorecard. Third, this method requires extreme
integrity on everyone’s part instead of on a single observer. Fourth,
there is also extreme “observation effect” in that the person being meas-
ured is continually aware of the ongoing measurement. As might be
expected, studies using this method have recorded average wrench times
about 20 to 25% higher than what a normal study would show on the
same work force. That means when the actual work force wrench time
was probably about 35%, there would be reports of 55 to 60%. On the
other hand, studies such as this can often be conducted with good humor
and effectiveness, not to find out wrench time, but to help educate the
work force of the importance of direct work versus delay activities.
Similarly, efforts to have entire crews where everyone keeps track of
their daily time in the different categories have resulted in reported
wrench time hardly ever below 80%. These studies with everyone par-
ticipating even if just to raise awareness are probably not a good idea.
They seem to degenerate into a “liars’ club,” damaging the integrity of
everyone and everything, including the wrench time concept. It is about
impossible for an individual to keep track of the minute-to-minute delays
that impact one’s work on a continual basis. This factor combined with
the often disbelief that wrench time could be fairly low anyway leads
everyone to guess high. Consider this point applicable to work order or
time sheet systems that expect everyone accurately to quantify all their
delays during a job or time period.
Nearly everyone has apprehensions that conducting a wrench time
study could be taken by supervisors and technicians in a mean-spirited
way. That does not have to be the case. Communicate the reasons before,
during, and after the study. After the study, report the results to every-
one. It is difficult to imagine too many persons objecting to a program
designed to boost productivity only to 55%. Also, after some studies
workforces were able to demonstrate the need for new tool boxes, a
better storeroom, and even go-carts. During the study consider using a
familiar, agreeable person as the observer.
A further mention of administrative time is appropriate in the dis-

cussion of wrench time. The wrench time study observations do not
include any employees not available for work. If employees are scheduled
for training all day, those employees are not observed. This administra-
tive time is time the company has decided to invest other than for imme-
diate work. On the other hand, consider the implications about wrench
time. Consider if employees are only available for work 80% of the time
because of administrative time. A wrench time of only 35% is only a
measure of the percentage of time available to work that the employee
was directly working. The percentage of time paid that the employee was
directly working was a mere 28% (35% × 80%). Looking at the cost to
the company another way, say that the technician is paid $25 per hour.
Because the employee is only working 28% of that time on the average,
the company actually pays $89 for work that the employee accomplishes.
This is why contracted repair persons charge a seemingly high rate for
time spent at the company’s location. The work force needs to understand
its own high cost to the company and join forces with management to
raise productive time and lower the rate of company labor cost. While
planning can help with the productive portion of available time, the com-
pany cannot take the impact of the other administrative time lightly. The
company must balance among providing competitive company benefits,
investing in training, and making technicians available to work.
Illustrations
the principle.
Not this way. Management could not understand why reliability con-
tinued its slow decline. From discussions with the planning depart-
ment, nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary. The crew supervisors
claimed to have their hands full, but were able to stay on top of things.
This way. Management could not understand at first why reliability

continued its slow decline. From discussions with the planning depart-
ment, nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary. The crew supervisors
claimed to have their hands full, but were able to stay on top of things.
However, from observing the general state of the work force, manage-
ment suspected a lower than desirable productivity. Management had
noticed lines at both the tool counters and storerooms. In addition, it
appeared that breaks were somewhat excessive. Management decided
that direct work time on the jobs needed to be improved and that meant
there was a problem with the planning and scheduling process.
70 Chapter Two
Planning has the responsibility to help move personnel onto jobs and
out of delay situations. Even without making formal measurements,
understanding this concept of wrench time as valuable time and delay
time as waste leads to improvement. Properly conducted studies can
quantify the direct work time, help educate the work force on the need
for improvement, and demonstrate improvements. The wrench time is
not so much a measure of the work force’s performance, but that of the
success of the leverage being employed by the planning process. Planning
takes direct aim at reducing the causes of job delays.
Summary
So far the planning effort has mainly focused on making individual jobs
ready to go by identifying and planning around potential delays.
Consideration of six basic principles greatly boosts the planning program
efforts toward success. Each principle resolves a crossroads decision
that affects the planning effort. At each crossroads, the company has to
make a decision regarding alternate ways to conduct planning. The
decision the company makes regarding each situation determines the
ultimate success of planning. Each principle presents the recommended
solution to the crossroads. While a plant must incorporate or consider
all of the planning principles to be successful, ignoring a single one can
often spell the ineffectiveness of the entire planning effort.
The principles are having planning in a separate department, focus-
ing on future work, having component level files, using planner expert-
ise to create estimates, recognizing the skill of the crafts, and measuring
planning performance with work sampling for technician direct work
time. Having planners separate from the control of crew supervisors
avoids the temptation of using planners for field work instead of for plan-
ning. Planners also need to avoid continually being interrupted to
resolve problems for jobs already under way. Planners need to focus on
future work not yet begun. Because most jobs are repetitive, file history
can help technicians avoid previous problems encountered. Only when
planning keeps a separate file for each piece of equipment is it practi-
cal to retrieve information when needed. Planners must possess the
experience of top level technicians in order to scope jobs, utilize files, and
estimate times adequately. Engineered standards or other sophisticated
time estimating techniques are unnecessary to accomplish the specific
objectives of maintenance planning. At the same time, craft technicians
must also demonstrate considerable skill during job execution. Planners
count on technician skill and the planners focus on providing adequate
job scopes for first time jobs rather than on providing an abundance of
job procedure details. During actual job execution, technicians decide
how best to accomplish job scopes and later give adequate feedback for
planner files. Finally, wrench time measures whether the objectives of

planning are being met, that of reducing job delays.
So utilizing planned work packages increases the maintenance depart-
ment’s ability to complete work orders effectively, efficiently, and safely.
With maintenance planning based on the six planning principles, will
the planning effort “work”?
Here is what one utility discovered. They had only a marginal plan-
ning program. The planning department consisted of apprentices tasked
with developing very detailed job plans on lower priority work orders.
The crews worked very few of the planned jobs and primarily worked
only on unplanned higher priority work as soon as operations wrote the
work orders. With only this planning program under way, management
commissioned a work sampling study. Wrench time was only 37% and
an analysis of the delay areas indicated that the plant could do a better
job with parts and tools. This was either symptomatic of tools and parts
availability problems or planning problems, or both.
Considering this and other information, the company placed a
renewed emphasis on planning. Management replaced the apprentices
with technicians for planners. (However, there was no compensation pro-
gram to make planner pay competitive. In fact, because the plant did
not allow planners to work much overtime, the real pay of planners
ended up lower than that for most field technicians.) The company also
purchased separate hand tools for each craftperson to reduce sharing
problems. The company also virtually doubled the number of parts cat-
egories carried by the storeroom to reduce ordering needs. A follow-up
work sampling study revealed that wrench time was still at only 37%.
Since analysis of the last wrench time study showed travel time was
at 22%, management purchased bicycles and golf carts to help reduce
travel time. At the same time, however, management overhauled the
planning program and adopted the six planning principles. The company
took the planners out from under the control of the crews. The company
encouraged the technicians not to seek planner assistance for problems
on jobs already started. The company adopted an equipment number-
ing system to begin creating specific equipment files and filing by system
ceased. The company again replaced the planning personnel. This time
management selected technicians who had all passed the supervisors
test, but were yet not promoted due to a lack of positions. These new
planners managed to plan all the work though in many cases they pro-
vided less detailed job plans. With these principles in place, certainly
planning would succeed. The third wrench study revealed only a 35%
wrench time. See Fig. 2.11. How surprising since analysis showed travel
time had dropped to 15%.
The analysis of this last study revealed a very interesting phenome-
non. Large delay times did not exist for parts, tools, instructions, or
72 Chapter Two
Figure 2.11 Different studies over time.
travel categories. Those were the areas that planning on individual jobs
might help to avoid. Large delay times did exist for excessive startup,
break, lunch, and shutdown categories. Despite these delay times, to
their credit, the technicians had consistently been able to complete all
the work assigned them.
Even so, a review of the wrench time for each hour of the day indi-
cated a scenario of how technicians completed their work. When receiv-
ing their work for the day, the technicians would scope out the jobs and
begin work intermingled with social time and some parts gathering.
Then after lunch an incredible burst of activity would see all the work
completed where upon the technicians could ease up until the end of the
day. Over the years, supervisors had apparently become accustomed to
how much work the crews could execute during a day and continued to
assign that amount of work every day. The only problem was that now
with several systems in place to allow doing more work, supervisors
needed to assign more work. Obviously, management needed to con-
sider scheduling of planned work in the planning picture. Maintenance
needed some methodology to ensure assigning enough work. This leads
to the next chapter on scheduling principles.
Chapter
3
Scheduling Principles
Effective scheduling is inherent in effective planning. This chapter

explains the reason why routine maintenance needs scheduling and
then presents the principles of effective scheduling. Together, these
principles create a framework for successful scheduling of planned main-
tenance work. Each principle sets guidelines on how maintenance should
handle a different portion of the scheduling process.
Just as for planning, six principles greatly contribute to the overall
success of scheduling. First, planners plan jobs for the lowest required skill
levels. Second, the entire plant must respect the importance of schedules
and job priorities. Third, crew supervisors forecast available work hours
one week ahead by the highest skills available. Fourth, the schedule
assigns planned work for every forecasted work hour available. And sixth,
schedule compliance joins wrench time to provide the measure of sched-
uling effectiveness. Figure 3.1 shows the entire text of these principles.
Why Maintenance Does Not Assign

Enough Work
Aids such as planning good job scopes and having parts identified and
ready make it easier to complete maintenance jobs, but they do not ensure
that more work will be done. Adopting all six planning principles from
Chap. 2 does not ensure that more work will be done. The reason why
is because these aids and principles make it easier to complete individ-
ual jobs. That is, each job assigned should be easier to complete than it
would have been without such help. If a particular job that used to take
about 6 hours now takes 4 hours, that does not mean more work was
done. Why? The simple reason is that still only a single job was done.
Figure 3.2 explains that productivity cannot increase if supervisors do
not assign additional work.
73

74
3. A scheduler develops a one week schedule for each

crew based on a craft hours available forecast that
2. Weekly and daily schedules must be adhered to
shows highest skill levels available, job priorities,
as closely as possible.
and information from job plans.
Proper priorities must be placed on new work
Consideration is also given to multiple jobs on the
orders to prevent undue interruption of these schedules.
same equipment or system and of proactive versus
reactive work available.
4. The one week schedule assigns work for every

MAINTENANCE available work hour. The schedule allows for
emergencies and high priority, reactive jobs by
1. Job plans providing number of persons required,
scheduling a sufficient amount of work hours on easily
lowest required craft skill level, craft work hours per
skill level, and job duration information are necessary SCHEDULING interrupted tasks.
for advance scheduling.
Preference is given to completing higher priority
work by under-utilizing available skill levels over
PRINCIPLES completing lower priority work.
6. Wrench time is the primary measure of workforce 5. The crew supervisor develops a daily schedule one
efficiency and of planning and scheduling effectiveness. day in advance using current job progress, the one week
Work that is planned before assignment reduces schedule and new high priority, reactive jobs as a guide.
unnecessary delays during jobs and work that is The crew supervisor matches personnel skills and tasks.
scheduled reduces delays between jobs.
The crew supervisor handles the current day's work
Schedule compliance is the measure of adherence to and problems even to rescheduling the entire crew for
the one week schedule and its effectiveness. emergencies.
Figure 3.1 The six maintenance scheduling principles.

Scheduling Principles 75
Figure 3.2 The reason planning includes

scheduling.
Supervisors are typically responsible for assigning individual work

orders to technicians, and there are a number of reasons why supervi-
sors might usually assign an insufficient amount of work. In concert,
these factors perpetuate a powerful culture to maintain the status quo.
This is not a problem of the personalities of the supervisors. It is a
system problem encouraged by how plant management has arranged the
processes of maintenance.
First, crew supervisors develop a feel for how much work persons
should complete in a day. During the past years that seasoned the super-
visors, no planning function existed. The plant also may not have had
an adequate storeroom, tools, or other resources now becoming available.
It used to take all day for a few technicians to complete one or two work
assignments. The technicians had to work hard and stay busy round-
ing up parts and tools. Frequently they had to clarify instructions and
job scopes during job execution. They persevered and completed their
one or two jobs. Now, however, with it easier to complete those one or
two jobs, the maintenance supervisors may not be assigning more work.
Habits are hard to change.
Perhaps the supervisors do assign more work. Perhaps they assign
two or three jobs to the two technicians. The supervisors would thus feel
very supportive of the company mission. But why two or three jobs? Why
not four or five?
Now shift to explore another phenomenon. Consider a scheduled
outage such as a major overhaul, sometimes called a turnaround. A
maintenance schedule dictates the completion of certain jobs, often at
certain times. This is true even for many short unscheduled outages for
emergency repair. Everyone also shares a sense of urgency. The main-
tenance group completes a lot of work. Schedule pressure drives the
outage. A consideration for doing quality work and doing the work right
may alter the schedule, but the maintenance group still completes a lot
of work in a short amount of time. However, that is not the phenome-
non being considered here. After the outage, the crew supervisors know
that they have just accomplished a lot. They have restored production
capacity to full availability, and it is time to relax. What? The phenom-
enon encountered is that the supervisors may think they are reward-
ing their crews by not pushing for completing a lot of work every day.
The supervisor thinks, “How could I expect to work my crew like dogs
around the clock during such a critical time and then ‘press them’ the
76 Chapter Three
next day?” The supervisor may feel the outage where everyone works
so hard justifies not working so hard later.
In addition, many supervisors feel that the company really does not have
quite enough persons during an outage, but that during a regular,
nonoutage work day it is a little overstaffed. The supervisor reasons incor-
rectly that the company has to carry extra persons so that it can be ready
for the outages. This reasoning is faulty because there is much work that
needs to be done on a normal work day for the competitive company.
Outages exhaust maintenance personnel because crews work hard, but they
always need to work hard to be competitive. One reason they can still work
hard without an outage is that normally there should not be an inordinate
amount of overtime when there is not an outage situation. Maintenance per-
sonnel can work hard for 40 hours each week without being too exhausted.
The crew supervisor may also feel that there is not enough work for
the crews on nonoutage days because they are only working on the
urgent or high visibility jobs. They may be ignoring the lower priority
jobs to prevent future failures. The crews keep somewhat busy fixing
those things that break or fail. The high priority jobs give an enormous
sense of satisfaction because technicians can directly relate their com-
pletion to plant availability. The lower priority jobs’ link to availability
is less clear. Extra time exists (remember they can now do a 6-hour job
in 4 hours) for performing other maintenance jobs to head off failures.
Supervisors just do not seem to assign those lower priority tasks. To
make this situation even worse, crews try to make the backlog of satis-
fying jobs last so that they do not run out of work.
A related practice is a technician receiving a single job assignment at
a time with the understanding to come back for a second job when he or
she finishes the first. Three things occur. First, the technician feels that
the first job is the job for the day unless it is very obvious it should only
take an hour or two. So nearly every job becomes an 8- or 10-hour job
depending not on the job details but on the hourly shift duration. Second,
the psychology of the arrangement encourages the technician to presume
the next job is somehow a worse job. The fear of the unknown gives appre-
ciation for the current job. “Why rush through it to go to the next job? In
fact, I bet the next job is the worst job in the plant, shoveling out the
boiler.” Third, if the technician does return for the next job, the crew
supervisor “cherry picks” through the backlogged work orders in the order
of what is urgent and not necessarily by what is serious. If there is noth-
ing urgent in the backlog, the supervisor may well assign the technician
to help someone else on an urgent job currently in progress.
Similar to the manner in which many jobs are assigned or executed as
8- or 10-hour jobs, the practice of assigning two persons to each and every
job may exist. True, many jobs require the safety consideration of an
extra set of hands, but this practice could become a bad habit. Supervisors
as well as planners might always assign two persons, needed or not.
Many of the circumstances just noted support a powerful counterpro-

ductive culture of peer pressure. Ample reason exists for not productively
completing jobs quickly. Very little reason apparently presents itself oth-
erwise. To try to counter this, many facilities do not even write on the tech-
nicians’ copy of the work orders how many hours the jobs should take.
These facilities fear the technicians will slow down if they know they can
beat the time estimate. This is not a recommended practice. The techni-
cians are part of the team and the time estimates help them understand
the expectations of the job plan. Maintenance management needs a tool
that helps supervisors know how much work to assign.
Thus planning is a maintenance manager’s valuable tool. Having the
estimates of how long a job should take and the number of persons of each
skill required is a simple, overwhelming powerful addition to the situa-
tion. If a job plan expressly requires a single welder for only 4 hours, two
persons for the entire day is obviously not acceptable. A planned estimate
may have reduced a task otherwise consuming two persons, 10 hours
each, to a 4-hour task. Real labor savings are available to assign else-
where. Planning has introduced an element of accountability. This is not
to say that the crew supervisors were intentionally mismanaging their
resources, but planning provides a helpful tool to counteract the natural
tendencies.
On the other hand, remember that only a single job has been com-
pleted. Even with individual jobs having time and personnel estimates,
the proper application of planning provides an allocation of work for a
period for the entire crew. This establishes crew accountability in the
form of a check and balance system. The principles of scheduling imple-
ment this reasoning. Therefore, planning’s primary task is not to pro-
vide advance information on parts and tools. The most vital application
of planning gives the manager the necessary tool to manage how much
work an entire maintenance crew should accomplish.
The utility at the end of Chap. 2 had planning without scheduling.
Wrench time studies indicated that planning had freed time from ear-
lier delay areas, but overall productive time did not increase. This was
because the maintenance group did not assign more work.
Modern maintenance planning considers advance scheduling as an intri-
cate part of planning. Scheduling is necessary for maintenance improve-
ment. The basics of scheduling are centered on giving enough work to the
crews to fill up the crews’ forecast of work hours available.
Advance Scheduling Is An Allocation

The basics of scheduling involve giving enough work to employees to fill
up a forecast of crew work hours available whether for a day or a week.
Advance scheduling is actually more of an allocation of work and not a
detailed schedule of exact personnel and time assignments (see Fig. 3.3).
78 Chapter Three
Figure 3.3 Reasons why advance sched-

uling helps.
It is not a complicated process of making a complex schedule, but rather

a simple process of making a list of jobs.
Advance scheduling provides enough work for an entire week sets
goals for maximum utilization of available craft hours. It helps ensure
assignment of a sufficient amount of work. Advance scheduling also
helps ensure that sufficient proactive work to prevent breakdowns is
assigned along with reactive work. It also allows more time to coordi-
nate resources such as intercraft notification and staging of parts. There
is also more time to coordinate doing all the work on a system once the
operations group clears the system for maintenance.
The planning department can make the advance schedule. Creating
the advance schedule in the planning department involves the serious
responsibility of selecting the optimum mix of work for the best inter-
est of both the short- and long-term operation of the plant. The sched-
uler might consult with an operations coordinator to achieve this
optimum mix. The craft crews have the responsibility to execute and
complete the selected work. This arrangement changes the perceived
status quo of the decision previously made by the maintenance crew
supervisor about what work maintenance should be performed. Now the
scheduler decides what work maintenance should be performed, and the
crew supervisor is responsible only for performing it. The crew super-
visors see this check and balance system as an unnecessary loss of their
control. However, the plant priority system that sets priorities for indi-
vidual work orders remains the primary driver regarding the order in
which crews begin different jobs. The schedule has merely provided the
supervisors a service by reviewing the entire plant backlog of work and
selecting enough work orders for the crews for the coming week. The
supervisor no longer has to pick through an entire plant backlog each
time to select individual work orders. The supervisor now has a small
week’s worth of backlog from which to choose.
The vision of planning is simply to increase labor productivity. The mis-
sion of planning is to prepare the jobs to increase labor productivity. The
mission of scheduling is to allocate the jobs necessary for completion.
Scheduling forms an integral part of planning. Just as outages bene-
fit from having set schedules, routine maintenance benefits as well.
The following principles provide a framework to accomplish effective

scheduling.
Principle 1: Plan For Lowest Required

Skill Level
Scheduling Principle 1 (Fig. 3.4) states
Job plans providing number of persons required, lowest required craft skill
level, craft work hours per skill level, and job duration information are nec-
essary for advance scheduling.
Maintenance cannot schedule work without some idea of the number

of persons and time frames required. Maintenance job plans provide this
information in a manner that allows the efficient scheduling of work.
Maintenance job plans first tell what craft specialties are required.
Does a particular job require a welder, a painter, or both? Does the job
require mechanics or machinists? Does the job require two mechanics
or just one? Does the job require three helpers to assist a certified elec-
trician? How many persons are required?
Consider a job that required a certified welder, but the job plan did not
specify the number of persons or craft at all. The supervisor would be lim-
ited to assigning persons based solely on an interpretation of the job
description. The supervisor might err in sending two mechanics to per-
form the work. In this case, both mechanics would later return to the
supervisor explaining their need for welding assistance. Similarly, if a
job requires a highly skilled, certified welder, the job plan cannot spec-
ify a mechanic with light structural welding abilities. The supervisor
needs the information to assign enough welding expertise to the work
order.
On the other hand, the essential part of Principle 1 is that job plans
identify the lowest skill necessary to complete the work. By identifying
the lowest skill necessary, the crew supervisor has even more capabil-
ity when assigning individuals to execute each job plan. For example,
the job plan should specify one mechanic and one helper if a job requires
Figure 3.4Scheduling requires job plan

information.
80 Chapter Three
two persons, but only one needs to be a skilled mechanic. The job plan
should not specify two mechanics in this case. The correct specification
allows the supervisor who has only a single mechanic to assign the
work, presuming the supervisor has other personnel that could be
helpers. If the plan incorrectly required two mechanics, the supervisor
could not assign the work. Consider a job that requires only light struc-
tural welding. The plan should not specify a highly skilled, certified
welder. Specifying too high of a skill would severely restrict the super-
visor who may see a backlog of mostly certified welding jobs but who may
have only one certified welder. The supervisor may have several mechan-
ics that were trained to do light welding. Job plans must specify the
lowest qualified skill level to give the supervisors the most flexibility.
Another consideration is if a job could be done equally well with dif-
ferent combinations of persons and hours. Perhaps one person could do
the job in 10 hours where two persons would require only 5 hours each.
How should the planner plan the job? In these circumstances, the plan-
ner does not need to go to great lengths to determine the absolute opti-
mum strategy. The planner’s feel for the crew supervisor’s preferences
usually guides these decisions. The supervisor may normally work tech-
nicians in pairs or as individuals. However, the planner should not plan
the job example just discussed for two persons with 10 hours each.
Job plans also specify the work hours for each craft skill and the
total job duration hours. Work hours are not the same thing as job
duration hours. Work hours normally differ from job duration hours for
a job. Work hours are the individual labor hours required by each tech-
nician. Job duration is the straight calendar time the technicians work
on the equipment. Each is necessary for scheduling. Consider a job
requiring one mechanic and one helper for 5 hours each to rebuild a
pump. The job duration is 5 hours, but the work hours total 10 hours.
If the job plan called for an additional 5 hours afterward for painting
the equipment, the work hours would total 15. There would be 5 hours
each for the mechanic, the helper, and the painter. The job duration
would be 10 hours since the painter would have to work after the pump
was rebuilt.
The schedulers and crew supervisors need to know how many persons
each work order requires and for how many hours each. The job plan
specification of persons, craft skills, and labor hours gives this infor-
mation. The schedulers and crew supervisors also need to know when
to send or expect back the appropriate persons on each job. The job plan
specification of job duration gives this information.
The operations group also needs to know the duration that equip-
ment will be unavailable for production. The additional time necessary
for the operations group to clear up or prepare a piece of equipment for
maintenance activities or restore it to service are not included in the time
estimates for individual jobs. The estimates are primarily for the use of
the maintenance group to schedule maintenance resources. The opera-
tions group does their own allocation and arrangement of personnel.
Advance coordination keeps technicians from sitting around waiting
for the operations group to ready equipment.
For outages, the overall outage schedule addresses where the oper-
ations group requires time to prepare and restore equipment, but the
estimates for individual job plans do not include this information.
Planners should avoid two common traps when estimating the job
requirements on plans. One is always assigning two persons. The other
trap is setting the time by using half or whole increments of a shift.
First, planners err when they always presume two technicians must
work together. Legitimate reasons to assign more than a single person
include operating downtime, task logistics, safety, training, and secu-
rity. As discussed above, having more persons might decrease the time
the operations group has to do without the equipment. Be careful
though since this relationship is not always linear. Twice as many per-
sons might not cut the time by as much as a half. Simple logistics
might also necessitate extra persons. In this case, assigning extra per-
sons saves time overall. For example, valves might be too heavy or awk-
ward for a single person to manage even with mechanical aids. Two
technicians might be able to do a certain job spending 2 hours each
where a single technician would take 10 hours. Furthermore, the job
might not require the extra person full-time. It might be possible to plan
fewer hours for the assisting person than the primary person. In addi-
tion, some situations do require two persons for safety reasons. Even
work not inherently dangerous might justify needing two persons if
located in the midst of an industrial setting away from other personnel.
Training is also an issue. The plant strategy might include technicians
frequently working in pairs to cross-train each other on a regular basis.
Instrument and control crews particularly work in pairs to avoid a prob-
lem of over-specialization. Nevertheless, planners should not always
plan for more than a single person. The planners should work out expec-
tations for necessary assignments with the crew supervisors.
Second, planners make a mistake if they always round off work hours
to shift increments. For example, one might see most jobs requiring
either 4 or 8 hours for crews that happen to work 8-hour shifts. Likewise,
one might see most jobs requiring either 5 or 10 hours for crews that
happen to work 10-hour shifts. This practice damages the scheduling
effort. Many jobs require only a couple of hours and many jobs do not
require an entire shift to complete. Consider a 2-hour job and a 6-hour
job. Both of these jobs could be completed in a single 8-hour day.
However, maintenance would incorrectly assign them if one job had
82 Chapter Three
been planned for 4 hours and the other for 8. In correct actual practice,
planners plan jobs for their true expected time requirements. Then
scheduling is able to fit jobs together to improve overall productivity.
Planners also frequently need to address other situations peculiar to

specific jobs. These are not usually too difficult to handle. Perhaps insu-
lation has to be removed and replaced. Perhaps the operations group
could restore the pump to service before painting if painting could be
done on-line. The important point to note is that both job duration and
work hour estimates are necessary for scheduling work. The job plans
provide this information.
One question that companies ask is whether plans or schedules con-

sider a “high or low wrench time.” Usually, job plans and schedules
account for technicians having a high wrench time. Job plans do this
because the plan time estimates do not allow for unanticipated delays.
Moreover, the job plan attempts to avoid or minimize anticipated job
delays that the planner feels could occur during individual jobs.
Similarly, the weekly schedule attempts to minimize delays that could
occur between individual jobs such as excessive idle time, break time,
or assignment time. The weekly schedule does this by providing enough
work that is ready to go so that crews do not have to waste time receiv-
ing new assignments. Because these planning and scheduling efforts aim
to reduce delays, they also aim for relatively high wrench time.
Remember that high wrench time consists of having technicians on jobs
doing productive work rather than being in delay situations.
Illustrations
The following illustrations demonstrate this principle of scheduling.
The first section shows problems occurring as a result of not follow-
ing the principle. The second section shows success through applica-
tion of the principle.
Not this way. Paul planned five jobs during the morning before break.
Each job required two technicians. The first job required replacing a
high pressure steam valve and needed two certified welders for 10 hours
each, an entire day. The second also required two certified welders to con-
struct a work bench for the maintenance shop. Paul planned it to take
5 hours for each. The third job was a simple request to move several bar-
rels of waste oil. He planned this job to take two mechanics with a fork-
lift and barrel attachment only 2 hours. The fourth job required replacing
a check valve. This was planned to take two certified welders 5 hours.
The fifth job required working on a leaking critical control valve. Paul
planned this job to require two mechanics an entire day. Before taking
his break, Paul figured that he had already planned 64 labor hours’
worth of work for the crew.
Later the crew supervisor began to assign work orders to various
members of the crew. James had two certified welders, three mechan-
ics, an electrician, and three mechanical apprentices. In addition to the
other jobs available to work for the next day, the backlog included the
five jobs Paul had planned. There was a significant quantity of mechanic
work and, as usual, more work requiring certified welders than the
crew had available. Frequently, James had to second-guess the planner
and use the apprentice mechanics for some of the mechanic work.
This way. Paul planned five jobs during the morning before break. Most
of the jobs required two technicians. The first job required replacing a
high pressure steam valve and needed one certified welder and a helper
for 6 hours. The second also required welding to construct a work bench
for the maintenance shop. Since mechanics could handle light structural
welding, Paul planned it to take one mechanic and a helper 4 hours. The
third job was a simple request to move several barrels of waste oil. He
planned this job to take one helper alone with a forklift and barrel
attachment only 2 hours. The fourth job required replacing a high pres-
sure check valve. This was planned to take a certified welder and a
helper 3 hours. The fifth job required working on a leaking critical con-
trol valve. Paul planned this job to require one mechanic and a helper
8 hours. Before taking his break, Paul figured that he had already
planned 44 labor hours’ worth of work for the crew.
Later the crew supervisor began to assign work orders to various
members of the crew. James had two certified welders, three mechan-
ics, an electrician, and three mechanical apprentices. In addition to the
other jobs available to work for the next day, the backlog included the
five jobs Paul had planned. James usually had confidence in the plan-
ner’s estimate of skill required and knew when apprentices could be sent
on jobs as helpers. James first assigned the certified welder and an
apprentice to replace both the high pressure steam valve and the check
valve in 1 day. James assigned a mechanic and an apprentice to the
light structural welding for the work bench to help maintain the
mechanic’s welding skills. After assigning all the other work, there
simply was no electrical work. Although not usually done, James decided
to use the electrician as the helper to a mechanic on the critical leaking
control valve.
As one can see, the planning function gives the crew supervisor or sched-
uler the craft skill and time requirements for scheduling work. A job
plan tells how many persons the job requires and the minimum skill level.
84 Chapter Three
By not unduly restricting the skill requirements, the planner increases the
maintenance crew’s flexibility for using different persons for the work.
Principle 2: Schedules and Job Priorities

Are Important
Weekly and daily schedules must be adhered to as closely as possible.
Proper priorities must be placed on new work orders to prevent undue
interruption of these schedules.
The originator of a work order first picks an appropriate priority for

the work based on established plant guidelines for setting work order pri-
orities. Depending on the particular plant, the priority may then be
reviewed and adjusted by the originator’s supervisor, an operations coor-
dinator, planners that code work orders, and at a daily meeting of plant
managers or supervisors. The resulting priority should reflect not only
the work’s level of importance for achieving the plant’s objectives but its
importance relative to other backlogged work. Therefore, the plant pri-
ority system should play a large role in creating the schedule of the work
the maintenance group will assign and complete. Management must
treat the proper use of the priority system as a serious matter. The plant
must expect maintenance crews to work on the jobs that the priority
system through the schedule dictated. Management must treat working
on scheduled work as a serious matter.
It might seem unnecessary to mention that schedules and job priori-
ties are important, but they cannot be overlooked nor presumed. This
is a common area of failure in maintenance management. Advance
scheduling enough work for an entire week sets goals for maximum uti-
lization of available craft hours. It helps ensure that a sufficient amount
of work is assigned. Together with the priority system, it also helps
ensure that the right work is assigned.
A significant source of inefficiency in the maintenance group is the
interruption of low priority jobs when more urgent jobs arise. If a true
emergency arises, it is always appropriate to delay another job. However,
the maintenance group should recognize that interruptions on any par-
ticular job add extra time putting away tools, securing the job site, and
Figure 3.5Two essentials that man-

agement cannot overlook.
later refamiliarizing oneself with the job. An urgent job that is not an
emergency should be worked as the next job rather than interrupt any
job-in-progress. A nonurgent job should wait until the next day or week
altogether so that the job can be scheduled into the overall priority of
importance for the plant. Later, parts and tools might be staged to make
executing the job more productive at a more appropriate time.
Jobs with priorities falsely set too high improperly interrupt work or
cause work to begin without proper preparation. The end result is that
the maintenance group completes less work overall. Then a vicious cycle
begins. Higher priority work must interrupt lower priority work because
there is not enough productivity to complete all the work plus the inter-
ruptions. Quite possibly, the maintenance group could complete all the
work with more organizational discipline in setting initial job priorities.
This would lower the incidence of job interruptions and lowered pro-
ductivity. Management commitment is important in this area.
Conscientious management attention to enforcing adherence to the pri-
ority system helps maintenance.
If everyone assigned a high priority to their work just to ensure its
completion, then improperly prioritized jobs would also make it hard to
recognize true instances of when schedules or work should be inter-
rupted. They might delay starting true high priority jobs even if they
did not interrupt them.
Setting false priorities is so serious that Appendix I thoroughly explores
causes of false priorities.
In addition, inadequate confidence that crews will execute scheduled
jobs hurts the staging program. Staging, as discussed in Chap. 6, can
help increase crew productivity by having a job’s planned parts and
tools ready to go. They are already withdrawn from inventory or stor-
age and ready for the technician to utilize. Planning stages the mate-
rial before the anticipated execution of the job begins. Technicians avoid
delay areas that they might otherwise encounter if they had to gather
the parts themselves. Inadequate confidence that crews will execute
scheduled jobs may discourage planners from staging parts. On the
other hand, if planning continued to stage parts, the staging area might
become overflowing with staged parts for jobs that did not start. In this
case, the storeroom might run into stockouts for other jobs that main-
tenance chose instead to start. The stockouts might occur because of
parts that were withdrawn for staging. These circumstances signifi-
cantly diminish the potential for staged parts to expedite jobs.
Illustrations
The following illustrations demonstrate this principle of scheduling. The
the principle.
86 Chapter Three
This plant has the following priority system:
0 – Emergency.
1 – Urgent.
2 – Serious.
3 – Noncritical Maintenance on Production Equipment.
4 – Noncritical Maintenance on Nonproduction Equipment.
Not this way. Mike finished his operator rounds and wrote work orders
for problems he had noticed. Although most were not yet serious, Mike
wanted to make sure maintenance completed them. Therefore he set a
priority of 1 on the most important ones and 2 on the rest.
Nearly all the jobs in the maintenance backlog had been prioritized
as 1’s or 2’s. They were either urgent or serious. This made it difficult
for the crew supervisor, Abby, to select which jobs maintenance should
work the next day. Abby selected all twelve priority-1 jobs and three
priority-2 jobs to assign.
Near the beginning of the next day, the plant manager asked that
Abby immediately assign a few technicians to correct a dripping flange
on the installed backup feed pump. Abby interrupted two technicians on
one of the priority-2 jobs. These technicians first hastily put their ongoing
job in a state where they could leave it. Then with the operations group
clearing the pump and themselves having to find suitable gasket material,
they worked the rest of the day to replace the flange gasket and correct
the leak.
This way. Mike finished his operator rounds and wrote work orders for
the problems he had noticed. Most were not yet serious and Mike set a
priority of 3 or 4 on them. He set a priority of 2 on a couple of serious ones.
Mike’s supervisor afterwards had Mike change the priority of both of
the serious work orders. They changed one to priority 1 and the other to
priority 3.
The backlog had work orders with a variety of priorities. Priorities
ranged from 1 to 4. This made it fairly easy for the crew supervisor to
select which jobs maintenance should work the next day. Abby selected
all five priority-1 jobs and eight priority-2 jobs to assign. She also
assigned two priority-3 jobs.
Near the beginning of the next day, the plant manager wrote a
priority-2 work order for Abby’s crew to correct a dripping flange on
the installed backup feed pump. Planning went ahead to plan and stage
the gasket material. Abby included the flange job with the assignments she
was making for the following day. She was also able to assign most of the
backlog priority-4 work orders as well. Abby requested the operations
group to clear the pump in time for her crew to begin work on it the fol-
lowing morning.
The following morning two of the assigned technicians picked up the
staged gasket material and began the flange work order. They com-
pleted it within a couple of hours and began another job.
The following additional illustration shows how

Honoring the schedule.
an empowered crew supervisor can make a difference.
Victories are won on the shop floor everyday by honoring the sched-
ule even when a new reactive work arises. The operator and the main-
tenance supervisor are teammates and both have to work together on
this issue. Neither one must lie down and get rolled over.
At 8:00 in the morning, the maintenance supervisor answers the
“emergency” phone call this way.
“Hello? …‘Send some mechanics right now?’ Well, for an emergency,
I certainly will, but can it wait until next week? Then the planner can
plan the job and schedule it for next week’s schedule. I’m already work-
ing on this week’s schedule. We made a commitment to operations for
the work we would try to accomplish this week to set a productivity goal.
…You didn’t know about this job last Friday? That’s okay. That’s why
we have operators to know when things happen. Nevertheless, do you
think this job can wait until next week?”
“It can’t? Well, can it wait until tomorrow? Then the planner can plan
it and I’ll work it into tomorrow’s schedule. I’ve already assigned every-
one on my crew enough work for today to ensure each person does a full
day’s work. That’s our productivity key. I’d sure hate to start reassign-
ing folk. Can it wait until tomorrow?”
“It can’t? No problem. But can it at least wait until this afternoon? Then
the planner can still plan it by looking in the equipment file to see what
we did last time and make this job run smoother. Also, the planner can
take a quick look at the job site and see if we need a special skill set. I’d
hate to assign a mechanic if the job requires a certified welder. The plan-
ner can also estimate how long the job should last so I can coordinate this
job with all the other work. Can it wait until this afternoon?”
“It can’t? I understand. Well, how about if I start it at 10:00? A couple
of mechanics already working on jobs now should finish about 10:00.
Otherwise, interrupting a job-in-progress means spending extra time
putting away parts and tools so they won’t be lost and then later remem-
bering what went where. Then no one’s work gets done. Look, can this
job wait until 10:00?”
“It can? That’s great! Okay, 10:00 it is. Give me the work order number.
…What…Of course you have to write a work order for everything, even
a ‘come-in-the-middle-of-the-night’ emergency. I guess if you radioed
me from the field about a fire, I would enter a work order for you while
88 Chapter Three
I was radioing my crew to scramble. But you’re in the control room. Go

ahead and call up the work order module, press ‘insert,’ and tell me the
work order number. Then you can fill out the request while I go and tell
the mechanics. … Oh yes, we need the work order even if we don’t plan
or schedule it. This work order will allow the mechanics to record feed-
back. Inventory parts and anything else we learn about the job will be
useful next time we work on this equipment. We don’t want to reinvent
the wheel for anything. Plus, you can’t do any kind of equipment analy-
sis if you don’t collect the information during the year on work orders.
…Okay, got it. We’ll take care of it.”
“And listen, by the way, I don’t mean to give you a hard time about
this emergency and work order thing. I want you and anyone else to call
me immediately anytime for an emergency or other problem. I’d be glad
to reassign my entire crew at a moment’s notice if I have to in order to
handle an emergency. But if every week we drive seriously toward com-
pleting a week’s worth of work, we can usually get everyone’s work done
in 2 or 3 weeks. And if we ever drift back into simply waiting for oper-
ators to call with urgent work, we tend to take care of just that work and
then sit back on our heels feeling we’ve ‘done our job.’ Then productiv-
ity drops and anyone that wants anything done in a reasonable amount
of time has to call and say that he has an urgent job.”
The operator wins a victory insisting on assurance of the proper
response to the true priority of the work. The supervisor wins a victory
for keeping the crew working as productively as possible under the cir-
cumstances. The plant wins a victory furthering a culture of setting
proper priorities and protecting schedules.
Maintenance should avoid interrupting scheduled jobs or jobs-in-

progress. Maintenance should also place great importance on the plant
following the plant priority system.
Principle 3: Schedule from Forecast

of Highest Skills Available
A scheduler develops a one week schedule for each crew based on a craft
hours available forecast that shows highest skill levels available, job pri-
orities, and information from job plans. Consideration is also given to mul-
tiple jobs on the same equipment or system and of proactive versus reactive
work available.
The first two principles set the prerequisites of scheduling. These

next three principles introduce the concepts of the foundations of the
advance scheduling process.
Principle 3 establishes a 1-week period as the advance schedule of allo-
cation of work time frame. It also presumes that a person apart from
Figure 3.6 The basics of the advance

schedule.
the crew supervisor will be the scheduler. The scheduler selects the week’s
worth of work from the overall plant backlog. The scheduler uses a fore-
cast of the maximum capabilities of the crew for the coming week. The
scheduler also uses priority and job plan information. The scheduling
process also looks at performing all the work available for a system once
maintenance begins work on that system. This includes proactive work.
First, the advance schedule selects a 1-week period for making an
advance allocation of the work. Advance allocation means the schedule
will select all the work that the crew should be able to finish in a single
week. The schedule selects the work from the overall plant backlog.
The scheduler does not assign the work orders to individual crew mem-
bers. The scheduler also does not set specific hours or even certain days
on which the work on each work order should start or end. The sched-
uler merely specifies a block of work as a list or package of work orders.
Advance scheduling is an allocation of work for maintenance and not a
detailed schedule of exact personnel and time slots.
A 1-week period strikes a balance between creating set goals and allow-
ing for gradually changing plant needs. On one hand, a 1-week period is
long enough to allow establishing a set block of work for a crew goal. This
set block of work also allows planners enough time to stage parts for sched-
uled work. On the other hand, the plant is constantly writing new plant
work orders. The new work orders gradually change the relative importance
of all the work in the plant backlog. A 1-week period is short enough for the
schedule normally not to need significant alteration due to this new work
identification. This may be less true in a plant with more than a moderate
amount of reactive work. These plants may normally experience a signifi-
cant deviation from the set schedule. The 1-week schedule also covers a
short enough time period to allow supervisors enough certainty in know-
ing which of their individual crew members will be available for work.
In addition, as discussed by planning Principle 4 in Chap. 2, a curi-
ous phenomenon appears regarding the accuracy of job estimates for
individual work orders. Experience has shown that the best job esti-
mates for individual work orders may be off by plus or minus as much as
90 Chapter Three
100%. This is especially true of the smaller work orders that make up
the bulk of many maintenance operations. Yet, the planner estimates are
very accurate overall as the work horizon widens out to as much as a
week. Over a week’s worth of crew labor, the overall estimate planned
hours becomes extremely accurate, only off by as much as 5% or less. That
means that practically as many jobs run over as under due to the myriad
of special circumstances surrounding individual work orders assigned
to individual technicians on individual days. This confirms that a week
is the appropriate allotted time period for advance scheduling.
Remember that the objective of scheduling is not to produce accurate
time estimates. It is to accomplish more work by reducing delays.
The scheduler publishes this schedule to give to maintenance crews,
the operations group, and management. The crews receive the sched-
ule as allocations of goals for the coming week. Supervisors of different
maintenance crafts receive the schedules to have an idea of upcoming
coordination needs. The operations group receives the schedules to have
an idea of what equipment will eventually need clearing. The operations
group may also be able to give the maintenance group timely advice of
maintenance redirection needed. The operations group as well as man-
agement receives the schedule as an indication that maintenance is
making progress on work orders. Many times, areas apart from the
maintenance group see it as a “black hole” into which work orders enter,
but never emerge. Tangible proof of work order schedules increases
cooperation from the operations group.
Second, having a person separate from the crew supervisor allows
a system of checks and balances. A person separate from the crew
determines how much work the crew should be able to accomplish. The
question is not necessarily: Which work orders should be done? The
plant priority system drives that. The question is: How many work
orders should the crew complete? The scheduler is best included as part
of the planning department because this person uses planning as well
as crew information. Many times it is appropriate for a supervisor of
a planning group to perform the duties of scheduler. This allows the
planning supervisor routinely to review job plans.
Third, the scheduler receives a labor forecast from each crew super-
visor. This forecast tells how many labor hours each crew has for the next
week. The scheduler needs this information. The scheduler intends to
allocate hours of planned backlog on the basis of the labor hours avail-
able for each crew. The crew supervisors are in the best position to fore-
cast the available labor hours on their crews. The crew supervisor may
tell the scheduler that the crew will have 1000 labor hours for the next
week. The scheduler then has a basis for knowing how many hours of
planned work to allocate.
Fourth, the crew supervisor must make the labor hour forecast in
terms of the highest skills available. By identifying the highest skills
available, the scheduler has more latitude when actually determining

which job plans could be executed the next week. Highest skills avail-
able means that if a crew has two certified machinists and seven
mechanics available for the next week, the supervisor would not just
forecast that the crew has nine persons or nine mechanics. The latter
forecast would reduce the flexibility of the scheduler who would not be
able to assign any complex machining jobs. The scheduler has more
flexibility when knowing that there are two certified machinists. The
scheduler can then assign complex machining jobs. The scheduler might
also decide to assign routine mechanic jobs to the machinists. There is
more freedom in what jobs can be assigned.
Fifth, the scheduler will use information from the individual job plans
and a feel for the overall priority of plant systems. The scheduler looks
at the priorities of the backlogged work to help select jobs. The sched-
uler looks at the labor hours planned to select enough jobs. Chapter 6
will discuss the actual steps the scheduler follows in this process.
Sixth, the scheduler also considers plant equipment and systems when
selecting work. When selecting work for an entire week, the scheduler
is able to group work orders for the same equipment. The scheduler may
override some individual work order priorities to accomplish this. For
example, a priority-2 and priority-3 work order may be both assigned
because they are on the same piece of equipment. This might be preferred
over assigning two priority-2 work orders on two separate pieces of equip-
ment. Schedulers can also exercise flexibility by initiating certain pre-
ventive maintenance (PM) work orders early to take advantage of
equipment downtime for other work. This allows improved overall effi-
ciency because the operations group can clear the equipment a single time
and the maintenance crew can work on a number of jobs together.
Finally, it is easier for the scheduler to include preventive mainte-
nance or other work to head off failures on a weekly basis. On a daily
basis, there is often sufficient justification to put off these seemingly
lower priority work orders. On the other hand, when combining a week’s
worth of work, it becomes clear that PM cannot be delayed. The weekly
schedule includes this type of work to encourage the supervisor not to
put it off forever, 1 day at a time.
Illustrations
tion of the principle.
Not this way.As maintenance manager, George felt that maintenance

could increase its productivity. Lately, he had seen more and more
92 Chapter Three
technicians heading home early. This was a problem since reliability

seemed to be slipping at the plant. He knew that there was a consider-
able backlog of work, but the supervisors had assured him that they were
assigning as much work as the technicians could handle. George was
also concerned that supervisors had a habit of putting off PM work orders.
George felt that advance scheduling of some sort was the answer, but
the last attempt had been disastrous. Planning had first scheduled hour
by hour what work maintenance should accomplish for an entire week.
However, by the end of the very first day, the schedule was in shambles.
Half of the scheduled jobs could not start at their target times because
other jobs had run over their expected completion times. By the middle
of the second day, the actual work-in-progress bore no resemblance
whatsoever to what the advance schedule had predicted. At this point,
the plant had abandoned the concept and gone back to assigning work
1 day at a time. George felt that now was the time to implement a gate
carding procedure to make sure employees worked their entire shifts.
This way. As maintenance manager, George felt that maintenance was

increasing its productivity. Reliability seemed to be gaining at the plant.
He knew that there was a manageable backlog of work and the sched-
uling process was helping the supervisors to assign as much work as the
technicians could handle. George was also pleased that supervisors
were not putting off PM work orders.
George felt that advance scheduling had been a great success.
Planning had first developed a list of all the work orders that mainte-
nance should accomplish for an entire week. The amount of work was
determined by the labor hours that the crews would have for the week.
At the end of the week, George discussed with each supervisor the
results of what had actually been accomplished. Although no crew had
completed all the allocated work, most crews had finished more work
than they had thought possible. By the end of the second month, crews
had a firm idea of the amount of work they were responsible for and were
becoming more productive. As a result, maintenance crews were exe-
cuting more work and the plant was increasing its reliability.
The proper period for an advance schedule is normally a single week.

This time frame allows setting a goal that can stay relatively fixed as
the plant continues to identify more work. The week’s worth of work is
not an hour-by-hour schedule of work orders, but a bulk allocation. The
crew labor forecast is an important part of the scheduling process. Not
only should the supervisors forecast how many labor hours are avail-
able, but how many in each specialty.
The following principle discusses two concepts relating how the sched-
uler compares the labor hours available with the planned hours in the
backlog.
Principle 4: Schedule for Every Work

Hour Available
The one week schedule assigns work for every available work hour. The
schedule allows for emergencies and high priority, reactive jobs by sched-
uling a sufficient amount of work hours on easily interrupted tasks.
Preference is given to completing higher priority work by under-utilizing
available skill levels over completing lower priority work.
Principle 4 brings the previous scheduling principles together. The

first part of this principle is that the scheduler assigns work plans for
the crew to execute during the following week for 100% of the forecasted
hours. This means that if a crew had 1000 labor hours available, the
scheduler would give the crew 1000 hours worth of work to do.
Overassigning and underassigning work are also common and accept-
able in industry. However, each causes unique problems that could be
avoided.
For example, consider the case of assigning work for 120% of a crew’s
forecasted work hours. This would mean that the crew that had 1000
labor hours would receive 1200 hours of assigned work. This strategy may
seem to be a way to provide enough work for the crew in case operators
could not finish some of the jobs. It would also seem to be a way to
encourage the crew to stay busy. This is because it sets a more ambitious
goal for work completion. This strategy also creates several problems. It
becomes difficult to gauge the performance of the crew. Maintenance
management has a more difficult time comparing what the crew did
accomplish to what it should have been able to do. This is because now
there are three factors to compare: what labor the crew had available,
what the crew was assigned, and what the crew actually accomplished.
In the 100% case favored by this book, the first two factors are identical.
The 120% method’s three factors makes it more complicated for man-
agement to question a crew’s performance. If a crew did not accomplish
all its scheduled work, management would normally want to know why.
However, management might be hesitant to question why a crew only
Figure 3.7How planned hours and fore-

casted hours become scheduled hours.
94 Chapter Three
accomplished 1100 hours worth of work with the 1000 work hours it had
available. Nearly any source of confusion in communication regarding
crew performance is not in management’s best interest. Management
needs to lessen opportunities for misunderstandings whenever possible.
In addition, maintenance coordination with plant operators and other
crafts may be more difficult with the 120% arrangement. This is because
there is less confidence that jobs will be worked.
Conversely, assigning work for only 80% of forecasted work hours
may seem to provide a way to handle emergencies or other high prior-
ity work that may occur. However, the maintenance force is trying to
eliminate emergencies altogether. Planning significant resources to
handle emergencies that may or may not occur is counterproductive. It
might also encourage work order originators to claim false emergencies
knowing the availability of the resource. In reality, assigning work hours
for 100% of a crew’s forecasted work hours nearly always inherently
includes some jobs that can be easily interrupted in case emergencies
arise. A 100% scheduling strategy encourages originators to understand
that for every emergency, other work is delayed. The 80% scheduling
strategy also makes it difficult to gauge crew performance. Maintenance
management also finds it difficult to ask a crew to improve if the crew
completed all of its assigned work. A self-fulfilling prophecy is possible.
Every week that emergencies do not occur, the crew might complete
less work than possible. If the crew completes less work than possible, the
work left undone might be work to head off emergencies. Consequently
the plant experiences emergencies that justify leaving labor forces
unscheduled each week. On the other hand, the 80% arrangement may
be preferred in certain situations where maintenance crews must work
within an overall time limit. Perhaps an outage with a critical time con-
straint might meet this criteria. The 80% arrangement might also be jus-
tified if the maintenance group has a particular credibility problem
with the operations group. The maintenance group could publicize the
work that it plans to accomplish and give regular reports to the opera-
tions group of its success.
Principle 4 prefers the 100% strategy primarily for accountability
and clarity of communication. The 100% rule also keeps the crew busy
accomplishing a practical goal. Maintenance handles any emergencies
through interrupting jobs-in-progress. Maintenance management should
not plan for regular emergencies in this regard.
The second part of this principle, “working persons down,” is some-
what more subtle. On a major construction project requiring 20 welders
and 20 helpers, the project would simply hire 20 welders and 20 helpers.
However, in normal maintenance, the most beneficial jobs requiring
completion rarely match the exact skill composition of the standing
maintenance force. As a simple illustration, see Fig. 3.8. Consider a
planned backlog consisting of 100 hours of high priority work requiring
Figure 3.8 Doing work most profitable for the plant.
only helpers and 100 hours of low priority work requiring machinists.
If there were only 100 hours of machinists available, then the plant
should assign them all to the high priority work even though it requires
only helpers. The principle has the scheduling process recognize that
machinists can do helper work and allows assignment of persons to
higher priority work in the plant. Otherwise, think of a not-so-extreme
case where there was no machinist work in the backlog and machinists
could not “work down.” Would a company have high priority helper
work sitting in the backlog and machinists sitting in the break room?
This is a problem with the automatic scheduling logic of some comput-
erized maintenance management system (CMMS) systems.
Consider what type of multicraft or work agreements are necessary
to take advantage of the opportunities in this area.
See also how the note numbers in Fig. 3.8 illustrate the scheduling
principles discussed so far. The backlog work is planned by lowest skill
level (Principle 1). The backlog is ordered by priority or importance of
work (Principle 2). The resources to work the jobs are forecasted by the
highest skill level available (Principle 3). Principle 4 shows the correct
assignment of technicians to jobs.
Craftpersons typically should not mind working outside of their primary
specialties for work that is obviously in the best interest of the plant. It
does become a source of resentment when the plant abuses the priority
system. Consider management assigning a first class electrician to be a
helper for a mechanic. If it is obvious that the mechanical work is much
less important than backlogged electrical work, there is a problem.
Principle 4 establishes a methodology in the planning office to assign
enough work. In addition, it is worthy to note what actually happens in
the field on a day-to-day basis. Because many jobs run over or under, the
crew supervisor frequently does not ever have to assign persons outside
of their normal crafts. On a day-to-day basis, the supervisor is usually
96 Chapter Three
able to assign work from the weekly allocation by craft. There are more
occasions where technicians may be used as helpers. For example, a job
planned for one mechanic and a helper may be assigned to two mechan-
ics. The next principle describes the basis for the crew supervisor instead
of the scheduler making the daily work assignments.
Illustrations
the principle.
Not this way. Fred examined the plant’s backlog of planned work and
selected the work for the maintenance crew for the following week. The
crew had forecasted 400 hours’ worth of total labor for all the various
craft specialties. Normally Fred only scheduled for 80% of the crew’s
forecast to allow for emergencies. This meant that sometimes he was not
able to schedule all of preventive maintenance due on the equipment.
This week he was able to schedule 60 hours of PM. At one point when
allocating work out of the backlog, it became difficult to match the jobs
needing attention with the remaining available electrical skills.
Therefore, Fred assigned 20 hours of lesser important priority-4 work.
This work required first class electricians and the first class electri-
cians had hours available. The resulting advance schedule was an allo-
cation of 320 hours of planned work for the crew. During the next week,
the maintenance crew did not experience any emergencies and com-
pleted all 320 hours of work.
This way. Fred examined the plant’s backlog of planned work and
selected the work for the maintenance crew for the following week. The
crew had forecasted 400 hours’ worth of total labor for all the various craft
specialties. Fred was able to schedule about 80 hours’ worth of preven-
tive maintenance into the schedule. At one point when allocating work
out of the backlog, it became difficult to match the jobs needing atten-
tion with the remaining available electrical skills. Therefore, Fred put
in 20 hours of work requiring only a third class electrician even though
the crew had only first class electrician labor hours still available. The
third class work was priority-3 work, whereas all of the first class elec-
trical work left in the plant backlog was less important priority-4 work.
The resulting advance schedule was an allocation of 400 hours of planned
work for the crew. During the next week, the maintenance crew did not
experience any emergencies and completed 360 hours of the work.
Scheduling Principle 4 dictates that the scheduler should match the

advance allocation of work to the number of hours a crew has available.
To accomplish this task, the advance scheduling process considers work-

ing persons out of their strict classifications or below their level of
expertise. This methodology allows the scheduler to select the best com-
bination of work orders to achieve plant goals such as reliability and effi-
ciency. The combination of work orders is one in which the crew does
possess the skill required to accomplish the work.
Principle 5: Crew Leader Handles Current

Day’s Work
The crew supervisor develops a daily schedule one day in advance using
current job progress, the one week schedule and new high priority, reac-
tive jobs as a guide. The crew supervisor matches personnel skills and
tasks. The crew supervisor handles the current day’s work and problems
even to rescheduling the entire crew for emergencies.
Once the week has begun, obviously some jobs will run over and some
will run under their planned work hours. Experience shows that
although individual jobs show a wide variance between planned and
actual times, over the course of a week there is remarkable agreement
between the sums of the planned and actual times. That is the first
reason that daily scheduling is best done by the crew leader or super-
visor who is close to the field situation of job progress. Equally impor-
tant is the ability of the crew supervisor to assign particular jobs to
individuals based on their experience or even their need to learn.
Each day the crew supervisor assigns the next day’s work to each
technician. If working 10-hour shifts, each technician would receive
assignments totaling 10 hours of work for the next day. The supervisor
Figure 3.9 The crew supervisor is in the best position.

98 Chapter Three
intends for each technician to complete 10 hours of planned work each

day. The technicians may be continuing on a single job that spans sev-
eral days or working several smaller jobs in a single day.
During the course of the day, the supervisors are out in the field
assessing job progress. If a job runs over the planned hour estimate, the
supervisor may have to schedule additional time for the next day. If a
job runs under the planned estimate, the supervisor may have to assign
additional work to begin a day earlier than expected.
The supervisor normally assigns new work orders out of the work
allocation. The supervisor is also free to assign urgent jobs that come
up during the course of the week. Ordinarily, the supervisor has the plan-
ning group quickly assess urgent jobs. Then the supervisor assigns them
as soon as qualified technicians complete current jobs in progress.
Because emergency jobs are begun immediately, the supervisor handles
them by interrupting jobs in progress. Emergency jobs do not receive
planning attention. They are handled entirely as jobs in progress from
a planning standpoint.
Because jobs may finish earlier or later than expected, it is not prac-
tical to schedule work order assignments more than a day in advance.
Because the crew supervisors keep abreast of individual job progress,
they are in the best position to create the daily schedule. The crew
supervisor creates the daily schedules and works the crew toward the
goal of completing all the work allocated in the advance schedule.
The second reason the crew supervisors need to make the daily sched-
ule is they understand the specific abilities of their various technicians.
There also might be various personalities making a crew supervisor
favor pairing certain technicians together and keeping certain others
apart. Some technicians might also work better alone on jobs, while
others might work better as a team. A crew supervisor is also best aware
of daily personnel concerns, such as persons that call in sick.
To meet the goal of the weekly schedule allocation, the supervisor
may also have to challenge some of the technicians. In the past, the
supervisor may have allowed certain technicians to accomplish less
work or less challenging work than others. Faced with a goal amount
of work orders to complete, the supervisor may now be more encouraged
to help technicians rise to the occasion. The supervisor approaches these
considerations carefully. The situation may be a benefit to technicians
who have been “frozen” at their current level of expertise because they
only received jobs they could handle.
Because the supervisors create the daily schedule, maintenance also
gives them the responsibility to coordinate other daily activities. These
may include requirements for another craft to assist on a job. The super-
visor makes timely requests from the operations group. Many plants
accomplish this type of daily coordination with a brief daily schedule
meeting each afternoon. All the craft supervisors attend with the key
operations supervisors.
Illustrations
first section shows problems occurring as a result of not following the prin-
ciple. The second section shows success through application of the principle.
Not this way. The maintenance planning scheduler sat down to make
the weekly allocation of work. This was done by developing a series of
daily schedules for a week. After the schedules were complete, the sched-
uler sent the operations group a list telling which systems and equip-
ment to have cleared at different times each day for work.
As the crew supervisor visited the various job sites during the day, he
had a good idea of which jobs would finish early or late. This required
constant communication with the operations group, which generally
voiced displeasure about the situation. The operations group expected
maintenance crews to be able to work on the jobs to which the planning
schedule had committed them. Operators generally wasted time clear-
ing systems when the maintenance group did not have personnel ready.
He had done the operations group a favor, however, when he was able
to immediately put two persons on a fan problem at their request.
The maintenance supervisor did not think that the new scheduling
system was any improvement over the past. In the past, the mainte-
nance supervisor had assigned each technician one job at a time after
he had checked with the operations group regarding clearances. The
operations group could then count on maintenance personnel being
ready to work on the cleared equipment.
This way. The maintenance planning scheduler sat down to make the
weekly allocation of work. This was done by developing a list of work
orders for a week. After the allocation was complete, the scheduler sent
the operations group the list showing which systems and equipment the
maintenance group planned to work on sometime during the week.
As the crew supervisor visited the various job sites during the day, he
had a good idea of which jobs would finish early or late. The crew super-
visor knew that in order to complete the weekly allocation of work, he
would have to assign each crew member a full day of planned work for
the next day. After making a preliminary daily schedule, he attended the
daily scheduling meeting. The operations group said it could clear up
all the requested work for the next day. They also said they had earlier
written a work order for a fan problem that probably could not wait until
next week. The crew supervisor said that he would check with planning
to see if they had started planning it. Depending on the craft skills
needed, he would probably be able to start it the first thing in the morn-
ing. He had several persons who were ready to start new jobs. After the
meeting, he called planning. They had just planned the job for two
mechanics. The crew supervisor called the operations group, who said
they would have the fan cleared for work. He made the necessary
100 Chapter Three
changes on his schedule and went to the crew meeting area to post the
assignments for the next day.
The supervisor is in the best position to make the daily schedule.

This person has the latest information on field progress and can judge
when operations should clear equipment. This person has the respon-
sibility of working toward the weekly allocation of work. However, the
crew supervisor is still responsible for breaking the weekly schedule
when necessary to take care of urgent problems.
Principle 6: Measure Performance with

Schedule Compliance
Wrench time is the primary measure of workforce efficiency and of plan-
ning and scheduling effectiveness. Work that is planned before assignment
reduces unnecessary delays during jobs and work that is scheduled reduces
delays between jobs. Schedule compliance is the measure of adherence to
the 1-week schedule and its effectiveness.
Work sampling or wrench time is considered the best measure of

scheduling performance. However, maintenance management also
tracks schedule compliance.
The bottom line is whether or not planning and scheduling have
improved the work-force’s efficiency. Planning and scheduling aim to do
this by reducing delays that otherwise keep technicians from complet-
ing work orders. Planning individual jobs can reduce delays such as
waiting to obtain certain parts, tools, or technician instructions. However,
other than setting an individual job time standard, planning does noth-
ing to reduce delays between jobs. These delays include such circum-
stances as technicians not receiving an assignment after completing
their current work. In addition, not having a sufficient amount of work
assigned may encourage technicians to take excessive breaks or have
lengthy mobilization and shut down periods at the beginning and end of
Figure 3.10 Making schedule compli-

ance acceptable to supervisors and prac-
tical to calculate.
each day. Scheduling aims at reducing these type delays. Work sam-
pling or wrench time studies quantify both of these type delays. They give
the primary measures of planning and scheduling effectiveness.
Schedule compliance is also an important indicator. John Crossan (1997)
says that weekly schedule compliance is the ultimate measure of proac-
tivity. When the maintenance force has control over the equipment, the
maintenance force decides when to take certain actions to preserve equip-
ment. When the equipment has control over the work force, the equipment
drives the efforts of maintenance. A more reactive plant environment has
more circumstances of the equipment experiencing problems and caus-
ing the maintenance force to break the weekly schedule. The proactive
maintenance force in control of its equipment experiences few circum-
stances of a sudden equipment problem that interrupts scheduled work.
Schedule compliance is merely a measure of how well the crew kept to the
scheduled allocation of work for the week. Supervisors who adhere to the
schedule as much as possible ensure accomplishing as much preventive
maintenance and other timely corrective work as possible.
Schedule compliance provides a measure of accountability. It guards
against crews working on pet projects or other jobs that are not more
important than the allocated work. Yet if other more urgent or serious
work arises, crew supervisors must redirect their crews to handle them.
The schedule compliance provides a standard against which to discuss
those actions. A supervisor may explain a low schedule compliance by
telling what other work had to interrupt the schedule. A supervisor may
have a low schedule compliance and no other interrupting work. This
might indicate there may be a problem such as storeroom performance
that needs to be identified and resolved. The schedule compliance scores
facilitate discussion and identification of plant problems between main-
tenance managers and supervisors.
Similarly, a technician’s performance measured against the planned
estimate of a single job helps facilitate discussion between the supervi-
sor and the technician. The technician must ignore the planned estimate
when the actual dictates of the job demand otherwise. The technician
and supervisor may need to send job feedback to the planning depart-
ment to prevent certain problem areas from hindering future work.
Schedule compliance is not a weapon to hold against supervisors.
Maintenance management and supervisors want to use schedule compli-
ance as a diagnostic tool. Therefore, it is expedient to measure schedule
compliance in a way to give the crew the benefit of any doubt. Figure 3.10
illustrates this approach. Consider if a crew is given 10 jobs and the crew
starts all 10 but only completes 9. The crew receives a score of 100%
schedule compliance rather than 90%. The second case explains this rea-
soning where a crew receives only one job, works it all week without
interruption, but does not finish. It is not fair to grade the crew as having
0% schedule compliance. Again, the crew receives a score of 100% schedule
102 Chapter Three
compliance. In actual practice, case 3 shows how maintenance measures

schedule compliance. Schedule compliance actually tracks the planned
work hours delivered to the crew for the following week’s work (1000 work
hours). At the end of the next week, the crew returns all work they did not
even start (100 work hours). Maintenance calculates the schedule com-
pliance as 90%, which is (1000 − 100)/1000 times 100%. Giving the crew
credit for jobs only started in the calculation accomplishes two results.
First, the measure gives the crew the benefit of any doubt. This avoids
supervisors feeling the calculation gives an unfair poorer-than-actual view
of their performance. Second it makes the score very easy to calculate.
Otherwise consideration would have to be made for the estimated remain-
ing planned hours of jobs-in-progress. That adjustment would be very
subjective and again possibly not seen to the supervisors’ advantage. Third,
one should remember that the objective is to encourage supervisors to
work on scheduled jobs, the objective is not to have a scientifically accu-
rate correlation between an indicator and field performance. The preferred
method of calculating schedule compliance is expedient in all of these three
regards. Instead of the term “schedule compliance,” some companies prefer
to call this measure “schedule success” to indicate the plants’ attempt to gain
control over the equipment rather than over the supervisors.
That the crew in case 3 may have only actually completed 850 work
hours is not a problem as long as carryover hours the next week are mon-
itored. For example, there would be a problem if the crew consistently
claimed that it had about 200 hours of carryover work each week when
the crew only had 200 available labor hours. Carryover hours are part
of the crew forecast the supervisor makes each week to determine avail-
able labor hours.
Earlier, Scheduling Principle 3 stated that a 1-week period is short
enough normally not to need significant alteration due to new work
identification. This may be less true in a plant with more than a mod-
erate amount of reactive work. These plants may normally experience
a significant deviation from the set schedule. These plants especially
should continue to schedule and track schedule compliance. This indi-
cator would determine what improvement maintenance has been able
to make in overcoming the reactive situation.
Illustrations
tion of the principle. Chapter 10, Control, shows an example of the
actual calculation of schedule compliance for a crew.
Not this way.Three plants considered schedule compliance. It made no

sense at Plant Shelton to track schedule compliance. The plant simply
had too many reactive work orders. However, the crews had become
very efficient at taking care of the plant. It was never a problem for
maintenance expeditiously to resolve most circumstances encountered.
Plant Bains had made a commitment to track schedule compliance.
The plant had assigned an analyst almost full time to the task. Rather
than only give the crews credit for completed jobs, each week the ana-
lyst would also give credit for some of the work hours for jobs-in-progress.
The analyst carefully recorded the actual work hours that technicians
had already spent on jobs not completed and added them to the total of
the planned hours for completed jobs. There was some concern that the
calculation was mixing actual work hours for uncompleted jobs with
planned work hours for completed jobs. One alternative was having the
planners give an estimate of the planned hours left on each partially
completed job. Another alternative was having the supervisors give an
estimate of the percentage of each job remaining and proportioning the
original planned hours. The analyst doubted there was adequate time
to fine tune the calculations each week using either alternative.
Plant Calvin used the schedule compliance indicator as a hammer. The
most important task for any supervisor was to finish allocated work.
Management used schedule compliance scores as the major part of each
supervisor’s periodic evaluation. This ensured that crews accomplished
all the scheduled preventive maintenance and other work to keep the
plant reactive work to a minimum. Supervisors never failed to take
charge of emergencies, but they were understandably reluctant to
resolve otherwise urgent situations before they became emergencies.
Management knew that this was the price to pay for concentrating on
proactive work. In the long run, they felt this strategy would provide the
plant with superior reliability.
This way. Three plants considered schedule compliance. It made sense at

Plant Shelton to track schedule compliance. Plant Sheldon called it “sched-
ule success.” The plant had many reactive work orders. The crews had
become very efficient at taking care of the plant. It was never a problem
for maintenance to resolve most circumstances encountered expeditiously.
On the other hand, the maintenance crews scored fairly low on schedule
success each week. The schedule success indicator gave maintenance man-
agement one of its few tools to assess the plant’s situation. Management
knew that somehow they needed to reduce the amount of reactive work
at the plant. As management implemented various solutions, they exam-
ined the schedule success scores to see if there was any improvement.
Plant Bains had made a commitment to track schedule success. At the
end of each week, the planning supervisor gathered back all the work
orders that the crews had not been able to start. Then the planning
supervisor would sum the planned hours on the work orders separately
for each crew. Subtracting these sums from the amount of planned hours
104 Chapter Three
the crews had originally been allocated allowed a simple measure

of schedule success. This procedure consumed about 2 hours of the
supervisor’s time near the end of each week, primarily for gathering back
the work orders that the supervisors knew that they would not be able
to begin. The supervisor reflected that the work orders not started would
have to be gathered each week in any case because the scheduler needed
them to add back to the plant backlog. The scheduler would then begin
the process of allocating work for the coming week.
Plant Calvin used the schedule success measure as an important indi-
cator. It was important for any supervisor to concentrate on allocated
work. Management used schedule success scores as one part of each
supervisor’s periodic evaluation. This ensured that crews understood the
importance of accomplishing scheduled preventive maintenance and other
work to keep the plant reactive work to a minimum. Supervisors never
failed to take charge of emergencies and were also quick to resolve oth-
erwise urgent situations before they became emergencies. Management
ensured that supervisors understood their role to keep the plant out of
trouble. In the long run, management felt this strategy would provide the
plant with superior reliability.
As one can see, the plant’s objective is not to have a high schedule com-
pliance. The plant’s objective is to have a reliable plant. A low schedule
compliance indicates opportunities for management to address other
problems in the plant to increase the plant reliability. The schedule
compliance score facilitates discussion and investigation of problems.
When supervisors are appropriately following the advance schedule
and reacting to urgent plant developments, the schedule compliance
score indicates the degree to which the plant is in a reactive or proac-
tive mode. A plant cannot bring itself out of a reactive mode by insistence
on blind obedience to the advance schedule. If it did, the consistent neg-
lect of urgent developments might put the company out of business.
Once it occurs, reactive maintenance needs cannot be ignored.
Summary
Maintenance planning will not increase labor productivity if it only con-
centrates on planning individual work orders. Making it easier to accom-
plish individual work orders does not necessarily mean that supervisors
will assign more work. A number of system problems discourage crew
supervisors from assigning more work orders for completion. Maintenance
management must consider scheduling in the maintenance planning
strategy to avoid these problems.
Six basic principles form the foundation of successful scheduling.
These are using job plans providing time estimates, making schedules
and priority systems important, having a scheduler develop a 1-week
advance schedule, assigning work for all available labor hours, allow-
ing crew supervisors to make daily schedules, and tracking schedule
compliance. When setting craft and time requirements, job plans must
plan for the lowest required skill level. This increases later flexibility
in choosing jobs. Adhering to schedules is important because inter-
rupting jobs leads to overall inefficiency. The priority system must prop-
erly identify the right jobs to start. A separate scheduler from the crew
provides a check and balance. A 1-week period strikes a balance between
a set goal and changing plant needs. In addition, a 1-week period is long
enough to smooth out differences between planned estimates and actual
times on single jobs. Knowing of the lowest skills required for jobs and
the highest skills available in the labor pool allows developing a sched-
ule with the proper work for the week. The uncertainty of actual job
progress and the incidence of unexpected reactive work place the crew
supervisor in the best position to create the daily crew work schedule.
Finally, schedule compliance joins wrench time as an important indicator
of maintenance performance.
Principles 1 and 2 are prerequisites for scheduling. Principles 3
through 5 establish the basis of the scheduling process. Principle 6 sets
the overall indicators for scheduling control.
So utilizing planned and scheduled work packages increases the main-
tenance department’s ability to complete work orders effectively, effi-
ciently, and safely. Will the planning effort work with maintenance
planning based on the six planning principles and the six scheduling
principles?
Here is what the utility discussed at the end of Chap. 2 discovered.
The utility established a weekly allocation of work based on all six
scheduling principles. The plant management and crew supervisors
quickly became extremely frustrated. The frustration was not due to
supervisors having a set goal of work. Management and supervisors
both accepted the responsibility of the crew to work toward the allocated
goal and also respond quickly to urgent plant problems. Management
and supervisors understood the balance of both responsibilities. The
frustration was caused by the inability of the planning department to
adapt the role of the planners for urgent plant needs.
The planners had recognized the supervisors had to deal differently
with urgent, reactive work. The problem was that the planners did not
recognize that the planners themselves had to deal differently with
urgent, reactive work.
The planners insisted on developing significant job plans for reactive
work. This delay kept supervisors in a state of frustration having either
to wait on planning or proceed without any planning. The former case
frustrated the planners who had to hurry. The latter case frustrated the
planners whose eventual job plans were ignored. Supervisors realized the
need of meeting the urgent needs of the plant, but the planners did not.
106 Chapter Three
Obviously, management needed to consider urgent, reactive work in

the planning and scheduling picture. Planning needed to make some
adaptation of its work for reactive jobs. This leads to the next chapter
on what makes the difference and makes it all come successfully
together. The next chapter presents the final consideration necessary for
the planning and scheduling strategy to succeed. Planning must not plan
reactive jobs in the same manner as proactive work.
Chapter
4
What Makes the Difference
and Pulls It All Together
This chapter explains the final concepts necessary to make planning

work. These concepts make planners do different things for different
types of jobs and greatly influence the overall application of the princi-
ples. Lack of appreciating these factors frequently makes planning pro-
grams fail. The programs fail because they try a one-size-fits-all
approach to different types of jobs. Primarily, the programs are not sen-
sitive to the immediate needs of reactive jobs. This chapter distinguishes
between proactive and reactive maintenance. Likewise, it distinguishes
between extensive and minimum maintenance. Most importantly, this
chapter describes the resulting planning adjustments. This chapter also
discusses communication and management support regarding these
adjustments.
The preceding chapter’s second illustration of Plant Calvin depicted
a fundamental maintenance concept. While the plant should actively
engage in activities to prevent problems, problems must be dealt with
quickly once they arise.
At Plant Calvin, maintenance crews understood the importance of
accomplishing scheduled preventive maintenance and other work to keep
the plant reactive work to a minimum. Furthermore, crews also never
failed to take charge of emergencies and were quick to resolve otherwise
urgent situations before they became emergencies. Management ensured
that supervisors understood their role to keep the plant out of trouble.
On one hand, maintenance supervisors must change their past phi-
losophy of executing mostly reactive work. Supervisors must assign
more proactive work to head off reactive work. Advance scheduling helps
facilitate this change. On the other hand, planners must change their past
philosophy of planning all jobs as proactive work. Planning must adapt
107

108 Chapter Four
to an alternative method of planning reactive work. Making several

adjustments to the planning department’s process removes the last bar-
rier to having an effective system.
Proactive versus Reactive Maintenance

The recognition of the existing maintenance culture helps management
change maintenance crews to focus on proactive work. Proactive work
heads off problems before they occur. John E. Day, Jr. (1993) has done
excellent work developing the concept of proactive maintenance. He
points out the standard definitions of maintenance:
Repair: To restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or
broken: fix, rejuvenate, etc.
Maintenance: The act of maintaining. To keep in an existing state: preserve
from failure or decline, protect, etc.
He explains that, “The key paradigm is that the maintenance prod-

uct is capacity. Maintenance does not produce a service.”
Day points out that initial disenchantment in implementing the plan-
ning system is primarily due to an attempt to provide detailed work plans
on reactive jobs. Since reactive jobs by their nature are urgent, it is frus-
trating to everyone to wait on a planning group to turn over the work.
Figure 4.1 shows that when something has already broken, the job of
maintenance becomes fixing it as soon as possible. “As soon as possible”
means the sooner the better. Theoretically, reducing the time to fix it
approaches zero (instantaneous fix) as maintenance achieves perfec-
tion. When something breaks, to suggest interrupting the crew with
notions of waiting to plan the job would not be appreciated. Waiting
would only add time and hinder maintenance’s quest for perfection on
Figure 4.1 The goal for executing reactive maintenance.

What Makes the Difference and Pulls It All Together 109
that individual job. The concept of keeping the equipment from break-
ing in the first place actually achieves the zero repair time because
the reactive event never occurs. This is not possible once something has
already broken.
There are three different schools of thought on how maintenance
planning should handle planning and scheduling for reactive work. One
school holds that once something breaks, planning does not become
involved and leaves the resolution entirely to the pertinent crew super-
visor. The second school holds that planning treats all jobs alike. The
third school of thought espoused by this book requires planning to
become involved in all the jobs, but treat reactive jobs differently from
proactive ones. None of the schools recommends planning involvement
in true plant emergencies.
The first school concentrates only on proactive work which makes
considerable sense for a plant that is in specification condition. That is,
all of the equipment is either new or has been maintained well so there
are not many reactive situations. Adopting this planning philosophy
for an existing plant that has a considerable amount of reactive main-
tenance forces management to consider two options. Option one is to
invest capital to bring the plant into a specification condition. Option
two is to only plan and schedule the proactive work. The advance sched-
ule would not include reactive work since there are no time estimates
planned for those jobs. Instead, the advance allocation would consist of
a small, manageable amount of proactive work to head off future reac-
tive work. Gradually, the proportion of crew reactive work should sub-
side relative to a growing proportion of planned, allocated work.
The second school insists on always planning information to head off
probable job delays. If there is not file information available, planners
must find and research equipment manuals, even for reactive work.
This school counts on files quickly becoming developed and the inci-
dences of having to plan jobs from scratch diminishing. Adopting this
philosophy also makes sense for a specification plant where there is not
much reactive work. In a plant with considerable reactive work, this phi-
losophy might have planners working quickly to supply information to
jobs about to start. Having extra planners at first could help.
There are difficulties seen with the above approaches. In the first
school, a plant with much reactive work would not begin doing much
planned work. In the second school, planning might develop a bad rep-
utation early on because of the initially underdeveloped files. Planners
might be trying to slow the start of jobs they have to research and the
technicians might be expecting too much from the job plans.
A third school of thought attempts to resolve these difficulties.
Management begins the planning effort primarily as a filing service for the
technicians and the maintenance group and understands the technician’s
role in gathering information that might later be helpful. Therefore, when
110 Chapter Four
reactive jobs are first worked, there simply is little information expected
from planning. Planning’s job is to file the reactive job feedback to help
a future job. The scheduling effort is begun to help encourage supervi-
sors to assign more work, especially more proactive work. This book
favors this approach for several reasons. There are a great number of
plants that have considerable amounts of reactive work. These plants are
unable or unwilling to invest in immediately upgrading the plant to
specification conditions. These plants could still benefit from planning
most of their work. Another reason is that experience has shown that
planning usually has a very difficult time becoming established. This is
mostly due to early false expectations from supervisors and technicians
expecting perfect, complex job plans instead of simply helpful informa-
tion. Finally, one of the greatest contributions planning makes for improv-
ing maintenance productivity is through advance scheduling. This
approach allows planning enough detail on job plans to accomplish
advance scheduling even while files are becoming developed near the
infancy of the program. Above all, this school (as well as the first school)
advocates not holding up reactive work.
As planning organizations become more mature and plants become
more reliable, the differences in these schools of thought become less rel-
evant. For one thing, the plants experience less reactive work. For another
thing, files have become fully developed. The schools seem to go apart, but
then come together.
In actual practice planning becomes successful when it begins to con-
centrate on planning proactive work. By concentrating on work to cir-
cumvent later breakdowns, the planning organization is able to produce
good work plans without schedule pressure. Reactive work still receives
planning before crew assignment, but the planners rely more on the
technicians in the field researching a job for parts information if there
is currently no file information. For every job, the planner still provides
a job scope, craft requirements, and time estimates. However, the plan-
ner treats file information much differently for reactive jobs than for
proactive jobs. The planner will always look in the minifiles for infor-
mation. If there is no helpful file information on a proactive job, the
planner will investigate other sources. These sources may include vendor
or O&M manuals, consultations with more experienced personnel, or any
other avenue thought to yield sought-after information. On a reactive
job, however, the planner will not look beyond the specific minifiles. If
there is no file or no helpful information in a file, the technicians are on
their own for a reactive job. Not only does this methodology allow all the
work to be planned to allow scheduling, but it reinforces Planning
Principle 2 for feedback.
The challenge is to keep planning and scheduling proactive work while
a significant amount of reactive work orders are still being written and
planned. Enough personnel resources exist to perform all the reactive and
proactive work, but only if all the work is planned so that schedules can
be created to set goals for getting it all done. Planners must develop the
work plans for all the reactive jobs to show the craft skills and estimated
times required.
The objective of proactive maintenance is to stay involved with the
equipment to prevent decline or loss of capacity. Planning and scheduling
a sufficient amount of proactive work reduces the number of urgent
problems and breakdowns. Reactive work receives minimal planning
attention beyond a field inspection and minifile check before it is made
available to be worked into crew schedules. Crews may have to look up
technical information themselves on reactive jobs if the information is
not available in the minifiles. Nevertheless, because the repetitive
nature of maintenance work continually enhances minifiles with crew
feedback, planners are soon able to give complete information and even
procedures on reactive jobs.
Deciding to plan differently for proactive and reactive jobs requires

definitions for the two types of work when first received by planning.
Recommended definitions follow below.
Reactive maintenance is:
1. Where equipment is actually broken down or fails to operate properly.

2. Priority-1 jobs are defined as urgent and so they are reactive.
Proactive maintenance is:
1. Work done to prevent equipment from failing.

2. Any preventive maintenance (PM) job.
3. Work orders initiated by the predictive maintenance group when the
need is not otherwise readily apparent.
4. Project work to upgrade equipment.
The essential determination for proactive maintenance is that work

is done now to save additional work later. Proactive work heads off trou-
ble. Once reactive situations develop, the operations group is already suf-
fering. Reactive work is where equipment has failed and the plant is
reacting to the equipment situation. Reactive work does not include
where a specific device or component on a piece of equipment has failed,
but the equipment is delivering its intended service satisfactorily to the
operations group. For example, a slightly leaking flange on a pipeline
might not be considered reactive if the drip is not causing a problem even
though the flange itself has failed. (Alternative definitions for reac-
tive versus proactive might be made on the basis of the customer, the
112 Chapter Four
operations group. Any job requested by the operations group is reactive

because maintenance wants to produce plant capacity for operations, not
react to operations problems. Operators should not have problems that
they notice. Any job written up by maintenance would therefore be proac-
tive. Maintenance wants to find all the plant deficiencies and correct
them before they are noticed by the operations group.)
The practical result of implementation of these definitions should be the

completion of all reactive work plans before lunch time for new jobs
received that morning. Chapter 5 illustrates the step-by-step methodology
planners follow for different types of jobs. Suffice it to say for now that on
reactive jobs the planner scopes the job in the field (maybe), checks the file,
estimates craft and hours, and puts the job into the waiting to be sched-
uled file. The crew supervisor then has the option of assigning the job if
desired or waiting for the next week’s schedule to include it if appropriate
in the overall priority of plant needs.
Examples of proactive work include a job to replace the coating on a
condenser tube sheet because maintenance has noticed some peeling; a
predictive maintenance request to overhaul a pump; changing a filter
at a set routine time; changing a filter that has a moderate pressure drop
but is not bothering operations; noticing a small noise from a pump, mod-
erate corrosion, painting, a dripping flange, or a sump pump running
rough that would not cause an immediate plant problem if it failed;
noticing a potentially inaccurate pressure gauge; or a project to replace
a troublesome pump.
Examples of reactive work include a condenser tube leak, changing a
filter at operations’ request, a loud noise from a pump, a dripping acid
flange, an operator report of a frozen valve, a clogged filter causing an
operations problem, a failed sump pump even if not reported, a dead or
obviously wrong pressure gauge, or a work order to restore a pump to
service.
Extensive versus Minimum Maintenance

Following the line of reasoning that not all jobs should be planned the
same way, it is also not cost effective to spend much time planning cer-
tain small jobs. This work is considered minimum maintenance.
This is a different consideration than that of reactive versus proac-
tive. A proactive job may be minimum maintenance or extensive main-
tenance. A reactive job might also be minimum maintenance or extensive
maintenance.
The following definitions are recommended for defining the complex-

ity of maintenance.
Figure 4.2 Classification allows different

planning treatment.
Minimum maintenance work must meet all of the following conditions:
1. Work has no historical value.

2. Work estimate is not more than 4 total work hours (e.g., two persons
for 2 hours each or one person for 4 hours).
3. While parts may be required, no ordering or reserving is necessary.
Extensive maintenance is defined as all other work.
Figure 4.2 indicates the different classifications of work that require

different planner treatment. The practical result of implementation of
these definitions should be the reduction of maintenance planner time
spent on certain jobs. Appendix E illustrates the step-by-step method-
ology planners follow for different types of jobs. Suffice it to say for now
that on minimum maintenance jobs, the planners may put less effort into
developing the job plan than they would if the work were extensive.
Examples of minimum maintenance work include hanging a bulletin
board, moving barrels, cleaning the shop, tightening valve packing, replac-
ing deck grating (maybe), replacing a 1-inch drain valve (maybe), replac-
ing a frayed electrical cord, washing a fan (maybe), painting (maybe),
posting a sign, adjusting dampers, replacing a filter on a PM basis.
Examples of extensive maintenance work include overhauling a pump,
changing seals on a pump, changing bearings on a pump, troubleshooting
or inspecting a pump, replacing a valve over 2 inches in size, replacing a
valve critical to a process, replacing valve packing (maybe), repairing struc-
tural steel, welding boiler tubes, or replacing a filter on special request.
Communication and Management Support

Communication among the maintenance groups is especially important
regarding these issues. Management support is necessary to keep plan-
ning involved and effective.
With an existing planning organization, trying to have a planner
reduce the amount of planning that goes into an individual work order
is difficult for two reasons. First, the planner may have a hard time
114 Chapter Four
accepting Planning Principle 5, to recognize the skill of the crafts.

Second, the planner must understand that even with nothing more than
a limited field scope and file check, the job is still adequately planned.
A field technician’s viewpoint on the latter case is similar. When a
planned job was received in the past, it had quite a bit of detail.
However, in the past, the crew did not receive all its work as planned.
Now it does. In the past, the crew did not want to wait on any planning
for an urgent job. Now, the urgent jobs at least start off with the bene-
fit of the crew supervisor knowing which skill to assign, for how long,
for exactly what scope, and with readily available file information, all
without waiting. Crews and planners take these things for granted and
insist that a job plan without an extensive parts list and set of instruc-
tions is not really a plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
problem stems from a lack of recognition of the value of what technicians
and supervisors do receive. Technicians receive all the work as planned
taking advantage of previous delay information. A supervisor receiving
a week’s worth of jobs even with only correct scopes and skill assign-
ments is a tremendous boost toward superior wrench time. Remember
that the vision of planning is to leverage productivity, not necessarily
to provide “A, B, and C” on any particular job plan even as the plan
moves toward having more of a procedure.
This is a sensitive area for the existing planning group that did not
come into existence doing it this way. The technicians claim that plan-
ning used to provide detailed plans (on the few planned jobs). So com-
munication to the work force with management commitment to
understand and explain what is going on is certainly required to avoid
derailing planning at this point.
Another point requiring communication and management support, of
course, is helping the technicians understand their role to gather infor-
mation and send feedback to the planners. This support allows the few
planners to plan 100% of the work and the many technicians doing a lot
of job research in the early days of planning. This is a serious contro-
versy regarding who should do the initial research that management
must not take lightly. For every one planner there are 20 to 30 techni-
cians. The planners simply cannot research jobs from scratch and keep
up with the workload. One should remember that before planning, the
technicians did this anyway. Management does not want to transfer
their duties to a specialist group. Management wants to create a value
added group, namely planning for filing information to use on future jobs
and gradually build ideal plans.
Supervisor buy-in. The definition of stress is telling supervisors that

they are responsible for meeting the weekly schedule and even tying it
to their pay. This is not right. Rather, the management should hold
supervisors accountable for starting each week with a goal of work and
using some manner of a daily scheduling process. The management

should hold supervisors responsible for knowing why they did not meet
schedules. When the management assures supervisors that they can
quickly react to emergencies and urgent work, even if it means break-
ing the schedule or not waiting for planning, supervisors are support-
ive of the weekly scheduling effort.
One supervisor neatly summed up this acceptance and even appreci-
ation of the weekly schedule. He was an old sailor. He had retired with
20 years in the U.S. Navy as a Chief Petty Officer and the local electric
company had hired him as an apprentice mechanic. The company even-
tually promoted him to journeyman mechanic and then crew supervisor.
Upon his first week as crew supervisor, the planner had helped him
develop a crew forecast so that he could receive a weekly schedule of work.
The next week, he said, “You know. When I first had to go along with
making the forecast and receiving the stack of work orders, I thought
to myself that this was bureaucracy at its finest. I thought that this was
a total waste of time, but I was willing to go along if that was what it
meant to be a supervisor here. Then a funny thing happened. As I sat
down at the table with my crew at the end of the week and I spread out
the work orders on the table, I said, ‘Look here. This is the work we need
to get done next week.’ A light came on in my head. I realized that this
was our purpose for being here. In the past, I had always thought that
our purpose was to respond as quickly as possible to operator requests.
However, I realized that our purpose was to do as much work as possi-
ble to keep operations from having to make requests. Oh sure, if oper-
ators tell us about an emergency, we need to respond. Yet at the same
time, we need to do as much work as possible so they won’t have emer-
gencies. The work on the table represented that work. I’ll have to tell
you that it was pretty exciting to have that vision.”
One Plant’s Performance (Example of

Actual Success)
When the recognition of reactive versus proactive and minimum versus
extensive work planning addresses the maintenance culture, the plan-
ning and scheduling principles can deliver the planning mission as
shown in Figs. 4.3 and 4.4.
The utility discussed in Chaps. 2 and 3 revamped its planning process
to accommodate the abbreviated planning required by reactive and min-
imum maintenance work orders. These changes allowed planners to
plan all the work and also accommodate crew supervisors who wanted
to work on urgent, reactive work almost immediately.
Figure 4.3 shows that when the planners were able to schedule all
the work, an effective weekly scheduling program helped improve main-
tenance productivity. Prior to February the maintenance crews were
116 Chapter Four
Figure 4.3 Productivity accelerates.
completing less than 150 work orders each month. In February the
planners had changed the approach to begin putting less detail in job
plans. This enabled planning more work, and the crew completion of
worked climbed consistently over 150 work orders each month. After a
few fitful starts at scheduling, the planners began planning reactive and
minimum maintenance work in an abbreviated fashion. This enabled
them to plan all the maintenance work in the plant backlog and create
a meaningful advance schedule. Crew supervisors still broke the weekly
schedule to resolve some reactive work without planning. However, the
crews began completing over 250 work orders per month. After 2 months
of this completion rate, the maintenance crews totally cleared the plant’s
backlog of work. Without enough work identified to complete, the plant
was able to send a portion of its work force to a sister plant to assist with
Figure 4.4 Getting more work done decreases the concentration

solely on reactive work.
its backlog of work. In addition, the plant backlog reduction justified the
plant beginning a major fall outage with a minimum of contract per-
sonnel. The plant had less need for a regular maintenance staff to main-
tain the other steam unit at the plant not involved in the outage.
Figure 4.4 is an excellent illustration of another effect of completing
more work. With scheduling, there is more time for proactive mainte-
nance work. The utility’s increased rate of work order completion allowed
it to complete an increased proportion of preventive maintenance and
project work to upgrade equipment. The proportion of the utility’s reac-
tive work went from 95% to 65%. (The reactive work in this chart is not
necessarily just equipment that has actually failed, but also equipment
requiring corrective maintenance or not operating properly. This util-
ity made no distinction for corrective maintenance, which is really proac-
tive work since it heads off later trouble.)
Desired Level of Effectiveness

With this success, the utility decided to expand the planning program
beyond the initial mechanical craft at its largest station. The utility
decided to add the electrical and I&C (instrument and controls) crafts.
It also included two other stations. The result of this expansion would bring
137 technicians under the influence of planning (Fig. 4.5). The resulting
productivity should yield the effect of having 78 extra technicians.
Figure 4.6 shows the value of 78 extra technicians for completing new
work at this utility. This is new work done with essentially free labor
because of improved productivity possible with planning. Insourcing
means using in-house resources for providing services such as making
spare parts. The high cost of labor sometimes prohibits providing some
services in-house, but free labor may make these services worthwhile.
A final note is that planning requires a good degree of cooperation among
planners, supervisors, management, and technicians. As with any new
program, if management intends to lay off or dismiss persons because
of productivity improvements, the very programs designed to improve
productivity may be destined for failure.
Figure 4.5 The leverage of planning on

137 technicians.
118 Chapter Four
Figure 4.6 Utilization of resulting free

labor.
Figure 4.7 shows the reasonable objectives of maintenance that plan-

ning may help accomplish. Availability of 95% is not an unreasonable
goal. Typical electric utility availability of steam units is in the 85%
range. Wrench time from 50 to 55% is desired. This may seem to encom-
pass a lot of delay time, but consider that typical industry wrench time
is only around 30%. In addition, scores above 60% are rarely seen work-
force-wide. Higher numbers are obtained in specialized crafts such as
machinists that have all their work together in a shop environment.
Planned coverage represents the percentage of all labor hours spent on
jobs that were on planned jobs. Some work will always be done by crews
on an unplanned basis. The 80% rule may suggest that expecting greater
than 80% planned coverage may not be worth the effort. Maintenance
management also desires the continual identification of work to prevent
breakdowns. A plant should have at least a 3-week backlog of such work.
Concentration on this type work normally takes care of reactive work
and overtime needs. The maintenance group should be able to work a
normal weekday shift at many industrial plants without experiencing
"Success"
Level of effectiveness
♦ >95% Availability
♦ >50% Wrench time
♦ >80% Planned coverage
♦ >3 Week backlog and
equipment NOT breaking
Reactive work <20% and OT < 3%
♦ Contractor work only on specialty items
Figure 4.7 Typical company maintenance objec-
tives.
off-hour problems. Finally, an in-house maintenance force should prefer

maintaining its own equipment for quality reasons. The use of con-
tractors is justified where there is not enough in-house work to justify
maintaining necessary qualifications or experience.
Summary
After establishing fundamental principles for planning and scheduling,
a few final concepts become apparent for making planning work.
Planners must plan different types of jobs differently. This is primarily
due to the immediate needs of reactive jobs. Planners put less effort into
planning reactive work to accommodate crews that must soon begin
work. This also allows the planners time to plan all the work and con-
centrate more on important proactive jobs to head off failures. Planners
also abbreviate their efforts on small tasks that do not justify much
planning effort. These tasks are called minimum maintenance jobs.
These planning adjustments require communication and support from
management because of their effect on the plans that crews receive.
Crews that previously received detailed job plans may now receive less
information on individual jobs without appreciating its value. These
concepts make the difference and pull it all together.
Chapter
5
Basic Planning
The previous chapters have described the principles underlying effective

planning and scheduling. This chapter describes exactly what a planner
does in the context of the preceding chapters. The chapter follows the entire
actual planning process including areas such as how a planner scopes a job,
what a planner writes on a work order form, and how a planner files.
More magazine articles have described the concepts of maintenance
planning than have described exact steps a planner might take to fulfill
those concepts. This may be because there are often many different options
for exact steps. Nevertheless, many programs with the right concepts
have failed due to difficulty in determining how to execute the concepts.
Therefore, this book undertakes the obligation to describe exact steps
to clarify the role of a planner to fulfill the concepts. The following sec-
tions describe specific planner actions. After understanding what is nec-
essary to execute the principles of planning, readers may implement
alternative steps than the ones prescribed. The following sections
address some of the considerations involved to allow readers to tailor
their own systems appropriately. In this manner, this chapter covers the
question: “Exactly what does a planner do?”
Before examining the basics of hands-on planning, observe a planner
through a normal work day. This company has a correctly established
planning organization. Read the following illustration with the princi-
ples and concepts affecting planning identified in parentheses.

Maintenance Planner David Clemons came in to work on Wednesday
morning looking forward to another routine day of helping the mainte-
nance department boost its effectiveness and efficiency (mission of
planning).
121

122 Chapter Five
After checking his electronic mail for important bulletins, he went to

the waiting-to-be-planned file to select work orders (work order
system) to plan for Steam Unit 1. There were not any reactive-type work
orders (reactive versus proactive), so David returned to his desk to
close work orders already completed by maintenance. David filed infor-
mation (Principle 2, feedback) on repairs made (history), delays
encountered (path to improve productivity), and parts (parts lists)
and tools (special tools) used for each job. The closing included total-
ing the cost for each work order to help guide future repair or replace
decisions (Principle 5, overall strategy of job). On one job it was not
clear what extra part had been used by the technicians. He made a note
to ask them later after the break so the plans for future jobs could have
the part number available (Principle 2, feedback and future work).
Now it was about 9:30 and the new work orders had come from the
supervisors’ morning meeting (other tool, communication) to the
waiting-to-be-planned file. As usual, each work order had pertinent infor-
mation recorded by the originator (organizational discipline). David
started with the reactive work orders. David made a copy of each for note
taking and placed the originals in the planner active file by his desk. The
first job was obviously a simple welding job and required only minimum
maintenance attention. The other two jobs needed extensive maintenance
consideration (minimum versus extensive maintenance planning).
All of the equipment involved in the jobs had component tag numbers
(Principle 3, equipment numbers) identified on the work orders
(organizational discipline). Only one piece of equipment did not have
a corresponding minifile (Principle 3, component level files), so
David quickly made a minifile for it. He then entered the work order
number and problem description in each minifile. The entry would also
later enable any duplicate work orders to be caught by a planner before
planning. David also checked the files for each extensive maintenance
work order to see a total job history for the equipment. For all of the work
orders, David then made a field inspection. Afterward, from his personal
experience (Principle 4, planner skill) and the minifile information,
he made a planned package for the work order. He did this by explain-
ing the work needed on the original work order forms and attaching
available technical information from the minifiles. As in the case of
most reactive plans, he was careful to plan the general strategy of the
job and not spend time including how-to details unnecessary for a com-
petent technician (Principle 5, technician skill). David was pleased
that for one work order he was able to identify a special tool that had
slowed down the last job when it was not available. He then finished the
planning for each job by putting the planned package in the waiting-to-
be-scheduled file and updating the work order status on the computer.
As was normal, all the reactive work was planned before lunch (reac-
tive versus proactive planning).
Basic Planning 123
After lunch, David concentrated on the proactive work orders in the

waiting-to-be-planned file. Two jobs required extensive maintenance
planning and two jobs required only minimum maintenance planning
(extensive versus minimum maintenance planning). On the first
extensive job, a thermography route (other tool, predictive maintenance)
had shown a slight leak for a valve. A check of the minifile showed that
this valve had a history of leaking (Principle 2, past job helping
future job). The second extensive job, for a pump, had no identified com-
ponent tag number because schematics and coded tags were still being
developed for that section of the plant (Principle 3, equipment num-
bers for files). There were no minifiles for the pump and the equipment
for the minimum maintenance jobs. A computer check for each job
showed no additional information.
David put on his hard hat and safety glasses. Then he went out for a
field check to scope the proactive work orders. He noted that although
the valve was in high pressure service, it had flange connections and
would not require a certified welder (Scheduling Principle 1, lowest
skill required). David decided to include scaffolding in the plan. Since
the pump job had no component tag number, David attached a tempo-
rary tag directly on the pump by the nameplate (Principle 3, equip-
ment number for files). One of the minimum maintenance jobs was
as expected, but he had to clarify the other one with the originator. David
then returned to the office (Principle 1, separate planning department).
He first finished the minimum maintenance work plans making a
minifile (Principle 3, files) for each piece of equipment and putting the
planned packages in the waiting-to-be-scheduled file. Then David turned
to the extensive maintenance jobs. The valve’s minifile history showed
that the seat and disk had been reconditioned as well as replaced with-
out too much improvement in its time between failures. David decided
the present valve was marginal for the service and planned the job to
replace the valve with an upgraded valve from the warehouse
(Principle 2, past job helping future job). For the pump, David
made a minifile from the temporary tag number he had installed. Since
the job was proactive, David took the time to research the technical and
vendor files for certain clearance and parts information (further
research for proactive jobs). After David found the information he
needed, he copied it to the new minifile and finished the work plan. The
next time the pump was worked on, that information would be readily
available (Principle 2, past job helping future job).
With the time remaining in the day, David reviewed the feedback
from several preventive maintenance routes (other tool, PM pro-
gram). Each preventive maintenance (PM) route covered multiple pieces
of equipment within a single plant system. These inspections usually
uncovered most of the problems for which work orders were written in
the plant. David changed the frequency of one route from every week
124 Chapter Five
to every other week because the route had been run for several months
without identifying any adjustments or situations needing correction.
At the close of the day, David walked to the parking lot. He thought
about the part he played in the high availability (objective of plan-
ning) that Steam Unit 1 enjoyed. The backlog of planned work
(Principle 2, future work) allowed the scheduling of planned work to
match (Scheduling Principle 4, schedule for 100% of hours) the
forecasted available craft hours for the next week (Scheduling
Principle 3, schedule one week from forecast of highest skills).
The weekly schedule set a work goal and made the advance coordina-
tion of other crafts and parts staging possible (objective of schedul-
ing). These basics would normally boost work force wrench time
(Principle 6, wrench time) beyond the 35% typical of industry to
about 45%. Keeping the plant on a constant learning curve by using
information gathered in the minifiles actually increased wrench time to
50%. Technical data was available and previous job delays were avoided.
As the computer system became more developed, wrench time was
slowly creeping up to 55%. At 55% the productivity of 25 people for
which David planned would be the same as for 39 people working at only
a 35% wrench time. The benefits of planning actually involved produc-
tivity and quality savings. The productivity savings came from reduc-
ing delays during and between assignments. The quality savings came
from correctly identifying work scopes and providing for proper instruc-
tions, tools, and parts to be used. The productivity improvement also
freed up craft, supervision, and management time. This allowed them
to focus on troublesome jobs requiring more attention and an opportu-
nity to do more proactive work. This proactive work included root cause
analyses on repair jobs, project work (other tool, project work) to
improve less reliable equipment, and attention to preventive mainte-
nance and predictive maintenance. David felt good that his work in
planning contributed (other tools needed, no silver bullet) to a cycle
of continuous improvement.
The previous account shows that the steps job planners take reflect the
important principles and concepts of planning and scheduling. The account
also demonstrates that the planning system resides as a process within
the work order process. The next section describes the overall process of
completing work with the work order process from job origination to job
closure and notification of the originator. After this section, the chapter
focuses on the planning process activity in the work order process.
Work Order System

As explained in App. A, the work order system is the most valuable tool for
improving maintenance effectiveness and productivity. Basically, the system
helps maintenance personnel obtain necessary origination information
Basic Planning 125
and control all the work. The work order system avoids an inconsistent
utilization of verbal statements, electronic mail, Post-its, and phone calls.
The foundations of the work order system are a consistent format for
information and a designated flow for work to proceed. The information
needing to have a consistent format (whether on computer or paper) is
origination information, plan information, and feedback information. The
work order system prescribes the use of specific forms, codes, and work
processes. Appendix J provides a complete, sample work order system
manual, and also presents a flow chart showing the steps maintenance
takes to complete emergency work without planning assistance.
Figure 5.1 shows the steps of the work order process for a typical
company using a paper work order system. Paper means that the work
request is written on a physical paper form. This same physical form
passes to the planning department and then to the field for work exe-
cution. The form is then returned to the planning department with job
feedback. This company also uses the term work order to refer to the
document when it starts as a work request as well as after it is author-
ized and becomes a literal order to do work. The form is known as the
work order form. The company uses a computer, but only to track the
work order forms. This book’s illustration of a company with a paper-
work order system allows the best explanation of the planning process.
This typical company process will be used for the remainder of this
chapter and the next two chapters to illustrate the planning and sched-
uling steps. A computer may be used to add value, but it cannot replace
the basic process. After the basics of planning are mastered, Chap. 9
explores the possible employment of a computer system.
The first step in Fig. 5.1 shows the origination of the work order. This
person may be an operator, a maintenance technician, or anyone in the
plant. The originator obtains a work order form and fills it out with the
required information. The originator describes the problem or work
requested including identification of the involved equipment and its
location. The originator makes an estimate of the work’s priority. The
originator also gives an opinion, if possible, as to which crew or craft the
work would be assigned and whether or not the work must be done
during an outage. The originator also provides any other information dic-
tated by the particular work order form as well as any other information
that might be helpful. This person also hangs a deficiency tag on the
equipment if applicable. The originator’s supervisor, if required, then
reviews the work order, makes any adjustments required, and places the
form in a designated collection place. The particular work order form uti-
lized by the company may have multiple carbonless copies to provide
copies or a copy machine might be utilized. The collection places are the
preferred locations that maintenance planning has established to help
speed the work order flow. The collection places might be simple boxes
in the control rooms, by the elevators, in the front office, or near other
work locations. Maintenance planning collects the work orders placed
126
Figure 5.1 Example maintenance work flow diagram.

Basic Planning 127
in these boxes at regular times. The intent is to avoid work orders being
placed in the interoffice mail or otherwise delayed or lost through some
unusual means of transmission.
After collection of the work orders, the second clockwise box in the flow
diagram shows coding. Planners go through the new work orders to code
the work orders. When the planners code the work orders, they are plac-
ing appropriate codes from the plant coding system on every work order.
These codes include designation of work type, whether the work is reactive
or proactive, whether the work is minimal or extensive, and other codes.
The planners also designate which crew would receive the work order.
The third box shows a step where the work orders are brought to the
morning meeting where managers and certain supervisors may swiftly
review them to see what is going on in the plant. Plant engineers attend
these morning meetings. Any work order may have its priority changed,
may be canceled, or may be referred to a project group. The concept of
a morning meeting originated before the existence of planning and used
to be the place where new work orders were passed from operations to
maintenance every day. The use of the morning meeting now is usually
a meeting to review a list of work orders and not the work orders them-
selves. The work orders themselves remain in the planning department
where planners may begin planning them and clerks may finish enter-
ing them into a computer system. The next step in the flow process
allows the maintenance planning clerk to enter any data that any com-
puter system may need. For example, this company uses a CMMS, but
just enters the work order information into the computer to allow having
a backlog list of work orders. The company also uses two other separate
computer systems for inventory and payroll time sheets. The clerk must
enter work order numbers to authorize inventory transactions and pay-
roll accounting. After entering the work orders, the clerk puts the work
orders in a waiting-to-be-planned file for the planners.
The planners plan work in accordance with the steps discussed in this
chapter. Informal planning refers to crafts that do not have planning.
Many plants only implement planning for mechanical maintenance
when it has the bulk of the work. Electrical and I&C craft supervisors
or technicians plan their work on an informal basis. After planning, the
planners place the work order forms and all associated pieces of the
planned package together in a waiting-to-be-scheduled file.
A scheduler then schedules the work in accordance with the process
steps recorded in later sections of Chapter 6. Informal scheduling refers
to crafts that do not have planning. After scheduling, the scheduler
delivers the scheduled work order forms and planned packages to the
appropriate crew supervisors.
The crew supervisors then work the scheduled work into daily crew
assignments. The crew supervisors obtain equipment clearances from
the operations group, with a copy of the work order if required.
128 Chapter Five
The next step has the technicians executing work on cleared equip-
ment. After job execution, the technicians report job completion to the
crew supervisor. The supervisor soon reports job completion to the oper-
ations group. The supervisor does not wait until the shift end to report
multiple job completions all at once. Giving the operators timely notice
allows the operators time away from their own shift change periods
and reduces confusion in restoring equipment. Timely notice also allows
the operators to restore equipment to service while technicians are still
at the plant in case problems are encountered.
The next step requires the technicians to carefully record helpful
feedback on the work order form. The technicians and supervisors should
go ahead and fill out this information while their memories are fresh.
A later section in this chapter thoroughly covers required and desired
information for feedback since feedback is essential to the planning
improvement process.
After receiving feedback, the last step is for planners to assess the
completeness of feedback and file appropriate information including
the work order form. The planner may proceed to update future plans
even before the plans are required. The planning clerk enters designated
information to close work orders in various computer systems. The
clerk may also have filing duties. A later chapter section prescribes pos-
sible clerk duties. Finally, Fig. 5.1 closes the circle of the work process
by sending notification of work completion to the original requester.
This notification could be accomplished by copy of the work order, elec-
tronic mail, or spoken communication. Only in organizations where the
operations group has complete confidence in the maintenance group
should the notification of work completion be skipped. Alternately, a com-
puter system where everyone has free and easy access to check work
order may suffice for operations to see whether maintenance has com-
pleted their work.
Planning Process
In the planning process, the planners take new work orders and add nec-
essary information to allow more efficient scheduling and execution of
the work. Figure 5.2 expands the single box that called for planning in
the overall work order process. All of the activity shown in Fig. 5.2
occurs within the single planning step of Fig. 5.1. Figure 5.2 shows the
general sequence of the planning operations. Understanding this
sequence will help explain the discussions that follow in this chapter.
The first box shows where planners place the work orders after coding,
computer entry, and morning meeting adjustments have taken place.
The planners put all unplanned work orders in the waiting-to-be-
planned file. Normally this file has only a single day or two of unplanned
work in it because the planning principles and concepts allow for keeping
Basic Planning 129
Planning process flow chart
File original work order in Select work order from

“waiting to be planned” file “waiting to be planned” file
Wo work copies
Type of w.o.: Type of w.o.:
-make work copy of wo Check
proactive or minimum or
-file original wo in minifile
reactive extensive
“planner active file”
Scope job * Plan job *

- Field inspection - Job strategy and outline
- History, tech, vendor files - Procedures/sketches/equip data Update
- Computer files - Any standard plan for job computer and
- Maint, opns assistance - Craft, # persons, work hrs, dur. file planned
- Outage - Parts lists work pkg in
- Insulation/asbestos - Special tools/contractor waiting to be
- Clearance - Estimated cost scheduled file
- Safety/msds/conf. space - Safety/msds/conf. space for job
- Equipment tagging - Datasheets
- Critical spares program
*
According to guidelines for type of work order and plan.
Figure 5.2 General flow of planning activities.
up with the work on a daily basis. However, in a plant just starting to

implement planning, there may be a substantial amount of unplanned
work in the backlog. In those cases, the file will also have to allow access
to crew supervisors who may have to assign jobs before planning has
time for them. The work orders are placed in the file to allow easy iden-
tification of their planning needs. Normally, the work orders are placed
by plant unit. Within the work for each unit the work is arranged by pri-
ority code. If there are multiple planners, each planner may be respon-
sible for certain crews or crafts and the file arrangement may reflect
this order.
The next box shows the planners taking work orders from the file. The
planners generally take the reactive work orders out ahead of the proac-
tive ones. These normally carry a higher priority. The planners want to
plan such work orders quickly in case the crew supervisor requests
them.
The next box shows a step to provide the planner with a draft copy of
the work order to allow note taking while in the field scoping work. The
planner does not take the original work order form out into the field. The
planners leave the original work order forms out on their desks and go
130 Chapter Five
into the field with copies. Alternately, there may be a set location for a
“planner active file” in each planner’s office or cubicle. Leaving the orig-
inal in the office also allows the supervisor of planning to help crew
supervisors find certain work orders if necessary.
The planners note the type of work orders they are planning. They will
plan each work order differently depending on its type: reactive or proac-
tive, minimum or extensive.
The next box shows that a planner will nearly always check the files
to see if previous job information will be helpful.
Next the planners scope the job according to the guidelines of the type
of work. After scoping the jobs and understanding what they require, the
planners will sit down to develop an actual job plan. The planner may
update the job’s status as planned on the computer. The planners finally
file each completed job plan in a waiting-to-be-scheduled file. This file is
kept in the planning office area.
Work Order Form

Many maintenance departments use separate work request and work
order forms. In such a system, an originator fills out a work request
describing the work requested and turns it in to the maintenance depart-
ment. After planning or other processing, the maintenance department
issues the crew or technician a new form, the work order form, which
describes the actual work to be done.
This book prefers a single form. Having a single form simplifies the
maintenance process and also may avoid the loss of originally attached
information. A separate form may also lead to inaccurately copied infor-
mation to the second form.
After origination, maintenance planning uses the same form to record
nearly all planning information.
The scheduler handles the work order forms for scheduling. The form
helps the technician and supervisor include vital feedback helpful infor-
mation.
After job completion, the planner can easily check the structured form
for its completeness and any need for the planner to seek additional feed-
back or initiation of additional work orders. The planner files this form
to help future jobs.
When planning a new job, a review of past jobs recorded on consistent
work order forms enables the planner to recognize and avoid previous
job delays and problems.
Another issue involves work order numbers. Each work order having
a unique number facilitates discussion of work orders. Having unique
numbers helps persons understand if they are discussing the same
work. Sequential, unique work order numbers are easily printed on the
Basic Planning 131
top of preprinted work order forms. Unique numbering is almost manda-

tory for computer systems.
Figure 5.3 shows an example of a typical, structured work order form
for a company that employs planning. This example helps to visualize its
use in the maintenance process. Many companies have much more com-
plex work order forms with a multitude of specific boxes requesting infor-
mation. Structured forms provide for consistent information input for all
Figure 5.3 An example of a work order form to help guide input.

132 Chapter Five
phases of a job. These phases include origination, planning, job feedback,

and coding. Figure 5.4 points out the different main areas of the work
order form. For the purposes of illustrating the planning process, this book
uses the simple work order form shown in Fig. 5.5.
Consider now an example work order. An operator notices a strainer
starting to plug and originates the work order shown by Fig. 5.6. The pres-
sure drop is high, but not too severe. The operator uses the priority codes
found in App. J to code the work order as an “R2.” “R” means that the
Figure 5.4 The main areas of a work order form.

Basic Planning 133
Figure 5.5 Example simple work order form used for illustration.
situation involves plant reliability and “2” deems it serious. The operator
fills in other information required by the plant.
Coding Work Orders

Two planners go through the new work orders early every morning to
code work orders. When the planners code the work orders, they are
placing appropriate codes from the plant coding system (such as found
in App. J) on every work order. These codes include designation of work
134 Chapter Five
Figure 5.6 Work order after the originator completes the information.
type, whether the work is reactive or proactive, whether the work is

minimum or extensive, and other codes. The planners also designate
which crew would receive the work order. If a number of work orders have
been received in the middle of the day or if there are fairly urgent work
orders, the planners may not wait until the usual morning period to
code them. If the company utilizes an operations coordinator, this person
reviews the work order priorities and has the authority to adjust them
Basic Planning 135
as needed. The operations coordinator might also be responsible for gath-

ering work orders to bring to planning. Frequently, an operations coor-
dinator is a member of the operations group on loan to planning. Less
commonly, planners have the authority to adjust work order priority.
Coding could also take place in a morning meeting to verify priorities
and assigned crews.
Plants code data to increase their ability to use information. For one
thing, it clarifies communication. It provides for a consistent designa-
tion for each type of information to reduce confusion. Once planners code
a work order, persons using the work order later might not have to
digest the entire document to get necessary information. For example,
once the planners code a work order as reactive, later interpretation is
not necessary when the planner is reviewing many work orders to select
several to plan. For another thing, plants code their data to allow better
analysis of information. For example, coding all breakdown work as
work type 5 allows the plant later to evaluate the percentage of plant
work it does on equipment after it has failed. Coding all pumps as equip-
ment type 01 may help find pump work orders or plans later on a com-
puter database.
There might be a number of codes the plant develops to enable vari-
ous uses of plant data. Appendix J shows typical codes. Examples are
work type, priority, outage, department, craft, crew, plant, unit, build-
ing, plant area, process group, process system, equipment type, manu-
facturer, proactive versus reactive, and minimum versus extensive.
The planners code the work orders rather than everyone in the plant
coding his or her own work orders. This maintains better consistency of
data. The planners maintain the plant’s filing system and the coding
allows access to this critical information. Because the codes lend them-
selves to interpretation at times, it is best to use as few persons as pos-
sible to code them. This is similar to a library. Once a book is returned
to the wrong shelf location, it becomes lost for all intents and purposes.
A computer especially requires consistency of data. The exception to
this guideline is having the originators place the initial priorities on
work orders because they have first hand knowledge of the work situ-
ation. The plant consistently using an intelligent, equipment number-
ing system helps ease the problem of selecting the wrong codes.
The planning department uses at least two planners for coding
because the work orders must be processed without fail. Two persons
allow the absence of one planner not to delay the coding.
Each morning, designated planners code spaces at the bottom of the
work order form for each new work order. This means that planners are
the first persons in the maintenance department to see new work orders.
Sometimes the planners notice insufficient data supplied by the orig-
inator. The planner may be able to obtain this information later when
scoping the job. However, if the originator supplies all the readily
136 Chapter Five
Figure 5.7 Work order after the planner completes the coding.
available information, maintenance planning has a much easier job

planning the work.
Receiving new work orders with insufficient data is a very sensitive
area. On one hand, the plant desires all persons to be able and willing to
write work orders as they see areas in the plant needing attention. On the
other hand, poorly written work orders hinder the maintenance effort
(going back to the days of illegible Post-its). This is a management com-
mitment area to stress how timely information helps maintenance support
Basic Planning 137
the entire plant’s reliability. Planners should not simply complain of wide-
spread problems with origination, but help management understand the
problem with specific work order examples.
Figure 5.7 shows the example work order after morning coding. The
planner used the coding system in App. J. The planner could have made
a case for coding the work order as P (proactive) since at first glance this
important plant process had not yet been affected. This logic was fur-
thered by the operator setting the priority as a 2 (serious) rather than 1
(urgent). However, the planner realized that normally the operators blew
down strainers into the oil tank without a need for maintenance atten-
tion. The strainer had failed and needed manual cleaning. Therefore, R
(reactive) was the proper code. For similar reasoning, the work type was
5 (trouble and breakdown) rather than 9 (corrective maintenance). The
work was also not minimum maintenance since planning desired to keep
track of strainer work in history. The planner coded it as E (extensive).
The equipment group was F (fuel) and the specific system was C (service
pump). The equipment involved was an 18 (strainer). Crew 1 to 2 would
be assigned the work and the proper outage code was 0. No outage was
necessary.
Using and Making a Component Level File

The planner begins the planning process by selecting work orders from
the plant’s unplanned backlog. The waiting-to-be-planned file holds this
work. The planner normally picks several work orders at the same time.
This may allow scoping several jobs at once in a common plant area.
After selecting the proper work to start planning, the planning process
dictates that the planner should first consult the information already
filed for the equipment in question. The planner should consult the files
before scoping the jobs in the field. The files may yield information on
past events that would help the planner know what to look for. The
planner may also not find certain information that could be gathered in
the field. The planner would then know to gather that information when
inspecting the equipment on site.
Checking the files simply involves simply walking to the file section
and looking for the appropriate minifiles. Component level files are
called minifiles because they do not contain information for more than
a single, specific piece of equipment. A minifile was made the first time
the planning department ever planned for the involved equipment. If
the planner finds that a minifile exists for the piece of equipment, the
planner scans the included information inside. If there is no component
level file for that equipment, the first thing a planner would do is make
one. Chapter 7 describes how a planner makes a minifile.
Planners should not underestimate the value of making a minifile for
nearly every piece of equipment on which maintenance performs work.
138 Chapter Five
If certain equipment in the plant is important enough to have a sepa-

rate identification number, it is important enough to have a minifile.
The planner gains what useful information is available in the minifile
for each piece of equipment before scoping the work orders.
For our example work order, there was no file for that piece of equip-
ment, so the planner created a new file using the equipment number N02-
FC-003. Then the planner proceeded to scope all the selected work orders.
Scoping a Job
Scoping simply means identifying all the work required. Scoping is a
subset of the planning process. Scoping refers to the overall work scope
and not other planning tasks such as identification of parts and time
estimates. Scoping is necessary even though the person who requested
the work provided descriptive information. Work requests sometimes
have only a description of the problem itself. If the work request states
that “The boiler feed pump is running hot,” obviously the work needed
to remedy the problem has not been defined. The process of defining that
work is called scoping. At other times, work requests come with
a description of the work desired. A work order may state, “Replace the
gasket for the leaking flange.” Although the work appears to be defined
well enough to continue planning, scoping by the planner is still bene-
ficial. The planner scoping the job looks through the eyes of a skilled
maintenance technician, rather than those of an operator or less skilled
technician. The skilled technician planner may see a pipe hanger 10 feet
away has come loose causing the flange to leak. The planned job scope
should include attention to the pipe hanger in addition to the flange.
Instead of the pipe hanger, the planner may realize that a nearby valve
is leaking instead of the flange where the drip appears. Whether the valve
packing needs tightening or the valve needs replacing becomes the job
scope decision. The scope may include a need for scaffolding after the
planner sees the height of the valve. The planner ensures that the plan
specifies the right job through scoping work orders.
During scoping, the planner may alter specific information contained
in the work request. Consider the example of a leaking valve causing a
flange to appear to be leaking. The originator requested the flange
gasket be replaced. The planner would mark over the request and
explain the actual problem, the valve. The planner would specify that
the valve be replaced if that is the proper course of action. The planner
would correct any equipment tag information in the request. The plan-
ner would have to change the equipment tag number specified from the
pipeline to the valve.
The work involved in correctly scoping a job increases in complexity
from simple minimum maintenance, reactive work to extensive proac-
tive work.
Basic Planning 139
Beginning with work that is both minimum maintenance and reac-

tive, the key is personal planner experience for scoping. The planner
should not need to consult any minifiles or the computer. A field inspec-
tion may not even be necessary, but is usually recommended. A work
request might state, “Replace the broken window in the field office.” In
this case, a field inspection might be necessary to ensure the correct job
is planned. Close inspection of the window job might reveal that the
broken window has a rotten wooden casing so its replacement must
also be put into the job scope. The consequence of missing the rotten
casing could be the wasted hour or two of an assigned technician. The
technician would return and declare the window cannot be replaced
before a carpenter is called. That is one reason why planners should have
top level technician-level skills. An experienced technician has run into
many of these type problems and knows what to inspect.
For jobs that are reactive but also extensive the planner would always
consult the minifile and the computer. The planner would always make
a field inspection. However, because of the urgency in processing reac-
tive work, only if there is great uncertainty would the planner consult
operators or otherwise proceed further in investigation.
For proactive work, urgency is not critical. The objective is to avoid
future reactive work by planning excellent proactive work. For proac-
tive work, the planner may take time to consult any minifiles and the
computer even for minimum maintenance work to develop a good job
scope. For proactive work that is extensive, the planner develops the best
job scope possible, not hesitating to consult operators or other knowl-
edgeable sources, if needed. Sources to be researched for proactive work
may require looking beyond the minifiles and include equipment tech-
nical files and vendor files. These files are described in Chap. 7, Forms
and Resources Overview. A root cause analysis may also be advisable.
Operation of the equipment may be necessary to observe the problem
in some proactive cases.
Troubleshooting
How should planners scope a job that requires extensive troubleshoot-
ing? The answer lies in planning Principle 2, the repetition of mainte-
nance work. Planners cannot entrap themselves trying to make this job
perfect. They will get another shot at it later (and later again), each time
armed with more information. Management must not sell planning as
a perfect job agency. It must sell planning as a library service that
should be able to give technicians a good head start.
First, the plant wants to have all the jobs planned so it can attempt
scheduling (where the productivity gains exist). That means that the
planner cannot make this job perfect. He has to make his guess from his
experience and a quick look at the files. However, the mechanic has the
luxury of actually working on the job and finding what was truly wrong.
140 Chapter Five
Later, the planner has the opportunity to file that information in a com-
ponent specific file and make a better guess for the next job. Faithfully,
this same equipment will need service again in a year or so and proba-
bly in the same general way. The planner must present himself to the
crews as “I’m your file clerk. Tell me what happened and I’ll have this
information for you next time.” The planner heads off those delays
caused by “What was that part we used last year? Didn’t this machine
have a special lug? Did we have to heat the bearing last year?” This
notion is especially important for electrical planners. Many times the
troubleshooting lasts 2 days and the fuse replacement lasts 10 minutes.
The first time, the planner might suggest a half-day “troubleshoot and
repair” job scope with the admonition to report what happened. The next
time, the planner might suggest a half hour troubleshoot and repair job
scope mentioning the last time a 10 amp fuse blew in panel N00-RA26-001.
Yes, it would be better for the operators to be TPM oriented and take
care of a lot of troubleshooting. They should be able to chase down fuses
from reviewing drawings and even fix what they can. However, do not
think that planning cannot make a great contribution in another envi-
ronment. If operators do not perform any troubleshooting or mainte-
nance, planning should still create an improving file system the best it
can. The next section discusses engineering, but consider: Should things
be allowed to fail repeatedly? Planners can take some measures as they
see history files showing obvious plant weaknesses. The planners can
write some work orders to make some things better. Nevertheless, plan-
ners should not become bogged down in changing the design of the plant.
They must plan all the work orders at hand. Let the engineers do their
jobs to recognize and improve weak areas in the plant, perhaps with some
suggestions from the planners. Furthermore, concerning job plans that
let the technicians perform the bulk of troubleshooting, a word is appro-
priate about jobs-in-progress. Say even that the planner cannot make a
decent guess (guessed wrong and the wrong parts got ordered). Once the
mechanics have opened up the equipment and figured out exactly what
they need, do not let the planner become entangled in a job-in-progress.
The mechanics should have access to order parts whether it be the crew
supervisor or some kind of expediter in the planning department. From
a planner's perspective, the key is to collect feedback for the next time.
Rotating spares form a special kind of troubleshooting situation. In
these cases, management has decided that troubleshooting and repair-
ing certain equipment should not be done at the expense of unit down-
time. The plant has purchased entire assemblies that maintenance can
swap out and then troubleshoot the failed piece without hurry. Presume
that just because the primary equipment failed, the rotating spare will
not immediately fail. The plant has the technicians take the rotating
spare apart on a nonemergency basis and recommend to the planner
Basic Planning 141
what to order for a new work order to repair it. This can be done in a
shop environment where things do not disappear. Nevertheless, this is
“opened-up equipment.” The planner should order needed parts deliv-
ered quickly as for a job already in progress.
Performance testing or engineering

However, any time proactive or reactive work requires performance
testing or engineering, the planner refers it to the planning supervisor
for possible reassignment. Reassignment is desirable for a couple of
reasons. One reason is not to bog down planners with a few unusual jobs
and neglect the rest of the backlog. Another reason is to get special
expertise when needed.
First, the planner cannot afford to become bogged down on one or two
jobs and not plan the other 20 jobs. Most of the work performed by
maintenance is routine. That means it does not require extraordinary
measures to scope the jobs. Jobs such as valve replacements, flange
leaks, and loose linkages far outnumber situations where a skilled tech-
nician cannot make a fairly rapid determination of the job require-
ments. The planner needs to make sure all of those routine jobs are
planned so that crews can schedule their work and avoid unnecessary
delays, such as having to find part numbers already available in the files.
Second, some jobs merit specific expertise. Resources for planning to
consider might include engineering such as plant engineers, predictive
maintenance, performance testing, and the plant controls group.
Planners must involve these groups when necessary.
The planning supervisor or planning department may have guidelines
for when the planners should request assistance. The guidelines for
what jobs to reassign and whether to have an engineer in the planning
group itself depend on what type of jobs would slow the planners. A very
skilled planner group may be able to handle a wider variety of complex
jobs than a less experienced group without becoming bogged down. One
of the supervisory responsibilities of the planning supervisor would be
to monitor what jobs are troublesome and cost too much time in plan-
ning for the planning group.
Planning groups must also maintain an awareness of plant proce-
dures to coordinate certain actions with outside agencies. The plant
may have an agreement with its insurance carrier to notify it whenever
a fire prevention system is turned off for maintenance. Normally, the pri-
mary responsibility for this type of notification would fall with the oper-
ators who perform the actual clearing and shutting off of the system.
However, the planners may be able to use their file systems to provide
helpful reminders. Some plants also place a burden on specific plant
engineers to remember and fulfill these requirements.
142 Chapter Five
The plant also benefits from having some mechanism to allow cancel-
ing of work orders. The best scope of work may be not to do the requested
work and the planner sometimes coordinates these decisions. The work
orders may not be thought necessary because of the broader scope of
knowledge of plant operations that planners may possess. Certain work
orders may not be needed because of a soon-to-be-executed project to
resolve the situation. The plant may be able to cancel certain work orders
to repair portions of an old demineralizer beyond immediate repairs if
the project group intends on installing a new demineralizer. The plant
can reconcile work orders to planned projects in different ways. Plant
engineers may have the responsibility of reviewing new work orders
with this in mind. Planners may have the primary responsibility to be
aware of these projects to turn back unnecessary work orders.
Illustrations
The following illustrates the actions of a planner to scope different types
of work orders. The planner selects four work orders from the waiting-
to-be-planned file.
In the first case, the planner has to scope a reactive, minimum main-
tenance job. A plant engineer has written a work request to replace a
pressure gauge. The planner knows there are many of these gauges in
the storeroom. The planner walks out in the field to make sure which
gauge the engineer is referring to. The planner also checks to see if the
gauge has an isolation root valve or if the system has to be cleared.
In the second case, the planner has to scope a reactive, extensive
maintenance job. The operators have reported a control valve that is
leaking through. The planner consults the minifile for the valve and
inspects the valve in the field. Since this valve has no information in the
minifile to indicate otherwise, the planner decides that maintenance
should replace the valve.
In the third case, the planner has to scope a proactive, minimum
maintenance job. The plant environmental engineer has written a work
request to make and place a “No Swimming” sign by the percolation
pond. The planner reviews the area and decides the sign should be
attached to an existing fence. The planner asks the engineer if this
would be acceptable.
In the fourth case, the planner has to scope a proactive, extensive
maintenance job. The predictive maintenance group has reported
another control valve leaking through. The planner consults the minifile
for the valve and inspects the valve in the field. The planner decides that
maintenance should try to replace the valve. Since this valve has no
information in the minifile, the planner spends some time to research
several technical manuals and talk to a supervisor to see if this valve
might be rebuilt in place.
Basic Planning 143
Note how scoping the jobs varies in complexity because of the need to
move reactive work quickly to maintenance and do careful analysis on
proactive work. The overview of duties for a maintenance planner in
App. E provides a more formal, step-by-step type checklist of these activ-
ities for the different type work requests received.
Engineering Assistance or Reassignment

Most of maintenance is routine and can be handled by planners. The
planners must get all the work planned so that effective scheduling can
consider all the plant’s work. Planning must not become delayed on the
exception work orders that could prevent the other work from being
planned.
The common maintenance task is not an engineering concern. Adjust
a valve here, replace a gauge there, overhaul a pump here. These ongo-
ing maintenance tasks make up the vast bulk of maintenance. This
work could arguably include some desire for engineering scrutiny.
However, the main task of maintenance is maintaining or preserving a
performance level at a previously engineered specification level. This
engineering was completed at the original installation of the equipment
long ago. Let the engineers concentrate on analysis in projects designed
to make things better, but that does not include most of what is going
on in maintenance.
Occasionally jobs are received in planning that need engineering solu-
tions or designs. An example would be an access platform where struc-
tural integrity is important or where detailed drawings are necessary.
Another example would be where a repeated failure indicates a need for
a different type valve or special material. In general, a reactive work
order would get less of this type scrutiny and be left up to the mainte-
nance crews to resolve, but a proactive work order’s objective is to head
off future reactive work, so engineering help may be appropriate. A
plant engineer should be able to advise whether PVC piping could be
used to replace a chronic failure situation for carbon steel. A job plan that
requires sizing a pump could be handled quickly by a plant engineer.
Some jobs obviously need to become turned into projects such as adding
a new demineralizer. The planners need to make sure these jobs do not
come through planning, but are handled entirely by a project group or
the plant engineers. If a plant intends to use maintenance labor to
install the equipment, the scheduling aspect may come into play.
However, planners do not need to become involved in the design. Other
jobs not worthy of being called outright projects still may not need to go
into planning until after a design is completed. Overhauling a steam trap
system may need to go through plant engineering for trap selection and
piping sizing and routing. Then planning can take the completed design
to coordinate parts and assign estimates for labor and schedules.
144 Chapter Five
To reassign work or receive engineering assistance, the planner con-

sults with the planning supervisor or planning department guidelines.
Some plants have a plant engineer as part of the planning group to
handle quick questions without reassignment and to coordinate the jobs
that do become assigned to the plant engineer group. Otherwise, the
planner is responsible for keeping up with planned packages that are
waiting for engineering.
A word of caution to planning groups with a strong engineering pres-
ence: The engineers should not be allowed to redirect the planners’
focus. Engineers may be tempted to use planners to collect equipment
data rather than allow them to plan routine maintenance work.
The planner should indicate on the final work plan any engineering
input received and why. For example, the planner would not write simply
“Replace with staged new valve.” A better plan would be: “Replace with
staged new Teflon valve per engineer Brown’s recommendation to avoid
previous corrosion problems.” The failure to include the “why” of a job
plan has resulted in many field technicians coping within their own expe-
rience to a fault. If the technicians thought they could patch the existing
valve to save the company time and money, the expanded job explanation
from the planner would help them see the big picture. The idea is to
explain the “what” as well as possible so that the technicians can react
with the best information to the actual job circumstances. Planners
should always pass along technical information.
Developing Planned Level of Detail,

Sketching and Drawing
Similar to scoping a job, the planner spends the least time describing
what work needs to be done on reactive, minimum maintenance jobs and
the most time on proactive, extensive jobs. Only on a proactive, exten-
sive job would the planner consider searching files other than the
minifiles to find new information. The planner must adhere to Planning
Principle 5 and avoid telling an experienced crew “how” to do the work
on initial reactive plans. The plan must emphasize the “what.” The
unnecessary effort takes up valuable planning time.
For example, a planner might say, “Repair” or “Replace” a valve, but
never, “Repair or Replace.” It may be acceptable in certain circum-
stances to say “Attempt to repair the valve unless internal valve inspec-
tion requires valve replacement.”
The planner might say in the case of repair that the “Internals prob-
ably need replacing,” but might not give steps on how to dissemble the
valve if an experienced craftperson should know how to do it already.
On the other hand, if the minifile already had an easy-to-copy procedure
available, the planner might attach it as a reference. A copy of any stan-
dard plan should be attached if there is one for the job. Also, on more
Basic Planning 145
critical plant systems, a planner might provide more steps and rely less
on the skill of the field technicians.
The description of “what work is needed” goes in the planner section
on the work order form. The planner should write down the scope of the
job and the results of any research to give the technician helpful infor-
mation. For example, “Replace the valve. History file indicates repeated
failures and patches.” Another example, “The equipment could not be
run, but information from operator J. Smith indicates a failed bearing.
Disassemble to inspect and replace the bearing or other corrective action
necessary.” Another example, “Replace the entire pump because cost
information indicates repairing is not cost-effective.”
The planner may feel that certain steps should be given to help clar-
ify the intent of the plan. The steps may also be needed to help coordi-
nate resources. When giving steps, the planner might number them. For
example:
1. Erect scaffolding
2. Replace valve
3. Remove scaffolding
One intent of the job plan work scope and plan detail is to provide a
good technician with enough information to reduce the incidence of the
technician having to delay the job seeking additional instructions on
what to do. The planners reduce potential job delays when the work
order plan identifies enough information so that the technician does not
have to make extra trips to seek help from the supervisor. As with any
trip, the technician’s leaving the job site causes a job delay. Any trip away
from the job might not only consist of a momentary delay finding the
crew supervisor. Frequently, trips allow other distractions to hinder the
technician’s prompt return to execute the work.
Another intent of the scope and plan detail is to provide enough infor-
mation for any technician that might receive the work order to avoid mis-
takes and provide a consistent maintenance result. This is best achieved
through detailed procedures and precise checklists. However, the plan-
ner guidelines dictate that it is more important to plan all the work
before achieving this objective. Planning all the work allows all jobs to
receive file information to avoid significant delays of the past and allows
the scheduling process (which needs craft and time estimates) to func-
tion. This is preferred over having a few “perfect” jobs, many unplanned
jobs, and ineffective scheduling.
All the same, as presented by Chap. 2, Principle 5, having detailed
maintenance procedures is a worthy objective. Detailed procedures
enhance reliability, performance, and safety. Maintenance planning
aims to accomplish this by gradually adding more details and helpful
146 Chapter Five
job steps as jobs repeat over time. In this manner the expertise of the
crafts assists the skilled planner develop procedures over time. The
planners with extra time should first concentrate on putting more detail
into proactive work to head off problems and into critical (or safety)
systems or equipment to best serve plant reliability objectives. Planners
can provide fewer details on work that is more reactive or on less criti-
cal plant systems or equipment. As a minimum, planners call out the
appropriate minimum skill needed to work on the equipment regardless
of the procedures included on the job plans. Chapter 8 presents more
advanced procedures that could be called “standard plans” although
even these plans should continue to evolve.
Many plants use experienced technicians, supervisors, or even recent
retirees in a structured way under the facilitation of a person experi-
enced in procedure writing to create initial procedures for common
maintenance actions on critical equipment. These groups develop the
procedures for the planners to use on real jobs. These groups often also
follow up the initial execution of the work “walking down” the actual
maintenance to provide realistic first job plans.
On the other hand, a point of diminishing returns exists for provid-
ing information. For example, consider an electrical planner sketching
a conduit run. The planner had been sketching for an hour. If the plan-
ner did not do the layout, then a field technician would have to spend
about an hour doing one. The crew could simply field run the conduit
because system constraints did not mandate any certain route. The
planner was doing the layout in order to know how much conduit to
reserve from the storeroom. However, the planner could just guess that
between 100 and 200 feet of conduit would be needed without doing a
layout. In this case, the planner should simply reserve 200 feet of con-
duit and send the plan on its way. Think about it. The one electrical plan-
ner was supposed to be planning for 20 to 30 electricians. There is no
way the planner can justify spending an entire hour to save a techni-
cian only a single hour in the field. A planner is worth 17 technicians
because the planner can help leverage the work of 30 persons into the
work of 47 persons. To plan the specific details of the conduit run in this
case would be to violate Planning Principle 5. The planner violates
Principle 5 in not recognizing the skill of the crafts. The planner also
violates Planning Principles 1 and 4. The planner violates Principle 1
when the planner does field work the crew should do. The planner vio-
lates Principle 4 because the planner is not quickly using a planner’s
expertise to estimate a job. Consequently, the planner might not plan
all the backlogged work. The domino effect starts. Not getting all the
work planned leads to not being able to schedule enough work for a
crew for a week. Thus the crew does not have a goal of work to complete.
In addition, an excessive amount of unplanned jobs causes a multitude
of problems. It frustrates the crews if the crews are not allowed to have it.
Basic Planning 147
If they are allowed to work on unplanned work, it is not only less effi-
cient, but there is an excuse not to do planned work.
One of the reasons the electrician example ended up as a problem may
be a false perception that planning takes care of all paperwork. This
includes the time before and even after a job. This reasoning is false
because planning is supposed to add value to the maintenance process,
not just do something that someone else used to do. There is nothing
wrong with a technician doing some paperwork before the job such as
figuring how to field run conduit. This particular job might not require
a drawn conduit run at all. Technicians filling out paperwork for feed-
back after a job is essential to the whole planning concept. It provides
the basis for improvement on subsequent jobs. Paperwork is not a cri-
teria involved in deciding how much detail to put into a job plan.
Sketching or drawing is a particular concern. Planners may need to
provide plant schematics or other engineering drawings as attachments
to jobs. However, planners should rarely have to draw diagrams them-
selves unless they have a gift for sketching. Some planners can make
sketches to illustrate job needs faster and better than they could describe
the job in words. On the other hand, many planners have felt required
to provide sketches on jobs when the planners were not talented in
drawing and the sketches simply were unnecessary.
The planners must respect the skills of technicians. This allows plan-
ning all of the work. The planner must also consider other plant spe-
cialists when planning. This permits utilizing the proper expertise on
certain jobs.
Attachments
If the planner needs any more room than the space provided on the
work order form, the planner might have to attach additional pages for
writing. The planner should always identify any attachments on the first
page of the work order form. This allows the schedulers and crews to
make sure they have all of the planned information. It also allows the
planner to check its return after job completion.
A planner might attach a single page or so of text by stapling it to a
paper work order, but more extensive attachments are possible.
Sometimes planning departments create small booklets of important
equipment information that they keep in the minifiles. These booklets
contain especially critical information culled from the more massive
O&M manuals. Planners bind these booklets with report covers so they
can be sent out on jobs.
Such larger attachments may be attached by paper clamps to work
orders or they may be kept in files in the planning department. The job
plan should state that attachment so and so is in the equipment minifile
148 Chapter Five
in the planning department. Alternately, the planning department might

keep the attachment in a special “Attachments” file in the planning
department. This file keeps attachments in the planning department
filed by work order number (they have a copy of the work order attached)
where technicians can come get them when ready.
On the other hand, not that infrequently jobs benefit from having the
entire O&M manual available. Such jobs should refer to the manual and
planners should allow technicians to access the file system. Technicians
should be able to view the manuals in the planning office where there
should be ready access to tables for study and copiers. Technicians should
even be able to check out manuals through an accountability process.
English 101
Next to consider when writing job plans is simple English. The follow-
ing is added for the planner’s consideration:
1. Use the second person imperative form. This means saying, “Do this”
or “Do that” as if you are telling the reader what to do.
2. Use active, not passive voice. Say, “Do this” instead of “This should
be done.” “Do this” clearly indicates the technician should do some-
thing whereas “This should be done” might lead the technician to
think that someone else is supposed to do something.
3. Use action verbs that clearly tell the technician to complete some
action
4. Avoid abbreviations when not absolutely clear. Usually, the first time
a plan mentions an abbreviation, it should explain what the abbre-
viation means.
5. Avoid wordiness. Tell the technician what to do in as few words as pos-
sible. As a minimum, tell the technician straightforwardly what to
do before explaining why if necessary.
6. Be very careful with person pronouns such as “it,” “they,” or “them.”
The procedure may be much clearer if the planner repeats naming
the items intended. “Clean the positioning screw” is better than
“Clean it.”
7. Use standard conventions for warnings, cautions, and notes. Standard
industry convention dictates that “WARNING” indicates possible
safety concerns that could lead to injury or death; “CAUTION” indi-
cates possible equipment concerns where mistakes could lead to equip-
ment damage; “NOTE” indicates additional information that might
help the technician understand a step or item. Use these words at
the beginning of appropriate lines on the job plan to help the tech-
nician better understand the job plan. The job plan should place these
Basic Planning 149
statements as close as possible to the job plan steps to which they

are associated.
8. Do not be afraid to use spell check. Use Microsoft Word or any other
word processing program to check spelling and grammar. These pro-
grams not only detect poor spelling, but grammatical problems such
as passive sentences and the like as well.
Figure 5.8 shows the earlier example work order after the planner
decides on the scope of the job and adds the necessary level of detail to
describe the steps of the job.
Craft Skill Level

Planners designate craft skills needed on job plans. This allows sched-
ulers to select the appropriate jobs matching the skill levels possessed
by each crew. It also allows crew supervisors to determine to which per-
sons to assign the jobs. With the crafts specified by the job plan, sched-
ulers and supervisors do not have to thoroughly read each work order
and decide for themselves which crafts the jobs require.
The planner also plans each job to allow the lowest qualified skill level.
This increases the flexibility of the schedulers and supervisors in select-
ing or assigning the work. Different jobs require a different minimum craft
skill level. If a certain job could be done either by a junior mechanic or a
certified mechanic, the job plan would not want to specify a certified
mechanic. That would limit the choices for who could do the work. On the
other hand, the planner could not specify a trainee who would not have
the minimum skill levels necessary to be qualified for the job.
The designation of crafts and skill levels provides for communication
from the planners to the schedulers and supervisors. The planners,
schedulers, and supervisors must have a common understanding of the
terms used.
The following designations have been adopted for the purposes of
illustrating the selection of crafts and skill levels in this book. All of the
maintenance departments at the plant understand what each designa-
tion means when it appears on a work order from planning.
Trainee: Any person newly hired in the maintenance, but not yet enrolled in
an apprenticeship program.
Mechanical trainee: A person newly hired in the mechanical maintenance
craft, but not yet enrolled in the apprenticeship program.
Electrical trainee: A person newly hired in the electrical maintenance craft,
but not yet enrolled in the apprenticeship program.
I&C trainee: A person newly hired in the instrument and controls mainte-
nance craft, but not yet enrolled in the apprenticeship program.
150 Chapter Five
Figure 5.8 Work order after the planner completes scoping and adds the appropriate
level of job step detail.
Apprentice: Any person enrolled in the apprenticeship program for one of the
maintenance crafts. These persons are normally not assigned work by them-
selves when the primary objective of the plant’s apprenticeship program is for
them to learn alongside higher skilled technicians.
Mechanical apprentice: A person enrolled in the apprenticeship program for
the mechanical maintenance craft.
Basic Planning 151
Electrical apprentice: A person enrolled in the apprenticeship program for

the electrical maintenance craft.
I&C apprentice: A person enrolled in the apprenticeship program for the
instrument and controls maintenance craft.
Helper: Anyone. This designation is used if the job does not require any spe-
cial skills outside that of an adult maintenance employee. This person could pos-
sess only the skills of a new trainee, but may also possess the skills up to any
certified technician. The planner will use this classification alongside that of a
more specific craft skill to indicate that the primary need is for an extra set of
hands. The planner may also require only helpers on a job. This does not mean
the supervisor would assign two apprentices, but that the job does not require
any specific skills.
Technician: Thus far, this book has used this term to mean anyone in the
work force. This has allowed the illustration of the principles of planning with-
out unnecessary details of craft skills. However, in the use on particular job
plans, this term means a person that has passed the apprenticeship programs
in one of the craft areas. The term also implies a measure of responsibility and
accountability. The plant would normally hold a technician accountable rather
than an apprentice for the results of a particular job.
Mechanic: A mechanic technician. In this plant, the mechanic possesses a
certain amount of structural welding skills and light machining skills.
Welder: A welder technician able to do high pressure welding.
Machinist: A machinist technician able to perform most machine work for the
plant.
Painter: A painter technician.
Electrician: An electrical technician.
I&C technician: An instrument and controls technician.
Lab technician: A technician that works in the plant laboratories.
Certified mechanic: A mechanic technician who has gained special experi-
ence, knowledge, and skills in the mechanical craft. The plant has given this
technician the extra privilege and responsibility of being able to stop certain jobs
in the field whether or not assigned to them for quality concerns.
Certified welder: A welder technician who has gained special experience,
knowledge, and skills in the welding craft. The plant has given this technician
the extra privilege and responsibility of being able to stop certain jobs in the field
whether or not assigned to them for quality concerns.
Certified machinist: A machinist technician who has gained special experience,
knowledge, and skills in the machining craft. The plant has given this techni-
cian the extra privilege and responsibility of being able to stop certain jobs in
the field whether or not assigned to them for quality concerns.
Certified painter: A painter technician who has gained special experience,
knowledge, and skills in coating and corrosion. The plant has given this tech-
nician the extra privilege and responsibility of being able to stop certain jobs in
152 Chapter Five
Figure 5.9 Work order after the planner determines the craft skill level required.
Certified electrician: An electrical technician who has gained special experi-

ence, knowledge, and skills in the electrical craft. The plant has given this tech-
Certified I&C technician: An I&C technician who has gained special experi-
ence, knowledge, and skills in the instrument and controls craft. The plant has
given this technician the extra privilege and responsibility of being able to stop
certain jobs in the field whether or not assigned to them for quality concerns.
Basic Planning 153
Certified lab technician: A laboratory technician who has gained special expe-
rience, knowledge, and skills in the laboratory. The plant has given this tech-
Using specific craft and skill designations provides a common ground

for discussions and reduces misunderstandings. Commonly used terms
can be agreed on if they do not represent specific labor classifications
used by payroll.
Figure 5.9 shows the addition of craft skills to the work order. The
planner has determined that the job requires two persons. One person
must possess at least the skills of a mechanic technician. The other
person could be anyone to assist the mechanic.
Estimating Work Hours and Job Duration

Work hours (or labor hours) are the actual craft personnel hours that
technicians later enter on personal time sheets and job duration is how
many hours the job lasts. Consider a pump job that lasted 2 entire days
and had two persons working 10 hours each day. The work hours would
be 40 hours and the job duration would be 20 hours. Note that for job
duration, only calendar time when someone was working on the pump
applies. The estimated work hours and job duration are necessary to
schedule the work efficiently.
Operators need the duration information to know how long to expect
equipment should stay cleared and unavailable. The job duration is
also useful when considering what work could be completed in a short
outage situation. Consider a short outage that suddenly occurred and
had an estimated length of 24 hours. Any backlogged outage job with
an estimated job duration of equal to or less than 24 hours should be
considered.
The planner uses the work order form to write the estimated work
hours for each job. The planner specifies the number of persons and the
work hours for each person estimated for the work. Then the planner
totals all labor hours on the work order form. The planner also speci-
fies the estimated job duration hours on the form.
The planner develops the work hours and job duration estimates
from personal judgment and consultation of the minifile in most cases.
The previous jobs in the minifile are helpful, but the planner is not
restricted to using previous estimates or actual hours reported. The
planner is attempting to estimate the hours reasonably required by
experienced craftpersons without unexpected delays.
Experienced craftpersons means that the planner should plan the job
time estimate for a good technician, not the average technician, not the
slowest technician, and not the fastest technician. There is no way that
154 Chapter Five
the planner knows to whom the supervisor will assign the job. The
supervisor may assign the job to the worst technician, an average tech-
nician, or the fastest technician on the crew. For whom should the plan-
ner plan? This entire consideration is essentially the same as for
technician skill level where Planning Principle 5 recommended that
the planner respect the skill of the crafts.
Estimating the time of each job for the slowest technician means
adding a lot of extra time to every job. When every job is planned this
way, the planner allows too much time that most technicians do not need.
Instead of planning a job with the slowest person in mind, the planner
plans knowing that although the slowest person may need extra time,
the help may not come from the plan itself. These technicians might get
extra help from being assigned to jobs where a more capable technician
is also assigned to the same job. The supervisor may spend more time
on the job with a technician in a coaching role. The supervisor may
choose to give this technician the extra time that the technician requires.
On the other hand, estimating each job’s time for the average tech-
nician has problems. Average means probably as many technicians in
the same classification need more time as need less time. In addition,
one might think there is a small standard deviation away from this
average or mean. That is, on the whole, most of the technicians in the
same classification possess about this mean level of capability. This is
a very dangerous presumption that may not be true. In many organi-
zations, the skill level widely varies within a single classification. There
is no large, single aggregate of persons with a similar capability. Out of
a group of 20 technicians, the more realistic case may be two or three
near the bottom, three a little faster, a couple above them in speed, four
above them, three considered decent, three considered good, and two or
three technicians who can do almost anything quickly. To complicate
matters, the general hierarchy changes with respect to different types
of work within the classification. The absolute slowest technician with
respect to pumps may be quite decent with respect to valves. Two of the
decent technicians with respect to valves and piping may be quite defi-
cient with regard to rotating equipment. So the fastest technicians in
some respects could be the slowest technicians in other respects and
there may be only an illusion of what average means.
One problem of planning all jobs for the average technician is similar
to planning all jobs for the slowest technician. Although the planners can
estimate less time than if they were planning for the slowest technician,
the planners are still allowing more time than some persons need.
The most significant problem is that there is no standard of what
time a good job should take if all jobs are planned with average in mind.
If maintenance assigns a job, the company has some profit motive in
mind. The company wants good work and so does the technician. What
Basic Planning 155
time should a good job take? Jobs planned for good technicians mean
that technicians pull their weight and a little more. They are not just
keeping up with the sled. Jobs planned for good technicians set a time
standard for all technicians by which they can judge their skills.
Planning for the level of a good technician gives the crew an idea of how
good it is.
This concept of a standard is very important. Although the plan itself
is a standard in several ways (what skill should be assigned, what
should be done, and so on), it is the time estimate that is of most interest
to the productivity issue. The standard states, “This is the time the job
should take.” This is of such importance that complex methods exist to
determine meaningful time standards. Chapter 2 discussed engineered
built-up standards and standards derived from techniques such as slot-
ting or pigeon-holing. Unfortunately, for the practitioner of mainte-
nance planning, these techniques are not much more accurate than
that “guesstimated” by an experienced craftsperson after reviewing the
job and past history. In addition, these more formal techniques gener-
ally take more time to employ. Maintenance in a modern industrial
plant encompasses different technicians working on different equip-
ment in different environments constantly. There is little assembly line,
repetitive motion activity that might benefit from an intense industrial
engineering scrutiny for an exact time estimate. On the other hand,
the standard is not so much needed to grade an individual technician’s
performance, as to enable the scheduling process. The standard of the
planner’s simple estimate is entirely adequate. Chapters 2 and 3 dis-
cussed that these estimates have a wide variation for accuracy. Yet as
many jobs are overestimated as are underestimated and grouping jobs
allows making meaningful schedules with much less overall variation
of accuracy.
Why should planners not plan all jobs for the fastest technician?
There are some problems associated with planning jobs for the fastest
technician, namely schedule realism. For one thing, the supervisor
needs some accuracy to schedule work. The estimates also set time stan-
dards. The time standards should allow average technicians to rise to
the challenge to do a good job. These challenges and the scheduling are
not practical if all jobs were planned for the fastest technician.
How do planners know how much time a good technician needs on
any particular job? Planners cannot know unless they are at least good
technicians themselves. By putting a best technician in planning, man-
agement assures itself that the planners can easily judge different jobs
and assess what time frames and details should be needed by a good
technician.
In addition, having a superior technician as the planner gives the job
plan credibility. This helps when the supervisor finally assigns a planned
156 Chapter Five
job in the field. The field technician presumes the job plan to be practi-
cal and does not second-guess the standard.
Another consideration is that of job delays with wrench time. Although
proper planning and scheduling helps produce high wrench time, the
planners do not consciously consider wrench time when estimating jobs.
The planners simply estimate each job without unexpected delays.
Without unexpected delays means the planner should consider includ-
ing break time, but not time to find unexpected parts, tools, or instruc-
tions that were not identified by the planner. Jobs that take longer or
shorter than estimated should be identified by the craft personnel report-
ing what happened on the work order form. These comments help guide
the planner reduce delays on future jobs. The planner may be tempted
to put in an extra hour in case problems arise. If the planner automat-
ically included time in the estimate for unexpected delays or inexperi-
enced craft personnel, actual delays or problems may not be reported if
the overall time estimates were met. The preceding discussion addressed
slower technicians, but not other type delays. Even the best planned jobs
can run into unexpected problems. If a job runs over or under the esti-
mated time, it is not as important as if crews become better each time
they do the job. Crews become better each time doing the job with plan-
ning around expected delays. The planner anticipates some delays from
personal experience, but the best source of delay information on any par-
ticular job for any particular equipment is from its equipment file. The
planner can look in the file and readily see that previous jobs required
an extra gasket. So the planner includes having an extra gasket in the
job plan. This improvement would not be possible if the use of an extra
gasket had never been reported by the technician. Having the time esti-
mated for a smooth job (no unforeseen problems) obligates the techni-
cian to explain and record unusual circumstances that slowed the job.
Therefore, planners should not include miscellaneous extra time in job
estimates.
There are also other reasons to include only the amount of time plan-
ners actually estimate the job should take. The time estimate helps
explain the job scope. For instance, giving a technician a 10-hour estimate
for a job that obviously should take no more than 4 hours may confuse
the intent of the job plan. Consider a job scope that calls for changing
the lubricant of a fluid drive, but the planned estimate includes far too
much time. The technician may wrongly conclude the job includes chang-
ing all the filters as well. The estimate of only the actual time expected
also gives the technician a reasonable target to shoot for and keeps the
work moving. In addition, many jobs go exceptionally well and end up
taking less time than the planner imagined, so any extra time included
on estimates should be kept to a minimum.
Planners should be mindful of avoiding the practice of estimating job
durations by shift hours. This practice might cause many jobs to be
Basic Planning 157
planned as 4- or 8-hour jobs when crews work 8-hour shifts or 5 or 10 hours

when crews work 10-hour shifts. This needlessly adds hours to jobs and
reduces the schedulers’ ability to put small jobs in schedule gaps. A 3-hour
job should be planned for 3 hours, not 4.
A special word concerning breaks and startup or wrapup time is appro-
priate. The planners’ estimates do not have the precision to be unnec-
essarily worried about such details. The planners figure that 10 hours
of work can be accomplished in a 10-hour day. Planners usually consider
there would be no breaks in short jobs, but one or two breaks in longer
jobs during a single day. Similarly, the planner might realize there is a
certain amount of time lost in starting up or wrapping up at the begin-
ning and end of shifts. Plans for a short job do not make special provi-
sion for these times, but plans for longer ones might. On the other hand,
job plans should recognize that time might be required for cleanup at
the end of certain jobs regardless of size.
Finally, one must remember that even before management ever initi-
ates planning and scheduling, a quality focus must be in place. Technicians
must not feel they must meet a limited time estimate rather than do good
work. Planning pushes so hard for productivity that the work force must
have adequate concern for quality.
Figure 5.10 shows that the planner of this example work order esti-
mated 5 hours for each person. The planner estimated the total job to
require 10 labor hours and 5 duration hours.
Parts
The identification and coordination of parts or material is an area where
the planner can greatly help improve craft productivity. Although sched-
uling information provides the greatest planning help to maintenance,
planning’s help with parts is the most visible. This is the reason most
organizations begin planning departments. The offer of help with parts
usually encourages technicians to accept planning.
On the other hand, the advertised idea that planning will identify all
future parts severely hinders the accomplishment of the planning mis-
sion. Planning cannot gather all parts information before all jobs. The
technician’s idea of that purpose which planning does not fulfill gives
planning a poor reputation that hinders later cooperation from techni-
cians. The vital role that planning fulfills is to save and retrieve parts
information that the technicians have previously gathered. This is how
planning helps future jobs. Management should first introduce planning
properly to avoid later misunderstandings.
The intent of planning with regard to parts is to identify them and
ensure their availability before the job begins. The planning depart-
ment may also stage certain parts to reduce delays in technicians having
to gather them. As with job instructions, the planners reduce potential
158 Chapter Five
Figure 5.10 Work order after the planner estimates the time required.
job delays when the work order plan identifies parts because the tech-
nician does not have to make extra trips to procure them later after the
start of a job.
To identify the parts a job requires, a planner first consults the equip-
ment’s minifile to review previous job requirements or problems. The
plans and feedback from previous jobs contain most necessary parts
information. Other material in the minifile may contain lists of possible
parts. If the necessary information is not in the minifile, the planner may
Basic Planning 159
be able to easily identify the parts necessary in the inventory catalog or

listing. The planner might do this even for reactive jobs if there is time.
On proactive jobs, the planner might spend a considerable amount of
time searching the plant’s other technical files or vendor files. The plan-
ner makes sure to make a copy of any helpful information found to put
in the minifile.
The planner writes down the information for needed parts directly on
the work order form. The planner should identify only anticipated parts
within the plan itself on the work order form. By only identifying antic-
ipated parts within the work plan itself, the planner helps clarify the
job scope. However, many jobs may need additional parts other than that
first anticipated. The planner should include the identification of other
parts that there may be a fair chance of using. This allows the techni-
cians to obtain them more quickly if needed. The planner may identify
these parts lower on the work order form and not necessarily within the
plan of the anticipated work.
Even if there have not been delays on previous work, including a
parts list in the planned package helps the technician understand the
equipment and be ready for procuring unanticipated parts. The plan-
ner might attach a list of all parts the equipment uses if the list is read-
ily available. The planner attaches a copy of this list to the back of the
work order form. The planner never sends the original out in the field.
The planner also makes a note on the work order form identifying
attachments. This note helps the technician know there should be
attachments in case something gets lost. It also helps the planner
account for returned items at the end of the job. The planner would not
attach a complete parts list for a simple job that would definitely not
need any of the parts on the list. This would simply encumber the tech-
nician with extra paperwork.
Once a job begins the planner is no longer responsible for helping
identify any necessary parts. The responsibility then falls on the crew
supervisors and technicians. These persons may use any available
resources including all the files in the planning department. They must
record parts information uncovered during job execution as feedback on
the work order form to help future work.
Equipment parts list

Information on parts that equipment might require comes in many
forms. Lists of parts are known by different names such as part break-
downs and bills of material. Manufacturer “exploded view diagrams” or
illustrated views showing how the different parts fit together are
extremely useful.
The specific work orders from past jobs contain parts information
either in the plans or in the feedback. Numerous repetitions of previ-
ous jobs develop a thorough listing.
160 Chapter Five
The planner might use a parts form to record in one place the identi-
fication collected from previous work orders. Such a form is shown in
Chap. 7, Forms and Resources Overview, for planners to include in
minifiles when they create them.
If there is a standard plan as shown in Chap. 7 for a particular piece
of equipment, it might contain a thorough listing of parts.
The storeroom inventory might be arranged by equipment number or
contain a comparable sort. In addition, the CMMS computer system
inventory module might automatically record the previous use of parts
by equipment. This would provide an ongoing development of a parts list
for each piece of equipment as maintenance works on jobs. Unfortunately,
many CMMS inventory modules do not provide this automatic feature
because they presume the plant has a complete set of parts lists for all
its equipment. The modules primarily concern themselves with tracking
quantities on hand and reservations for specific work order numbers.
When the company purchases new equipment, the equipment nor-
mally comes with an O&M manual showing a breakdown of parts. In
addition or instead, the O&M manual might contain a list of recom-
mended spare parts. Planners must insist on receiving these manuals
when new equipment arrives. Planners should then create the appro-
priate minifiles to facilitate their use. If the planners merely place the
manuals on the technical file shelves without sorting the information
into minifiles, later efforts will be hindered. The planner may later find
the manual to contain information for all the manufacturer’s models and
the planner will then be faced with an additional identification task.
Equipment sales proposals or negotiation notes may contain listings
of proposed spare parts.
The planner might obtain lists of parts from vendors or manufacturers.
Management might initiate a project to gather parts lists from vendors
and manufacturers. This effort could involve the identification of desired
equipment, the collection of the lists, and the insertion into the proper
minifiles. The project might involve plant engineers or other technical spe-
cialists. Management might choose to involve contract labor. Management
might also choose to use field technicians to gather the data. Including tech-
nicians would facilitate their acceptance of the planning file concepts.
Purchasing
Sometimes a planner finds that a part necessary to execute a job is
unavailable. The planner is responsible for all planned packages that
are waiting for material. This material may be out-of-stock inventory
items being ordered by the storeroom or nonstock items to be ordered
by the planner. For nonstock items, the planning department is respon-
sible for procuring the part.
Basic Planning 161
The planner identifies on the work order form nonstock items that the
planning department procured. The work order identification would
normally name the item and describe where it was placed or staged
after the plant received it.
The planning department has to include a purchasing capability or
some method to procure parts. This purchasing capability may involve
close coordination with a company or plant purchasing department. (In
some companies, planning itself may be a department within the plant
purchasing department.) Planning may also be able to purchase some
material through direct vendor contact and purchase orders. The plan-
ning department might control several blanket purchase orders set up
by the purchasing department to allow planning to buy certain mate-
rial with a minimum of paperwork and administration.
When nonstock purchased material arrives at the plant, the plan-
ning department verifies that the shipment contains the proper mate-
rial and makes the work order available for scheduling.
Many planning departments employ a separate purchaser or expediter
to handle most of the purchasing coordination duties. This allows one
or two persons to develop more familiarity with the company’s pur-
chasing requirements. This familiarity helps the person push through
urgent work requests faster through the system if needed. In addition,
this person might contribute to the planning department by having a
special talent for finding parts that are difficult to locate. On the other
hand, the planning department might prefer that the planners locate
the desired parts and initiate the purchase. The purchaser would be
more of an expediter to complete the details of the transaction and
ensure the timely arrival of the material. Having a separate person
might take an administrative burden from the planners.
In addition, once a job is in progress, the craft supervisor is respon-
sible for procuring any parts that were unanticipated during planning.
If the storeroom does not have these parts, they must be purchased. The
planning department does not want supervisors to interrupt planners,
but recognizes that a specialist might best handle purchasing. Having
a separate person in planning that the supervisors can access for pur-
chasing might allow resolution of both concerns. The supervisors could
receive help, but not interrupt the planners.
A planner also needs to spend considerable time in the field. A plan-
ner spends time in the field to scope work as well as to inspect jobs-in-
progress. Looking at jobs-in-progress allows the planners to increase
their feel for the degree that jobs proceed according to plans and the
completeness of feedback. On the other hand, a purchaser frequently
needs to be available to accept return phone calls from vendors. Having
the purchaser separate from the planner may facilitate these different
planning department needs.
162 Chapter Five
A plant might consider having a separate person to handle some pur-

chasing duties under the following circumstances:
1. There is a lot of bureaucracy or complexity in the purchasing procedures.
2. Maintenance has a person available with the special talent required.
3. The planning department is fairly large and has more than three or
four planners.
4. There is a continual receiving of shipments that must be inspected
and staged.
5. There is a continual need to spend time verifying that parts will be
compatible with the system or existing standards.
6. Planners are each planning for 30 technicians rather than 20.
In general, the purchasers would either be responsible to or report to the
planners. Depending on their duties, the purchasers may not necessarily
have to be technicians. Clerks may be qualified to serve as purchasers.
Appendix F includes an overview of these purchaser or expediter duties.
Storeroom, reserving, and staging

In addition to naming any parts on the work order form, the planner also
records the storeroom identification or stock numbers. This precisely
identifies the material to avoid possible misunderstanding or delays at
the storeroom. The technician presumes any planned part with a stock
number is kept in the storeroom. The planner identifies which storeroom
stocks the material if the plant has more than one storeroom.
Next the planner reserves anticipated parts in the storeroom and
marks the planned items as “Reserved” on the work order form. Reserving
parts means that the planner has placed a reservation on an item with
the storeroom. This action ensures that the storeroom will not run out
of the items before maintenance executes the particular job that had a
reserved part. The storeroom uses the work order number to identify
the reservation requirement. Normally the planner reserves parts that
the plans require from the storeroom even if the storeroom has an
ample supply of the items. This allows the storeroom more timely notice
of the consumption of parts and helps it prepare for replacing inventory.
The planning department also develops good work habits by reserving
most parts. There are certain parts that the storeroom keeps in limited
supply and the reserving of parts on a routine basis reduces the possi-
bility of overlooking their reservation. Otherwise, a technician may start
a planned job and find that a planned part is unavailable.
One common problem plants encounter is not experiencing a high stock-
out rate when, in fact, the storeroom frequently does not have enough
parts the planner or technicians seek. Stockouts measure how many
times the storeroom is out of an item that the plant currently requires.
Basic Planning 163
Stockouts do not necessarily measure that a storeroom is either out of a

material or has a less than desirable quantity on hand. The discrepancy
is caused by the planners or technicians not reserving parts or request-
ing pick tickets for items that are out of stock. When a planner sees that
there is no desired item available, the planner will often plan the job
another way. For example, a planner may change a plan to replace a valve
bonnet to replacing the entire valve because the storeroom is out of bon-
nets. A technician may change the execution of a job in the same manner.
Because no one ended up requesting the deficient part, the plant never
experiences a stockout. Therefore, the planner and technicians should
always reserve the parts to cause a stockout even though the planner and
technicians alter the jobs. In this manner, the jobs are planned and exe-
cuted expeditiously and the storeroom receives the appropriate signal to
have enough quantities on hand in the future.
Another related problem is the storeroom having parts reserved for jobs
that maintenance has already completed. This is usually caused by tech-
nicians requesting parts at the storeroom without informing the store-
room of a previous reservation. The technician receives the requested
item, but the storeroom does not reduce the reservation quantity. The
storeroom handles this problem by checking work order numbers for
previous reserved parts when issuing parts to technicians. The storeroom
should also check completed work order numbers against outstanding
part reservations occasionally and canceling the reservations.
Next the planner stages any appropriate parts and marks on the work
order form which items are “staged” and where. If items will not be staged
until later, the planner does not mark on the work order form. Those items
will be marked later when staged.
Staging is done for the same reason the operations group clears equip-
ment ahead of time: to avoid delays. A plant does not desire for a crew to
stand around waiting for operators to clear a piece of equipment. Similarly,
the plant prefers a crew not to stand around waiting for a part or tool to
begin a job if the item could have been provided ahead of time. The pro-
vision of the tool ahead of time is referred to as staging. Staging goes
beyond reserving items in the storeroom or tool room. Staging places the
items in convenient locations for the technicians. These convenient loca-
tions reduce the need for crews to make more time-consuming arrange-
ments or side trips to gather the items.
The planning department always stages special purchased parts that
inventory did not carry. The planner must note on the job plan where
these parts were placed after their receipt.
It may be more appropriate for supervisors or schedulers to determine
whether parts should be staged based on scheduling concerns. Therefore,
the next chapter on scheduling discusses guidelines to assist planners
determine the need to stage parts. These guidelines are summarized in
App. R.
164 Chapter Five
Figure 5.11 shows an example work order after the planner has
determined the necessary parts. In the equipment’s minifile, the plan-
ner found that a previous job identified the gasket stock number.
Because the job was reactive, the planner would not have otherwise
spent much time trying to determine a gasket number if it had not been
readily available. The planner noted the gasket’s price when reserving
it and wrote the necessary information on the job plan.
Figure 5.11 Work order after the planner determines the parts required.
Basic Planning 165
Special Tools
Similarly, special tools is an area where planners can help boost crew
productivity by reviewing past jobs in the minifile. A special tool is any
device that would not ordinarily be carried in a craft tool box. Examples
are come-alongs, cranes, and shim packs.
The planner’s intent is to allow the technicians to gather all the tools
they should need before they first go to the job site to avoid extra trips
later. As with parts and job instructions, the planners reduce potential
job delays when the work order plan identifies special tools because the
technician does not have to make extra trips to procure them later after
the start of a job. As with any trip, the technician’s leaving the job site
delays the job and might not consist of merely traveling to the tool room
and returning with the proper tool.
Special tools might be kept in the tool room or other places. Certain
tools may be available in one of the craft shops. Other highly special-
ized tools may be kept at the site of the equipment where it is normally
utilized. For example, one plant has a special bar that is used to apply
enough torque to unbind a particular control valve. The plant keeps the
bar next to the valve. One of the planner’s duties when scoping this job
is to ensure the bar is there. Another plant keeps a locker full of special
tools to work on burner parts on the burner deck of its unit. The plan-
ner should remind the technicians to retrieve the locker key from the
tool room when they perform work on the burners.
The primary source for special tools is the planner’s personal experi-
ence and information from past jobs in the minifile. There also may be
lists of special devices recommended by manufacturers or vendors in
O&M manuals. These lists should be kept in the minifiles once they are
found. The tool room might also employ a “job tool card” to keep track
of tools issued to jobs rather than individual technicians. This allows the
tool room to issue tools over a period of time to larger jobs that might
be conducted by several crews of technicians working alternating shifts.
In these jobs and other jobs, it might be easier for the tool room to issue
the tools to jobs rather than individuals. On these jobs the planner
should encourage the technicians and tool rooms to provide copies of the
cards after job completion to keep in minifiles.
Infrequently, the planner may also be able to help the technician
avoid carrying an entire tool box to the job site. For instance, a certain
job may only require a flathead screwdriver. In these cases the planner
would note that “job only requires” the particular few tools prescribed.
The planner writes special tools on the work order form. The planner
writes any special identification numbers if the tool room has such a
system. (As discussed later, the planner also uses this section of the form
to indicate if the job needs any contractors such as insulators.) The plan-
ner also identifies any special tools that the planner staged in accordance
166 Chapter Five
with the plant’s guidelines. Staging of special tools often helps crews
avoid delays. Chapter 6 discusses staging.
Figure 5.12 shows an example work order after the planner finished
writing in tool information. The technicians would take out the strainer
and place it in the plastic bag. The technicians would then transport it
and clean it in the shop steam cleaning room. The technicians would
then replace the strainer and refasten the assembly. The technicians
would clean up the area and put the rags in the special hopper in the
Figure 5.12 Work order after the planner determines the tools required.
Basic Planning 167
fuel oil room. The planner needed only to write down the rags, degreaser,
and plastic bag as special tools.
Job Safety
Job planners never take job safety for granted. The planner first makes
sure the origination section of the work order specifies whether the
operations group must clear the equipment. The planner contemplates
if there are conditions on the job site that will affect the safety of per-
sonnel. For each special safety concern, the planner describes the nec-
essary safety issues on the work order form and attaches or references
any pertinent information. The planners always ensure that any devel-
oped or researched information is copied to the minifile. The planner
may find useful information already in the minifile. This is one cir-
cumstance in which a planner might do more extensive research on a
reactive or minimum maintenance job.
The planner also considers whether the job will be in a confined space
or involve special chemicals. As usual, the minifile becomes a repository
to help scope jobs in this regard and retain useful information.
Confined space
A confined space is an area with a potentially dangerous environment
regarding respiration. The planner considers several questions regard-
ing possible confined space work. Is it possible this is a confined space?
Is it possible the space requires continuous air monitoring and a hole
guard? Is there work to be done at intervals that will require special
monitoring? Will the job scope change during the repair affecting the con-
ditions as permitted?
If the work involves confined spaces, the planner ensures that the
work order origination information and work plan reflect this require-
ment to follow the established plant procedures. The planner adds “entry
supervisor” or “hole person” to the persons required section of the work
order form.
Material safety data sheets

If there are hazardous chemicals present on the job site, the planner
writes or attaches the necessary MSDS information on chemicals pres-
ent. The planner will write the process necessary to protect mainte-
nance personnel if necessary.
The Internet is becoming a useful source for accessing MSDS sheets
for certain substances. A CMMS might also be helpful in this regard.
Individual countries, states, and plants have unique requirements for

what information and safeguards must be available and what must be
168 Chapter Five
included in individual job plans. The planning department should meet

with the designated company safety authorities to clarify particular
requirements for work orders.
Estimating Job Cost

At one plant the planning manager had the planners stop totaling up
the cost for each work order because no one was tracking it. This ration-
ale misses the point of planning. The planners are one of the major
users of this information. The planners should be able to see how much
past work on a piece of equipment has cost in order to make intelligent
maintenance scope decisions. If the past maintenance costs have been
high, the planner can properly present a case for expensive replace-
ment equipment without resorting to such statements as “We don’t
know how much it’s costing us, but it’s really hurting us.” Management
cares about bottom line cost. Maintenance professionals must learn the
language of financial dealings. Management desires realistic cost com-
parisons over opinions. Maintenance would rather consider a case of
“The old pump seals have cost $2000 per year to maintain, but we can
eliminate that cost with a new seal design for only $3000.”
Any cost collection is better than none. It is not legitimate to wait on
the eventual installation of a computer or CMMS to collect cost infor-
mation. The cost information provided by work plans is the first step in
having useful data even if actual field costs are not gathered. This infor-
mation is accurate enough to guide the decisions that will be made.
Whether a job cost $200 or $400 is not as important as whether it cost
$400 or $3000. The minifiles will show the trend and magnitude of
maintenance costs accumulating from multiple work orders as the equip-
ment is maintained. The minifiles cannot do this practically if the infor-
mation is not estimated at the time of the work. The information needs
to be in a state where the planner can easily glance at previous job costs
as replacement equipment is considered. Engineers can go through
minifiles and spend time occasionally to total up job costs for a few proj-
ects. However, planners must be able to see this cost data without stren-
uous effort as they plan routine maintenance jobs daily.
Another reason actual costs may not be critical to maintenance assess-
ments is due to a philosophy of what the job cost. Consider a job that
planning estimated for a single day, but through poor scheduling the job
took 2 days to complete. However, the technician put 3 days on a time
sheet because the crew supervisor did not assign any more work. Did
the equipment cost the company 1 day, 2 days, or 3 days of labor and
unavailable equipment? The equipment probably cost the company 1 day
and poor maintenance practices cost the company 2 more days. The reason
the equipment cost only a single day was that the job’s standard was
established by the planner. That was what the job should have taken.
Basic Planning 169
On the other hand, most accounting systems and computer programs

might attribute all 3 days to the equipment. This is because they do not
attribute any cost to an inefficient maintenance organization. In addi-
tion, it is very difficult to establish on a job-by-job basis the cost to the
company for lost availability. Therefore most maintenance cost systems
do not account for them on individual work orders. Whether or not all
of these differences are meaningful is beside the point. The differences
should not delay the collection of maintenance information. The rapid
accumulation of helpful job information will begin when it is started.
Another reason to show cost information on the job plan is to guide
technicians when working with parts. Certain low cost parts may not
be practical for the technician to return to the storeroom when unused.
Other small parts may surprisingly cost thousands of dollars. These
parts should be handled with more care than others. The technician can
only make these determinations when the planner includes price infor-
mation on the job plan.
The planner first calculates labor cost. The planner first uses a stan-
dard rate for all labor hours. This allows the planner quickly to add up
the total cost of labor. It also reduces jealousy among different crafts and
skill levels not to have actual wage information thrown in their face.
However, the use of some labor rate shows how much labor does cost the
company and encourages everyone to become as efficient as possible.
Using a standard rate for all labor hours is justifiable. Maintenance deci-
sions require an accuracy showing whether certain equipment costs hun-
dreds of dollars each year or thousands. The wage difference between a
trainee and a certified electrician will not skew data used for this purpose.
In addition, the planner has planned the job for the minimum skill level
without any certainty who will actually be assigned. Therefore the plan-
ning department uses a standard labor wage rate. (A CMMS might easily
allow using exact labor rates but caution should be used considering dif-
ferent crafts may not appreciate seeing exact wage differentials.)
This book uses a standard $25 per labor hour to illustrate the concept
of estimating labor hours. This figure includes all wages and benefits
that the company pays per labor hour. It does not consider wrench time
or administration time. It merely represents what the company would
pay to an employee each year in benefits and wages divided by the usual
number of hours worked each year on straight time. Job plans do not
consider that jobs may be worked on overtime. Overtime is more of a cost
of scheduling or maintenance practice than planning. This figure may
not be appropriate for many industries or geographical areas.
The planner uses a standard rate of $25 per hour for each work hour
and writes the labor cost estimate directly on the work order form.
The planner then calculates the cost of parts. First, the planner only
needs to include the cost of parts that the planner anticipates the craft will
use. Second, the planner determines the cost of the items. The planner
170 Chapter Five
notes the inventory price when the planner reserves the part in the
inventory computer system. If the computer lists several prices for an
item, the planner uses the last purchased price since that is the actual
cost to the company as a whole. If there is no price information, the plan-
ner makes an educated guess. The planner may also have the benefit
of items identified with a price on a bill of material or other equipment
breakdown list. All of these sources are usually accurate enough for the
purposes of overall cost accumulation for equipment. The planner does
not need to include items not of significant value such as a few dollars
worth of bolts. The planner should not tie up the time of a purchaser or
parts expediter to determine routine cost information. The planner
should use the parts expediter to provide the value for parts needing spe-
cial purchasing when the expediter orders the part. The planner includes
the cost for all anticipated parts on the work order form. The planner
writes the individual cost for each part and includes the total cost of
parts in the total estimate for the job.
Next, the planner considers the cost of special tools. The planner does
not include a cost for a special tool unless the item is not available in
the tool room and a special cost will be incurred. The cost for contract-
ing out work would be included as a special cost. This chapter discusses
contracting work in the next section.
The planner then totals all the cost estimates for labor, parts, and tools
at the bottom of the planning section of the work order form.
Finally, the planner informally consults the planning supervisor if the
estimated cost is over a certain amount established by a planning
department guideline, $5000 for example.
The planning department has a guideline to scrutinize more expen-
sive job plans to determine if another strategy is advisable. Some per-
sons may feel that this is an unnecessary precaution. Their reasoning
suggests that because the plant already exists, it must be maintained.
They reason that all jobs must be executed. However, the planner con-
sultation is not necessarily checking to see if the plant will execute the
job. The planner consults to see if a more prudent alternative exists. For
expensive jobs, it never hurts to get a second opinion. In addition, per-
haps the plant should not execute the job after all. This plant exists, not
another plant. Sometimes employees request improvements to the plant
that are simply not advisable for a number of reasons. Many times the
proposed task exceeds the economic point of diminishing returns. There
would be a benefit, but the benefit would not outweigh the cost of the job.
Identifying projects that would modify the plant is one reason the plant
classifies jobs according to work type. Project work adds capability that
was not had before; the plant or equipment is better than before. Projects
must be carefully weighed to see if they are good users of the company’s
funds. For major projects, most companies have a project proposal and
approval process, usually not involving the planning group. However,
Basic Planning 171
maintenance considers smaller project work continually. Sometimes the

classification is not very clear; a repair job to overhaul a broken pump
may be planned to include a better design impeller. These considerations
occur daily in planning at the work order level, and mechanisms need
to be in place to guide routine maintenance work with regard to expen-
sive tasks.
Figure 5.13 shows the example work order after the planner finishes
the job plan by completing the job estimate.
Figure 5.13 Work order after the planner estimates the total plan cost.
172 Chapter Five
Contracting Out Work

A contractor is a company that the plant hires to do specific tasks.
Different companies have different strategies regarding contracting out
work. Some companies prefer to use contractors as little as possible.
Other companies regularly contract work. Some companies are them-
selves contractors using planning principles to increase their productivity.
Normally other company divisions manage work done by contractors
either as projects or general contractor work. Occasionally planning
must coordinate outside contractors for ordinary work orders such as the
setting of a safety valve. This section presents information for a planning
department that has some interaction with contractors. Appendix Q
thoroughly reviews the issues of contracting maintenance work.
A word of caution advises management that planners and technicians
sometimes fear that the establishment of the planning department pro-
motes contractor work. Their reasoning suggests that the primary
reason management implemented planning was to create work plans for
contractors less familiar with plant equipment. Management might try
to ease this worry by pointing out two things. One, planning should
improve in-house efficiency so that contractors are less competitive.
Two, Planning Principle 5 specifies that planners create plans for tech-
nicians who are familiar with plant equipment.
The planner identifies and writes the cost for contractor work in the
special tools portion of the work order plan.
Insulation
Presume for the purpose of illustration that a plant routinely contracts
all insulation work. This plant feels that the concern for asbestos and
the need for special tools and materials to work with insulation makes
using a contractor advisable. The contractor also has the ability to ramp
up and down personnel levels faster than the plant. This is useful for
periods when the plant does not require much insulation work. The
plant has the insulation contractor under a special contract that pays
a specified rate for insulation work.
Insulation work lends itself to a minimum of craft interference because
the contractor can remove the insulation with the equipment still in
service before maintenance work commences. The insulation contractor
can later replace the insulation after maintenance completes its work
and the plant returns the equipment to service. Scaffolding presents a
similar situation.
When insulation must be removed, the planner puts the work order
in the waiting-for-insulation-work file. The planning supervisor (or
another designated individual) coordinates the insulation contractor
work and returns the work order to the planner after the contractor
removes the insulation. The planning supervisor gives the contractor’s
Basic Planning 173
cost estimate for removing and replacing the insulation to the planner
at this time. The planner then proceeds to finish scoping or otherwise
planning the work, if needed, and passes the work to the waiting-to-be-
scheduled file. The planner must exercise caution that necessary equip-
ment tags or job markings remain in place or are replaced in order to
help the technician later executing the job.
When the craft completes its work and the planner receives the work
order back, the planner then makes a copy of the work order form. The
planner places the copy of the form in the waiting-for-insulation-work
file for the planning supervisor to coordinate the contractor for replac-
ing the insulation. The planner uses the estimated insulation cost for
the actual cost also. The paperwork of determining the actual cost from
the blanket work order used for insulation is not practical. However, in
unusual circumstances, the contractor informs the planning supervisor
of the actual cost. This information is returned to the planner for updat-
ing the minifile.
Other contracted out work

The planner handles on-site contractor work that is not routine or does
not have special contracts in place the same way as purchasing nonstock
parts. The planner has the planning department purchaser determine
the cost and have the contractor ready to mobilize. The planner then
puts the work order in the waiting-to-be-scheduled file with a note
describing what coordination is necessary for using the contractor. The
maintenance scheduler initiates the coordination if advance notice is
required. The crew supervisor makes any coordination requiring less
than a few days. The crew supervisor supervises the contractor on-site.
The planner does not supervise contractors because that would inter-
fere with future job planning and otherwise engage the planner in an
activity that does not leverage maintenance. Anyone from the crew
would be spending an hour to supervise when the planner would have
to spend an hour as well. There is no leverage from the planner. On the
other hand, there is a leverage from the crew supervisor’s standpoint.
The crew supervisor should be out in the field anyway so that the crew
supervisor supervising a contractor may not take any time. The crew
supervisor should supervise the contractor, not the planner.
Plant engineers or technical specialists normally supervise or inspect
contract work performed off-site. However, some small jobs such as get-
ting parts rebuilt might involve the maintenance force. For getting parts
rebuilt off-site for a job-in-progress, the crew supervisor coordinates
this work through the tool room or through the purchaser (or expe-
diter). For rebuilding used parts after maintenance completes a job, the
crew supervisor writes and submits a new work order to rebuild and
have the parts placed in stock. The planners would then coordinate the
174 Chapter Five
work. Placing the responsibility to initiate follow-up work directly on the

crew supervisor lessens misunderstandings resulting in parts not being
rebuilt.
Closing and Filing Feedback

after Job Execution
The planner now performs one of planning’s most important tasks. To
move each future job up the learning curve, a planner must place infor-
mation used or discovered during a job into the minifile. The planner
completes the work’s actual cost directly on the work order form and
updates any necessary minifile sheets. The planner places the original
work order form in the minifile. When filing the work order form, the
planner sends a copy to the planning clerk for updating the computer
for job closure. The clerk subsequently forwards that copy to the origi-
nator or otherwise notifies the originator of job completion.
If the technician or planner has indicated on the work order form
that drawing or equipment technical data has changed, the clerk sends
an extra copy to the plant engineering department. If the plant keeps
a single CMMS database for equipment design information, the engi-
neering department might not need information other than to revise
drawings.
The planner needs to ensure that the necessary details of the actual
job execution are clear enough to maintain the equipment database and
help future work. Occasionally, the planner must dig and dig to get good
job feedback. The planner might need to consult with the technicians
or supervisors to clarify job details. A routine failure of a crew to report
feedback must be brought by the planner to the crew supervisor or plan-
ning supervisor’s attention. In addition, if the work order feedback indi-
cated that maintenance made only a temporary repair, the planner may
need to ensure that the necessary follow-up work orders have been writ-
ten to address the situation.
The following provides guidelines for adequate job feedback the craft
technicians should provide.
1. Identify quantity of persons and specific craft and grade of each

person. Identify the names of the persons.
2. Identify labor hours of each person. Give start and finish times of
job. Explain any variance from the plan estimates if greater or less
than 20%.
3. Thoroughly describe the problem if not accurately specified by the
plan.
4. Thoroughly describe the action taken if the job did not proceed
according to the plan. Report any special problems and solutions.
Basic Planning 175
5. Identify actual quantities of parts used and report stock numbers

if not given by the plan.
6. Identify actual special tools used or made if not given by the plan.
7. Return the original work order and all attachments provided by
planning. Include any field notes and return any datasheets that the
technician filled out whether or not planning provided them.
8. Return updated drawings.
9. Note any changes to equipment technical information such as new
serial numbers and model numbers and names. Return any manu-
facturer’s information or literature that was received with any new
parts being installed. This information is especially vital and often
cannot otherwise be determined to help future maintenance.
10. Include any other information such as bearing clearances (radial
and thrust), wear ring clearance, shaft runout clearance, bearing to
cap clearances, coupling condition, and gap clearance.
11. Make any recommendations to help future plans.
Technicians generally want to give good feedback on job plans, espe-

cially when encouraged by proper management support and communi-
cation regarding the role of planning. Four particular strategies further
help promote receiving good feedback. First, the simple notion that they
are supposed to give feedback surprises some technicians. The plant
might want to conduct a short, 1- or 2-hour training class for the main-
tenance workforce. The emphasis of this class would describe the tech-
nician’s role in improving job plans and procedures as part of the
planning program. Second, a planner should attend regular crew meet-
ings at least once every week or two. The planner would emphasize the
help expected from the technicians. The planner might say, “Listen. I’m
not Superman with x-ray vision when I scope out a job. I give the plan
my best effort, but I expect you folks to tell me what the equipment actu-
ally needed and what you did. I may not be able to give you a perfect
plan, but I surely promise to be a faithful file clerk. I can attach those
part numbers you find to future jobs, so we don't have to ‘reinvent the
wheel’ on every job in the future.” Having the planner attend some crew
meeting greatly reduces “us versus them” restriction of information and
ideas, and encourages the players to work together as a team. Planning
as a system requires working together. Third, regardless of whether
the company employees a CMMS, paper work orders should accompany
technicians in the field. It is on this document that the technician can
precisely mark areas of the plan needing improvement. A CMMS that
merely allows a check next to a step or the technician filling in a long
description field at the end of the plan is inadequate. Experience shows
that on the same job, technicians who make extensive comments all over
176 Chapter Five
a paper work order form tend to enter much fewer comments on the
computer. This reduction in helpful information is due to the difficulty in
describing the exact parts of the plan needing attention and the slowness
of typing in the information. The paper work order in the field also
allows actual input in real time before the technicians forget exactly
what they meant. Tasking the technician to copy the paper comments
into a computer later is duplication of effort. Providing the technicians
with computerized field devices means small handheld devices where
data entry is difficult and is not geared toward individual job steps.
Larger laptop field devices allow easier data entry, but at some point
pass the point of diminishing company returns for replacing simple
paper with expensive rugged electronics for every field technician.
Technicians can take paper work orders directly to job sites and mark
them up. The technicians hand these papers back through their super-
visors to the planning department. The planners directly view the
marked up papers and file them in minifiles to help future jobs. In a pure
paper environment, the planner would simply review the feedback and
file the completed work in the minifile to help future plans. In a CMMS
situation, the planner would review the feedback, update any electronic
standard plan, and then allow a clerk to manually enter the feedback
as best as possible into the standard CMMS data entry fields and file
the paper work order. Even with a CMMS, making minifiles to hold
paper work orders is advised for better future research. It is easier to
scan paper files than scan computer files in some cases and for differ-
ent persons who may need to consult files. In any case, be aware that
the quality of job feedback may diminish as a plant abandons paper in
favor of computer data entry for field technicians. A similar issue arises
with paper or computer feedback. Should there be a survey type form
asking specific questions about the job? Could parts be improved? If so,
how? Could safety be improved? If so, how? And so forth. These types
of questions tend to make work order forms too long and actually dis-
courage some technicians from marking up the plan in specific places.
Experience shows that a general statement at the end of a work order
to “Mark up the plan where needed for improvement either on the per-
tinent section of the plan, on the space below, or on the back of the work
order” may be more beneficial. This type of statement might be recom-
mended most for new PMs or entirely new plans in a plant where the
technicians are not used to giving feedback. Fourth and finally, plans
having a plan history section at the end of the work order greatly encour-
age feedback because technicians see that the plans use their recom-
mendations. This is not so practical in a pure paper environment, but
a CMMS that prints out work orders for technicians can easily list this
type of information. The history should include the date, the change, and
the planner making the change. This section should always be in the
same area of the work order for easier reference (usually at the end). (In
addition, adding reference sections for other than history is a good idea
Basic Planning 177
even if not for feedback reasons, especially ones identifying O&M man-
uals.) Thus although technicians usually support giving good feedback
when they understand the planning program, four strategies help encour-
age better feedback. Giving a short feedback expectation class, having
planners visit crew meetings, using paper work orders in the field, and
including a procedure history section all help facilitate better feedback.
Figure 5.14 shows an example work order after the crew has exe-
cuted the work and given feedback to planning. Figure 5.15 shows the
closing notes the planner made to the work order to update the work
Figure 5.14 Work order after the crew executes the job and provides feedback.
178 Chapter Five
Figure 5.15 Work order after the planner writes in the actual field cost for the
history file.
order form totals for time and cost. Figure 5.16 shows a new work order
an operator wrote 5 months later with a similar problem. Figure 5.17
shows how the planner was able to use feedback from the job completed
previously to improve the new work order’s job plan. The planner was
able to identify several special tools to help the craft technician avoid
an extra trip to gather an impact wrench and sockets after arriving at
the job site. Notice that the planner did not change the plan for craft skill
or time required. The planner still felt that the job required only a single
Basic Planning 179
Figure 5.16New work order later on same equipment after the originator completes
the information.
mechanic with a helper for 5 hours. Finally, Fig. 5.18 shows a more
sophisticated work order with reference and history sections.
Summary
Seeing explicit descriptions of the steps a planner takes helps one under-
stand how the company actually conducts maintenance planning. The chap-
ter described first the work order process and then the flow of planning
180 Chapter Five
Figure 5.17 New work order after the planner improves the job plan with feed-
back from previous work on equipment.
activity within the work order process. As the discussion unfolded, a

planner scoped and planned an example work order and the reasoning
behind each step was explained. This chapter should allow companies to
tailor their own systems to implement effective planning. The next
chapter presents the same level of detail in describing the specific activ-
ities of advance scheduling and daily scheduling. Appendix E narrates
duties through step-by-step activities for the maintenance planner and
App. F does the same for many of the other persons involved in the
planning process.
Basic Planning 181
Work order #002107

Requester section Priority R2
Unit 2 CntrlVlv B strainer (N02-FC-003) high
differential, needs attention. Def. Tag #037114. No outage.
Mech crew. Clearance required. No confined space.
F. Balder 9/11/98 2 am Approval: S. Brown 9/11/98
Planning section
Clean strainer positioned in front of the control valve.
Remove strainer element, clean, and replace.
Replace gasket if needed.
Labor: 1 Mech 5 hr total labor 10 hr
1 Helper 5 hr job duration 5 hr
Parts: Strainer lid gasket GSK-RR-130* Qty 1 cost $10ea
Tools: Rags, can of degreaser, plastic garbage bags,
2" combination, 2" impact socket, and impact
wrench. *Reserved
***Special reference and procedure history section****
Reference (not needed on job): ACME Mnl#7 pg 14
job plan/procedure history:
04/25/98 Added 2" combo/socket/impact per fdbk. Lee
planner D. Lee 9/11/98 job estimate: $260
Craft feedback
Approval:
Coding Plan type RE Group/syst FC Crew 1–2
Work type 5 Equip type 18 Outage 0
Figure 5.18Add reference and history sections to better explain plan and encour-
age feedback.
Chapter
6
Advance Scheduling
This chapter continues the nuts and bolts of making the planning system
work with regard to scheduling. The chapter shows exactly how to do a
practical method of scheduling.
In actual practice, it may be helpful to note that persons may consider
scheduling a somewhat vague term. To be more precise, advance or
weekly scheduling means a scheduler allocating an amount of work
orders for a week without setting specific days or times to begin or com-
plete individual work orders. Likewise, daily scheduling means a crew
supervisor assigning specific work orders to specific individuals to begin
the next day. A maintenance group uses both weekly and daily sched-
ules. This chapter describes the activities to accomplish weekly and
daily scheduling. In addition, the chapter covers how maintenance per-
sonnel stage material and tools. Although this book focuses on routine
maintenance, the book also explains key scheduling concepts behind suc-
cessful outages. Finally, the chapter compares and contrasts the concepts
of scheduling with the concepts of quotas, benchmarks, and standards.
Weekly Scheduling
The scheduler performs most of the tasks of advance scheduling. The
scheduler first gathers jobs from the waiting-to-be-scheduled file and any
work returned from the previous week’s schedule. The scheduler then
allocates them into each crew’s work hour forecast for the next week. The
scheduler allocates jobs by work order priority, then number of work
hours, but also makes other considerations per the scheduling princi-
ples. The scheduler utilizes scheduling worksheets for assistance. The
end product is a package of jobs that the crew should be able to complete
the next week. The scheduler then delivers the jobs for each crew to the
crew supervisor. The scheduler also sends a copy of each work order that
will need intercraft coordination to the supporting craft.
183

184 Chapter Six
Each day the crew supervisor makes the daily schedule mostly from
the work orders allocated in the weekly schedule. The crew supervisor
assigns work to individual crew members based on the current day’s
activities and progress on work. The supervisor attends a daily sched-
uling meeting with other craft supervisors and the operations group rep-
resentative to coordinate work for the next day. Near the end of the
week, the crew supervisor returns to the scheduler the jobs that he or
she does not expect the crew to start that week. The scheduler then con-
siders them for inclusion in the advance schedule then being prepared.
Here are the step-by-step actual activities for weekly scheduling. This
is the type of physical process which must be understood and which a
computer (CMMS) would mimic.
Forecasting work hours

Each crew supervisor forecasts the crew’s available work hours as the
first step in the advance scheduling process.
This activity takes place near the end of the work week, usually at the
beginning of the last shift for the period already in progress. For exam-
ple, this would be Friday morning for a crew that works Monday through
Friday, 8-hour day shifts or Thursday morning for a crew that works
Monday through Thursday, 10-hour day shifts.
Near the end of the work week, the scheduler takes a Crew Work
Hours Availability Forecast worksheet (shown in Fig. 6.1) to each crew
supervisor. Taking the availability forecast worksheet to the supervisors
impresses upon the supervisors that next week they will be responsible
for completing the amount of work for which they have labor. They are
involved in the process. The scheduler is only helping them determine
how many and which jobs should be selected from the backlog.
The Crew Work Hours Availability Forecast worksheet has blanks to
guide the crew supervisor in determining how many hours each craft
level has available. This section and the following sections illustrate the
crew supervisor’s use of this form.
The crew supervisor fills out and returns the availability forecast
worksheet as soon as possible after receiving it from the scheduler. The
supervisor receives the forecast worksheet from the scheduler at 8 AM.
The crew supervisor should already have an idea of who will be in train-
ing and who has requested vacation for the next week. On the other
hand, the supervisor may need to check on jobs currently in progress to
determine which ones the crew will probably not finish this week. Those
jobs will need carryover hours reserved for them next week. In addition,
the supervisor needs to assess which new jobs the crew will start that day.
Some of these jobs might be finished or might also run over into next
week. One thing the supervisor does not plan for is unexpected absences.
Scheduling is not based on the unexpected. The supervisor may later use
unexpected absences that occurred to explain why the crew did not meet
Advance Scheduling 185
Figure 6.1 Worksheet to assist crew supervisors forecast how many labor hours
are available for scheduling work the following week.
a schedule. When the crew supervisor finishes these determinations, he

or she gives the scheduler the completed Crew Work Hours Availability
Forecast worksheet. The crew supervisor also hands over any physical
work orders which the crew received to do this past week, but will not
start. The crew supervisor makes all these determinations by 10 AM
and returns the worksheet. This gives the scheduler time to create the
weekly schedule by 1 PM after lunch. (The scheduler must finish the
weekly schedule by early afternoon so that the crew supervisor can
make a daily schedule for the first day of the coming week. The crew
186 Chapter Six
supervisor must attend a late afternoon daily scheduling meeting to

give the operations group information on clearances for the beginning
of the following week and initiate coordination with other crafts, if nec-
essary. The supervisor may also begin to make individual technician
assignments.)
The maintenance group can easily computerize the availability fore-
cast worksheet. Many CMMS packages contain work calendars for the
crew supervisor to update crew member availability for the coming
work days. Then the scheduler can access the data whenever needed.
Of course, the crew supervisor must keep the data current. Even with-
out a CMMS system or CMMS labor calendar module, the company can
use a computer network. The scheduler can make a form on email or
attach a spreadsheet program or word processing document with a rep-
resentation of Fig. 6.1. By exchanging this form back and forth by
email, the crew supervisor and scheduler produce the necessary fore-
cast information.
Without getting current information from the crew supervisor, the
scheduler might use a standard forecast of how many work hours were
normally available. In other words, the scheduler would presume for a
given crew that a certain number of labor hours were available every
week. This standard forecast might presume that for a 10-person crew,
one person would be unavailable for one reason or another. So the sched-
uler would schedule for nine persons each week. The scheduler and the
crew supervisor would meet together occasionally to assess any needs to
adjust the standard. The problem with using a standard forecast is that
crew supervisors may not take the resulting schedule seriously. Whether
or not they finish all their scheduled work, they will get the same amount
of new work the next period. There is not much attention to carryover
work which could be a significant problem. This approach figures that
carryover work from the previous work remains about the same each
week. Carryover work would be work that the crew started the previous
week but did not complete. One of the main reasons to base weekly
scheduling on a precise weekly forecast is to facilitate communication
about performance. Scheduling to a standard forecast hinders achieving
this purpose. Nonetheless, this approach may be necessary in situations
of extreme crew reluctance and minimal management support.
Figures 6.2 and 6.3 illustrate the use of the Crew Work Hours
Availability Forecast worksheet for a mechanical maintenance crew
working a 10-hour shift. B. Jones, supervisor of A Crew, has just received
the availability forecast worksheet from the scheduler. The crew consists
of five persons: one skilled welder, one apprentice, one painter, and two
mechanics. Jones feels that one of the mechanics possesses a very high
degree of mechanical skill, but the other mechanic is significantly less
capable at the present time. Jones knows that none of the crew will be in
training any of next week, but the painter will be off 2 days for vacation.
Figure 6.2 Input of normal craft and skill level designations.
Jones considers the current jobs in progress. The welder’s current job
will not be finished today and requires about 5 hours next week to
finish. The higher skilled mechanic has been working a job for the past
2 days and claims it will take 5 hours next week as well. The other
mechanic will finish one job and start another job today that will also
take about 5 hours next week to finish. The other crew members should
finish their current work today as well. Jones plans to have them start
and finish a new assignment. With this information, Jones estimates the
188 Chapter Six
Figure 6.3 Completed forecast for the A Crew.
total carryover work to be 5 hours of skilled welding, 5 hours of highly

skilled mechanic work, and 5 hours of lesser skilled mechanic work.
Figure 6.2 shows that the supervisor begins completing the avail-
ability forecast worksheet by starting with a craft skill level listing for
this specific crew. First, note that the worksheet considers apprentices
simply as helpers. This plant does not regard apprentices as strictly in
training for their craft and may utilize them where the high priorities
of the plant lie. It is expedient to follow this philosophy in the forecast-
ing phase of the scheduling, but to use the daily scheduling assignments
to try to keep apprentices within their craft specialties. Second, note that
the scheduler and the supervisor use the term mechanic to designate a
fairly well-skilled mechanic technician. They use the term technician to
designate a less skilled technician in the primary craft of the crew, in
this case mechanical. This use of the terms allows planners, schedulers,
and supervisors to communicate regarding skill level even within a
standard classification. Although the plant does not have a certification
program, significant differences between the skill levels of the mechan-
ics exist. The plant needs to ensure not to allocate too many jobs requir-
ing highly skilled mechanics at the same time. Normally a company
could distinguish overall skill level through some certification process
or a progression of rank such as third, second, and first class mechan-
ics to identify the better mechanics. However, the subject plant has only
mechanic, apprentice, and trainee formal designations. Therefore, the
planners and schedulers informally address the needs for jobs by using
the terms technician and mechanic on the job plans. When a planner
uses the term technician, the job plan does not require a more capable
mechanic.
Figure 6.3 shows the availability forecast worksheet after the super-
visor enters all the quantities for persons and hours. Jones only fore-
casts for the 2 days of vacation approved for the painter. Supervisors do
not presume there will be unexpected absences due to personal illnesses
or sudden vacation day requests. The advance schedule sets a goal based
on current knowledge and encourages everyone to meet the schedule.
Typically, management above the supervisor directs training and spe-
cial meetings. Management decides and sends various persons to dif-
ferent training classes or schools as well as coordinates special meetings
such as safety or outage planning. Management does the crafts a great
favor by scheduling these types of special events at least a week ahead
of time. Once maintenance has set a weekly advance schedule, man-
agement assists maintenance in building the plant’s confidence in the
schedule by not encouraging deviation. Jones’s management has not
scheduled training or meetings for anyone. Jones’s estimate of carryover
hours is important because the scheduler must allow the crew time to
finish jobs already in progress. The scheduler must not allocate new
work for these labor hours. The supervisor’s estimate of the amount of
time required to finish carryover work is adequate. Finally, the super-
visor completes the total’s line for each type of work hour. The total’s line
helps in several ways. First, it helps to check the entries for accuracy
of addition and subtraction. It also draws attention to how many hours
exist in the various categories. The total magnitude of paid hours avail-
able to the crew and the effect of lost hours due to training or carryover
work often are unappreciated. In this case, 200 labor hours represent a
significant company expense. Out of this 200 paid hours, the supervi-
sor forecasts 165 available for work next week in the shown crafts and
190 Chapter Six
skill levels. Finally, the totals lend themselves to tracking areas for
improvement.
Figure 6.4 illustrates the use of the Crew Work Hours Availability
Forecast worksheet for another mechanical maintenance crew. J. Field,
supervisor of B Crew, has just received the availability forecast work-
sheet from the scheduler. The crew consists of 15 persons. The crew has
two welders, two machinists, and six mechanics. Field considers three
of the mechanics to be significantly more capable than the others. Two
trainees and three apprentices make up the remaining five employees.
Figure 6.4 Completed forecast for the B Crew.

Field will forecast the crew available work hours from the following
information. One of the welders requested 2 days of vacation next week.
All B Crew apprentices must attend an entire day of classroom train-
ing. B Crew will have a 1-hour safety meeting on Wednesday. After
checking on jobs in progress, Field makes an estimate for carryover
work. Carryover work will consist of 2 days of welding needing a welder
and a helper, 1 day of machine work, 1 day of skilled mechanic work,
and another day of less demanding mechanic work.
As before, the supervisor classifies the mechanics according to skill
describing them as three mechanics and three technicians. The super-
visor forecasts five helpers including the three apprentices and both
trainees. The classroom training makes only 30 hours unavailable since
out of the five helpers, only the apprentices must attend. The safety
meeting on Wednesday makes 1 hour for each person unavailable for
scheduling in the Miscellaneous column. The specific day of the week
is irrelevant to both the forecast and the weekly allocation. Only the
available hours for the entire week matter. The daily scheduling routine
later will take this into account. Finally, out of the 600 paid hours, 455
are available for new work.
Sorting work orders

In preparation of allocating work orders into the crew availability fore-
cast, the scheduler sorts the plant’s backlog. If the crew is responsible
for only a certain area of the plant, the scheduler will only sort those
work orders. Later after the scheduler allocates work for every crew, the
scheduler might be able to recommend that certain crews assist other
crews. The scheduler sorts the backlogged work orders in order to pref-
erentially select work orders to allocate. If there are more job hours in
the backlog than the forecast, obviously the scheduler cannot expect the
crew to complete all the work. If the backlog has 1000 hours of jobs, then
a crew expecting to have 455 labor hours cannot do all the work in a
single week. The scheduler must select 455 hours worth of work to allo-
cate for the week. The scheduler sorts the backlog of work orders into
an overall order that will help determine which particular work orders
are appropriate. Note that this presumes Scheduling Principle 4, pro-
ceeding with a preference to schedule 100% of the forecasted crew work
hours, not more (120%) or less (80%). The procedure for allocating the
work hours into the backlog proceeds with assigning the higher priori-
ties before the lower priority work. The procedure also makes allowance
for jobs on the same system and proactive work. In addition, the process
shows how to select among jobs of equal priority and work type.
The scheduler returns to the planning office after delivering the Crew
Work Hours Availability Forecast worksheet for the crew supervisor to com-
plete. The scheduler collects all the planned work orders for a particular
192 Chapter Six
crew from the waiting-to-be-scheduled file and organizes them on a con-

ference room table. The scheduler sorts them into separate piles, one pile
for each priority. The waiting-to-be-scheduled file might already have
separate folders for each priority to facilitate this step. Appendix J
describes the priority codes for the work order system. Then, the sched-
uler sorts each pile into a particular order.
The scheduler first sorts the highest priority pile, priority 1 (urgent).
Note there are no priority-0 (emergency) jobs in the backlog. Emergency
jobs would already be under way and so are neither planned nor sched-
uled. By definition, all priority-1 work is classified as reactive work. Why
is this reactive work sorted ahead of any proactive work? The ideal sit-
uation would be to have only proactive work in a plant. The plant prefers
doing lower priority, proactive work to head off emergencies and urgent
work. However, priority-1 work is urgent. It must be addressed, usually
to restore lost capacity or remedy an immediate threat to production.
The purpose of proactive work is to head off any reactive work, but
when proactive action has failed to prevent a reactive situation, the sit-
uation must be addressed. Maintenance must first schedule urgent
work to restore the plant. However, lower priority, reactive work should
wait until after equal priority proactive work. In giving general prefer-
ence to proactive work in this manner, the incidence of reactive situa-
tions diminishes. Therefore, the scheduler considers priority-1 work,
which is all reactive and urgent, first.
The scheduler sorts the priority-1 jobs into order with jobs requiring
the highest total of work hours on top. When the scheduler later allo-
cates the work orders, jobs with more total work hours are put in the
schedule first. This will allow fitting smaller jobs of equal priority into
gaps of time remaining during the allocation process. This gap fitting
would be more difficult if the scheduler allocated smaller jobs first. The
scheduler would have to allocate only portions of larger jobs unneces-
sarily. The scheduler makes an exception to this sorting for smaller jobs
encountered if they belong to the same system as larger jobs already
higher in the group. In that case, the scheduler physically removes the
smaller work order from its natural order and staples it to the work order
for the larger job in the same system.
Scheduling work together for the same system is important for sev-
eral reasons. Productivity increases if technicians can move from one job
to a nearby job on the same system. They do not need to lose time famil-
iarizing themselves with a different system at the start of each job.
They avoid having to demobilize, travel, and move personal tool boxes
to a different site to set up again. Sometimes they can use the same scaf-
folding or insulation clearing to get to the work. There is also a psycho-
logical boost to remaining on the same system. Frequently the time
between jobs is taken advantage of as being a logical time to take breaks
or “rest a moment” even when the jobs only last an hour or less. When jobs
are scheduled on the same system, there is a tendency to look at the entire
system as a single job through which to proceed with minimal delay.
On the operations or production side, combining same system jobs also
helps improve plant operations. An operator prefers to clear up a single
system a single time for several jobs. A less organized scheduling effort
might have the operator clear up the demineralizer on Monday and
Wednesday for two jobs that could have both been done on Monday.
Then on Friday, when the maintenance group requests the operator to
clear up the demineralizer a third time, the operator must refuse. The
operator must explain that the plant is in jeopardy of not having enough
water in its storage tanks. This scenario frequently occurs when no
advance scheduling exists. The supervisor then assigns work by pick-
ing through the entire plant backlog for each next job. The scenario
also can occur if the scheduler does not place the jobs together in an
advance allocation. Unnecessarily clearing up a system multiple times
wastes time and frustrates the operators.
Then the scheduler similarly sorts the priority-2 (serious) work orders
by work order size, biggest jobs on top, with three exceptions. The first
exception is that the scheduler puts all, preventive maintenance (PM),
jobs at the top of the pile. PM jobs are always prioritized as priority-2
jobs. They are considered serious and not simply routine maintenance
with a lower priority. The scheduler sorts PM jobs by job size within
themselves, larger ones first. The second exception is similar as for pri-
ority-1 work orders. If a work order is encountered that belongs in a
system for which a larger or higher priority work order has already
been sorted, the work order is moved up and attached to the previously
sorted work order. This is done even if it means moving a work order
from the priority-2 pile to the priority-1 pile to attach it to the other work
order. The third exception is that for work orders of approximately the
same size with the same priority, the scheduler places a proactive work
order ahead of a reactive one.
Then the scheduler sorts the pile for priority-3 work orders with larger
work orders on top and proactive work getting preference for work
orders of approximately the same size. The scheduler physically moves
any work order for a system already encountered and attaches it to the
other work order, even if it is in a higher priority pile.
Similarly, the scheduler sorts each pile of same-priority work orders.
Finally, there is a finished group for each priority arranged from top to
bottom by size. There are exceptions for same-system work orders stapled
together, exceptions for similar-sized proactive work ahead of reactive
work, and PM work orders at the top of the priority-2 stack (unless a PM
was moved to the priority-1 stack to be with a same system work order).
Note that the advance scheduling process does not consider aging of
work orders. The concept of aging is that an older work order should get
194 Chapter Six
higher attention than a similar work order only recently written. That
is, a low priority work order written 9 months ago might justify more
attention than a serious work order written only yesterday. Aging might
help a workforce that does not have weekly scheduling. If a crew is only
completing the high priority work with low productivity, increasing the
relative priority of an older, low priority job might encourage the crew
to include it as well. Aging is not as helpful if the maintenance group
allocates and expects a crew to complete a proper amount of work each
week. A properly sized maintenance crew is capable of handling all the
work that comes up, not just the high priority tasks. That means that
the crew can complete all the work so aging is not necessary to bring
older jobs to the top. Scheduling keeps the crew from lowering its pro-
ductivity to handle only the high priority work. Scheduling Principle 2
states the importance of correct priorities. Working lower priority jobs
ahead of clearly more important jobs leads a crew to doubt its leader-
ship. Doing the most important work first gives the plant more benefit
by definition. So aging is really a tool to increase a crew’s low produc-
tivity. Aging would interfere with an already highly productive crew.
Aging figures that a crew is less productive than it should be. Aging fig-
ures that a crew is only doing the high priority work by choice. So aging
simply raises the priority of some of the work into the higher priority
work to which the crew will give attention. On the other hand, a crew
already getting as much work done as it should can only give attention
to another job by not doing a job already intended. So aging for the
highly productive crew has just made the crew complete a lower prior-
ity job instead of a higher priority job to the plant’s detriment.
Claiming that less important work should not be done ahead of more
important work does not say work should never be reprioritized. If an
older, low priority work order for some reason merits more importance
recently, then the priority should be increased. With the same reason-
ing, perhaps a higher priority work order is now less important than pre-
viously thought. The planning system should allow for changing the
priority of each of these types of work orders. One of the helpful additions
to a planning group in this respect is an operations coordinator. This
person or any knowledgeable operator can benefit a planning group by
a monthly review of an extensive backlog. The operations coordinator
can determine if some work orders should be reprioritized. This person
has the authority to change the priority of any work order on the spot.
The scheduler receives two things from the crew supervisor a few
hours after the last shift starts. The scheduler receives the completed
Crew Work Hours Availability Forecast worksheet and any work orders
which had been scheduled, but are now not going to be started this week.
The supervisor has had time to assess the crew projected attendance for
the next week as well as the status of current jobs-in-progress. In the case
of an entirely paper-driven system, the crew supervisor physically hands
over the work orders that the crew will not start. (In the case of an
entirely computer driven system, the maintenance group might only
print out the physical work orders when assigning them to the field
technicians, if at all. The supervisor updates the computer changing each
job to “in-progress” at the beginning of the shift or the end of the pre-
vious shift for the coming day. Therefore, the scheduler may consult the
CMMS each week to determine which allocated jobs will not be started.)
The scheduler takes the jobs not to be started and places them into the
priority piles of work orders if they have already been arranged. The
scheduler places these new work orders into the piles where they would
belong if they had already been in the backlog. The actual allocation
sequence can now take place.
Tables 6.1 through 6.3 illustrate sorting a plant backlog. The backlog
belongs to mechanical maintenance A Crew. An earlier illustration used
this crew as an example for forecasting. Table 6.1 shows the backlog
TABLE 6.1 Plant Backlog for the A Crew Listed by Work Order Number
No. of
persons Est. Est
WO No. Unit System Priority Work type Outage and craft hours duration
001 N00 ZE 4 5 0 1 welder 35 35

002 N01 CP 1 5 0 1 tech 10 10
003 N01 CV 3 9 0 1 painter 40 40
004 N01 FC 1 5 0 1 tech, 7, 7 7
1 helper
005 N01 CP 2 7 0 1 tech, 6, 12 6
2 helpers
006 N01 FC 3 5 0 1 tech, 15, 15 15
1 helper
007 N01 JC 2 5 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
008 N01 JX 3 9 0 1 painter 4 4
009 N01 CP 4 5 0 1 mech, 2, 2 2
1 helper
010 N01 IF 3 9 0 1 tech, 3, 3 3
1 helper
011 N01 CD 2 8 0 1 mech, 10, 10 10
1 helper
012 N01 BV 1 5 0 1 welder, 8, 8 8
1 helper
013 N01 IF 4 9 0 2 tech 6 3
TABLE 6.2 Plant Backlog for the A Crew Grouped by Work Order Priority, Size, and PM
No. of
Work persons Est. Est.
WO No. Unit System Priority type Outage and craft hours duration
012 N01 BV 1 5 0 1 welder, 8, 8 8

1 helper
004 N01 FC 1 5 0 1 tech, 7, 7 7
1 helper
002 N01 CP 1 5 0 1 tech 10 10
005 N01 CP 2 7 0 1 tech, 6, 12 6
2 helpers
007 N01 JC 2 5 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
011 N01 CD 2 8 0 1 mech, 10, 10 10
1 helper
003 N01 CV 3 9 0 1 painter 40 40
006 N01 FC 3 5 0 1 tech, 15, 15 15
1 helper
010 N01 IF 3 9 0 1 tech, 3, 3 3
1 helper
008 N01 JX 3 9 0 1 painter 4 4
001 N00 ZE 4 5 0 1 welder 35 35
013 N01 IF 4 9 0 2 tech 6 3
009 N01 CP 4 5 0 1 mech, 2, 2 2
1 helper
TABLE 6.3 Plant Backlog for the A Crew Adjusted for Work on Same Systems
and Other Proactive Work
No. of
012 N01 BV 1 5 0 1 welder, 8, 8 8

1 helper
004 N01 FC 1 5 0 1 tech, 7, 7 7
1 helper
006 N01 FC 3 5 0 1 tech, 15, 15 15
1 helper
002 N01 CP 1 5 0 1 tech 10 10
005 N01 CP 2 7 0 1 tech, 6, 12 6
2 helpers
009 N01 CP 4 5 0 1 mech, 2, 2 2
1 helper
007 N01 JC 2 5 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
011 N01 CD 2 8 0 1 mech, 10, 10 10
1 helper
003 N01 CV 3 9 0 1 painter 40 40
010 N01 IF 3 9 0 1 tech, 3, 3 3
1 helper
013 N01 IF 4 9 0 2 tech 6 3
008 N01 JX 3 9 0 1 painter 4 4
001 N00 ZE 4 5 0 1 welder 35 35
196
arranged by work order number. The backlog consists of 243 total esti-
mated work hours as planned. Because A Crew has only 165 work hours
forecasted available, the scheduler must select the proper 165 hours to allo-
cate for the next week. A plant also generally prefers to have 2 to 3 weeks
of backlog available. This plant has less than 2 weeks of backlog. If this
shortage is the normal case, the plant might not be identifying enough
corrective maintenance situations to head off later breakdowns. The
plant might also not be creating enough PM tasks. On the other hand,
the maintenance crew might be overstaffed for the work area. Of the
work orders in the backlog, work order codes as defined in App. J define
certain information necessary for scheduling. First, the unit code N01
shows that most of the work orders are for North Unit 1, which is A
Crew’s primary responsibility. Second, within Unit 1, the system codes
show that a variety of different systems need work. Third, work type
codes indicate the nature of the work. Code 5 is breakdown and failure.
Code 7 is PM. Code 8 is work recommended by predictive maintenance.
Code 9 is corrective maintenance that can head off failure and break-
down. Fourth, outage code 0 illustrates that the scheduler considers
only work not requiring an outage of the entire unit for the normal
work week.
Table 6.2 shows the backlog after the scheduler has physically grouped
the work orders into different priorities. In addition, the largest work
orders have been placed ahead of smaller jobs within each priority
group. Note the scheduler places WO (work order) no. 012 requiring 16
total labor hours ahead of WO no. 004 requiring only 14 hours. Similarly,
WO no. 004 is ahead of WO no. 002, which requires only 10 labor hours.
Each priority group is similarly arranged with the only exception being
for the priority-2 work orders. The scheduler must place PM work orders
first within the priority-2 work orders. Work type code 7 defines the work
as preventive maintenance. Therefore, the scheduler places WO no. 005
at the head of the priority-2 group even though it has the fewest hours.
Table 6.3 shows the backlog after the scheduler has adjusted the
groups considering same-system work and other proactive work. First,
the scheduler takes WO no. 006 from the priority-3 stack and attaches
it behind WO no. 004 in the priority-1 group. These work orders are both
in the same system, FC. Second, the scheduler takes WO no. 005 from
the priority-2 stack and WO no. 009 from the priority-4 group. The
scheduler attaches both work orders behind WO no. 002 in the priority-1
stack. All three are in the same system, CP. Finally, the scheduler scans
the work orders to see if any of the proactive work orders besides PM
should be moved up in the allocation preference. Proactive work type 8
is work recommended by predictive maintenance and reactive work
type 5 is work to restore something that has already failed. WO no. 011
(work type 8) is currently behind WO no. 007 (work type 5). If WO no. 011
were closer in size to WO no. 007, say 35 to 39 labor hours, the scheduler
198 Chapter Six
would move it ahead. However, in this case, the relative size dictates
that preference be given to the reactive work. In the priority-3 group,
all of the work is proactive, work type 9 so no adjustments can be made.
The scheduler will use the order presented by Table 6.3 to select work
orders to allocate into the A Crew work hours availability forecast.
Tables 6.4 through 6.6 illustrate another example of sorting a
nonoutage, plant backlog for B Crew at the same plant. This crew has
TABLE 6.4 Plant Backlog for the B Crew Listed by Work Order Number
No. of
021 N02 BS 1 5 0 2 tech 6 3

022 N32 UA 3 9 0 2 tech 14 7
023 N00 FO 4 9 0 1 tech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
024 N00 HA 2 7 0 1 tech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
025 N00 HC 2 5 0 1 tech 17 17
026 N00 FO 2 5 0 1 welder 3 3
027 N00 HD 2 7 0 1 mach 2 2
028 N00 HP 1 5 0 1 mach, 8, 8 8
1 helper
029 N00 FW 4 9 0 2 helpers 12 6
030 N00 HD 1 5 0 1 mech, 1, 1 1
1 helper
031 N02 DA 3 3 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
032 N02 DO 3 9 0 1 helper 40 40
033 N00 FO 2 9 0 1 mach, 14, 14 14
1 tech
034 N00 FO 2 5 0 1 mach, 6, 6 6
1 tech
035 N00 KD 1 5 0 1 tech 20 20
036 N00 FW 1 5 0 1 mech, 6, 12 6
2 helpers
037 N00 FO 2 7 0 1 mech, 4, 8 8
1 helper
038 N31 UZ 2 5 0 1 tech, 3, 3 3
1 helper
039 N00 FO 2 8 0 1 welder, 2, 2 2
1 helper
040 N02 FD 3 8 0 1 welder, 10, 10 10
1 helper
041 N00 FO 1 5 0 1 tech, 4, 4 4
1 helper
042 N02 FD 1 5 0 2 tech 8 4
043 N31 UA 3 9 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
044 N31 UZ 4 9 0 2 helpers 2 1
TABLE 6.5 Plant Backlog for the B Crew Grouped by Work Order Priority, Size, and PM
No. of
035 N00 KD 1 5 0 1 tech 20 20

036 N00 FW 1 5 0 1 mech, 6, 12 6
2 helpers
028 N00 HP 1 5 0 1 mach, 8, 8 8
1 helper
041 N00 FO 1 5 0 1 tech, 4, 4 4
1 helper
042 N02 FD 1 5 0 2 tech 8 4
021 N02 BS 1 5 0 2 tech 6 3
030 N00 HD 1 5 0 1 mech, 1, 1 1
1 helper
024 N00 HA 2 7 0 1 tech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
037 N00 FO 2 7 0 1 mech, 4, 8 8
1 helper
027 N00 HD 2 7 0 1 mach 2 2
033 N00 FO 2 9 0 1 mach, 14, 14 14
1 tech
025 N00 HC 2 5 0 1 tech 17 17
034 N00 FO 2 5 0 1 mach, 6, 6 6
1 tech
038 N31 UZ 2 5 0 1 tech, 3, 3 3
1 helper
039 N00 FO 2 8 0 1 welder, 2, 2 2
1 helper
026 N00 FO 2 5 0 1 welder 3 3
031 N02 DA 3 3 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
032 N02 DO 3 9 0 1 helper 40 40
043 N31 UA 3 9 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
040 N02 FD 3 8 0 1 welder, 10, 10 10
1 helper
022 N32 UA 3 9 0 2 tech 14 7
023 N00 FO 4 9 0 1 tech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
029 N00 FW 4 9 0 2 helpers 12 6
044 N31 UZ 4 9 0 2 helpers 2 1
a different backlog because it is responsible for a separate section of the

plant. Table 6.4 shows the backlog arranged by work order number.
Table 6.5 shows the backlog after the scheduler has sorted the prior-
ity groups and placed PM jobs at the top of the priority-2 work orders.
Table 6.6 shows the backlog after the scheduler has grouped same
system work orders. This grouping should help maintenance and oper-
ations concentrate on the most needy systems in an organized manner.
Notice this grouping also allowed the scheduler to move a number of
200 Chapter Six
TABLE 6.6 Plant Backlog for the B Crew Adjusted for Work on Same Systems
and Other Proactive Work
No. of
035 N00 KD 1 5 0 1 tech 20 20

036 N00 FW 1 5 0 1 mech, 6, 12 6
2 helpers
029 N00 FW 4 9 0 2 helpers 12 6
028 N00 HP 1 5 0 1 mach, 8, 8 8
1 helper
041 N00 FO 1 5 0 1 tech, 4, 4 4
1 helper
037 N00 FO 2 7 0 1 mech, 4, 8 8
1 helper
033 N00 FO 2 9 0 1 mach, 14, 14 14
1 tech
034 N00 FO 2 5 0 1 mach, 6, 6 6
1 tech
039 N00 FO 2 8 0 1 welder, 2, 2 2
1 helper
026 N00 FO 2 5 0 1 welder 3 3
023 N00 FO 4 9 0 1 tech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
042 N02 FD 1 5 0 2 tech 8 4
040 N02 FD 3 8 0 1 welder, 10, 10 10
1 helper
021 N02 BS 1 5 0 2 tech 6 3
030 N00 HD 1 5 0 1 mech, 1, 1 1
1 helper
027 N00 HD 2 7 0 1 mach 2 2
024 N00 HA 2 7 0 1 tech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
025 N00 HC 2 5 0 1 tech 17 17
038 N31 UZ 2 5 0 1 tech, 3, 3 3
1 helper
044 N31 UZ 4 9 0 2 helpers 2 1
031 N02 DA 3 3 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20
1 helper
032 N02 DO 3 9 0 1 helper 40 40
043 N31 UA 3 9 0 1 mech, 20, 20 20

1 helper
022 N32 UA 3 9 0 2 tech 14 7
proactive work orders up into the priority-1 group. There are seven
proactive work orders moved into this group, two PM work orders, three
corrective maintenance work orders, and one predictive maintenance
work order. Without this grouping, the workforce may have had a ten-
dency to concentrate solely on the high priority reactive work for the
week. A sanity check may also be needed after the forecast work hours
are compared with the sorted backlog preference order. WO no. 023 is
a fairly large priority-4 work order that the scheduler has moved into
the priority-1 group. After reading exact job descriptions, the scheduler
or operations coordinator may prefer holding it until the plant has
addressed some of the priority-2 work. An obvious case might be the
inadvisability of attaching a 40-hour, priority-4 job to a single 3-hour,
priority-1 job. However, in the case of WO no. 23, there are already 67 hours
of work to be done for system FO.
Allocating work orders

With the crew work hour forecast in hand and the work orders stacked on
the table, the scheduler uses the Advance Schedule Worksheet, Fig. 6.5,
to allocate the right work orders for the week. This worksheet allows the
scheduler logically to connect the backlog with the crew time available.
The worksheet form essentially consists of a blank sheet of paper with
horizontal lines. The horizontal lines lie on the form at the same heights
as the Crew Work Hours Availability Forecast worksheet (Fig. 6.1). The
scheduler may tape or staple the schedule worksheet side by side to the
availability worksheet. The scheduler places the worksheets together
such that there is a long blank line immediately following the available
work hours for each craft skill level. For the ease of this discussion,
the scheduler does not physically attach the worksheets together, but
writes the craft level and forecast available hours on the extreme left
of each line. The long blank lines allow for tabulation of remaining crew
hours as the scheduler places each job into the schedule allocation for
the next week.
After writing the available hours on the left of each line, the sched-
uler selects the top work order from the pile of highest priority work
orders. The scheduler uses the long blank line beside each craft skill level
to write the remaining craft hours available after the scheduler subtracts
the hours required by the selected work order. The scheduler then puts
the selected work order into the week’s worth of work being allocated.
This work constitutes the weekly schedule.
The scheduler physically places the paper work order itself into a set
of folders to deliver to the crew supervisor. There is a folder for each craft
skill level which is the lead for the work order. For example, if the work
order requires two helpers, the scheduler places the work order into the
helper folder. If the work order requires a mechanic and a helper, the
work order also goes into the mechanic folder since the lead person is a
mechanic. If the work order requires two welders and an electrician, the
work order goes into the welder folder since the bulk of the work (and
probably the lead) is welding. Later these folders will help the crew
supervisor find work while assigning to the different crafts and skill on
the individual crew. The craft skill level folders not only allow sorting of
the work by trades or classifications, but they are also the vehicle that phys-
ically transports the scheduled work orders over to the crew supervisor.
202 Chapter Six
Figure 6.5 Worksheet to assist the scheduler determine which work orders to allo-
cate for the week.
Later at the end of the scheduling period, the supervisor returns the fold-
ers to the scheduler with work orders that were not started. The sched-
uler places these work orders back into the backlog for possible inclusion
in the next weekly schedule as the scheduler follows the advance sched-
uling routine.
The scheduler then repeats the work order selection process to allo-
cate work orders into the available craft hours. The scheduler selects the
next work order from the top of the highest priority work orders. If the
selected job requires more hours than the hours left on a particular
craft line, the scheduler must make a decision. The scheduler first tries
to “work persons down,” such as using a mechanic as a helper. The
scheduler might want to schedule only part of a job, such as scheduling
30 hours of a 60-hour job if only 30 hours of a particular skill are avail-
able. The scheduler might also decide the job cannot be scheduled
because there are insufficient hours available. The scheduler places
subsequent work orders behind any work orders already in each folder.
The scheduler continues the allocation process until either the crew
runs out of available work hours or the backlog runs out of work orders.
The backlog might run out of work orders altogether or just run out of
work orders for which the crew has qualified labor.
After making the initial allocation grouping, the scheduler makes a
final consideration of proactive work and consults operations. The sched-
uler considers if he or she ought to place any more proactive work into
the schedule to replace low priority, reactive work. This might be advis-
able for the allocation in which there is almost no proactive work what-
soever. There will never be a reduction of reactive work if there is never
any proactive work performed. Both of the previous examples of back-
logs contain a modest amount of proactive work and so need no adjust-
ment. Next, the scheduler consults the operations coordinator giving this
person a chance to replace any of the allocated work with work that the
scheduler did not choose. This might be done in a formal weekly sched-
ule meeting. Maintenance and production schedules must be integrated
even when not considering outage work. The operations coordinator
understands overall constraints of operations being able to clear or
release certain equipment at the present time. The operations coordi-
nator may also make final adjustments for the best benefit of the plant.
In both of the example allocations, the operations coordinator decides
not to make adjustments.
The following examples use the Work Order Allocation Worksheet to
combine the previous forecast examples and previous backlog sorting
examples into a week’s worth of work, the weekly schedule allocation.
Figures 6.6 through 6.12 illustrate using the scheduling worksheet to
allocate the nonoutage backlog for A Crew. The scheduler first copies the
craft levels and forecasted hours from the Crew Work Hours Availability
Forecast worksheet for A Crew (Fig. 6.3). Figure 6.6 shows the result-
ing Advance Schedule Worksheet after this first step.
Then the scheduler selects work order no. 012, the first work order from
the highest priority group for A Crew (shown in Table 6.3). WO no. 012
requires a welder for 8 hours and a helper for 8 hours. Therefore, the
scheduler subtracts 8 hours from the 35 hours available for welders
leaving 27 hours available. The scheduler writes down “27” on the welder
line indicating the hours now available. Similarly, the scheduler sub-
tracts 8 hours from the 40 helper hours available and writes down “32”
204 Chapter Six
Figure 6.6 Input of original labor forecast and first work order for the A Crew.
on the helper line to indicate there are only 32 helper hours now avail-
able. The scheduler places work order no. 012 into a folder labeled
“Welder” for eventual delivery to the crew supervisor. Figure 6.7 shows
the resulting Advance Schedule Worksheet.
Figure 6.8 shows the Advance Schedule Worksheet after the sched-
uler selects work order nos. 004, 006, and 002. The scheduler places all
of these work orders into a folder labeled “Technician” because that is
the lead skill required on each.
The scheduler then selects work order no. 005 from the backlog.
This work cannot be allocated into the available hours as simply as the
Figure 6.7 Setting of columns to illustrate labor calculations with next three work
orders.
preceding work orders. This work order requires 6 technical hours, but
there are only 3 technical hours available. The scheduler takes the 3
technical hours available and then takes 3 welder hours to use as tech-
nician hours. The scheduler considers that a welder can perform the less
complex mechanical tasks required by a technician. The scheduler does
not wish to use a more skilled mechanic for the work because the back-
log contains a significant amount of priority-2, skilled mechanic work.
The backlog has more welding work, but it is priority-4 work. Next, the
work order requires 12 helper hours, but only 10 are available. Therefore
206 Chapter Six
Figure 6.8 Labor calculations of available labor hours remaining.
the scheduler takes the 10 helper hours available and takes 2 more
welder hours to use as helper hours. Thus the scheduler subtracts a total
of 5 welder hours from the 27 available leaving 22 available welder
hours. See Fig. 6.9. These decisions of where to take hours require judg-
ment on the scheduler’s part. The exact choices are not critical. What
is critical is that the scheduler realizes the ability to allocate work to
other than the exact craft and skill specified by the job plan. The sched-
uler must remember that the job was only planned for the minimum skill
level required.
Figure 6.9 Allocating first work order to use other than the minimum labor skill
that was planned.
Another question arises regarding splitting hours from different areas.

Is the scheduler requiring different persons to perform fractions of jobs?
No. As the actual week later progresses, some jobs will run over and
others under allowing the crew supervisor to assign whole jobs to spe-
cific individuals. The crew supervisor may assign a welder as a helper
for an entire job, but probably not for only half of a job. Actual experi-
ence has shown that this method of allocating work for the week results
in a quantity of work for which the crew possesses the appropriate labor.
208 Chapter Six
Figure 6.10 Allocating next three work orders. Each uses other than the minimum
labor skill that was planned.
As the scheduler selects more and more of the backlog, more of these
type decisions are made. Figure 6.10 shows the results of the scheduler
allocating work order nos. 009, 007, and 011 into the weekly schedule.
For both WO no. 009 and WO no. 007 the scheduler has the mechanic
hours needed, but has to use welder hours for all of the helper hours.
For WO no. 011, the scheduler again has the needed mechanic hours
available. However, the scheduler must again use another skill level for
the helper hours required. This time there are no more welder hours
Figure 6.11 Allocating a partial work order.
available, The scheduler decides to use the painter as a helper for WO

no. 011. Although there is painting work in the backlog, it has a lower
priority than WO no. 011. The painter would still have some hours to
begin the painting job and could finish it as carryover work the follow-
ing week.
Finally, Fig. 6.11 shows the last work order that the scheduler places
into the weekly schedule. The scheduler does not want to overschedule
the crew. WO no. 003 requires 40 painter hours. The scheduler expressly
states by writing a note on WO no. 003 that only 10 hours are being
210 Chapter Six
Figure 6.12 Realistic completed Advance Schedule Worksheet for the A Crew.
scheduled for the next week. The scheduler expects the painter to begin
the paint job on the painter’s last day of the week. The scheduler stops
the schedule allocation process taking up all but 3 hours of skilled
mechanic work hours from the forecast. There are no jobs in the back-
log that take as few as 3 hours that the mechanic could perform. The
scheduler has allocated 162 hours of backlog work for the forecasted
165 hours the crew has available. The scheduler considers this to be a
100% allocation. The scheduler does not want to give the crew any occa-
sion to suggest that too much work was allocated. The scheduler now
has work orders arranged in several folders, Mechanic, Welder, Painter,

and Technician. The scheduler did not place any work orders in a folder
labeled Helper because in this case, no work required helpers alone. The
scheduler takes the work order folders over to the A Crew supervisor. A
Crew supervisor Jones will use the work orders to begin establishing a
daily schedule for the first day of next week.
In actual practice, Fig. 6.12 shows the actual worksheet as the sched-
uler would have filled in the information. The scheduler would not have
listed each work order at the top of columns. Rather, the scheduler
would have written in available hours left as the scheduler selected
jobs and placed them into folders.
Figures 6.13 through 6.17 illustrate using the scheduling worksheet
to allocate the nonoutage backlog for B Crew.
The scheduler first copies over the craft levels and forecasted hours
from the Crew Work Hours Availability Forecast worksheet for B Crew
(Fig. 6.4). Figure 6.13 shows the Advance Schedule Worksheet after the
scheduler has selected the first 12 jobs from the previously sorted back-
log for B Crew. None of the these jobs requires the scheduler to consider
using a craft skill level other than the ones planned on the work orders.
For each work order, the scheduler merely subtracts the required work
hours from each craft skill level line. Then the scheduler puts the
selected work order into its folder for the pertinent lead craft.
After including the twelfth job, WO no. 042, the scheduler runs out
of room on the worksheet. The scheduler simply labels the worksheet
“Page 1” and begins a second page. Figure 6.14 shows the second page
and the next five work orders selected. Similar to the first page, none
of the jobs requires the scheduler to consider using a craft skill level
other than the ones planned on the work orders. For each work order,
the scheduler subtracts the required work hours from each craft skill
level line. Then the scheduler puts the selected work order into its folder
for the pertinent lead craft.
Beginning with WO no. 25, the scheduler must decide to work persons
outside of their top skill levels. WO no. 25 requires 17 technician hours,
but only 9 are available. The scheduler decides to use 8 mechanical
hours to make up the difference leaving 88 mechanical hours and 0 tech-
nical hours available afterward. Likewise, WO no. 038 requires using 3
mechanical hours as technical hours. There are no such decisions to
make for WO no. 044 and WO no. 031. Each requires helper or mechan-
ical hours which are available. Figure 6.15 shows the worksheet that
results from including these four work orders.
Finally, Fig. 6.16 shows the resulting worksheet after the scheduler
includes the last three jobs in the backlog. The scheduler uses the
remaining 13 helper hours for WO no. 32. Since this work order calls
for 40 helper hours, the scheduler also uses 27 machinist hours. This
decision leaves 11 machinist hours and 0 helper hours. WO no. 43 calls
212 Chapter Six
Figure 6.13 Input of original labor forecast and first 12 work orders for the B Crew.
for 40 technical hours of which none are available. Therefore, the sched-
uler uses 40 mechanical hours. Likewise, the last work order in the
backlog, WO no. 22 is planned for technical hours. The scheduler uses
mechanical hours instead. Now all the backlog has been allocated.
In actual practice, Fig. 6.17 shows the actual worksheet as the sched-
uler would have filled in the information.
Without the allocation system, the crew may have not realized it had
the ability to complete the entire backlog. Instead, the crew may have
only concentrated on completing the higher priority work. In addition,
Figure 6.14 Using a second page and allocating the next five work orders.
the allocation process identifies how many extra craft hours are left.
There are 45 craft hours left, 11 mechanical, 23 welder, and 11 machin-
ist. The scheduler has a basis to suggest using B Crew labor to assist A
Crew next week. The B Crew Mechanic and Machinist could not only
complete WO no. 010 and no. 013, but replace 10 of the helper hours on
WO no. 007. This would free up 10 hours of A Crew welder hours. Along
with the 23 B Crew welder hours left over, this is almost enough hours
to complete the priority-4 welding job, WO no. 001. There are two
common practices to execute this assistance. One method would be for
214 Chapter Six
Figure 6.15 Allocating the next four work orders. The first two work orders use
other than the minimum labor skill that was planned.
a crew supervisor to give the other supervisor several work orders. The
other method would be for a crew supervisor to plan to loan the other
supervisor several persons for a day or two. For example, presume that
on the scheduler’s recommendation, the A Crew supervisor gives the B
Crew supervisor work order nos. 010 and 013. In addition, the B Crew
supervisor arranges to give the A Crew one day of machinist help and
two days of welder help toward the end of the week, if necessary.
Figure 6.16 Allocating the final three work orders in the entire backlog.
Formal Weekly Schedule Meeting

Although the planner can coordinate the schedule with the operations
group and the crew supervisor, it is highly recommended that the mainte-
nance manager implement a formal weekly schedule meeting. This meet-
ing not only legitimizes the entire scheduling process, but also ensures
that scheduling takes place week after week and year after year. The objec-
tive of the meeting is to finalize a list of work orders for which both opera-
tions and maintenance agree maintenance should complete next week.
216 Chapter Six
Figure 6.17 Realistic completed Advance Schedule Worksheet for the B Crew.
The attendees should include persons from both the maintenance and
operations sides of the house. Persons required include the maintenance
manager, the operations coordinator, or other operations leaders who can
intelligently speak for production. Each planner and each crew super-
visor should attend. A plant engineer might attend if he or she has an
ongoing project that might affect maintenance or operations. It is impor-
tant that all the required attendees have alternates who will take their
places when they must be absent. The maintenance manager over the
crew supervisors will lead the meeting.
The agenda should be as follows:
1. 10 minutes Review. schedule compliance score from last week for

each crew and key reasons if the schedule was not met. Itemize
important jobs not completed.
2. 10 minutes. Heads up on schedule progress this week if important jobs
will not be completed.
3. 30 minutes. Present proposed schedule for next week for each crew
showing total available labor hours and total hours of jobs scheduled.
(It is preferred that the planner previously had asked both the oper-
ations coordinator and the crew supervisor about any “must include”
jobs before assembling the schedule to bring to the meeting.)
4. 10 minutes. Agreement in principle if jobs need to be added or deleted
from the schedule.
5. 1 minute. Special notice of intercraft coordination among crew super-
visors if needed.
This is a working meeting and the bulk of the time for the meeting
should be the operations coordinator and crew supervisor combing
through the listed work orders to see if they are acceptable. The opera-
tions coordinator, in particular, should mention if there are any jobs that
the operators might have difficulty clearing up (tagging out) for the
crews to work with a day’s notice next week. The operations coordina-
tor might also express a preference for which day maintenance should
work certain jobs based on knowing the general operating plan for the
plant next week.
Follow-up activities after the weekly schedule meeting include the
planner for each crew revising the schedule if necessary and publish-
ing the schedule as soon as possible. The schedule is a simple list of all
the jobs maintenance intends to do next week. Publishing this list to
operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant management helps
implement Schedule Principle 2 which states that schedules are impor-
tant. It helps encourage plant personnel to think ahead and lessen inter-
ruptions of a set schedule.
Staging Parts and Tools

Staging is not essential to maintenance planning. Planning and sched-
uling can achieve high productivity without staging parts and tools.
Moreover, staging can be a time waster. Nevertheless, staging can sig-
nificantly boost productivity for completing more work.
Staging means physically moving a part or a tool out of its regular
storage place to where a technician can more easily obtain it before a
job. Staging items reduces the time a technician would otherwise spend
gathering parts and tools before a job. A net reduction of time for the
218 Chapter Six
company comes from a combination of increased specialization, planner

expertise, and reduced opportunity for delay trips. First, the person
staging the part normally stages more than one job at a time, perhaps
as many as needed for the whole crew. The employment of staging
reduces the overall number of trips to the storeroom when handling
several jobs at the same time. The person staging the items also gains
a better than usual familiarity with the storeroom, further reducing
time to procure any single item. Second, if the person who plans the job
also stages the items, there is another advantage. The planner who
specified the item to begin with has the best idea of exactly what item
the job requires. This familiarity may speed the process of obtaining the
right part at the counter. Third, staging helps keep technicians on the
job. Any trip away from the job to a storeroom or tool room can escalate
beyond a simple delay to obtain the originally intended item.
Staging is similar to having the operations group clear a piece of
equipment. The maintenance group prefers to have the equipment
cleared before arriving on-site with three technicians. If the operations
group did not have the equipment ready, the technicians would have to
wait or lose overall efficiency finding other jobs to fill the wait time.
Therefore, the operations group might normally clear the equipment
during the night shift based on a request from the previous day’s sched-
uling meeting or schedule. The technicians then arrive and go to work
in the morning without delay. Likewise, the maintenance group prefers
parts and tools to be ready for work. There might be overall inefficiency
if two of the technicians have to wait for one technician to check out a
special tool or wait in front of the storeroom counter.
Consider several tasks by a school maintenance person as an illustra-
tion of some of the benefits of staging. The school had identified a broken
easel and a broken toddler table. The maintenance person serving sev-
eral schools showed up at 11:00 AM. The school secretary handed over a
bag containing a replacement bolt and plastic fitting for the easel and
another bag with a washer and bolt for the table. The maintenance person
took the staged items and fixed both pieces of furniture in 20 minutes. The
school secretary had saved expensive maintenance service time by stag-
ing the parts needed. The secretary had determined what items were
needed by simply examining the furniture and describing the problem
to the appropriate school furniture supply company. This company had
mailed the exact required parts the preceding week.
Consider another example from a modern electric power plant. The
planner scoped the job to replace a flanged valve. The planner staged a
sling, gasket material, and 48 bolts, washers, and nuts along with the
replacement valve. The planner did not stage a necessary come-a-long
as this device was standard issue in mechanic tool boxes. The planner
placed all the items together on a pallet in the tool room. The planner
identified the job as staged on the work order and attached a copy of the
work order to the pallet to aid later identification. The two assigned tech-
nicians later transported the materials to the job site and expeditiously
completed the work.
With staging in place, envision a technician arriving at work already
knowing what job to start on from the previous day’s schedule. The
technician picks up his or her tool box along with a bag of parts staged
the night before and heads to the job site.
The following sections discuss what might be practical to stage, where

items could be staged, who should stage the items, and how to go about
staging items.
What to stage
The maintenance group should consider staging all the items the plan-
ner included in the job plan. When planning a job, the planner identi-
fies the items that the planner anticipates the job requires. The key word
is anticipated. Just as the planner includes time for only anticipated
delays, the planner plans for only anticipated parts or tools. The plan-
ner estimates the anticipated job cost using these anticipated times,
parts, and tools. The planner may include an equipment parts break-
down with the job plan, but this is only a list. The work plan expressly
identifies anticipated items for this job. Therefore, it follows that if the
job plan calls for certain items, those items could be staged.
However, a number of questions remain. What if it is uncertain what
parts a job will need? Perhaps a high chance exists that the anticipated
parts will be unnecessary. In addition, perhaps a high chance exists
that unanticipated parts will be necessary. If there is a high probabil-
ity that the technician will have to go to the storeroom for unanticipated
items, why bother to stage the anticipated items the job will certainly
require? Moreover, what happens to unused staged items on a job? What
about time expended to return those items to stock?
Consider a technician that has already started a job where the plan-
ner has anticipated the use of several parts. The technician soon finds
out the job requires only a single specific part. The technician can obtain
just that item from the storeroom. Thus, there are no extra items taken
to the job site and no leftover items to return. Why not have the plan-
ner just reserve the anticipated parts rather than stage them as well?
Reserving through advance notice to the storeroom rather than the
additional step of staging may be all that is needed.
As one can see, these questions complicate decisions regarding
whether to stage items.
Jobs vary just as do plant sites and plant processes such as receiving
and returning storeroom items. Therefore, the following guidelines help
the maintenance force make better decisions about staging.
220 Chapter Six
Always stage anticipated items that are:
1. Nonstock and purchased especially for the job.

2. Certainly needed for the job and there is little likelihood any other
items from the same place will be needed. Example: Job to replace
air filter.
Favor staging anticipated items where:
1. There is high likelihood item will be needed.

2. There is low likelihood other items from the same place will be
needed.
3. Technician time is valuable.
4. Technician time is limited.
5. Persons to stage items are readily available.
6. Equipment downtime is valuable.
7. Equipment downtime is limited.
8. Distance to the storeroom or tool room is excessive.
9. Availability or accessibility of storeroom or tool room is limited.
10. It is relatively difficult later to transport items to the site if they are
not staged.
11. Item is easily returnable to storeroom or tool room.
12. Item is disposable if unused or lower in value than would be worth
technicians’ time to return.
13. There is some experience with planning and scheduling.
14. There is high maturity and sophistication of the planners to antic-
ipate items correctly.
15. There is high confidence that the job will start the week or day
scheduled.
16. The storeroom frequently has the wrong parts.
17. The storeroom is unstaffed or not very secure.
18. The storeroom carries very low stock levels.
19. The storeroom has a lot of stockouts.
Do not stage items that are:
1. For unscheduled jobs unless a nonstock item was exclusively obtained

for a job.
2. Difficult or impractical to move repeatedly due to size or storage
requirements.
3. Difficult or impractical to move repeatedly due to legal tracking

requirements.
Scheduling is frequently the most critical factor influencing staging.

Chapter 3 presented the case that if work could reasonably be expected
to start in a given week, staging could be practiced. If there was no
advance scheduling to tell when maintenance expected to start jobs, it
might be impractical to stage parts or tools. One problem arises from
taking parts or tools out of stock for a job that the maintenance crew may
not start for quite a while. The staging makes the parts and tools unavail-
able for other jobs. The second problem arises from the physical storage
of the staged parts and tools. Temporary holding places for staged items
become overwhelmed and items become lost. On the other hand, if the
maintenance group schedules a job for the next day or the next week,
staging parts and tools can boost productivity. Staging a part or tool for
a scheduled job makes sense because there is a commitment to starting
the job. In that case, the staged items become properly unavailable for
use elsewhere because they really do need to be reserved for jobs about
to begin. In addition, because their jobs are about to begin, there is lim-
ited danger of overfilling a designated staging area.
Where to stage
There are various possibilities for where the maintenance force may
stage items, each with advantages and disadvantages. These possibili-
ties include central staging areas, scattered staging areas, job sites,
crew ready areas, and technician benches. Moreover, combinations of
any of these approaches may be the most practical for a particular plant
situation.
A central staging area would be an area where any item could be
staged. The area could be part of another operation such as the tool room
where technicians come to a counter to request their items. The area
could otherwise be one dedicated for staging without a counter where
some or all technicians have open access. Using a central staging area
gives fairly good security to keep parts from being lost. Persons have
little doubt where an item is staged because there is only one possibility.
A central staging area lends itself to uniform procedures, especially
with a counter operation. Unfortunately, the central staging area may
not be better than leaving the items in the storeroom if the technician
still has to go to a counter and wait for the attendant. Despite this con-
cern, staging storeroom items in the tool room may still be a good idea.
The maintenance group may have better control over the staging area
than the storeroom. Many companies place the storeroom under the
control of a group other than maintenance. The storeroom management
may be unwilling or unable to make its checkout procedure user friendly.
In this case, having a few persons stage the anticipated items out of the
222 Chapter Six
storeroom to a more readily accessible tool room for the bulk of techni-
cian activity makes sense. Geographic accessibility also makes a dif-
ference. The storeroom may be more remotely located than the staging
area for most jobs. There may even be several storerooms scattered
about the plant site for various types of goods. Having an efficient oper-
ation to stage items to a central location might increase overall efficiency.
Technicians would not have to be as familiar with the various storerooms
to obtain a part if they could go to a central staging area. A central stag-
ing area has several disadvantages versus other staging options. It may
be better to stage items closer to job sites to speed up work. Also, a cen-
tral staging area may still require the technicians to make a side trip.
Each extra trip during the day invites technicians to add unnecessary
delays. Technicians might check with the supervisor or technician
friends “just to see what is going on.” They might run by the machine
shop to use the telephone “for a minute.” Then the technicians must refa-
miliarize themselves with the jobs when they return. Mostly due to
simple human nature, the delays add up when the staging area does not
support technicians staying on the job site.
Scattered staging areas attempt to remedy the shortcomings of cen-
tral staging. In this arrangement, there are several designated areas for
staging. They are scattered throughout the extensive plant area. The
locations are close enough to the general areas of work to avoid invit-
ing any unnecessary side trips. They are also located out of regular traf-
fic pathways, but easy to find. These staging areas are not necessarily
elaborate and may be simply formed with lines of yellow paint. One
aluminum rolling mill operation outlines squares of space on the plant
floor in this manner. A more complex area might involve a shed. This is
how one steam plant set up a staging area for specialized turbine tools
on the turbine deck. Such a secure area may have a counter with an
attendant and be open only during certain turbine work. At other times,
limited access is available to supervisors or certain technicians. Other
variations abound in between a secure shed with a counter and a painted
square space. A shed, room, or cage could exist with or without a door
lock or padlock. Large wooden boxes could be placed in strategic loca-
tions. Expensive or inexpensive shelving can be utilized. A closely asso-
ciated issue is having access to tools at various locations throughout the
plant. A particular job on a burner might require specialized tools that
the plant uses nowhere else. It would make sense to have the burner
tools located in a tool box on the burner deck ready for use whether a
job is in the backlog or not. It could be argued whether this is scattered
staging or a scattered tool room. In either case, the objective is to have
items on hand to reduce travel and delays during the job. The disad-
vantages of a scattered staging strategy revolve around having less con-
trol and requiring more coordination. There is less security to prevent
missing parts. It takes increased effort to take items to more than a
single location. Nevertheless, having scattered sites close to the work

areas can reduce delays to improve productivity.
Staging material directly at a job site provides the greatest advantage
of not having to move parts repeatedly and limiting reasons to leave the
job site. On the other hand, this arrangement provides the least secu-
rity against missing parts. It could also contribute to a more hazardous
plant site with parts located every which way. There is also danger for
damaging items before they can be used if they get in the way of other
plant maintenance or operations. The amount of coordination involved
in finding each specific job site to receive items could be a further prob-
lem. Even with good coordination, there is a significant chance of put-
ting an item at the wrong site and in effect losing it. On-site staging
might make sense for a rotating spares program where there is a des-
ignated storage accommodation for the extra equipment. It is also prac-
tical to deliver large, nonstock equipment directly to the job site. It may
also work out for items that are not readily transported later such as
medium to large motors, valves, piping, and pumps. Note that the size
of these items also makes it unlikely that they would be carried away
from the job site. One plant makes the last duty of the day for tool room
attendants to move heavy equipment such as cranes to the sites for the
next day’s jobs. Smaller items such as gaskets, small valves, and fittings
are more practically staged in crew ready areas or on technician work
benches.
The crew ready area is a likely place to stage relatively small items.
Many crews have a designated area where they check in each morning.
The crew may also use this area as a break room. Having a shelf or side
area in this room for staged items reduces the need for an extra trip to
a central staging location. This is especially true of the first job for the
day and usually for a second and third job if breaks can be coordinated
between jobs. The supervisor has some measure of control over such a
location which may be an advantage over scattered locations or job sites.
The supervisor also may be more interested in the staging operation with
its visible presence there. A supervisor receives excellent feedback of how
staging is working when the crew receives items in the supervisor’s
presence.
Technician benches cannot be overlooked as likely places to stage
items. Many companies have a work area of sorts for every technician.
This is especially true of many I&C technicians and electricians. It is
also common for mechanics and other mechanical crafts to have work
benches. These work places allow technicians a clean shop area to work
on devices and equipment. Cleanliness gives a great boost to any main-
tenance task. Companies would rather a technician be free to concen-
trate on keeping gasket faces clean than to worry about where to obtain
gasket material. Planning ahead to ensure parts availability and stag-
ing to deliver parts helps the technician’s concentration. Technician
224 Chapter Six
benches are natural places to consider staging items. The technicians

consider these areas their personal spaces and check in there just as they
would their crew area each morning. In addition, technicians conduct
many of the maintenance tasks in whole or in part on their bench.
Therefore, staging items here might mean the technicians need not
make any trips elsewhere. Consider a job to replace a gasket on a leak-
ing flange. On this job, the technician needs to cut a gasket from a roll
of gasket material. The planner has noted the size of the gasket needed
as well as the gasket material. The day before the job, the supervisor
has someone from the tool room drop off enough gasket material on the
technician’s bench for the job. The next day, the technician cuts the
gasket, grabs rubber boots, and heads to the job site with the tools to
fix the leaking flange. Drawbacks to staging on technician benches
include a limitation on item size and possibly limited space available.
The same coordination and security drawbacks of having multiple and
scattered staging locations exist. An additional problem, unique to stag-
ing items at the technician benches, is that the person staging items
must know the name of the assigned technician. The crew supervisor
makes the assignments with the daily schedule. Because the weekly
schedule does not identify the assigned technician, the person would not
be able to use the weekly schedule to stage the items. Staging would
have to be done daily from the daily schedule.
Who should stage

Normally the planner stages items, but there is equal opportunity for
the scheduler, materials purchaser, tool room personnel, storeroom per-
sonnel, crew person, or even the supervisor to perform this function.
Staging must not come ahead of other planning duties if management
has excessively limited the number of planners. The materials pur-
chaser is probably the best person to stage nonstock items received. In
addition, if the staging is based more on the daily schedule than the
weekly schedule, the supervisor or his or her designee would be more
appropriate to do the staging. For simplification, the following section
calls the person who does the staging, the staging person.
The process of staging

After the scheduler makes up the weekly schedule, the staging person
reviews the scheduled work orders. This person might review them
before delivery to the crew supervisors or later in the supervisors’ offices.
(Alternately the planner could review, and mark, the work orders and
direct the staging person.) To avoid delaying the receipt of the weekly
schedule by the crew supervisor, the staging person may find it more
desirable to work from the crew supervisor’s office. The person would
also have better access to the work orders. The staging person marks
the work orders for which items will be staged and makes a copy of
each work order that will have staged items. Then, the staging person
takes the work order copies to the storeroom and tool room and collects
the items to stage. The staging person takes the collected items to the
appropriate staging locations and attaches the work order copy to groups
of items for each job. The person places items in appropriate containers
such as bags for bolts and loose items, each marked for the appropriate
work order. If there are several containers for the same work order, the
staging person marks the work order copy as having four bundles and
each bundle as 1 of 4, 2 of 4, 3 of 4, and 4 of 4, each with the work order
number. These activities may take one or more trips.
The staging person must relocate the original work order for any
items that were supposed to be staged, but could not be staged for some
reason. The person marks these work orders accordingly. The staging
process might discover an unexpected problem with item availability
that will impact a job. In this case, the staging person informs the crew
supervisor and planning so that the job will not be assigned until plan-
ning remedies the problem. In the case where the daily schedule is uti-
lized, the same process is followed on a daily basis.
What happens to staged items for a job that is not started in its
assigned day or allocated week? The items that were staged for this job
are not collected and returned. It is presumed that this job will likely
be assigned on a subsequent day or allocated in the next week’s work.
The job is simply considered already staged. This situation could get out
of hand if jobs are routinely staged that never start. Staging areas could
become overrun and inventory stocks could become depleted. This sce-
nario is more likely for the plant that stages without any scheduling.
Staging accomplished after some scheduling effort keeps these problems
to an acceptable level. Daily staging for only the next day’s work lowers
the probability of these problems even further.
One thing to realize is that there is a limited time available to stage
items. The difficulty comes in the timing because the advance schedule
is only an allocation of work and does not denote which day activities
might begin. If the staging person waits to use the advance schedule,
there is not much work time after which the schedule becomes available
before the work week begins. If the crew works Monday through Friday,
7:30 AM to 4:00 PM, the advance schedule would be available Friday
afternoon for the staging person. The staging person could extend the
work time available by working a weekend or evening shift to stage
items. If the crew works another type shift, other times may work better.
Consider a crew that works Monday through Thursday, 10-hour days.
The staging person could work Monday through Friday 8-hour days
and have Thursday afternoon as well as all day Friday to stage. In addi-
tion, if the supervisor prepares the first day’s schedule soon after receiv-
ing the weekly allocation, the staging person could first concentrate on
226 Chapter Six
staging parts for that first day’s work. Then the staging person could
spend a small amount of time each day reviewing the next day’s sched-
ule from the supervisor and staging the appropriate parts.
In summary, staging can help improve maintenance productivity, but

it is not essential to effective planning and scheduling. Furthermore,
staging can become somewhat complicated to execute properly. Among
a number of guidelines, scheduling control and experience dictate the
successfulness of staging. Imagine a common household situation. One
adult plans to hang several pictures and shock the swimming pool one
night during the coming week. This person “stages” a hammer, several
nails, and a bag of pool shock on a kitchen counter as the items are
encountered during other weekend tasks. However, the items disap-
pear from the counter as the week proceeds and wind up in various
drawers or garage shelves. The person’s spouse has put the items away
to avoid clutter. The tasks of hanging the pictures and shocking the
pool have become more complicated now as the location of the necessary
items has become uncertain. Industry commonly experiences the same
primary problems hindering these maintenance tasks, namely an
improper staging area and an imprecise schedule for the work.
Outage Scheduling
Although routine maintenance provides the greatest opportunity for
improvement and so is the focus of this book, this section gives the asso-
ciated keys to understanding the concepts of outage scheduling.
The vast majority of plant work orders are tasks for the standing
work force. The standing work force at the plant maintains the plant day
in and day out continuously. Planning leverages that day-in and day-
out maintenance work. Plants frequently overlook the opportunities
within routine maintenance because outages receive so much attention.
Managers view outages as extremely important. They see unscheduled
outages as tragedies and extended outages as fiascoes. In fact, plants
organize outage events so well that they efficiently accomplish large
quantities of work leaving everyone impressed with how much work can
be done. They often attribute this great amount of work to extra effort
based on the obvious urgency of the situation. However, the success is
also due to the organizing effort, primarily the advance allocation of a
specific quantity of work to complete. Similarly, planning and schedul-
ing for routine maintenance can help accomplish an amount of work that
can equally impress plant management. Planning and allocating a
week’s goal of work to a crew not only creates the same sense of urgency
as for an “important” outage, but provides tools to manage and improve
upon past problems. Nonetheless, it is worth discussing two keys to
outage scheduling. First, planning provides accurate time estimates for
larger jobs because larger jobs consist of a multitude of small jobs.

Second, the scope of the outage must be controlled by managing the iden-
tification and inclusion of the small jobs.
An outage is normally considered the taking of an entire unit out of
service. An outage is not simply shutting down a redundant process
line or piece of equipment. Technicians many times can perform main-
tenance without taking any equipment out of service. Sometimes, tech-
nicians require taking only certain equipment or areas of a process out
of service for only a brief period in such a manner that allows the unit
to continue producing the product. For example, operators might briefly
take makeup water equipment out of service provided the plant has
reserve tanks of water available. On the other hand, technicians cannot
perform some maintenance tasks without causing the plant to make
some or all of a unit unavailable for service. Maintenance may be able
to complete some work while the plant runs at a reduced capability. For
example, technicians may be able to work on one of two boiler feed
pumps while a unit runs at half load. Maintenance situations may
require shutting down an entire unit, require no shutdowns at all, or
require varying in-between unit conditions. Even with a requirement to
be off-line, many plants can shut down an entire unit with hardly any
advance notice or appreciable problems, operational or economical.
Perhaps the company has not sold out its product line leaving open
time. Perhaps technicians can complete maintenance during one shift
and the unit can operate another shift during the same day. Plants nor-
mally call the taking of an entire unit out of service an outage. Outages
may be major outages scheduled every so many years to overhaul major
pieces of equipment on a routine basis or they may be short outages,
either scheduled or unscheduled.
Some persons also call major outages overhauls or turnarounds. Major
outages are when a plant schedules one or more major process systems
for extensive routine replacement, refurbishment, or other maintenance.
The work requires shutting down the entire unit. These maintenance
activities cannot be accomplished when the unit is operating and are
often too large in scope to be done during shorter outages whether sched-
uled or unexpected. Many companies utilize set schedules for these
events such as once every 5 years. However, the advent of predictive
maintenance programs many times allows systems to run longer. Plants
can then schedule major outages when sophisticated inspection meth-
ods predict the process system equipment needs attention.
On the other hand, a short outage is an event between major outages
requiring taking the entire unit out of service. Short outages may be
unscheduled, such as the sudden requirement to repair a burst boiler
tube. The unit cannot run with the boiler tube losing process water, so the
plant must take the unit out of service almost immediately or within the
next few days. The plant strategy may also be to schedule short outages
228 Chapter Six
to take a unit out of service to perform maintenance tasks that do not

require immediate attention. The plant performs these tasks in antici-
pation that they will lessen the likelihood of later unscheduled or sur-
prise outages.
An evolution in the timing of short outages takes place as a plant
increases its reliability through proper maintenance. A plant with fairly
poor reliability usually has something break just when the plant other-
wise needs a short outage. A number of work orders sit in the outage back-
log. Yet rather than plan for a time to bring the unit off-line, the
maintenance group knows the unit will “trip” or otherwise require shut-
ting down for some unforeseen need on a regular basis. Take the exam-
ple of a steam plant with poor water chemistry control. Boiler tubes
burst periodically requiring shut down for repair. When a tube bursts
with an estimate of, say, 12 hours to repair, the maintenance group
springs into action also working the other outage jobs. The crew starts
all jobs in the outage file with estimates of 12 hours or less. The crew may
start longer jobs if the unit is not again needed immediately or man-
agement desires the unit to return in as good a shape as possible. Longer
jobs that management decides not to start would wait for a future outage.
As a plant evolves from total reactive maintenance to more proactive
maintenance, short notice outages begin to become less frequent. As
fewer unscheduled, short notice outages appear, plant reliability
improves. Yet the outage backlog first increases in size because fewer
outages naturally occur. As plant reliability improves, the plant finds
fewer opportunities to execute waiting outage work orders. Then the
plant experiences some short notice outages occurring for new reasons.
Previously, the maintenance group would have taken care of certain
situations before they became too serious by doing some work during a
short outage. However, when no outages come up, these situations
worsen and themselves bring the unit off-line. For example, if techni-
cians always repacked certain valves during outages, frequent unsched-
uled outages were available for this work. As reliability of the rest of the
unit rises, the valves themselves begin to cause outages because the unit
cannot wait. The evolution of the maintenance department’s effective-
ness continues until there is a predictability that the unit should be
brought down for maintenance. At this point, management commit-
ment to continuous reliability brings the operations and the mainte-
nance groups together to schedule short, regular outages for routine
maintenance in addition to the standard, infrequent major outages.
The entire plant including operations and maintenance must adapt to
a strategy of planned short outages to execute short notice outage work
(SNOW). The plant must accept scheduling an outage in advance when
there are a number of serious work orders on the SNOW list or there is a
sufficient amount of SNOW work. The timely execution of the outage work
prevents unscheduled outages. Overall plant reliability and availability
increase through the strategy of short scheduled outages reducing the

occurrence of infrequent, but serious, unscheduled ones. The evolution
continues as maintenance and plant engineering perform defect elimi-
nation work to identify and replace equipment that requires excessive
routine downtime. Moreover, maintenance, plant engineering, and the
corporate project group perform defect elimination work to install plants
or systems that incorporate lessons from the past. The evolution results
in a superior performing plant capable of full capacity as needed and
having minimal outage requirements for maintenance.
The evolution of the maintenance department’s effectiveness changes
with how it approaches short outages. As a plant rises from routinely
having poor reliability to become a superior performing plant, fewer
unscheduled outages become available for work. Therefore, regular,
scheduled, short outages become more frequent.
Planning work orders for outages

Many plants have work orders that they can only execute during an
outage. To help the scheduler quickly select the outage jobs, the plant
keeps a SNOW list or SNOW grouping of work orders. The SNOW list
or grouping identifies or even keeps together the work orders that must
be done on an outage, but not necessarily the next major outage.
There are only a few differences between planning work orders for
short outages and for routine maintenance. Because technicians have
limited time during the actual outage to gather parts and information,
the company puts more emphasis on planners identifying and reserv-
ing anticipated parts. The planner has time to do this for even reactive
jobs when an outage has not yet started. On the other hand, planners
place a high priority on quickly planning outage work orders. They
never know when an unexpected outage may suddenly occur requiring
finished plans.
Individual work orders may make up some of the work for major out-
ages, but not necessarily all. Large tasks such as certain turbine work
may instead involve special outage books of notes from previous outages.
The planners should take advantage of requesting help from the spe-
cific supervisors and technicians that worked particular areas of previ-
ous major outages to determine estimated times and labor requirements.
The outage books should also identify parts and tools from previous
outages.
Key concepts in scheduling for outages

Many individual work orders of jobs make up outage work. Therefore,
the scheduler can utilize the concepts of advance scheduling developed
for routine, weekly scheduling. This allows the scheduler to make accu-
rate enough assessments of time frames for the large quantities of work
230 Chapter Six
involved in outages. This concept provides the first key to understanding

outage scheduling.
Because outages consist of many individual jobs, the scheduler can
apply the concepts that make weekly work allocations an accurate tool.
A scheduler can use planned work order estimates to determine accu-
rately the duration and labor hours for major outages. In a routine week
of maintenance, a scheduler can allocate the right amount of work even
though the time estimates for small jobs have a tremendous amount of
variance in individual accuracy. For example, the planner’s estimate for
replacing a single control valve may vary considerably. Yet a weekly
schedule allocation of 100 jobs smoothes out any variations of individ-
ual jobs. The work force might therefore have confidence that it could
accomplish the overall amount of work in the scheduled week. The
scheduler may similarly consider a single large job to consist of many
small work orders and therefore accurately estimate labor requirements
for the large job. The scheduler and planners together can therefore esti-
mate the total duration and labor requirements of overhauling 20 control
valves with a satisfactory degree of precision. A major outage consists
of many large jobs and the handling of each large job can be approxi-
mated to the weekly scheduling process. Consider the major overhaul
of a large steam turbine consisting of many individual tasks on many
individual systems. The scheduler and planners together can reasonably
estimate the total duration and labor requirements of restoring the tur-
bine itself. The restoration involves many small tasks such as disas-
sembly, inspection, lifting, transporting, machining, coating, polishing,
transporting, lifting, assembly, fastening, and alignment. There are also
a myriad of miscellaneous work orders that the plant identified over the
past few years that could only be done during the overhaul. The plan-
ners have already planned these work orders. The scheduler can group
them to determine their group labor requirements. Overall, the sched-
uler uses the concept of the grouping of small tasks allowing overall esti-
mate accuracy.
Note that during routine maintenance, the crew forecast of labor avail-
able for a single week determines how much planned work the scheduler
assigns. For a major outage, the amount of work is the independent vari-
able. That means the amount of work determines the length of the outage
considering basically a set amount of labor each week. After determining
the initial estimate of the outage duration, management can evaluate
options to increase the work force. Management may supplement the
regular labor force using 24-hour, around-the-clock work shifts or contract
labor. Many plants have labor sharing agreements to help each other
during major outages. For outage maintenance, the scheduler adjusts
the outage time to match a given amount of work, then considers special
labor arrangements. For nonoutage, routine maintenance, the scheduler
adjusts the amount of work to match a given amount of labor hours.
The overall outage can be managed through critical path methods

(CPMs) and other special scheduling techniques. However, these tech-
niques show the large groupings, not the minute, individual mainte-
nance tasks. That is why these techniques can be successfully used with
the outage.
Because a major outage consists of many individual jobs, the crew
supervisor must create daily or shift schedules as the outage proceeds.
A scheduler can set the major activities and overall times for the outage,
but cannot control individual jobs. At the beginning of each shift, the
crew supervisor must ensure persons understand their assignments
based on the progress of the previous shift. The supervisor must provide
this coordination during a major outage even though technicians usu-
ally stay on the same equipment and do not move around too much
between different areas. An entirely different group of technicians may
have worked the previous shift. In addition, the technicians may be
executing work that the plant performs only once every 5 or 10 years.
That means the average technicians may have drastically limited expe-
rience with the work over their entire employment at the plant. On the
other hand, the often older crew supervisor may have critical personal
experience.
The scheduler gathers appropriate SNOW work orders and sets the
labor requirements and duration for a short, scheduled outage in a sim-
ilar manner to a major outage. The scheduler and management deter-
mine the best crew and time arrangements considering labor availability
and shift options.
A single event often drives a short outage. Consider first an unsched-
uled short outage. Consider again the boiler tube that erupts and causes
a unit outage. Maintenance must repair the tube. This single task causes
the unit to be on outage and unavailable. For such a task, the pertinent
crew supervisor and management estimate the duration of the outage,
say 18 hours. The scheduler then takes all of the work orders that have
been waiting for an outage and selects the ones that can be done in
18 hours or less. Maintenance crews then complete as many of the jobs
as possible. So for a short, unscheduled outage, the primary job sets the
time frame. Labor availability determines how many jobs the crews can
accomplish. The scheduling consists of the scheduler or supervisor
taking all the outage backlog jobs with an estimated duration within
that time frame and then considering the persons needed to work the
jobs. If there are any backlog jobs that have not yet received planning,
the supervisor guesses the time requirements and includes suitable
ones in the outage scope. The supervisor writes down all the jobs on a
daily schedule sheet with hours for each of the crew members. This is
very similar to the regular weekly and daily scheduling routine except
for one difference. The amount of hours the crew has for the week does
232 Chapter Six
not drive the schedule, the outage backlog selected from the outage file
by duration does. The supervisor reassigns persons from their nonoutage
tasks currently under way and plans overtime as needed to get the
work done.
The second key in outage scheduling is that the scope of the outage
must be controlled. If the scheduler has a specific amount of work, the
scheduler can develop specific time schedules and labor requirements.
If the company allows the amount of work to vary, the time schedules
and labor requirements cannot help varying as well. Although the tech-
niques of accurate scheduling are important, the overwhelming key
ingredient in making an outage go well is agreement on the scope. The
scope itself is less important than agreement on the scope. Many times
an outage will start with one scope of work, but as soon as the plant takes
the unit off-line, the scope doubles.
This is a simple concept to apply to an outage consisting of 100 work
orders. The scheduler can reasonably set the labor time requirements
from reviewing the job plans. Then the scheduler can establish the over-
all schedule based upon management preference of crew shifts. However,
suppose the amount of outage work orders suddenly jumps to 150. The
scope of the outage has changed. It has increased by the 50 new work
orders. The scheduler must change the schedule.
This consideration is especially important for major outages where the
initial part of the outage may consist of inspections of major machinery.
If the inspections reveal more serious damage than anticipated, the
sudden inclusion of more work may extend the entire outage. This is
through no fault of the scheduler. After the inspections determine the
extra work, the scheduler must then analyze options of labor or critical
path changes for management review. This is why outages including
major inspections are difficult to schedule precisely. The advent of pre-
dictive maintenance technologies has greatly assisted scheduling for
major outages. Through sophisticated technology, predictive mainte-
nance (PdM) allows more precise determination of maintenance needs
before the plant shuts down major machinery to begin outages.
Knowledge of the scope of work provides only part of this second key
to outage scheduling. The rest comes from understanding that the scope
must be controlled. The plant must identify work as far as possible in
advance. The plant must not include new work on the eve of or even
during the outage whenever possible. Late announcements of work
destroy schedules and labor arrangements. Late inclusion of work causes
that work to be poorly planned. The ensuing confusion may also cause
incomplete execution of new work hastily identified. It might also con-
tribute to hasty decisions to delete other work from the schedule. The
company may have already used the set schedule to make arrange-
ments for production and sale of product which may become expensive
to change. Additional labor necessary to maintain a set schedule with

an increased scope may be more expensive or less qualified than could
have otherwise been arranged. Finally, there may be insufficient
advance lead time to procure material necessary to execute the work.
The maintenance group would not be able to execute that work.
To reduce these changing scope problems, the scheduler first begins
identification of future outages as far as possible in advance. Many com-
panies have 1-, 5-, and 10-year outage plans. These plans give approx-
imate periods of all anticipated outages. The 1-year plan might set
specific days or weeks, whereas the 10-year plan may set specific months
or seasons. As the outage time approaches, management allocates prepa-
ration time for the schedulers and key company personnel to begin
defining the work scope and time frames. The particular scheduling
horizons depend on the specific type of outage, equipment lead times,
and labor resources. Most of the scope definition work for a larger outage
is straightforward 6 months to 1 year before the scheduled outage starts.
The initial project team makes use of outage files and books. Even work
completed every 5 or more years is still repetitious work. Crews exe-
cuting outage work must record feedback to make files most useful. The
period of about 3 months before an outage starts is when scope additions
multiply if left unattended. During these 3 months, it seems almost
everyone knows about new work requirements. However, with less than
3 months before the outage, there may not be enough material lead
time or other time to prepare adequately for the new work. Therefore,
the scheduler must pay close attention to the control of the outage scope.
Schedulers commonly control the scope of outages through the use of
lists. The scheduler may issue a list of known work with a stated main
purpose for the outage 6 months to a year before the start date. The
scheduler has an initial meeting with supervisors to identify mainte-
nance needs. Then, with increasing frequency until the start of the
outage, the scheduler continues to meet with the supervisors and issue
lists of identified work. Planners or special outage planners finish plan-
ning the identified work tasks as necessary to have them ready to exe-
cute during the outage. An outage project manager ensures this cycle
of publish, identify, and plan continues up to the start of the outage.
Management support and organizational discipline help ensure giving
serious attention to timely identification of work. Management should
not appreciate late identification of outage tasks. If managers do not
wish to have an unexpected outage extension, they must be willing to
freeze the outage scope and not allow routine additions at some point
before the outage begins. The scheduler might issue a statement at
some point before the outage that “Any work identified after this week
must be arranged and managed by the originator of the work.” The
early start of giving attention and listing the work greatly reduces the
occurrence of later scope additions.
234 Chapter Six
During the course of an outage, the scheduler continues to meet with

the crew supervisors to identify completed work. The scheduler also
continues to publish lists of work remaining. The scheduler compares
actual completion of blocks of work against expected completion to meas-
ure the progress of the outage. In order to encourage supervisors to
attend meetings during the execution of the outage, the scheduler should
limit the meetings to only 15 or 20 minutes.
After the outage is over, the scheduler should still schedule one or two
meetings with the crew supervisors, planners, and other personnel, pos-
sibly even including technicians. Just as a planner needs feedback to
improve future plans, the scheduler and planners seek information to
improve future outages. The final meetings should address what went
right as well as identify where the team could make improvements.
These meetings should occur soon after the outages before personnel
forget information and ideas.
The plant handles scheduled short outages very similarly to major
outages in regard to work scope. Smaller outages that the plant deter-
mines are necessary only months, weeks, or days before starting, and
have similar but less extended preparations made. The operations and
maintenance groups together arrange to have a short outage at a future
scheduled time to maintain the plant’s capability of operating at full
capacity. This is not a recovery from a trip or loss of capacity. The key
to how much work the maintenance group will accomplish for a short
scheduled outage is the plant decision on the scope of work. The sched-
uler must continually encourage the routine identification of work even
if the work can only be done during an outage. This ensures the back-
log contains the necessary work orders for an outage before the last
moment. The scheduler assesses what routine preventive maintenance
to include. The scheduler reviews any predictive maintenance recom-
mendations or other corrective maintenance in the backlog. With this
information, the scheduler prepares a preliminary scope of all jobs to
include in the outage for review by the maintenance crew supervisors
and plant management. The scheduler takes the scope of work and
then assesses how long the outage should last based on discussions with
crew supervisors for crew availability and management preferences
for off shift and overtime work. The crew supervisors create a daily
scheduling sheet(s) for the outage to get all the work done.
As previously discussed for unscheduled short outages or trips, the pri-
mary failure is often the item that determines the length of the outage.
The scope normally consists of all SNOW work orders that the planners
estimate have a duration of equal length or shorter.
Management must be willing to set a freeze on the scope of even short
outages. It must resist the addition of new work after an unscheduled short
outage begins or after setting the scope of a scheduled outage. Otherwise,
management must accept the responsibility for outage schedule changes.
A final necessary note includes the involvement of the operations

group. Timing governs the success of outage work in such a way that
one must not forget the time involved for operator tasks. Operators
must not only clear equipment, but return equipment to service.
Managers and schedulers must include the operations group in all
outage meetings to discuss clearance and restoration to service of indi-
vidual components as well as overall unit shakedown. Operators may
have a preference for the timing of the return of specific components to
levelize their activities. Their knowledge may also profoundly affect the
overall scheduling of the outage. For instance, a major steam plant may
sometimes require days or weeks to clean boiler water to allow return
to full capacity. As with any maintenance work, the maintenance tech-
nicians are responsible for delivering equipment that is ready to run.
However, the operators have the responsibility of testing and returning
the equipment to service. Schedulers must include the operators when
considering maintenance work.
Two key concepts help the understanding of the scheduling of outages.

The first key is realizing that the scheduler can only have great accu-
racy when scheduling blocks of work orders. Grouping of many tasks into
blocks of work for an outage tends to smooth out the inaccuracies inher-
ent in the estimates of individual tasks. The second key is realizing
that the overall ability of being able to schedule outage work accurately
lies in the control of additional work to the original outage scope.
Schedules or resources must change if the work scope changes. A sched-
uler can schedule the work scope of an outage. The plant must control
the scope.
Quotas, Benchmarks, and Standards

Addressed
The terms quota, benchmark, and standard see frequent usage in main-
tenance and should be addressed in light of the current scheduling con-
text. The normal concepts implied by these words do not lend themselves
very well to a planning and scheduling operation.
Quotas establish amounts of work that a crew must do. For example,
management might dictate that a certain maintenance crew must always
complete 60 work orders every week. At first glance, the development of
a planning and scheduling system seems to have that very thing in
mind. However, a quota is more of a mandatory figure that does not allow
very well for consideration of current events, quality, or actual jobs ever
being different from the plans. Quotas do not provide the answer to
superior maintenance. Rather, proper planning and scheduling set
schedule expectations and realistic goals based on current conditions as
well as provide the means to improve upon past jobs. A technician must
236 Chapter Six
be able to point out why a job should be extended in the case of special
circumstances. There may be valid schedule pressures and there may
be times a technician cannot be the sole judge to delay a job. However,
these factors must be maturely worked out for the optimum benefit for
the plant as a whole. Rather than setting a strict quota of work orders
to complete, management should consider how many technician work
hours the crew has available and assist the crew to select that same
amount of estimated work hours of backlogged jobs that would most ben-
efit the plant. To emphasize that a planning and scheduling operation
does not promote quotas, consider the following. If it is not a quota to
assign two persons to a job, why would it be a quota to assign 2 hours
to a job or two jobs to a person?
Compensation arrangements that take into account production
amount without regard for quality form a type of quota. Management
should avoid these situations or watch them very closely. For example,
wages based on number of jobs or number of “book hours” might encour-
age a technician to pay insufficient attention to quality. It is true that
the supervisor has less need to motivate such piece workers; but are they
performing proper work? Instead, paying technicians by the hour, but
giving them sufficient amounts of work to do requires more supervisor
effort, but appears to keep quality higher in focus.
Benchmarks are self comparisons to how other facilities perform in

certain areas in which one has an interest to improve. For example, man-
agement may compare how much it spends yearly on maintenance
versus the most profitable companies in similar or dissimilar indus-
tries. The comparisons may let management know if its own mainte-
nance department is relatively effective. However, a comparison itself
may not tell management how its own company can improve. The other
facilities may have certain factors that provide for their particular suc-
cess. Simple benchmark comparisons do not readily reveal these factors.
The other facilities must be carefully studied for benchmarking exercises
to become most useful. How similar is the other facility? Perhaps the
other plant has a greater abundance of skilled labor available. Perhaps
the other plant has already made the transition from reactive to proac-
tive maintenance. Perhaps the other company invests regularly to
replace troublesome equipment. Perhaps the company has an active
program for maintenance personnel input into new plants being built.
The point is that simple benchmark numbers may not tell why plants
perform differently. There are often key factors that must be understood
beyond the benchmark number. So it is with planning and scheduling.
A benchmark comparison that shows a plant has a planning department
and schedules its maintenance does not tell if or why those programs
are beneficial. A benchmark telling that wrench time is different does
not tell why it is different. The planning and scheduling principles in
Chaps. 2 and 3 embody obvious factors that influence how well planning
and scheduling work. In addition, the entirety of Chap. 1 points to other
factors necessary for planning to function. A simple benchmark would
be difficult to use among different plants in many of these regards.
Consequently, benchmarking among plants to control a planning oper-
ation may not be as beneficial as closely adhering to the planning and
scheduling principles and other guidelines presented in this book.
Nevertheless, the principle underlying benchmarking—to visit other
plants to pick up good ideas—may invaluably assist to improve any
aspect of plant operation and maintenance. Benchmarkers should try
to visit best performers. They should attempt to understand how, not just
how much.
Another use of the word benchmark implies less of a cross-company
comparison and more of a simple goal or idea of what one’s performance
should be. The planner’s estimate of a job’s labor hours do set somewhat
of a benchmark in this regard for the technician’s consideration.
Standards present a combination of quotas and benchmarks, but on

individual jobs, weekly schedules, and daily schedules.
A real standard applied to a specific job would dictate beyond any
doubt how long a job should take. One way an engineer or analyst would
establish a standard would be to study a task as it is repeated many
times by different technicians. The analyst or engineer together with
some of the technicians might then decide the best way to perform the
work. Then technicians trained to perform the work in this best manner
would be timed. The resulting labor hours and duration would become
the official job standard. This approach may be practical for an auto-
mobile repair shop where industrial engineers have studied specific
tasks repeatable on identical vehicles maintained in similar shops. This
approach is less applicable to an industrial plant where technicians
may repeat specific jobs only once or twice over the course of a year.
There is limited opportunity to observe and study such work. The man-
ufacturers may have some ability to specify standard maintenance tasks
for their equipment. On the other hand, manufacturers may be better
qualified in the manufacture of the equipment rather than in its main-
tenance. In addition, the great diversity in the shop arrangement and
personnel skills of the persons using the equipment may make generic
standards useful for a starting point, if practical at all. PM tasks may
lend themselves to locally developed standards because technicians may
execute them on a more frequent basis than once or twice a year.
Nonetheless, the great productivity improvement available through
planning and scheduling comes from having some schedule control, not
necessarily incredibly precise estimate accuracy. Typically, the intro-
duction of proper planning and scheduling in a maintenance organiza-
tion dramatically improves productivity. Addition of precise job standards
238 Chapter Six
contributes a relatively smaller productivity gain. Normal job planning

simply does not study jobs thoroughly enough to set precise time esti-
mates. The planned estimates are accurate enough for scheduling work,
but not for establishing official job standards. Fortunately, the ability
to schedule the work in a reasonable fashion is all that is necessary.
Nonetheless, when used less formally, the term standard is somewhat
applicable to the planner’s estimate of a job’s labor hours. The planner’s
estimates are said to be the job standard. One must keep in mind, how-
ever, that these are not engineered standards. They are simple, initial
determinations of a skilled planner.
In addition, just as the planner’s estimate is an informal, but useful,
standard for a job, the weekly schedule is the scheduler’s standard for
the week of work and the daily schedule is the supervisor’s standard for
the day of work. The week of work represents the standard of what the
crew should be able to accomplish in a week. The day of work represents
the standard of what the crew should be able to accomplish in a day.
Having standards helps the plant control the maintenance work. The
plant assesses with job feedback, weekly schedule compliance, and
supervisor inspection how well the standards are met. Comparing per-
formance against the standard helps planners, schedulers, and super-
visors adjust their practices to improve performance.
Setting estimates and assigning work through planning and sched-

uling does not necessarily involve engineered standards, production
quotas, and cross-company benchmarks.
Summary
This chapter described the specific activities that accomplish weekly
scheduling. For advance scheduling, a scheduler simply allocates an
amount of work orders for a week. The scheduler does not set specific
days or times to begin or complete each work order. The scheduler works
with the crew supervisors to establish forecasted labor hours and then
selects that quantity of work order hours for the allocation. Specific
methods, routines, and forms help the scheduler select the best mix of
work for the plant. For daily scheduling, the crew supervisor selects
work orders mostly from the weekly allocation. However, the supervi-
sor also maintains the flexibility to reassign the crew for emergency and
other urgent work that may arise. The supervisor may follow different
methods and procedures to select and assign the appropriate work each
day. All of these methods and procedures have certain elements in
common, primarily giving each crew member a full shift of work based
on planner job estimates. As plants gain experience with planning and
scheduling, staging certain job items may further improve labor pro-
ductivity. These techniques of scheduling greatly assist maintenance in
improving its labor productivity. This chapter described the exact steps
of scheduling to clarify the concepts of scheduling. After understanding
the concepts, readers may implement alternative steps than the ones
prescribed. This chapter should allow companies to implement their
own effective scheduling.
Routine day-to-day maintenance offers the greatest opportunity for
planning and scheduling to make a difference. Companies typically exe-
cute maintenance outages with much success already. Consequently,
this book does not dwell on the actual scheduling of outage mainte-
nance. However, the scheduling of outage maintenance relies on par-
ticular concepts inherent in the practice of routine maintenance
scheduling. One concept is the increased accuracy of time estimates
achievable for blocks of work made up of smaller jobs with less precise
time estimates. Another concept is the control of inclusion of the smaller
jobs that make up the larger blocks of outage work. If the scope of work
continually changes for an outage, the overall outage schedule must
change as well. The chapter addresses these concepts as keys to outage
scheduling in addition to describing the routine scheduling of mainte-
nance work.
Chapter
7
Daily Scheduling
and Supervision
As discussed for Scheduling Principle 5 in Chap. 3, the crew supervisor

schedules work orders on a daily basis. Formal daily scheduling assigns
specific individuals to specific work orders in a manner that accounts for
each labor hour available and works toward the goal of completing the
work allocated by the weekly schedule. The supervisor also supervises
the work in progress in the field. These matters of daily scheduling and
supervision of current work execution are not the responsibility of the
planning department, per se. However, they are of such importance to
the planning and scheduling system that this handbook has an obliga-
tion to explore their specific tasks. That is, while these tasks do not
belong to the planning department that creates job plans and issues the
weekly schedule, they are part of the overall planning and scheduling
system. Note also that the method presented is only one method. Others
are acceptable provided they work toward the goal of weekly work.
The chapter presents an actual description of a supervisor working a
normal day and then more specifically addresses assigning work, coor-
dination with operations, handing out work orders, and duties each day.
A Day in the Life of a Maintenance Supervisor

Chapter 5, Basic Planning, begins by describing how a planner actu-
ally goes about planning jobs with the episode of A Day in the Life of
a Maintenance Planner. (Chapter 9 depicts the same planner in a
system that uses a CMMS.) The following account shows a crew super-
visor at work with an emphasis on the planning and scheduling aspects
of daily supervision. This episode helps the reader understand how the
supervisor benefits and interacts within the planning and scheduling
system.
241

242 Chapter Seven
So, what does a Supervisor do? Industry wisdom claims that the
process of planning and scheduling dramatically improves maintenance
productivity. We have seen what a planner does throughout the day, but
what exactly does a supervisor do? The following narrative follows a
supervisor through a normal day to see.
6:45 AM. Maintenance Supervisor Terry Brooks arrived at work Tuesday

morning looking forward to another day helping the maintenance
department keep equipment working to support the operation of the
plant. Fortunately, no one had called him in the middle of night for an
emergency call out; that meant maintenance had achieved some meas-
ure of reliability for the equipment. Terry immediately went to his office
and checked his voice mail and email. There were no urgent messages
for work needed, again a good sign. In addition, operations had not noti-
fied him that they had been unable to clear any of the requested jobs
from the previous day.
Terry took the daily schedule for today (Tuesday) that he had handed
out yesterday and attached it to his clipboard along with a blank sched-
ule for tomorrow (Wednesday). He headed down to the crew break area.
7:00 AM. As crewmembers began to arrive, Terry checked them off as

present, handed the lead technicians all of their work orders for the day,
and watched everyone go to their first assigned tasks.
The technicians first had to go to the clearance office in the control
room and “sign onto” the clearances for their jobs. At this plant, opera-
tors cleared equipment and required any technician who had to work
on cleared equipment to sign the clearance form in the clearance office
for that job. After the technicians finished jobs, they would go back to
the clearance office and “sign off” on the clearance forms. After a lead
technician (empowered by the supervisor) informed operations that
work was complete, the operations group checked that all technicians
had signed off the clearance form (to ensure they were no longer work-
ing on the equipment) and restored the equipment to service as neces-
sary. This procedure caused a bit of traffic through the control room area,
but the plant considered it time well spent for safety.
7:45 AM. The daily schedule for today assigned everyone work for the
entire 10-hour shift. No one had called in sick, so Terry did not have to
rearrange anyone’s schedule. As the last person left, Terry headed up
to the morning meeting. On the way, he stopped by the planning depart-
ment to drop off the stack of completed work orders from yesterday.
8:00 AM. The morning meeting was short and sweet. Its purpose was
to review all the latest work orders for proper priority and craft. Most
of the plant supervisors attended as did the operations coordinator and
planning supervisor (who also chaired the brief meeting). As a group,
Daily Scheduling and Supervision 243
they raised the priority of one work order and lowered the priority of two
others. One reason Terry attended was to see if operators had written
any urgent work orders for his crew that he should work today with or
without a plan. It looked like there would not be a schedule breaker for
him today. The meeting also gave him a feel of the general condition of
the plant.
8:30 AM. Terry headed out into the field to help his crew. He did not nec-
essarily visit every job underway, but started with jobs that seemed
most likely to be of significance. As he approached each technician on a
job he would ask, “Is there anything I can do for you?” Even if he had
not approached their jobs, technicians could radio him for special help.
Still, his presence helped move some jobs along. Adamson had been on
a vacuum pump job for the second day without seeming to make much
headway. Terry spent about an hour with him. Together they reviewed
the progress so far, hunted down an O&M manual in the planning
department, and settled on an action plan to finish the job.
10:00 AM. It was now 10 o’clock and the day had been successfully
launched. Everyone was here on task with no schedule breakers. Terry
swung by the engineering office to meet with an engineer who wanted
input on a valve actuator modification planned for a valve in Terry’s area
of the plant.
10:30 AM. Terry went back to working with technicians in the field until
lunchtime.
12:30 PM. After lunch with a couple of the other supervisors, Terry
checked his email and headed back out to check on-job progress. This
time he began filling out the blank daily schedule form for tomorrow.
The schedule form was easy to use because it had technician names writ-
ten across the top and blanks down the side for entering work order
numbers. Terry had a tablet of the blank schedules. As he encountered
technicians, he questioned each for the estimated completion time. This
afternoon reinforced the fact that job time estimates were only that, esti-
mates. What had appeared to be a straightforward job on the dock gut-
ters for Capper, Glade, and Young for 4 hours had exploded into a rebuild
of the screens and curbs. On tomorrow’s schedule, Terry wrote down the
work order number. He gave each of the three technicians 5 hours for
the next day as carryover work. Conversations with other technicians
from his visits or by radio indicated two other jobs would run long and
so Terry planned for some carryover work on tomorrow’s schedule. On
the other hand, it appeared Kingsley and Jensen would finish all of
their work for the entire day very early, so Terry gave them several new
jobs from the weekly schedule stack. He handed a small job to Kingsley
that he ought to be able to finish today and a larger job to Jensen that
244 Chapter Seven
would probably carryover a few hours into tomorrow. During this time,
Terry received two radio summons from operations personnel. Terry
returned the calls on his cell phone, both of which dealt with operations
needing special work. Terry convinced the operators in each case to
write work orders with urgent priorities so that they could be planned
and he promised he would work them tomorrow. Terry also called the
planner to give a “heads up” for planning the reactive work.
1:30 PM. Terry continued to visit job sites and fill out the schedule form.
At one point, Kingsley and Jensen gave him completed work orders for
their completed jobs. Terry reviewed the completed work orders and
saved them for the planning department. After a while, Terry had a
handle on which jobs the technicians would complete today and which
jobs needed time tomorrow. Several times Terry abandoned the sched-
uling effort to help technicians. He particularly wanted to spend some
time with Sanchez reviewing the auxiliary feed pump job. One problem
was not a job problem, but involved discussing whether Johns could take
off several days during an upcoming outage.
2:30 PM. Terry returned to his office after swinging by the planning
department to pick up completed plans for the urgent work orders oper-
ators had brought up earlier. Although these reactive job plans had
little beyond “peek at the history, peek at the job, and put on a plan,”
they were invaluable in giving him guidance on job scope, skills needed,
and time durations. Many times, they also helped identify past parts
used for the equipment. Above all, he could count on the planner using
a quick planning approach that would not slow him down from going
ahead and assigning the work for tomorrow. Terry finished the rest of the
daily schedule for tomorrow. Based on an earlier discussion with the
technician, he guessed how long another carryover job might take. He then
added the urgent now-planned work orders he promised to start tomor-
row. Next Terry looked through the stack of remaining work orders
scheduled for the week. The weekly schedule did not specify which day
each job should start. It was really more of a stack of work orders for
which Terry’s crew had the labor hours to accomplish. Balancing the
more important work orders against the technicians he had available
with different skills for tomorrow, Terry looked through the stack choos-
ing work orders and doling them out on the daily schedule form. He
assigned work until everyone had 10 hours of work since everyone on the
crew worked a 10-hour shift. Terry used the planner estimate of hours
in each case.
3:00 PM.Terry took Wednesday’s proposed schedule to the daily clear-

ance meeting with operations. He also took a clearance request form for
each new job on the schedule, a copy of the front of each proposed work
order, and the entire stack of remaining work orders in the weekly allot-
ment. In the meeting, led by the maintenance manager, each mainte-
nance crew supervisor explained his or her list of proposed work for
tomorrow and handed the operations supervisor the clearance forms
with a copy of the work order front page. (This front page helped oper-
ations understand the work better in order to assist with any clearance
needs.) Terry then returned to his office and posted a copy of it both in
the crew break area and on his office door.
3:30 PM. Terry then returned to see the dock gutters job. Glade was the
lead tech on the job and did not need any special help from him. Glade
had already got help from the planning department expediter to order
a special part that would arrive tomorrow.
4:00 PM. Terry walked to his office and began to review the finished work
orders received so far for the day. He had already received two from
Kingsley and Jensen, but Johns had left one in his in-box. On Jensen’s
work order, he added comments to clarify the feedback for the planner.
5:15 PM. Later, Terry began receiving signed timesheets from everyone
as they returned from jobs and the control room after signing off clear-
ance forms for completed work. Terry approved these timesheets and put
them in the maintenance clerk’s in-basket for entry into the plant
accounting system. Sanchez handed him a completed work order on the
small pump alignment job. In addition, Barber had finally wrapped up
the boiler weld job and gave Terry a completed work order. He glanced
at them for now, but would finish reviewing them in the morning. Both
lead techs said everyone had signed off the clearances so operations
could restore the equipment.
5:30 PM. At the close of the day, Terry walked to the parking lot. He
thought about the part he played in the high availability the plant
enjoyed. Although initially suspicious, he had begun to enjoy receiving
the weekly batch of work orders from planning that matched his crew’s
skills. This relieved him of having to dig continually through the entire
plant backlog to find work. It also gave him a sense of mission that
replaced his previous notion of being here simply to respond to urgent
operation needs. With specific productivity goals in mind (the weekly
batch of work), Terry felt that he knew where his crew was in terms of
plant expectations. Terry was grateful that plant management also gave
him full permission and even encouragement to break the weekly sched-
ule for true plant emergencies and urgent work that could not wait
until the next week. Terry also appreciated that he could devote his
attention to the persons in his crew and their actual execution of work
instead of lining up future work and administrative tasks as had been
246 Chapter Seven
the case in the past. He knew where he fit in the plant maintenance
system and could sense his impact on excellent plant availability and
performance.
Assigning Names
Different exact methods exist to schedule work for a single crew day. The
important elements are that the scheduling method attaches particu-
lar tasks to each crew member’s name and that the method fills each
crew member’s available work hours. For example, the crew supervi-
sor should assign 10 hours of work to each crew member available for
10 hours. The supervisor bases the assignments on the planned estimates
for the work orders. Depending on the industry, the supervisor might also
denote the exact time during the day when each job should start or end.
This would be more the case for a product line taken out of service with
exact scheduling from the operations group. It would be less the case
where operations can clear up certain areas for a day of maintenance
without significant production problems. This chapter’s outage section
later addresses the urgency and coordination of outage work.
The crew supervisor normally schedules the daily maintenance activi-
ties for the crew. The scheduler might be able to do the operation of daily
scheduling, leaving the supervisor free to manage work in progress and
people issues. However, the daily scheduling is normally too integrated into
the management of the crew for the supervisor to transfer away this duty.
Figure 7.1 shows a typical form that supervisors might use to assign
names to work orders. The supervisor uses the form for a specific day.
The form consists of a grid with spaces for work orders on the left and
crew member names on the top. A single line near the bottom takes care
of nonwork order time such as vacation. Codes allow identification of
specific types of nonwork order time. The bottom line provides a space
for totaling each technician’s time. These totals help the supervisor
assign enough work to fill each hour of the shift for each person.
Figure 7.2 shows how the B Crew supervisor has added the name for
each member of the crew. The supervisor can add the names one time
and then copy enough forms for a supply of preprinted, daily schedul-
ing forms. The company’s graphics department might publish these
daily schedule forms in pads.
Figures 7.3 through 7.7 illustrate the use of the daily schedule form for
B Crew using the previously developed Crew Work Hours Availability
Forecast (Fig. 6.4) and the allocated backlog for the week (Fig. 6.17 and
Table 6.6). First, Supervisor J. Field adds the day and date for the day being
scheduled. Field is scheduling for Tuesday, the first day of the work week
for B Crew which works 10-hour days. Figure 7.3 also shows the craft skill
level for each person: M, T, S, W, and H for mechanic, technician, machin-
ist, welder, and helper, respectively. Such designation is normally unnec-
essary because supervisors are familiar with their technicians’ capabilities.
Figure 7.1 Form for daily scheduling.
Figure 7.2 Example preprinted form with crew member names.

248 Chapter Seven
Figure 7.3 Input of date for the B Crew to schedule the first day of work week.
The supervisor first enters unavailable hours for different crew mem-
bers. The supervisor marks the crew members who are unavailable for
the next day for training, leave time, or other reason. The supervisor
marks the form by placing the number of hours any employee is unavail-
able under the employee’s name along with the proper reason code on the
special code line. Field had approved 10 vacation hours for welder Hunter
that day. Next, the supervisor adds any carryover hours from the pre-
ceding work day. The supervisor writes down the work order number and
brief title of any carryover work that will run into this next day’s sched-
ule. The supervisor marks down the hours needed during the next day
for carryover on the same horizontal line as the work order, but under
each involved technician’s name. Whenever the total hours for any indi-
vidual reach ten, the supervisor writes 10 on the bottom line of the form.
Figure 7.4 shows the results of these entries. Note that at this point, six
persons of the 15 person crew have been assigned their entire 10 hours.
Next the supervisor must consider any urgent work that has come up
since the time the weekly schedule was established. There may be sev-
eral new urgent jobs that should not wait until the next week to begin.
The supervisor adds to the daily schedule any urgent job that should
begin that day. Such reactive work is planned, but planning on reactive
work usually provides only an adequate scope and estimates of craft
needs and work hours. This plan is all the crew supervisor needs to work
Figure 7.4 Indication of craft skills. Input of unavailable crew hours and carryover work.
the job into the schedule. With even a rudimentary plan, the supervi-
sor keeps control of the schedule because planning has identified craft
and time. The supervisor makes the decision to work these jobs into the
current work load knowing that they will hinder the crew’s completing
all the weekly scheduled work. The supervisor would prefer to wait
until the following week to begin all newly identified work for several
reasons. First, jobs already scheduled for the current week have a
greater likelihood of being staged leading to higher crew productivity.
Second, waiting until next week gives the new jobs a better chance of
having their items staged. Third, the current week’s schedule was put
together with some thought toward including all PM work plus sufficient
other proactive work. The new job is reactive and will presumably keep
proactive work from being done. Fourth, there is less chance to coordi-
nate other resources such as other crafts. Management measures sched-
ule compliance to encourage crews to get more work done. Working on
the weekly allocation of work orders is a high priority for the crew super-
visor. Nonetheless, the crew supervisor must redirect crew resources to
work on truly urgent work for the good of the plant. The overall sched-
uling process is geared toward doing more work and doing more proac-
tive work. However, the overall goal of the plant is not just better future
availability, but availability in the immediate present as well. Urgent
reactive work cannot be ignored. The crew supervisor must address
250 Chapter Seven
those areas needing immediate attention. This reasoning is why the

supervisor is responsible for daily scheduling and the immediate direc-
tion of the crew. The crew supervisor deviates from the weekly schedule
when necessary and later explains such variances to management.
The supervisor does not have to consider emergency work when plan-
ning the next day’s schedule. Crews always begin true emergency work
immediately. If it can wait until the next day or the start of the shift, it
may be urgent work, but it is not emergency. The supervisor immedi-
ately reassigns technicians from their current assignments for any
emergency work. The supervisor makes note of these reassignments by
marking up the current day’s schedule, but there is nothing to mark on
the schedule for tomorrow unless the current work will carry over. Then
it is treated on tomorrow’s schedule as carryover just as any job still in
progress. If an emergency job were to come up in the middle of the night
before the start of the next shift, the schedule would have already been
completed. The supervisor simply revises the schedule as necessary to
reflect the already assigned persons.
The weekly schedule still helps improve weekly productivity even
when crews do not start scheduled work as a result of emergency or other
urgent jobs arising. When reporting variance from the weekly schedule,
it is difficult to explain why only one emergency job and three urgent
jobs kept ten scheduled jobs from starting.
In the current illustration for B Crew, no emergencies or urgent jobs
have come up for consideration in the current day’s work or for the fol-
lowing day. This plant places an emphasis on preventing urgent situa-
tions. Personnel report small problems that can be handled proactively
before they grow into large problems. Management discourages anyone
including engineers from requesting work at the last minute that they
could have identified earlier.
Next, the supervisor inspects the week’s worth of work consisting of
the folders with work orders. The advance scheduler had prepared these
folders for each lead craft. Generally the supervisor starts with the
folder that represents the bulk of the crew. This folder has the most work
since there were more persons for which the scheduler had to give work.
The supervisor selects one job at a time and places the work order
number on the daily schedule form along with a brief description of the
work. Then the supervisor assigns the proper crew members to the job
by allocating the work hour estimates under their names. The selection
of jobs and assignment of persons is not an exact science. The supervi-
sor prefers to consider higher skill work ahead of lower skill work to help
keep assignment options open. Another preference the supervisor follows
is to assign a large job to several persons, then keep those persons
together for the day by assigning smaller jobs to fill their available hours.
Selecting the larger, high priority jobs first leaves smaller jobs for fitting
into schedule slots to make up a person’s whole shift. The supervisor’s
skill in working with personalities comes also into play. This consider-
ation is beyond the ability of the scheduler to make when creating a
weekly schedule. Which crew members work best together? Which
employees do not get along with each other? Which employees do not
cooperate well with anyone? Which employees enjoy a certain type of
work? Which employees need a challenge? Which employees possess the
necessary skill to accomplish a unique, critical task? Which employees
seem to need extra coaching and supervision? Which employees work
best independently? Which employees need more experience working
together with others? Which employees want opportunities to develop
their leadership capabilities by leading larger jobs? Which employees
rank high on the overtime list? These employees might be assigned to
critical jobs that could run over requiring overtime. Which employees
have the most familiarity with a particular system? Which employees
need more experience in a certain system? Which employees need more
experience developing a particular skill? Which employees most suc-
cessfully knock out a series of small jobs? Which employees always seem
to stretch their jobs to mid-day or to the end of the shift? The supervi-
sor’s knowledge of the crew allows taking these considerations into
account when assigning the allocated work on a daily basis.
The supervisor should resist assigning more than the estimated hours
on the work order. For example, if the work order has an estimated
requirement of two mechanics for 6 hours each, the supervisor would
put “6” under two crew member names, not “8” for each to fill up an 8-hour
shift. The job may end up running over, but the supervisor does not want
to begin by anticipating the job will consume the entire shift. The assign-
ment of exact work order hours would be a good check area for concerned
managers. Checking the daily schedule may indicate a problem with
most jobs seeming to be always planned for 10 hours or scheduled for
10 hours just because that is the shift arrangement.
The supervisor continues selecting tasks from the folders and dis-
tributing their hours among the crew. A work order may be attached to
other work orders for the same system. In this case, the supervisor
prefers to assign all of the attached work orders to a larger group of per-
sons for the same day rather than assigning them to a smaller group over
several days. Working all the jobs for a single system at the same time
shortens the time the system must be out of service. It also contributes
to a sense of accomplishment for both the crew and the operations group
when they complete all the work on a system.
The supervisor continues selecting tasks until all crew members have
their available work hours assigned to work orders. After assigning a
number of the work orders, the supervisor has to exercise some further
judgment in selecting work orders. The best persons to which to assign
a particular work order may have too few hours left in the shift to com-
plete that work order. The supervisor is free to assign technicians to start
252 Chapter Seven
a bigger job that they will not finish in the shift. If assigning a 10-hour
job to a person with only 3 hours left available, the supervisor would
place a “3” under the person’s name across from the new job. The super-
visor could also immediately begin the next day’s schedule with the job
at hand placing a “7” in the pertinent crew member box. That schedule
may be adjusted later for different carryover hours when actual job
progress is assessed. On the other hand, there may be smaller jobs with
lower priorities, but fewer hours that could be completed on the same
day. The supervisor is free to pick any of the jobs of lower priority in the
week’s allocation for assignment anytime during the week.
If the supervisor runs out of work from the weekly allocation, then he
or she checks with planning to obtain planned work from the unscheduled
backlog. This work is in the planning group’s waiting-to-be-scheduled file.
If there is no planned work waiting, the supervisor checks with the plan-
ner about working jobs that are not yet planned. The supervisor should
resist assigning work without a work order.
The supervisor totals up each person’s assigned hours under the
person’s name. The hours for each person should add to the person’s paid
work hours. For example, if 10-hour shifts are employed, then there
should be 10 hours totaled up under every employee.
Figure 7.5 shows the first two jobs the supervisor has selected from
the week of allocated work. The supervisor has selected the top job from
Figure 7.5 Input of the first two jobs from the allocated weekly backlog.
the Mechanic folder. The supervisor first selects WO no. 36 requiring a

mechanic and two helpers for 6 hours each. This work order has another
work order attached for the same system. This second work order, WO
no. 29, requires only two helpers for 6 hours each. After briefly review-
ing the work order, the supervisor decides to assign it to the team of three
persons doing the first job. The supervisor assigns each of them 4 hours
to complete this job and makes a note on the work order. The supervi-
sor has changed the plan of 12 helper hours to assign 8 helper hours and
4 mechanic hours. (This is a little unusual to change a plan in this
manner, but it is acceptable.) Now three more persons have 10 total
hours for the day.
Figure 7.6 shows the result of the next three work orders selected by
the supervisor. The supervisor decides to start none of the FO, Fuel Oil
Storage and Transfer System, work on Tuesday because neither welder
is unavailable. One is involved with carryover work and the other is
taking vacation. The supervisor selects WO no. 28 requiring a machin-
ist and a helper and then adds a smaller job, WO no. 27, to finish up the
machinist’s hours for the day. Because WO no. 030 is on the same
system, the supervisor assigns it next.
Next, the supervisor has 20 technician hours, 9 mechanic hours, and
10 helper hours available. The supervisor selects the large job, WO no. 35,
requiring 20 hours for one technician to begin 10 hours. The supervisor
W
Sanchez M
Adamson M
M
W
DAILY SCHEDULE
Patterson H
H
Richardson H
H
T
S
T
T
Kingsley S
DAY: Tues DATE: 5/11/99

Capper
Wilson
Hunter
Barber
Young
SUPERVISOR: J. Field
Jensen
Glade
Smith
Johns
Jones
WO# Unit Pri Short description Comments

016 0 1 Boiler structure 10 10 Carryover
017 0 3 Fab pump shaft 10 "
019 2 2 Vacuum pump 10 "
015 2 2 Underdrains 10 "
036 0 1 Unloading arms 6 6 6
029 0 4 Dock gutters 4 4 4
028 0 1 Pump impeller 8 8
027 0 2 Cat underdrain 2
030 0 1 Trn pump align 1 1
Special Codes: Special Code V

V-Vacation S-Sick
& Hours 10
T-Training O-Other
A-Assigned Off Crew Total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 7.6 Input of the next three jobs into daily schedule.
254 Chapter Seven
also assigns a 40-hour job, WO no. 31, to the mechanic and helper to
begin a total of 19 hours. Finally, the supervisor assigns a 17-hour job,
WO no. 25, to the last technician, Smith, to begin 10 hours. After this
scheduling, the supervisor finds that a single person has less than
10 hours assigned. The helper Richardson has only 9 hours assigned.
The supervisor sees no single-hour helper jobs and is reluctant to have
a helper begin another job alone that will carry over. Therefore, the
supervisor adds the helper’s last hour to the cation underdrain fabri-
cation job, WO no. 27. This will give Richardson, an apprentice, some
time in the machine shop. Figure 7.7 shows the completed daily sched-
ule form with names for all crew members assigned to work orders with
all shift hours accounted for, adding up to 10 hours each.
Coordinating with the Operations Group

With the schedule filled out, the supervisor then coordinates with the
operations group. The supervisor must communicate with operations for
two reasons. The supervisor first requests that the operations group
clear the pertinent equipment for the next day. The supervisor must also
determine if any testing is advisable as the maintenance crew returns
equipment to service. Many plants conduct a daily schedule meeting
each afternoon to coordinate the next day’s work between these two
groups. The meeting consists of the crew supervisors and the operations
Figure 7.7 Completed daily schedule for the B Crew.

supervisor. At this meeting, maintenance may also advise regarding

the progress of on-going work in addition to coordinating the start and
testing of new work.
Clearing means that the operations group is making the equipment
available and safe for maintenance work. For example, the operations
group may clear the equipment by draining process lines and closing nec-
essary valves and electrical breakers. Then, depending on particular
plant policy, the maintenance personnel may follow behind and lock out
valves and breakers to their own satisfaction and security. For simplic-
ity, this book presumes the operators do all clearing and maintenance
personnel do not perform separate locking. Companies with additional
requirements would simply add their required procedures to the illus-
trative process described here. The company should have a standard
process for the maintenance group to notify the operations group of
clearance needs. With a daily schedule meeting, maintenance can hand
over a printed clearance request form. The maintenance crew could also
deliver a clearance request form at any time to the operations group.
However, maintenance should keep in mind that the operations group
also schedules their activities and desires timely advance notice. Plant
policy might allow less formal notice as phone calls or emails to the
operations group. The plant might utilize a CMMS computer to flag the
backlogged work orders needing clearance for the operators. In a daily
scheduling meeting, each crew supervisor gives operations a copy of the
crew’s proposed daily schedule and a printed clearance request form for
each work order needing clearance. The clear request form should
describe the work proposed along with times needed for clearance. A copy
of the work order form with special clearance instructions makes a good
clear request format because the operators see the actual, maintenance
work document. The supervisor has the original work order forms in
hand at the meeting instead of just the schedule sheet to allow refer-
ence to any planner notes regarding special circumstances. The face-to-
face daily meeting allows the operators to commit to clearing up the
necessary work areas during the evening shift for an around-the-clock
operating environment. Otherwise, the operators can commit to when
they would clear and have ready equipment the next day if they would
not accomplish it during the night. At this meeting the operations group
would also explain any particular requirements if it could clear the
equipment for only part of the day. The supervisors also record feedback
on the pertinent work order forms for new information regarding spe-
cial requirements. The crew supervisors also note restricted times for
maintenance work on the daily schedule forms and the work order forms
which they will give to the field technicians. The operations group can
also give immediate feedback for any jobs that it would not be able to
clear at all. The supervisors make changes to the daily schedule if
needed. The supervisor also has brought the weekly backlog of work to
256 Chapter Seven
the meeting in case a new work order or two needs to be selected as

replacements for jobs that would not be cleared.
During the daily scheduling meeting, the operations group and the
crew supervisor agree regarding any special testing after job completion.
For example, a particular strainer that has shown a past tendency to
leak after maintenance should be tested before the technician has com-
pletely demobilized from the site. The decision of which jobs to test
really depends upon the type of work done and the confidence in the
maintenance skills and so would vary from plant to plant. The opera-
tions group or the maintenance group may have definite preferences for
particular work orders to test. The planning group may recommend by
noting within the job plans if the jobs should receive special attention.
Management should establish a clear policy when possible regarding
testing. The crew supervisor makes appropriate notes on the work orders
which require testing after completion.
Handing Out Work Orders

After the daily scheduling meeting with the operations group, the crew
supervisor publishes the daily schedule with any necessary revisions.
The supervisor might do this by posting the daily schedule form on a
crew area bulletin board or outside the supervisor’s office. This allows
individuals to think about their assignments for the next day. Spreading
the news keeps crew members feeling more a part of a team. If published
in time, there may be productivity improvements as well because tech-
nicians finishing their current jobs could take their tools and somewhat
set up for their next assignments. The technicians could also review the
job plans or technical manuals to familiarize themselves with the equip-
ment. Technicians could even start to gather parts and special tools if
they were not going to be staged. In effect, the technicians can stage their
own jobs because they have advance notice.
The handing out of the physical work orders may depend on the plant’s
policy with the operations group certifying that it has cleared the nec-
essary equipment to allow safe maintenance work to begin. (Some jobs
do not require clearance and the supervisor marks this information on
the work order form if the planning group has not already done so.)
There are different ways to accomplish permitting work areas, some less
formal and some more formal and rigorous. The exact procedure would
be dictated by company policy. The exact policy does not appreciably
affect the enhancement to crew productivity of planning and schedul-
ing. The process presented here is where operations maintains a master
clearance form for each cleared job that technicians must “sign onto”
before they work.
After the operations group clears the necessary areas, technicians
sign onto the clearance form.
The supervisor may physically hand the work orders out in a number
of ways. A common practice is through a morning check-in meeting.
The supervisor meets with the whole crew at shift start. The supervi-
sor physically hands out work orders to the lead technicians making sure
everyone knows where they will be working for the entire day. The
supervisor may hand out all the work orders of the day or just the first
ones, planning to distribute the rest of the work order forms as indi-
viduals, pairs, or groups of technicians near completion of their first jobs.
The advantage to handing out all the work orders for the day at the
beginning is that technicians can plan their pace for the day better.
They understand the goal for the day. This factor probably outweighs a
slight disadvantage for them having to keep track of the paperwork. A
lost paper work order form would be a significant problem in an entirely
paper system with no other record of the work. Arrangements where a
computer database has at least a record of each work order make the
problem of lost forms less important. Fully utilized CMMS computer sys-
tems have the least worry over lost paper forms where the computer
record of the work order is the master and any paper copy serves only
as a field device for the technicians. Of course, the trade-off becomes the
risk of having the computer system available and functioning.
Paperwork would be that much harder to keep up with, if emergencies
frequently seem to interrupt work. Another common practice is for
supervisors to pin work orders under lead technician names on a crew
area or supervisor office bulletin board. Cubbies, file folders, or special
mail slots can also be used for this purpose. Alternately the supervisor
could write work order numbers on a dry erase board with lined columns
and rows. Some supervisors, whether they have daily crew meetings or
not, prefer personally contacting individual technicians throughout the
day making sure each technician has the right work order and knows
where the next assignment is.
Figures 7.8 and 7.9 illustrate possible aids for handing out work
orders by placing them in slot or box structures. Everyone should be
aware of work permit policies when setting up a system for technicians
to have access to work orders. The following arrangements might be
duplicated by writing work order numbers on dry erase boards. Figure 7.8
shows a cardboard, wooden, or metal mailbox arrangement. A supervi-
sor might create tentative daily schedules for the entire week and dis-
tribute the entire allocated backlog. The supervisor might also distribute
work orders for only one day at a time. One problem with a mailbox
system is that a paper work order could only be placed in one box under
a single name, usually the lead technician. Each column might be headed
by a group of names or only lead technicians for teams. However, this pre-
sumes the same groups of persons would remain together throughout
the week or longer. A dry erase board avoids this problem because the
number of a work order could be written under several names at one time.
258 Chapter Seven
Figure 7.8 Optional mailbox arrangement to distribute paper work orders to lead
technicians.
The supervisor might keep the actual work order forms to hand out
when teams are ready for them. Technicians themselves might print
each work order form from a CMMS computer when ready. Figure 7.9
would be applicable to maintenance environments where technicians
work as individuals (or on stable teams) and where specific start times
are important. Each technician has a column of mailboxes or slots where
the supervisor inserts work orders for different times of execution. At
the beginning of the shift, the supervisor changes the heading of the pre-
vious shift to the following day of the work week. For example, at the
beginning of Monday, there are headings for Monday and Tuesday. At
the beginning of Tuesday, the supervisor changes the Monday heading
to read Wednesday.
One method is not advised for assigning or handing out work orders.
Some supervisors take the entire backlog of work from the computer
whether or not it has been planned or scheduled and immediately assign
technician names. In this manner, supervisors distribute their entire
Figure 7.9 Optional slotted board arrangement to distribute paper work orders to
individuals for specific start times. The second day was still being established.
backlogs within their crews giving everyone a share of the plant work
orders. This procedure generates the problem of not having any sched-
ule expectations. Everyone has an individual backlog to work. When they
finish one task, they should move on to the next. However, a major point
of planning and scheduling is setting schedule expectations. Supervisors
that assign individuals unplanned or even unscheduled work orders
lose these advantages. Moreover, a CMMS computer has worsened this
problem. Assigning a technician a work order in parallel to the planning
process many times may result in a technician printing out the work
order before a plan is available. With a pure paper system, at least the
work stays in the planning channel unavailable for the technician to
work prematurely.
During Each Day

Daily scheduling is a continual cycle. During each shift as technicians
work jobs, the supervisor manages from the current day’s schedule and
creates the next day’s schedule. As technicians finish jobs, they return
the work orders to the supervisor and sign off of the master clearance
forms so operations can begin to put the equipment back into service.
260 Chapter Seven
Even if there are no special testing needs, the technicians and super-
visors must not wait until the end of the shift to turn in work orders and
return work permits. Informing the operations group promptly upon
completion of individual work orders allows more time to return equip-
ment to service and restore plant capacity. Operators can operate the
equipment sooner after completion of maintenance. If initial operation
reveals problems or concerns, technicians are then also still on shift to
return to jobs and make corrections or advise. Were maintenance to
wait until shift end to return all completed jobs, operators would also
not be able to unclear all the jobs at once. Allowing operators to work
throughout the shift restoring equipment to service levelizes the oper-
ations group’s efforts.
In addition to coordinating with the operations group, many jobs nat-
urally run over or under estimated times. The supervisor ensures that
the technicians give feedback to help the planners estimate future jobs
and the supervisor adjusts the daily schedules for today and tomorrow
as needed. Other situations may arise and cause the supervisor to adjust
the schedules, such as plant emergencies or unexpected meetings.
Daily scheduling is not simply a form filled out at the end of the day
for the next day’s activities. Even more important, it is not simply hand-
ing out work orders at the start of the shift. Throughout each day, crew
supervisors use the daily schedules as a tool to control work.
Supervisors must also give technicians time to complete work order
feedback as addressed by Chap. 5.
Summary
This chapter describes the daily work activities within their overall
planning and scheduling context. For daily scheduling, the crew super-
visor selects work orders mostly from the weekly allocation. However,
the supervisor also maintains the flexibility to reassign the crew for
emergency and other urgent work that may arise. The supervisor may
follow different methods and procedures to select and assign the appro-
priate work each day. All of these methods and procedures have certain
elements in common, primarily giving each crew member a full shift of
work based on planner job estimates. These techniques of daily sched-
uling help maintenance improve its labor productivity. The chapter
describes the exact steps of daily scheduling to clarify the concepts.
After understanding the concepts, readers may implement alternate
steps than the ones prescribed. This chapter should allow companies to
implement their own effective methodologies.
Chapter
8
Forms and Resources
Overview
In the introduction to the April 1995 issue of Maintenance Technology,

editor Bob Baldwin (1995) identifies a concern about the knowledge drain
occurring in many companies as senior employees leave the workplace.
From his participation in maintenance seminars and roundtables, it
appears that many of these persons “are first-line supervisors who are
among the few people that really understand the machinery in the plant.”
Baldwin states that “Maintenance planners are in the best position to stop
the knowledge drain.” Baldwin holds that “The smart planner taps into the
collective knowledge of maintenance and reliability people wherever he
finds them and institutionalizes that knowledge in the planning process.”
Indeed, many companies initiate planning primarily to capture knowl-
edge as supervisors near retirement. It is interesting that the knowledge
in danger of being lost is not the 20 or 30 key lessons or experiences of
the past 20 years. Rather, it is the thousands upon thousands of minute
details of particular jobs on particular equipment. It is the knowledge
that a certain fan must have its bearing removed from the inboard side
because of an imperceptible taper not mentioned in the technical
manual. It is the identification of the only gasket material found to hold
up for the fuel oil control valve, no. 8 flange connection. It is the specific
maintenance detail that makes the difference between a 4-hour job and
a 10-hour job for countless maintenance tasks. It is the ability to cap-
ture this information and apply it to future work precisely when needed
that makes the planner’s job as a simple file clerk so valuable to these
companies. This chapter covers the practical aspects of using files and
other resources to apply information.
This chapter discusses the types of resources and forms planners use.
The discussion includes how planners and other maintenance groups
261

262 Chapter Eight
employ these areas of information assistance. Resources include areas

such as the plant files and plant schematics. Forms help the mainte-
nance group collect and use data and information.
The planner does not plan every job from scratch. Of a 20% increase
in wrench time for the crafts, at least 5% might be attributed to avoid-
ing the repetition of job delays encountered on past similar assignments
and thereby moving up the learning curve. The planner must do
research to create job plans. Other than just relying on personal expe-
rience, the planner has a wealth of information available. The plan-
ning department is the proper location to keep general equipment
information as well as specific equipment information. Vendor catalogs
and manuals are examples of general equipment information. History
and data for individual pieces of equipment are examples of specific
equipment information. Planners must not store information haphaz-
ardly, but in an organized fashion allowing easy retrieval. Planning
Principle 3 addresses the importance of storing information at the indi-
vidual component level. When technicians first work on a piece of equip-
ment, the planner creates a minifile to record information solely for
that equipment. This minifile holds all the recorded information from
that job, both the initial plan and any feedback received from the field.
The next time the equipment requires maintenance work, the minifile
contains useful information. The planner adds information from sub-
sequent jobs for that equipment and soon the file contains comprehen-
sive maintenance data. This chapter describes how the various
information resources in the planning department assist the planners
and others. Chapter 8 covers the use of a computer management main-
tenance system (CMMS) computer. Understanding the need for such
resources and forms precedes any consideration of computerization.
Forms
Forms supplement job plans in two ways. Forms that are procedural in
nature help technicians remember task steps. Other forms are data
gathering in nature to help collect information. Many forms possess ele-
ments of both natures. Figure 8.1 illustrates a largely procedural type
form that planners might attach to alignment job plans. This company
insists on certain steps being taken for alignments. Instead of including
the standard alignment instructions in the job plan, the planner simply
attaches the form to the job package. Forms also provide an organized
method of collecting and recording information for current analysis or
future reference. Forms keep information from being scattered and lost
in an otherwise wide variety of media such as e-mails, scraps of paper,
and the like. They also guide what should be recorded so a pertinent piece
of information is not forgotten to be collected. Another example of a form
would be a work order form.
Forms and Resources Overview 263
Figure 8.1 Sample form for planners to attach to job plans.
Figure 8.2 illustrates another form that might be used in mainte-

nance. The planner would attach the listing to all pertinent burner jobs.
This type of listing is very similar to a “standard plan” discussed later
with the exception that the form usually has a form of sign-off to ensure
either certain data is collected or certain actions are executed. A stan-
dard plan also normally applies to only a single piece of equipment,
264 Chapter Eight
Figure 8.2 Sample form for planners to attach to job plans.
whereas a form might be more broadly applied to many pieces of equip-

ment. The characteristics of job plans, standard plans, forms, and
datasheets certainly have much overlap. The important thing is to rec-
ognize where something can help the maintenance effort. The forms
might help personnel adhere to a certain plant standard or procedures
when necessary. The forms might help collect useful data. The forms
might also help simplify job plans because supplementary information
is included in accompanying forms.
The planner has a collection of blank forms that can be attached easily
to job plans. When the job might encompass a certain procedure such as
alignment, the planner attaches the pertinent form to the job plan.
Planners should actively seek to have copies of all forms used by main-
tenance technicians. Planners should also create new forms when prac-
tical to aid collecting useful information. In addition, the crew supervisors
also maintain sets of blank forms for use as needed to help ensure that
technicians collect proper job feedback on all jobs. Planners should take
the lead in helping the supervisors keep supplies of useful forms on hand.
The plant also uses other forms that the planning department might
not directly use itself. Figure 8.3 shows a deficiency tag, a form that the
originator attaches to deficient equipment before the planning depart-
ment begins its work. The deficiency tag serves several useful func-
tions. It allows other persons to see that the deficiency has already been
written up on a work order. In addition, it cautions persons that extra
care and attention might need to be exercised with regard to the equip-
ment. It also helps planners and maintenance technicians find the cor-
rect equipment needing attention.
Figure 8.3 Sample form showing a typical type of deficiency

tag that plant personnel use.
266 Chapter Eight
Appendix D includes a blank copy of all the forms presented through-

out this book. All of the forms in this book may be copied and used by
the purchaser of this book.
Resources
This section reviews the types of information that the plant possesses,
how they relate to planning, and how the planner uses them. This sec-
tion does not necessarily set guidelines, but rather gives an overall per-
spective of what exists.
Component level files—minifiles

Planning Principle 3 explains why the planner keeps a file at the com-
ponent level for nearly every piece of equipment. This file is called a
minifile. A system file would contain information on many pieces of
equipment in a system.
When planning receives a work order to work on a piece of equipment,
the minifile enables a planner to obtain the following information quickly:
1. A listing of what was done on the equipment previously including

work scope, work hours, duration, and cost.
2. Schedules for normal checks by preventive maintenance, predictive
maintenance, and operations.
3. Equipment technical data including specifications, standard plans (if
available), safety data, vendor information, and nameplate data.
4. Part breakdowns and plant inventory information such as part
numbers.
5. Special notes for peculiar information concerning this equipment
such as a left-hand threaded assembly.
6. Actual copies of previous work orders with job feedback of problems
and corrections on previous plans and information.
This above information would not be readily available if it were con-

tained in a large system file.
The minifile allows the planner to link pertinent information directly
to the piece of equipment as it is learned. As the maintenance force repeats
jobs and the planner adds information to the file, it becomes easier to plan
work orders because more information is readily available. In addition, the
minifile permits the planner to recognize problems from previous jobs and
minimize their impact on the job currently being planned. For example,
if on a previous job the craft had to find an unexpected part or use an unan-
ticipated special tool, the planner would ensure that item is available for
the current job. In this manner, the entire maintenance organization
reduces delays, job by job, more quickly through the planning function.
Making a minifile. This section shows a specific method to make a minifile.

This is not the only way to make such a file, but it is important to review
a step-by-step method to illustrate the idea rather than just read a gen-
eral explanation of the concept. This section presumes the use of the
sample equipment coding structure in App. J.
The minifile begins with the physical piece of equipment in the field. The
equipment should have a physical tag number already hung on it using
the plant’s system of numbering. The file number must match the equip-
ment number. The planner uses alphanumeric character labels to affix the
equipment tag number on the end of a side-label, manila folder. Any dashes
(−) are left off to allow more space on the folder. The planner hand writes
the equipment name on the outside of both sides of the folder. This allows
double-checking the equipment’s identity later when locating it by equip-
ment number. It also helps persons less familiar with the equipment
coding system to find files. The planner also puts his or her name and the
date of file creation on one side of the outside of the minifile. It is preferred
to have a manila folder with a pocket to avoid spillage as persons handle
files. A legal-size rather than letter-size folder allows easy insertion of any
drawings or equipment manuals. Figure 8.4 shows how the manila folder’s
side label would appear for equipment number N02-FC-003.
A piece of equipment may not have a component tag number because the
plant has not numbered the system. In this case the planner should still
create a minifile using labels for only the known portion of the eventual
number. The planner should know the first five digits of the equipment
number (plant, unit, group, and system codes) even if the equipment has not
been given a unique number to form the last three digits of the overall tag
number. The plant’s strategy of assigning equipment numbers may involve
the planning department placing unique numbers as equipment is main-
tained. In this case the planner would place a physical tag on the equipment
when scoping the job and use this same number on the minifile label.
Figure 8.4 Sample minifile folder with equipment tag number.

268 Chapter Eight
Planners should not underestimate the value of making a minifile for

almost every piece of equipment on which maintenance performs work.
A rule of thumb affirms that if certain equipment in the plant is impor-
tant enough to have a separate identification number, it is important
enough for the planners to make a minifile for it.
Planners make minifiles at the File Creation Station. This place in the
planning office has all necessary supplies to make minifiles.
When making a minifile, the planner adds each of the standard minifile
forms shown in Figs. 8.5 through 8.8. The planner completes the forms
only for information known at the time, as found during subsequent
planning research, and from job feedback. These forms may not all be nec-
essary for all planning organizations, but are shown to illustrate the
different types of information a minifile contains. The forms help organ-
ize information. The completeness of minifiles varies across different
planning organizations. At one end, some groups have preprinted forms
to collect all imaginable information and save every work order form
along with copies of technical information from manuals gathered while
planning jobs. At the other end, some groups merely save the work orders
that they consider to have valuable information and throw away the
rest. Many groups save and organize physical information in a manner
that falls in between these extremes. The confidence a planning group
has in the reliability of a CMMS computer system and the system’s fea-
tures may also affect what it saves in physical paper files.
Figure 8.5 Sample form to include in the minifile to track history.

Figure 8.6 Sample form to include in the minifile to organize equipment technical data.
Equipment History Files (Including system

files and minifiles)
The Equipment History Files consist of all the previously completed
work orders however they are filed. The plant may have saved them
sorted by system or simply chronologically. Simple chronological files
would have all old work orders saved by date. There may be a file for each
year or each month full of completed work orders. The plant may have
270 Chapter Eight
Figure 8.7 Sample form to include in the minifile to organize spare parts information.
saved the work orders already by specific equipment and so already has
component level files. On the other hand, the plant may never have
saved old work orders. The plant also may have made extensive use of
craft or blanket work orders and not accumulated much history infor-
mation. Furthermore, the plant may not have had a work order system
of any kind to authorize and complete work.
Figure 8.8 Sample form to include in the minifile to identify pertinent PM routes and details.
The planning organization must begin to use component level or

minifiles. The intent of the specific equipment file is to provide a one-stop
file that contains not only the past work orders, but any other informa-
tion specific to the equipment. Having each minifile contain only infor-
mation for a single piece of equipment makes gathering information easy
and practical enough to benefit the planning operation. The planner
272 Chapter Eight
places specific technical information and work history into the minifiles
as it is encountered on jobs. The planner must not place new information
into any of the other old files that exist where supervisors or planners kept
information on equipment before the institution of minifiles. It is fre-
quently recommended to build the minifiles from the current point for-
ward. That is, keep the old files from which to research information
occasionally, but do not keep filing work orders and specific equipment
information there. The importance of these old files cannot be overlooked,
yet it is frequently difficult to easily assimilate all this information into
a new minifile system. It simply may not be practical to go back and
refile all the old work orders before minifiles started. Planners or tech-
nicians may discover information there while planning or working new
jobs. That information is kept with the work order and filed by the plan-
ner in the minifile at the completion of the job. On the other hand, pre-
vious files kept by manufacturer or equipment name might be easily
converted to numbered minifiles and be worth the effort to do so.
The planning department normally uses an open filing system. That
means that the files can be seen without having to open cabinet draw-
ers. A shelf arrangement might best facilitate this requirement. The fold-
ers have side labels for easy identification on the shelves. Planners
arrange the files from left to right, alphanumerically by the equipment
tag number codes on their folders. Minifiles are placed after any exist-
ing system file in the physical filing order.
For example, the following shows the correct order of several North
Unit 2 files.
N02CP System file for condensate polisher system
N02CPAR5 Minifile for AR5 control valve on polisher system (polisher had
a preexisting number system for control valves that was incor-
porated into the plant-wide system)
N02CP006 Minifile for #6 manual valve on polisher system
N02CPCR4 Minifile for CR4 control valve on polisher system
N02DP System file for boiler feedwater pump system
N02DP024 Minifile for B boiler feed pump on boiler feedwater pump system
N02FC003 Minifile for control valve B strainer on fuel oil service pump
system
Technical Files
The Technical Files consist of technical information from manufactur-
ers for only the equipment in use at the facility. For example, there may
be a valve manual with specifications and procedures to maintain sev-
eral valves produced by a manufacturer. This manual would not be kept
in the Equipment History Files because it pertains to valves in more
than one system. When an individual valve is worked on and information
is used from the manual, the planner would copy over that specific
information to that valve’s minifile.
The maintenance department keeps the Technical Files in a section of
the file area separate from the Equipment History Files. They are
arranged from left to right, alphabetically by the manufacturer’s name.
To hold small technical bulletins, the files contain pocket folders identi-
fied with the first few letters of manufacturers’ names. In addition, there
are file sections for specific O&M manuals filed by unit and certain other
technical manuals or documents identified in the following sections of this
chapter. As specific information is used on a job, the planner copies that
information over to the equipment’s minifile.
A point of considerable controversy surrounds whether the planner
should routinely send O&M manuals or similar source documents into
the field as attachments to work order plans. Ideally, the planner would
find the information needed within such manuals and might attach a
copy of only certain pages at best. In the real world, the planner some-
times only gives the technicians a head start with the most likely infor-
mation needed. Often the technician must supplement the planner’s
information through personal expertise or research. Does this case make
it sensible to have the equipment manual normally handy? Consider
persons working on their own cars. Would they like to have the vehicle
manuals available? One would think so. This reasoning suggests that
the planner should routinely attach such source documents to job plans.
On the other hand, closer inspection gives another side to the issue.
What are the most frequent maintenance tasks one performs on a car?
These tasks include changing oil, filters, spark plugs, or coolant. Hardly
anyone would think of referring to an owner’s manual. Even in the case
of changing water pumps and mufflers, one would more likely refer to
the instructions in the box of the new water pump or muffler than to any
vehicle owner’s manual. The same thing occurs in the maintenance of
an industrial plant. One finds that reference to an O&M manual does
not occur routinely during maintenance. Therefore, the preference is
against the planner routinely sending O&M manuals or similar source
documents into the field as attachments to work order plans.
Attachment files
Sometimes planning departments create small booklets of important
equipment information that they keep in the minifiles. These booklets
contain especially critical information culled from the more massive
O&M manuals. Planners bind these booklets with report covers so that
they can be sent out on jobs.
Such larger attachments may be attached by paper clamps to work
orders or they may be kept in files in the planning department. The plan-
ning department might keep the attachment in a special “Attachments” file
274 Chapter Eight
in the planning department. This file keeps attachments in the planning

department filed by crew and work order number (they have a copy of the
work order attached) where technicians can come get them when ready.
Vendor Files
The Vendor Files consist of ordinary sales catalogs from vendors. These
catalogs are arranged left to right, alphabetically by the vendor name on
the catalog. Vendor files are kept in another section of the file area. The
Vendor Files may contain a set of Thomas Register ® books or similar
vendor reference. The plant may be looking into having CD-ROM ver-
sions or Internet links for this purpose.
The planner may research these files to find information for new equip-
ment under consideration for purchase. Information for equipment already
in place might also be found. For instance, a planner might find details
for a particular valve by examining a vendor’s catalog of over 100 valves.
The planner would then copy the particular valve’s information sheet over
to the minifile to avoid having to make similar searches in the future.
Equipment parts lists

Equipment parts lists or bills of materials as discussed in Chap. 5 are
a very valuable resource for planners. Planners file this information in
the minifiles. Planners must continually develop the listings of parts for
equipment as it is maintained. Planners must insist on receiving parts
information when new equipment is purchased.
Standard plans
Planners create standard plans for jobs where technicians might not be
expected to remember particular sequences or job procedures as a
normal part of their craft skill. These standard plans are not an attempt
to dictate actions to technicians. Rather, they help the technician build
upon past successful work. Planners store standard plans in their
respective, equipment minifiles. The following two listings illustrate
two styles of what might constitute a standard plan. Planners might
create much more complex standard plans including pertinent manu-
facturer manual pages, exploded view diagrams, and vendor contact
names, and other useful information. The planners might keep these
standard plans available in special notebooks or binders to include as
attachments to work orders.
Planning intends to create so-called standard plans for as many jobs
as possible. The planner’s intent is not to insult craft technicians, sup-
press unique skills available to trained craftpersons, or rob them of the
opportunity to adjust to job conditions. The planners count on the tech-
nician skill level that the planner specifies in the job plan. The planner
wants to capture the process of the job so that technicians can later
concentrate on craft technique rather than unique equipment steps that

may vary widely. Even specifying technique such as welding procedures
should not insult technicians who help develop the procedures through
giving feedback for future newer craftpersons. Finally, technicians “own”
the jobs after receiving them. Crews and crafts are free to take the
responsibility of deviating from the specified job instruction provided
that they report actual actions they take instead.
The following are examples of standard plans for a somewhat complex
job that might be developed initially or what might have developed after
a few iterations of the maintenance job over time.
Example standard plan for B Fuel Oil Service Pump
Task and craft
1. Mechanic: Inventory parts and materials.

2. PdM: Pretest for vibration.
3. Operator: Clear and tag out.
4. Mechanic: Remove coupling guard.
5. Mechanic: Break coupling.
6. Mechanic: Remove drain plug no. 067.
7. Mechanic: Drain pump case.
8. Disassemble pump.
9. Mechanic: Remove seal pipe from cover no. 046.
10. Mechanic: Remove vent valve.
11. Mechanic: Remove cap screws no. 004 and remove head.
12. Mechanic: Remove gasket no. 009.
13. Mechanic: Break casing flange bolts.
14. Mechanic: Install 1/2-in jack bolts on corners.
15. Mechanic: Remove casing half. Be careful of gasket.
16. Mechanic: Remove rotating element.
17. Mechanic: Using a puller, remove coupling half.
18. Mechanic: Using a bearing puller, remove bearings.
19. Mechanic: Remove casing rings and mike clearance.
20. Mechanic: Packing sleeves, remove and replace if needed.
21. Mechanic: Check rotating element for runout. max. 003/ft.
22. Reassemble pump.
23. Mechanic: Install new casing rings on impeller.
276 Chapter Eight
24. Mechanic: Heat bearings with induction heater to 200°F.

25. Mechanic: Place bearing on shaft.
26. Mechanic: Install new oil seals in bearing covers.
27. Mechanic: Install bearing covers on shaft.
28. Mechanic: Clean bottom half of casing.
29. Mechanic: Place rotating element.
30. Mechanic: Check antirotation pins for bottomed out in casing.
31. Mechanic: Replace upper half of casing.
32. Mechanic: Pull down bolts on corners (check rotation of binding
after tightening each bolt).
33. Mechanic: Install all casing bolts torque to 200 ft lb.
34. Mechanic: Reassemble coupling.
35. Mechanic: Realign pump and motor.
36. Mechanic: Install coupling guard.
37. Mechanic: Contact operations to service bearings (replace oil).
38. Mechanic: Clean up area.
39. Maintenance crew supervisor: Sign off all clearances tags and
permits.
40. PdM: Check vibration reading during test run.
41. Maintenance crew supervisor: Release for service.
Tools
Mechanic’s box
Foot-pound torque wrench
Alignment kit
5-gal bucket of oil
Rags
Induction bearing heater
No. 2 bearing puller
No. 4 wheel puller
Quantity, part, and manufacturer’s part number
Two bearings, SKF3303

One bearing, SKF3304
Two casing rings, W101543
Two packing sleeves, W101544

Four oil seals, W102343
One casing gasket, W100001
Craft, number of persons, labor hours, and durations
Two mechanics, 20 hours each, 20 hours total

One PdM, 2 hours, 2 hours total (step 2, 40)
One operator, 1 hour, 1 hour total (step 16)
Example standard plan for Fuel Oil Pressure Temperature Control Valve
replacement
1. Clear and tag the equipment.

2. Prepare rigging.
3. Loosen all flange bolts.
4. Tighten up on chain-fall to support valve.
5. Remove all the fasteners.
6. Drop valve to floor.
7. Remove gaskets and clean flanges.
8. Rig new valve.
9. Position valve in line.
10. Insert three bottom bolts.
11. Drop in gasket on both sides.
12. Install all remaining bolts and nuts.
13. Tighten all bolts in a cross-tightening pattern.
14. Torque bolts to 200 ft lb.
15. Open and close valve to check for binding.
16. Release to operations and check for leaks (optr 1 hour).
17. Operate valve and adjust packing if needed.
18. Stroke valve (I&C 1 hour).
19. Return valve to service and clean up area.
Parts and materials
8-in 150-lb flanged gate valve

®
Two 8-in Selco flange gaskets
12 3/4-in × 5-in grade 8 bolts
12 3/4-in nuts
278 Chapter Eight
Tools and equipment
1-ton chain-fall
1-in × 6-in nylon straps
Four-wheel cart to transport valve
Craft, numbered persons, labor hours, and durations
Two mechanics, 10 hours each, 10 hours total

One operator, 1 hour, 1 hour total (step 16)
One I&C, 1 hour, 1 hour total (step 18)
Lube oil manual

Many plants maintain a lube oil manual specifying lubricants for var-
ious machines. The manual might not specify all equipment by equip-
ment tag number or equipment name. Instead, the manual might specify
a single grease for universal use and particular oils for certain classes
of equipment. Planners would keep a hard copy of this manual in the
Technical Files section of the plant filing area. As minifiles are made and
lubricants are selected for jobs, the planner should copy the designated
lubricant choice to the minifiles. The creation of the lube oil manual and
its maintenance would normally be accomplished by a plant engineer-
ing group rather than the planners.
MSDS
Planners keep a master set of the Material Data Safety Sheets dis-
cussed in Chap. 5 in the Technical Files. Planners copy individual MSDS
sheets to the minifiles as they include them on jobs. Depending on plant
policy, inclusion of MSDS sheets on all jobs may be unnecessary. It may
be necessary only to include only certain sheets on jobs and to have the
MSDS sheets available.
Plant schematics
These drawings identify equipment on process flow diagrams for each
system. They help the planning department most when each system
includes tag numbers. The plant might keep master schematics in the
engineering or drafting areas of the plant rather than the planning
area. If the planning department kept a set of schematics, it would be
kept in the Technical Files. The plant may not have such drawings
available and choose not to produce them. The plant may prefer to have
equipment otherwise identified by maintenance records or computer
listings and databases.
Figure 8.9 shows a plant schematic with equipment numbers match-
ing the numbers labeled on the minifile folders and hung on tags on the
Figure 8.9 Sample equipment system schematic.
279
280 Chapter Eight
equipment physically in the field. The schematic shows only the unique por-
tions of the tag number for each piece of equipment. The plant, unit, group,
and system codes shown on the schematic title block would be added for
each component. For instance, the bubble shown for “003” identifies equip-
ment N02-FC-003, the Fuel Oil Service Pump Control Valve Strainer B.
Rotating or critical spares program

As discussed in App. A, a rotating spares program comprises entire
replacement assemblies kept in stock that maintenance can quickly
exchange for failed equipment. Later under controlled, nonemergency
conditions, maintenance forces can rebuild the failed components and
put them into stock.
After the plant has utilized a rotating spare, the maintenance force
must follow through to ensure that the failed component is repaired for
future readiness. The following procedure outlines the general process
which may be modified to suit a particular plant:
1. The crew supervisor assumes the responsibility to write a work order

to refurbish the rotating spare. The supervisor or designee tags the
item with a deficiency tag. The crew returns small rotating spares
to the tool room. The crew moves larger items to special staging
areas at the tool room’s direction.
2. The planner consults with the crew supervisor knowledgeable about
the failure and equipment to determine if the repair should be made
in-house or sent out to a vendor shop.
3. The planner plans in-house repairs as normal work orders and plans
the return of the refurbished item to the original storeroom location.
4. The planner handles vendor repairs as normal procurement of serv-
ices and has the refurbished item returned to the original storeroom
location after suitable inspection.
Security of Files
As discussed in Chap. 2, the planners arrange the files so that super-
visors and plant engineers do not require the planner to look in the
files; they look in the files themselves. These persons must still work
with files and information. This is why open paper files that are easy
to see with side labels on individual folders are preferred. This is also
why planners normally keep the files in a common area, not within
individual planner cubicles. The files need to be accessible, especially
in the middle of the night.
On the other hand, if other persons have easy access to the files, there
is a valid concern for security. Having easy access to file information
might mean that files can easily disappear. The only copy of a critical
O&M manual for a particular piece of equipment may be irreplace-
able, especially if the equipment is old and the manufacturer is no
longer in business.
Generally, having the file area located so that persons must first pass
through the planner area is adequate. This arrangement strikes a bal-
ance between making the files accessible and making the files less prone
to wander off by knowing who is there. Supervisors may want to desig-
nate that only certain individual technicians may access the files
depending on the competence of the technicians in this regard. Other
security measures include the planners rarely, if ever, sending the only
copy of any document into the field as a work order attachment. Avoiding
having a single copy is a reason planners make copies of documents
found in Technical Files for the minifiles. Planners may want to require
projects and engineering groups to give them two copies of manuals so
one can be marked as a field copy and the other as an original to remain
in the office. The planning office should also have a copier and a research
table to assist persons to make any copies in the planning office rather
than borrow books and information sources. Microfilming certain man-
uals or documents may be an option if an original had to be replaced
later. Similarly, computer scanning may be an option that might also
enhance researching and planning jobs, especially from remote loca-
tions. Night time access is restricted because the planning offices are
normally locked at night. Maintenance supervisors have the only other
maintenance key rights to this area. Other persons requiring access
during the night time would at least have to register their entry with
operations supervisors that have keys. Some plants do not hesitate to
place planners on call to respond to night time emergencies to help facil-
itate file access and security. Some plants have enabled planners to
access computer files from home to assist supervisors or others who call
with information needs making planner office entry unnecessary.
Finally, management commitment and organizational discipline must
consider the offense of being careless with taking or returning a file as
a serious matter.
Summary
Rather than just rely on technical skills of planners and technicians, a
planner also has many resources available to help with planning work.
Most of these resources revolve around making the minifiles as useful
as possible over time. Forms including datasheets help collect informa-
tion and the planner makes frequent use of them. In developing the
minifiles, planners perform another valuable plant service; the planners
institutionalize plant knowledge. The planners gather the day-in and
282 Chapter Eight
day-out information that the technicians use to execute jobs. The plan-
ners link this information to the equipment itself in the planning process
to aid future work.
Perhaps the biggest resource in many plants is the CMMS or com-
puterized maintenance management system. All in all, the computer can
be thought of as a set of minifiles and forms. The CMMS electronically
links forms to equipment to make data and other information available
as needed regarding that equipment. The following chapter covers the
use of a CMMS computer.
Chapter
9
The Computer in Maintenance
More than a few persons describe their maintenance planning func-

tion by how well their computerized maintenance management system
(CMMS) works. Many of these persons profess that “everything will
be perfect” when they fully implement their CMMS. Similarly, many
persons wonder why planning “does not quite seem to be working”
even though they have installed an expensive CMMS. Unfortunately,
planning is not simply “using a computer” and just because a company
has a computer does not mean it even has a planning function. The
CMMS can be a tremendous resource for planning, but it is not plan-
ning itself.
Perhaps unreasonable expectations contribute to disappointment for
many purchasers of maintenance computer systems. Larry Beck (1996)
relates survey results of manufacturing executives that indicate they
typically require minimal cost justification before implementing such
systems. Many of these executives expect productivity gains, but may
not have specific reasons why the CMMS should deliver such improve-
ments. David Berger (1997) says that the “failure rate” of CMMS pack-
age implementation is commonly thought to be about 50%, depending
on one’s definition of “failure.” Christer Idhammar (1998) places the
“success rate” for CMMS packages at only 18%.
Companies must look at computer systems as simply another tool.
They are certainly not the ultimate remedy to one’s maintenance trou-
bles. Nevertheless, a CMMS is an important tool, an information tool.
Moreover, a CMMS is not a tool for just the maintenance staff; it is a
tool for the entire plant or company. Thus, many companies call their
computer system an “asset” management system rather than a “main-
tenance” management system. The system helps with information for
more than just the maintenance staff. In addition, the term “mainte-
nance” has a bad connotation from the prevalent culture that thinks of
283

284 Chapter Nine
maintenance as merely repair of broken equipment. With regard to

maintenance, this information tool is one key to further improvement
after the basic processes are correctly in place. The CMMS does not
provide a step improvement as does implementing the basic process of
planning and scheduling, but the improvement is significant.
Planning is also a tool, not the ultimate maintenance solution. The
CMMS extends beyond planning, and even maintenance itself. However,
the planning system also extends beyond the CMMS. Appendix L exam-
ines the six planning principles and six scheduling principles against
the CMMS and concludes the CMMS contains information; it should not
dictate planning strategy.
Regardless of planning not being synonymous with a CMMS, planners
are the major users of such a system when in place. The CMMS soon
becomes their most valuable tool. In this perspective, a chapter on the
computer’s role in maintenance is most justified. This chapter cannot
be all inclusive of the role a CMMS would play in a maintenance organ-
ization because this book is about maintenance planning and the influ-
ence of a CMMS extends beyond planning. Nonetheless, the involvement
of planning with a CMMS must be addressed.
The previous chapters of this book establish specific strategies and
techniques of planning. In this context, the following sections address com-
puterized maintenance management systems. This chapter addresses
types of computerization, major benefits, specific cautions, selection of a
system, specific helpful advice for planners, and some particular advanced
features that while uncommon, would be helpful. These sections also
refer to App. L which gives more detailed information on features and
aspects of maintenance software projects including horror stories the
reader might never imagine.

(Using a CMMS)
Chapter 5, Basic Planning, began describing how a planner actually
went about planning jobs with the episode of A Day in the Life of a
Maintenance Planner. However, that episode portrayed a planner using
only paper files. The following account provides a helpful illustration of
the same planner in a system that uses a CMMS. It also identifies the
planning principles and concepts along the way in parentheses.
Maintenance Planner David Clemons arrived at work Wednesday

morning looking forward to another day helping the maintenance
department boost its productivity (vision of planning and scheduling)
with planned work orders (mission of planning).
After checking his e-mail, he opened the CMMS (other tool, computer)
to find new AUTH work orders (other tool, work order system) for the
The Computer in Maintenance 285
mechanical crafts. These were the ones waiting for him to plan. There
were several “reactive” as well as “proactive” type work orders (reactive
versus proactive maintenance planning). David could quickly sort out
the reactive work orders because another planner had come in earlier to
“code” the new work orders (work order coding). David needed to go ahead
and plan the three reactive work orders almost immediately, certainly
before lunch. The marching orders for reactive work were “Peek at the his-
tory. Peek at the job. Put on a plan.” Above all, the planners must not slow
down a crew that wanted to go ahead and work a job. (Of course, emer-
gency jobs were not planned at all, even though the planner might help
a crew find special information during the job execution, if requested.)
David printed out a copy of each reactive job for note taking. The first
job was a simple welding job and required only “minimum maintenance”
attention (minimum versus extensive maintenance planning). Someone
wanted a handrail welded where it had come loose. It was a reactive job
apparently in the sense that it was in a high traffic area and should not
be roped off for long. The other two jobs needed “extensive maintenance”
consideration. One was for a clogged polisher underdrain and the other
for noticeably high vibration on a potable water pump. He might be
able to find useful history for these two jobs. Thankfully, the originators
recorded pertinent information (other tool, organizational discipline)
on all the reactive work orders. Perhaps most importantly, they had iden-
tified all of the component tag numbers (equipment numbers and his-
tory) for the extensive jobs. This allowed David to scan the CMMS
quickly for previous work order history. At this point, David was mainly
interested in scanning the history descriptions for past failures, if any.
That information might help him know what to look for when conduct-
ing his field inspection. David noticed the plant had worked on the Unit
2 polisher underdrain once before for clogging and on the pump twice
before, once for vibration. David also glanced at the cost for previous
work for any excessive expenses that might affect a repair choice he
might consider. Nothing looked out of the ordinary.
For the three reactive work orders, David then made a field inspec-
tion to “scope” them. He did this simply by taking the work order copies
and viewing each job in the field. He mainly wanted to verify that the
job was as described and then visualize how he would approach doing
the work if he were the technician assigned. Also of interest would be
any special circumstances, such as insulation removal or scaffolding
needed. The handrail looked straightforward, but David noted the
welder should have a safety harness and tie-off due to the elevation.
David found the other jobs as well and felt that he had a perspective on
what might be involved. This done, David returned to his desk in the
planning office (separate planning department).
For each job, David needed a job plan. By definition, for the minimum
maintenance job, there was no history and he would plan it from scratch.
286 Chapter Nine
David began creating the plan by specifying a single welder for the craft
and one hour for the time. He then wrote a satisfactory procedure by
merely stating that the job was to weld the handrail back in place. He
remembered to add a requirement for the safety harness. Simple as it
seemed, this was now a planned job. As in many cases, the craft tech-
nician did not need a detailed procedure as much as the crew supervi-
sor needed craft and time specifications (weekly or daily scheduling). The
supervisor needed this information to manage his crew productively.
(But the welder would appreciate the safety “heads up.”) David then
looked at the existing job plans in the CMMS history for the other two
jobs involved. From this information and his personal experience (plan-
ner skill), he made a suitable plan for each job in the CMMS and
attached it to the work order. He did this by insuring the job plan ade-
quately, explaining the work needed, and including easily available
information. (Since this was reactive work, David did not go out of his
way to find other technical data from O&M manuals.) In addition, as in
the case of most plans, he was careful to plan the general strategy of the
job and not spend undue time including “how to” details unnecessary for
a competent technician (technician skill) (other tool, technician train-
ing). In the history, David noticed that the last time the underdrain
needed cleaning, the technician had managed to clean it without enter-
ing the confined space of the vessel. That had saved 7 hours of techni-
cian 15 time plus what it would have cost in time for a “confined space”
permit and an extra person to watch the entry. David now could use a
plan improved after a past learning experience. On the other hand, the
pump history showed the impeller coming loose had caused a similar
problem although it had not happened in the last 2 years. David pre-
sumed this was the cause of the current problem. In this case, while
David was not going to have an “improved” plan, the history pointed him
toward the most likely problem and also saved him time in creating a
plan. After attaching the plan used last time for the pump, each job now
had a “planned package.” David changed the status of each work order
to PLANNED in the CMMS.
After finishing the reactive work orders, David began to close work
orders previously completed by maintenance. The field technicians had
been given printed paper work orders to carry in the field for execution
of the jobs and to record feedback. These work orders had been handed
back to crew supervisors as the technicians completed jobs. The crew
supervisors had marked the jobs as COMPLETE on the CMMS, but the
planner still needed to close them. David scanned the written informa-
tion (getting feedback) on repairs made, delays encountered, and parts
and tools used for each job. David also knew that a clerk would enter daily
timesheets from each technician into the CMMS that would assign labor
costs to each work order. Along with parts charged from the storeroom,
the CMMS would total the cost for each work order. It was critical to have
history cost information to help guide future repair or replace decisions.

On one job, it was not clear what extra part the technician had used.
David paged the technician to ask him so the plan for a future job would
have the part available. After making changes to several of the exist-
ing job plans in the CMMS (using feedback), David gave the paper work
orders to the planning clerk to type the written feedback onto each work
order in the CMMS, mark them as CLOSE in the CMMS, and then file
the actual paper copies.
Time for the morning break. Things were going at a good pace. Not only
was all the reactive work planned before lunch, but David had been able
to close out the finished work orders and would get a start on planning
the other work orders (1:20-30 ratio of planners to technicians).
After break, David concentrated on the “proactive” AUTH work orders
in the CMMS. Two jobs required extensive maintenance planning and
two jobs required only minimum maintenance planning. David printed
out a copy of each proactive job for note taking. On the first extensive
job, a thermography route (other tool, predictive maintenance) had
shown a slight leak for a valve. A check of the CMMS history showed
that this valve had a history of leaking. The second extensive job, for a
pump, had no identified component tag number because schematics
and coded tags were still being developed and hung for that section of
the plant. David still looked around in the CMMS to see if he could find
any past work orders under the general system code, but wasn’t able to
find anything (system versus component level). Of course, there would
not be any history for the minimum maintenance jobs.
David put on his hardhat and safety glasses and went out to scope the
proactive work orders with a field check. He noted that although the
valve was in somewhat of a high-pressure service, it had flange con-
nections and would not require a certified welder (lowest skill required).
David decided to include scaffolding in the plan. David then looked at
the valve reported to be running hot. He was not sure what the solution
to this would be. Since the pump job had no component tag number,
David attached a temporary tag directly on the pump by the name-
plate. One of the minimum maintenance jobs was as expected, but he
had to clarify the other one with the originator. On this job, an opera-
tor had requested maintenance to install a screen over the wharf gut-
ters to keep trash from clogging up the drains. After looking at the job,
David thought that only the drains themselves should be screened so
that the gutters could still collect trash and keep it from the river. David
had time to try to hunt down the originator for proactive work because
no one would be chomping at the bit for the plan. David then returned
to the office.
David studied the current plan and history in the CMMS for the pres-
sure valve. The valve’s history showed that the seat and disc had been
reconditioned as well as replaced, both within the last year. David
288 Chapter Nine
decided that the present valve was marginal for the service and planned
the job to replace the valve with an upgraded valve from the warehouse.
In this case, David called the plant engineer to get a second opinion. The
engineer said the upgrade was okay. David remembered to update the
CMMS equipment module with the new valve type that would be used.
David briefly wrote out the job procedure as replacing the valve and spec-
ified a mechanic and a helper (primarily because of the valve weight)
for 3 hours each. David also didn’t forget the scaffolding. One of David’s
jobs was to go ahead and call the scaffolding contractor so the platform
would be ready before the supervisor (daily work) assigned technicians
to the job. David marked the job as PLANNED.
It was now lunch time. David had planned the reactive jobs, closed the
completed jobs, and planned one of the proactive jobs. Thankfully, no one
had called him with any requests to help find information for any emer-
gency jobs already started. And, none of the supervisors had called him
to make a plan for a new reactive job they wanted to start after lunch.
After lunch, David took time to look in the O&M manual for the pump.
Since the job was proactive, David had plenty of time to research the
Technical and Vendor Files (resources). Fortunately, the manual had a
troubleshooting section in the back. David decided that for this type of
vacuum pump, the most likely cause for running hot might be a bad
intake valve reed. David wrote the job plan to inspect all the intake
valves for bad reeds and take appropriate action. David then included
the inventory part numbers for likely parts: the channels, reeds, and
backing plates. David specified that this would take a mechanic two
days. Hopefully, good feedback would help improve a future work plan.
David marked the job as PLANNED.
He then quickly wrote plans for both of the proactive, minimum main-
tenance jobs and marked them as PLANNED.
The proactive work planned, David now looked in the CMMS for any
new AUTH jobs. Yes, there were eight new jobs. David was not the
maintenance planner doing the morning coding that week, but he went
ahead and coded them. He coded two of them as electrical, one reactive/
minimum maintenance (ELEC-RM), and the other reactive/extensive
maintenance (ELEC-RE). He coded one of the others as I&C and proactive/
extensive (I&C-PE). David coded the last five for himself, three MECH-RE
and two MECH-PE. David wished he had looked earlier in the CMMS
for the reactive mechanical jobs, but he’d go ahead and plan them now.
The first reactive job stated that the Unit 2 Control Valve B Strainer
had a high-pressure drop. As soon as David looked in the computer, he
saw that this valve occasionally became clogged from rope or other
debris. A quick field inspection did not reveal any unusual circumstance
other than operations was not doing very good housekeeping in this
building. One of David’s first goals was to create a proper job description.
He wanted the job description to be in field technician, not operator,
language. The operator’s job description had said, “The strainer had a
high pressure drop.” David noted that the plan he would use from the
computer had a job description that said the technician was to “clean
the strainer.” In addition, David knew that this work order was for the
strainer, not for an overall cleanup of the area. David then looked at the
past planner estimate. He decided that even though the last job had
taken 7 hours for two mechanics, he would still keep the current esti-
mate calling for a mechanic and a helper for 5 hours each. David also
was pleased special tools from the last job’s feedback had already been
added to this equipment’s job plan. The technician should take a 2-inch
combination, impact socket, and impact wrench to the job. David easily
attached the upgraded job plan from the computer and he changed the
computer status to PLANNED.
David also quickly planned the other two reactive jobs easily, having
scoped them in the field earlier when he had scoped the first one. Taking
a short break in the middle, he soon marked them PLANNED as well.
David then looked at his watch and called the reliability engineer to see
if he had time to meet. The engineer had wanted David’s advice on the
specific craft requirements for several PM’s he was setting up through the
reliability centered maintenance (RCM) program (other tools, PM/RCM).
David decided that since he had planned ten jobs today, he could put off
the two new proactive jobs until tomorrow to help the engineer with PM
without being bogged down there. Ten jobs was probably a good standard
that would keep him ahead of the mechanics since the mechanics not only
had his planned work to do, but had PM tasks that would keep them busy
as well. Setting up PM’s was engineering stuff to a large degree with the
engineers setting up equipment requirements, but it made sense for the
engineers to get field experience built into their job plans. David always
helped, but knew that his primary task was to plan new work orders
(future work) coming into the maintenance department.
At the close of the day, David walked to the parking lot. He thought
about the part he played in the high availability the plant enjoyed. The
backlog of planned work allowed the scheduling (advance schedule) of
planned work to match (schedule 100% of hours) the forecasted avail-
able craft hours (forecast labor) for the next week. The weekly schedule
set a work goal and made the advance coordination of other crafts and
material staging possible. Simply providing a work goal through advance
scheduling had already helped the maintenance force boost its produc-
tivity (wrench time) up to 45% from the 35% industry norm for good
maintenance groups. Yet beyond that, keeping the plant on a constant
learning curve by using information from previous jobs had boosted
wrench time to 50%. Technical data was available and previous job
delays were avoided. Now as the plant developed its tools, inventory,
and other capabilities, including the CMMS, wrench time was slowly
creeping up to 55%. At 55%, the productivity of the 30 people for which
290 Chapter Nine
David planned would be the same as for 47 people working at only a 35%
wrench time. This was an incredible improvement, the same as if the
maintenance force had added 17 free technicians (Wow!). The benefits
of planning actually involved productivity and quality savings. The pro-
ductivity savings came from reducing delays during and between assign-
ments. The quality savings came from correctly identifying work scopes
and providing for proper instructions, tools (other tool, tools), and parts
(other tool, storeroom). The productivity improvement also freed up
craft, supervision, and management time. This allowed them to focus
on troublesome jobs requiring more attention and an opportunity to do
more proactive work. This proactive work included root cause analyses
(other tool, RCFA) on repair jobs, project work (other tool, project work)
to improve less reliable equipment, and attention to preventive main-
tenance (other tool, PM) and predictive maintenance (other tool, PdM).
David felt good that his work in planning contributed (other tools
needed) to a cycle of continuous improvement.
What Type of Computerization

A company might already be computerizing much of its maintenance
without a formal CMMS through basic software already in use. However,
if a company does pursue a CMMS, the company has different levels of
CMMS size and networking to consider. This consideration leads to
more dependence on in-house IT support and vendor CMMS expertise.
A company must also consider whether to develop one in-house or pursue
a commercial system.
Software already in use

Before addressing what type of CMMS one might pursue, note that
many maintenance planning groups benefit from computerization with-
out buying a CMMS. All planners should have access to the Internet and
email. One mechanical maintenance planner helped an electrician find
an exact procedure for replacing a faulty device manufactured by a com-
pany that had been out of business for over 10 years. The planner
searched the Internet and had a vendor email him an exact replacement
procedure within a half hour of looking. Finding information and pur-
chasing items on the Internet may boost a maintenance organization.
Searching for MSDS information may be practical although legal
requirements may dictate having on-site records. Other computer pro-
grams without a CMMS may help maintenance. A simple database pro-
gram may adequately store nameplate equipment information. A clerk
may easily be able to type and print work orders for PM’s with a simple
spreadsheet and word processor. Planners can easily develop plans and
improve them over time with word processors and three ring binders.
A company should not purchase an entire CMMS with the sole benefits
expected to be the automatic printing of work orders and the replace-
ment of a single clerk. Nevertheless, there are benefits from using a
formal CMMS that this chapter explores.
Single user or larger network

There exists a wide variety of types of computer systems. The first com-
puters were mainframes and some company software applications today
still operate on them. Mainframe computers themselves are expensive
as are the in-house Information Technology (IT) groups staffed to develop
and maintain the software for them. Some mainframe maintenance
applications are fairly sophisticated and helpful. However, in-house IT
groups usually prioritize basic company applications such as payroll,
human resource systems, and general ledger accounting ahead of main-
tenance functions. Many organizations with only mainframe computer
capability do not have much of a maintenance computer system. These
maintenance groups may have certain codes tied into the payroll system
and can use this limited information for certain analyses. With the
advent of personal computers, many maintenance groups began to use
maintenance applications on individual computers not tied into any
company wide systems. A single individual who operates the CMMS for
everyone keys individual computer applications. With networked per-
sonal computers, maintenance applications allow more than a single
person to review or manipulate information. Many companies are trans-
ferring their software away from mainframes to networked computers
using client server structures or web applications. More powerful per-
sonal computers and networks allow large databases and programs to
interact from central computers with local computers. Small systems run
from individual personal computers or simple networks may not need
IT support. More complex networks and client server applications
require IT support.
Creating versus purchasing

a commercial CMMS
The developers of maintenance software may be in-house personnel or
vendors. The advantage of using in-house personnel is having control
over the customization of the system. Unfortunately, as mentioned
above, in-house IT personnel may give maintenance work less attention
than desired. In addition, in-house IT and maintenance personnel even
working together may not possess as much knowledge or skill as could
be obtained commercially. Then, once IT writes a program, it may have
limited resources to upgrade the software continually to take advantage
of new computer technology or maintenance practices. CMMS vendors
292 Chapter Nine
are usually in a position to incorporate the most successful mainte-

nance practices across a number of companies and even industries. The
market also drives CMMS vendors to keep up to date with computer
technology. Theoretically, instead of a small, in-house IT staff develop-
ing software for a single maintenance group, a CMMS vendor can main-
tain a large staff developing the best software and sharing the cost over
many maintenance groups. Moreover, the CMMS vendor might spe-
cialize in maintenance software whereas maintenance might not be a
central concern to an in-house staff. Finally, an in-house staff generally
appoints a single individual to the maintenance of maintenance soft-
ware. If this individual was the developer and left the company, the
maintenance group may suffer due to few persons being able to pick up
the software issues. Contrary to this situation, if an in-house individ-
ual left a company that had vendor supplied CMMS, the CMMS vendor
would be able to provide assistance for continuity.
The conventional wisdom in the maintenance industry appears to be
working with the IT group and selecting a commercial CMMS that
closely mirrors one’s current maintenance process. A company would pay
the vendor or a vendor-certified consultant to provide some initial cus-
tomization. Then, ongoing maintenance of the software itself would be
through a license fee to the vendor with in-house personnel performing
some ongoing customization. Under no circumstances would the in-
house group receive the “source code” from the vendor and make mod-
ifications that might render the system unrecognizable to the vendor’s
specialists. What a maintenance group desires is a system that auto-
mates how it currently conducts maintenance. The maintenance group
also desires some value added functionality that allows accomplishing
certain tasks not practical without a computer. It does not want to pro-
cure a CMMS in the hope that the computer will teach it how to con-
duct maintenance properly. If a company does not already have a good
maintenance process, it should wait to computerize.
The industry sometimes calls such minor customizing “configuring”
when it does not change the source code or otherwise hinder future
upgrades from the vendor. Companies must configure the software to
meet their own particular needs to achieve an adequate CMMS for effec-
tive maintenance.
Benefits with the CMMS

The CMMS helps maintenance in two ways. First, it automates and facil-
itates existing processes to improve efficiency. Second, the computer
can add value to produce benefits otherwise not practically achievable.
All of these benefits could be lumped together as better plant reliabil-
ity and better cost control, mostly through improved information.
However, this section delves into these benefits to define them a little
more specifically. Arguably, the benefits of having a computer system,

mostly from a maintenance planning perspective, are
■ Standardizing Work Processes
■ Inventory Control
■ Information for Metrics and Reports
■ Finding Work Orders
■ Linking Information to Equipment
■ Common Database
■ Scheduling
■ PM Generation
Standardizing work processes

Standardizing work processes is a two-edged sword, a benefit, and a cau-
tion. Consistency improves reliability and standardization improves
consistency. This is one reason Chaps. 2 and 5 gradually move plans of
general strategy to more procedures based plans. Similarly, because
maintenance is still more of an art than science, any consistency helps
the maintenance department. This is an enormous benefit to mainte-
nance. Inefficiencies cannot creep as easily into a set process. In addi-
tion, maintenance management can observe consistent practices with
an eye toward improvement and best practices. The CMMS helps stan-
dardize processes throughout the maintenance department from order-
ing parts to generating PM’s, essentially because a CMMS often only
allows a single rigid way to do something. Yet, it is this rigidity that may
hinder maintenance. Who is to say that a CMMS has the best practices?
What if a company has valid practices it wishes to automate and a
CMMS thwarts these with alternate practices? This situation commonly
leads to disaster with the CMMS. The “Cautions with a CMMS” section
later describes this problem. Nevertheless, the benefit of standardizing
maintenance practices is substantial. Arne Oas (2005), a CMMS con-
sultant, says it well, “The main benefit of maintenance management
software is to help and encourage the user to focus on good operating
and maintenance practices. These are the areas where all the possible
savings are derived.” Notice the wording of “help and encourage.”
Management should very carefully approach standardization.
Inventory control
Computerizing the inventory system produces the overwhelming largest
value-added benefit. Knowing part availability and allowing economic
order quantities to maintain part availability give a major financial
saving. It is not unheard of that computerizing inventory might reduce
294 Chapter Nine
a $5 million inventory level to $1 million in a single year. The company

savings from inventory alone justifies the purchase of a CMMS. On the
other hand, many company storerooms have already computerized their
operations with inventory only software without the purchase of a
CMMS. The value of the benefit of converting an existing computer
inventory system to one contained in a CMMS package is less signifi-
cant. Nonetheless, many computerized storerooms utilize mainframe
systems and must convert to nonmainframe systems for financial rea-
sons. Early involvement of maintenance management with storeroom
management may help the company make a strategic decision to pro-
cure a CMMS for everyone to utilize. Regardless of whether the inven-
tory system is standalone or part of a CMMS, planners should be able
to locate and reserve parts for specific work orders.
Information for metrics and reports

Simply providing easily obtainable reports gives the maintenance group
its second largest benefit from a CMMS. This is another value-added
opportunity and not merely an automation of an existing process.
Management and others need information to work within and improve
a maintenance organization. A CMMS provides valuable information
many times not otherwise available. How much did a particular piece
of equipment cost the company over the last 5 years? What are the most
costly systems in terms of maintenance expenditures? What is the cur-
rent backlog of work orders? What is the current backlog of work wait-
ing on parts? What is the current backlog of work for electricians in
terms of work hours? What work orders caused lost availability over the
last week? Is this trend rising? What work orders could be worked
tonight if there was a short notice outage? What is the trend in per-
centage of reactive versus proactive work orders over the last 2 years?
How much have failure and breakdown work orders been reduced?
Which crew has the greatest amount of failures occurring in the systems
it maintains? Which work orders are waiting for planning? Which work
orders have been completed, but not closed because of drawing revisions
needed? Are there any planned work orders that can be worked along
with the emergency job just started in this system? How many hours are
spent for PM? How many hours are spent for corrective maintenance
that is generated from PM work? Just knowing that there are 651 open
reactive work orders may cause management to take more decisive
action than a previous feeling that the backlog was around 50 work
orders. As one can see, management can determine the degree of suc-
cess of the maintenance program’s efforts with information readily avail-
able from a CMMS. To make the CMMS information usable requires
effort on the part of the planning organization. The planners normally
“code” work orders to allow future reporting or analysis. Codes such as
type of outage required, type of work, and equipment system are nec-
essary. The planners are persons most familiar with the plant coding
structure and provide consistency when they assign codes to new work
orders each day. Whenever they handle them, planners should also scan
work orders for “sense” and correct inaccurate information.
Finding work orders

The next most valuable benefit of the CMMS is the finding of work
orders. This includes work order loss prevention and determination of
current work order status. It also includes sorting work orders, a bene-
fit similar to the report benefits. First, the manual method of assigning
paper work orders to crews involves a risk of lost work orders. If the phys-
ical piece of paper becomes misplaced, the work request might be for-
gotten. This might not appear to be a problem for the plant management
used to thinking of maintenance assignments as missions to correct obvi-
ously failed equipment. How could these work assignments be forgotten?
However, the maintenance group accomplishes its critical objective of pre-
venting problems from happening in the first place through regular iden-
tification and correction of minor deficiencies. If one of these type paper
work orders becomes misplaced, its loss may go unnoticed until the
minor deficiency becomes a glaring problem that maintenance could
have avoided. A maintenance crew that normally focuses upon urgent
work orders may tend to put off working less urgent work. Even a good
filing system may occasionally lose paper work orders that maintenance
does not immediately execute. The CMMS avoids this problem because
the work order is not ever considered to be the physical document in the
first place. A work order is literally what the term suggests, an order to
do certain work. That identification of work resides in the computer as
the actual work order. Anyone can run a report showing a listing of all
work orders at any time. If a technician loses a printed out document
describing the work, the computer still shows the work required. The
technician or supervisor can print out another copy of the work descrip-
tion if desired at any time. This benefit does not require a CMMS. It could
be gotten from a simple database of work orders recorded by a clerk each
day. The management commitment required under such an arrange-
ment would be the insistence that supervisors are responsible for the
work on the database listing, not the physical documents they have in
hand. In addition, if a paper work order were lost, someone would have
to recreate the document from the database. These arrangements usu-
ally run into some difficulty with paper documents lost after work com-
pletion either in the field or the minifiles without the clerk registering
their completion. Then, the database is obviously less current than the
actual holding of paper work orders as an indication of work not com-
pleted. On the other hand, once the maintenance group adopts a more
296 Chapter Nine
complete CMMS, supervisors seem to take better ownership of helping

update work order status. The supervisors begin using the CMMS data-
base to organize and manage their own work. Management’s claim is that
the CMMS has the real work order and its status also appears more cred-
ible. The second part of this benefit is realized for the entire plant as the
status of each work order on a CMMS begins to have real value. Before
the CMMS utilization, the originator of a work order had few means of
determining if the work requested had been done or would be done. If
written a month before, the originator might well presume the mainte-
nance group had put off the work order for the indefinite future. The work
order had gone into the “black hole.” With most network CMMS pack-
ages, the originator can easily find the pertinent work order through a
number of different search options. The originator might be able to hunt
by work order number, originator name, date of approximate entry, equip-
ment number, or any number of choice key words of problem description.
After finding the right work order, the status of the work order is evident
whether waiting for approval, planning, scheduling, or closing of the
paperwork. One major power station bought a sophisticated CMMS pack-
age for the sole reason of allowing operators to find work orders and
their status. The planners, schedulers, and supervisors also use the
CMMS package’s ability to find work orders or to sort out certain work
orders. A planner might easily find all the new reactive work orders to
plan for the day. A scheduler might sort all the planned work orders in
order of priority, system, and job size to facilitate scheduling work for a
crew. A supervisor might sort out all the work orders already assigned
and in progress as a listing to help manage the day’s activities. Reports
and better visibility of equipment work orders help the plant optimize
equipment maintenance and capital investments timing as well as make
better repair versus replace decisions. The ability of a CMMS to give a
view of “what is out there” in real time is an important benefit.
Linking information to equipment

A closely related benefit to making reports available is the linking nature
of the CMMS. The CMMS is an automation of the minifiles linking his-
tory, parts, procedures, safety data, tools, and other information directly
to specific equipment. Operators can keep track of standard clearances.
Maintenance personnel can keep track of warranty and service agree-
ments. Planners and engineers can keep track of cost. The CMMS con-
nects all these different plant data to the equipment.
Common database
Beyond this joining benefit, the CMMS provides another plant advan-
tage. In the past, different plant departments kept various independent
records of important equipment information, many times duplicating the
work of each other. For instance, three different groups might have a
record of nameplate equipment data. One problem from this arrangement
was when the maintenance or project group replaced the physical equip-
ment. Not all of the plant departments might update their nameplate
data. In time, the different departments ended up with conflicting infor-
mation in their records. The advent of computerization made this problem
of conflicting plant information worse. Personal computer spreadsheets
and databases allowed easier organizing of data and departments began
to collect more information. A hodgepodge of plant data resources exists
at many plants. The network CMMS provides a solution to this situation
when everyone can access a common database for different types of equip-
ment information. Authorized persons in each department can update a
common database a single time with the latest information. The data-
base should represent the latest information any of the departments pos-
sesses. Work order and equipment information can also be remotely viewed
through the CMMS. Instead of journeying to the planning department to
review minifile contents, engineers and others can find what they want
on the computer. Instead of journeying to the engineering department to
review equipment technical data, planners can find what they want on the
computer. A plant should consider implementing a CMMS ahead of the pro-
liferation of multiple databases around the plant if possible.
Scheduling
The CMMS provides another benefit to the planning department with
regard to manipulating scheduling information. An advance schedule
should normally be a simple allocation of work and a daily schedule
should involve the supervisors’ personal knowledge of crew individuals for
best work assignments. Nevertheless, a CMMS might facilitate some of
these efforts. In addition, the CMMS allows easy “what if” reviews of dif-
ferent alternatives. The CMMS also allows easy “publication” of the sched-
ule to anyone interested. This promotes better craft coordination as well
as coordination with the operations group for equipment clearances.
PM generation
Next, the CMMS helps the maintenance department by automating the
PM generation of work orders. A small plant may avoid having a clerk
to generate PM work orders manually from a master spreadsheet. The
cost of having a clerk generate PM work orders manually may not be
significant for a bigger plant. However, the volume of PM work orders
for a bigger plant may be large enough to cause some concern over
having them correctly issued and assigned. The CMMS precisely sets
the PM work orders each time they are issued. Although these PM logis-
tical advantages may seem slight, the importance of correct PM to the
maintenance group’s mission is significant.
298 Chapter Nine
Problem diagnosis and root cause

analysis support
David Berger (2005), contributing editor to Plant Services Magazine,
specifically adds problem diagnosis and root-cause analysis to the key
benefits a CMMS should deliver. Indeed, the CMMS is “emerging as an
important problem-solving tool.” The planning department certainly
plays a role in problem diagnosis and somewhat of a role in more formal
root-cause analysis. The planning department must accurately record
work order information for the engineering department to analyze later
for in-depth analysis.
Cautions with the CMMS

On the other hand, the computer may not affect certain maintenance
functions at all or it may add complications to certain functions in the
maintenance process. As discussed above, maintenance must approach
standardization with caution. However, other cautions of computeriz-
ing worthy of mention include:
■ Faulty processes
■ System reliability and speed
■ Data protection
■ Improper costing
■ Letting everyone see work orders and status
■ Creating unnecessary metrics
■ Unwisely eliminating all paper
■ Expecting a CMMS to do everything
■ Expecting a CMMS to think
■ Overuse of templates
■ User-friendliness
■ Cost and logistics
Faulty processes
Of course, the most obvious downside of computerizing is automating a
faulty maintenance process or philosophy. Computerizing a poor main-
tenance process will not help maintenance. Karl Kapp’s (1996) “USA”
admonition must be heeded. Understand, then simplify, then automate.
The computer will help a company execute its faulty processes faster to
the detriment of plant reliability. The computer may create the illusion
of progress and maintenance advancement when equipment performance
has not improved. One must guard against the computer becoming a dis-
traction to real maintenance improvement.
Similar to automating a poor process is expecting a poor process to
excel when confronted with a CMMS that demands a “perfect” process.
David Berger (2005) laments that companies think a CMMS can
straighten out processes, “You can’t simply automate without first chang-
ing the attitude and behavior of the stakeholders, and the processes for
which they are responsible.”
In addition, why would a company think a CMMS has a perfected
maintenance process? Many CMMS programs do not adequately meet
many common maintenance expectations and needs. The vendors of
these CMMS programs are primarily software companies at heart. They
hire expert programmers to integrate many fast-changing technologies
of computer hardware and software. Yet compared to the computing
technology, these companies see maintenance as much less sophisti-
cated. They may not even have a true maintenance professional on staff.
Then, if they do have a maintenance professional on staff and let the
person be a player, they vote on critical capabilities. In a vote among five
computer group leaders and a single maintenance person, computer
solutions win over maintenance needs every time. The resulting expert-
ise from a CMMS is the same as from the IT group in-house, too little
maintenance input.
Reliability and speed

Another significant concern is the reliability of the computer system.
This may be a function of the particular CMMS package, the plant com-
puter equipment, or both. The more a plant counts on the CMMS to
assist with daily maintenance functions, the more the CMMS has to be
available. It is not acceptable for the computer system to crash rou-
tinely as planners and others utilize the CMMS to perform their jobs.
If the operators write work orders in the middle of the night, the CMMS
should routinely work in the middle of the night. If the planners report
to work at 6:30 AM to code work orders, the CMMS should routinely work
at 6:30 AM. The IT department must accept the same philosophy as the
maintenance department that its job is to provide an operating machine,
not provide a repair service when called.
On the other hand, the planners and the maintenance department
should understand their jobs well enough to be able to carry on in the
sudden absence of the computer system. There should be a backup plan
such as allowing operators to submit emails or phone calls in the absence
of the CMMS. Planners should be able to scope jobs and prepare work
orders with plans in the absence of the computer. Those paper minifiles
also become very useful in the middle of the night when technicians with
little inclination to access the CMMS need a simple piece of information
300 Chapter Nine
on certain equipment. Do not be too hasty in discontinuing the collec-

tion of paper documents.
Closely associated with reliability is speed. Speed is everything. A
paper system never requires the planner, supervisor, or technician to
wait. The computer should respond similarly with commands returning
information click, click, click; and not click and wait, click and wait, click
and wait. Do not underestimate the importance of speed. Appendix L dis-
cusses reliability and speed in more detail.
Backup system
The above section discussed the plant having a backup plan to work on
equipment in the event of CMMS downtime. As the plant becomes more
reliant on the CMMS, the CMMS must reliably keep data secure. The
CMMS must have a backup or parallel system that does not compromise
plant maintenance information needs. The plant must protect the CMMS
databases from corruption and data loss. The plant errs in becoming
overdependent on electronic files if the CMMS cannot keep those files.
Cost assignment
Another area of caution is cost assignment. The planner’s estimate, the
job hours recorded on employee timesheets, and the hours recorded on
the returned work order itself may all differ. In addition, none of those
three amounts may accurately reflect the hours the technicians did
spend on the job. Computerization only automates what data is entered.
Users of reports must be familiar with the possible shortcomings of
analysis made from computer data. In general, the planner estimate
might be the most accurate cost to use in reliability analysis. This is
because employees spending longer than what a smooth job would
require might spend extra time due to poor scheduling and supervision
rather than equipment problems per se.
Employee evaluations
On the other hand, the workforce should strive to collect the best data
possible on what jobs did actually require. Planners might be able to
review this data to fine-tune estimates or otherwise become aware of job
delays. Technicians must feel free to enter real times and information
on problems without fear of penalty. If management tries to evaluate
employees on specific times versus job estimates, technicians will adjust
reported times accordingly. Instead of reporting 7 hours on a 5-hour
estimated job, a technician will find a way to report only 5 hours. This
is similar to holding employees accountable for wrench time. Wrench
time is a measure of the overall planning and scheduling effectiveness,
not employee willingness to work. David Berger (2004) says, “In my
view, it’s always a mistake to use CMMS-based data when building an

argument for giving someone a poor performance review.”
Goldfish bowl
Another new problem potentially arises after computerizing, especially
when a company fully implements a sophisticated CMMS. Before having
the CMMS, paperwork orders moved sequentially from originator to plan-
ner to scheduler to supervisor and to technician. There was always the
occasional urgent work order that went from originator straight to the
crew supervisor, but normally technicians did not receive unplanned work
orders for routine maintenance. The workflow system kept the technicians
from even knowing about the work prematurely. However, this changed
with the advent of the information sharing CMMS. Now technicians and
supervisors can routinely view new work orders for equipment in which
they have an interest. The new CMMS is a goldfish bowl because every-
one can see the work orders. A common scenario as this presents itself.
An operator writes a work order Thursday night. On Friday morning, a
technician views the work order, prints it out, and completes the work,
all without changing the computer status. However, also on Friday, a
planner plans the work order and changes the status of the work order
to “waiting to be scheduled.” On Monday, the planning department clerk
receives the completed work order form from the field crew and changes
the work order status to “closed.” The planner reviewing the work order
paper is frustrated that the technician worked on the job in an unplanned
manner. In addition, later reports indicate the job was planned and give
the crew credit for completing planned work. This type of situation is not
uncommon and requires management commitment and organizational
discipline to manage. A successful planning effort that aids technicians
with information from past jobs and that aids supervisors with schedul-
ing control information encourages crews to seek job plans before begin-
ning work. A proactive, professional maintenance organization also helps.
Unnecessary metrics
Computers also tempt managers to compile unnecessary metrics.
Computers allow collection and arrangement of data much more easily
in many cases, but certain metrics are unnecessary for proper man-
agement. The compilation of them wastes the time of analysts and man-
agers. This is part of the distraction capability of a CMMS.
Eliminate paper?
There may be some areas that are impractical to computerize any time
soon. For example, some maintenance practitioners profess wanting to
eliminate paper documents altogether. Many companies have paper
302 Chapter Nine
morgues bursting with old documents. Yet, is paper elimination a prac-

tical objective? It seems that there should be room for a 1- to 2-inch
minifile for each of 10,000 pieces of equipment. Is it also practical to scan
entire O&M manuals into computer or microfilm archives and expect
easy retrieval? Would the additional step of searching discourage plan-
ners from utilizing this resource? It may be best to allow planners easy
access to fast scanners to scan specific sheets as they find them in O&M
manuals and attach them to specific work order plans for jobs. In this
manner, the planner builds the computer files while building the paper
minifile with particular O&M pages.
In addition, having paper work orders in files encourages better feed-
back in most cases. A plant should not go paperless for the sake of saving
a wall of shelf files if it means compromising better maintenance and
reliability.
The Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook recommends
creating minifiles and saving most work orders even when using a
CMMS.
Jack of all trades, master of none

Another idea to consider is that a computer software that does every-
thing may not do any one thing particularly well. CMMS programs tend
to handle certain areas fairly well such as equipment and work order
history databases. However, other portions of the overall CMMS pro-
gram may simply be after-thoughts to provide a “complete product.”
Areas where the general CMMS vendor may have less expertise may be
predictive maintenance and instrument calibration. Many CMMS pack-
ages acceptably deal with their limitations and form alliances with
other software vendors. A CMMS vendor with less experience with doc-
ument management and imaging may incorporate the successful abil-
ities of an imaging software developer. In this manner, the CMMS
package is able to bring a “best of class” performance together under a
single umbrella program. In addition, some CMMS vendors are adept
in allowing their programs to communicate and integrate with existing
software and programs that a plant already utilizes.
PdM. Predictive maintenance (PdM) might be one area best left sepa-
rate from the global CMMS. The PdM software has evolved to a high
degree of performing trend analysis and analyzing complex data. Many
plants appropriately leave the PdM group running its own software
and keeping its own database of trends. However, the plant should insist
that the PdM group utilizes the plant CMMS for maintaining equipment
nameplate data and writing work orders. The PdM group should also
utilize the same equipment identification numbers in its software. In
effect, the PdM group functions as an independent laboratory provid-
ing specialized service to the plant.
Calibration. Instrument calibration systems have highly evolved soft-

ware to record past calibration history and set points. Instrument tech-
nicians can download information from these systems into handheld
calibrators that plug into field instruments. It is perfectly acceptable for
the CMMS to initiate a work order for the instrument group to calibrate
an instrument or instrument loop requiring them to access the instru-
ment software. The instrument software is the I&C tool that the CMMS
specifies. The CMMS dictates the plan and schedules the work in rela-
tion to all the other work going on in the plant. The IT group might also
have the instrument software and the CMMS link and exchange data
such as equipment name, physical location, and instrument specifications
such as name, model number, and serial number to save double entry.
Keep a perspective of the overall advantage to the plant of having spe-

cialized software and a CMMS. Do not abandon unique advantages of
specific software simply to have a single CMMS for everything.
Artificial intelligence
Closely related to instrument calibration is autogeneration of work orders.
Many times, single events upset processes and cause “outliers” for process
control. These events should create alarms that operators investigate. Did
the process return to normal parameters or did the process remain out
of control? Alarm management is a significant issue in modern plant
operation. Operators respond to alarms and correct processes when appro-
priate. Operators write maintenance work orders when appropriate.
Operators do not write maintenance work orders for every alarm.
If CMMS autogenerates work orders for alarms, at least set the alarm
points outside the 3-sigma control limits of the process.
Templates
Templates warrant a special caution with regard to the planning prin-
ciples set forth in this book. Templates provide “quick and easy” solu-
tions to common equipment problems. The CMMS provides a master
generic troubleshooting guide to boost planner efforts. For example, a
planner has a pump problem. The planner searches the CMMS for
pumps. The CMMS shows common problems a pump might experience.
The planner selects which problem the pump has symptoms for and
the CMMS lists common solutions for that problem. The planner then
selects the desired solution and the CMMS delivers a procedure for the
job plan. The problem with this approach is that the planner usually
already has adequate information to help determine the equipment
problem. For one thing, the planner is a superior technician with spe-
cific experience with plant equipment. For another thing, individual
equipment usually fails in only one or two favored modes that the
minifiles should have well documented after even only a short time.
304 Chapter Nine
Furthermore, the technicians are usually skilled enough to make many

repairs without having a generic procedure. What the technicians do
need is specific part numbers and other information recorded from pre-
vious jobs to avoid past delays. Generic repair procedures do not con-
tain that information because that information is specific to individual
pieces of equipment, not types of equipment. Specific troubleshooting
guides included in specific equipment O&M manuals are more helpful
than generic templates contained in some CMMS packages. Overall,
most templates are too general in nature.
User friendly
Whether everyone will use the CMMS depends on how user friendly the
system appears and the interest of the workforce. With the advent of
email to disseminate company wide information, all levels of many com-
panies are rapidly becoming computer literate. The rapid acceptance of
using a CMMS may surprise many persons. One plant installed a CMMS
at first only to track paper work orders and to provide equipment data
for planners. Management at the plant decided that everyone should
have the option of writing work orders directly into the CMMS. The
person actually responsible for implementing the system expected only
10% to 20% of new work orders to be directly entered. It was a great sur-
prise that over 95% of the subsequent month’s work orders were entered
directly. The plant soon made the direct entry mandatory and eliminated
the need for a clerk to enter work orders each morning. Appendix L
addresses the issue of user friendly computer systems in more detail.
Cost and logistics

Unfortunately, the decision to utilize a CMMS does not result in a com-
puter being up and running the following morning with everyone fully
familiar with how to use it. The selection, purchase, and implementation
of a CMMS are very important issues. Implementing CMMS software can
be very expensive and drawn out. In addition, the result of a helpful system
may not be certain. Consider the following actual results of one released
version from a major CMMS company before corrected with a patch:
■ Server crashes after selecting “cancel” from a pop-up window.
■ Cannot print multiple work orders if any has an attachment.
■ Meters can cause countless PM’s to generate and this action cannot
be canceled once started. (This would be a case where it would be
better for the server to crash.)
Rather than simply automate a perfected internal paper maintenance

system, the company may have hundreds of similar “bugs” to resolve
when implementing new software on such a scale as the CMMS.

Appendix L further clarifies problems with major software projects and
offers helpful advice to “survive” them.
One thing that surprises many companies is that the purchase price
tends to represent only a fraction of the investment the company will
make, perhaps only 20%. The company personnel to install and admin-
istrate the system consume an enormous amount of time. There is also
the matter of computer equipment upgrades either initially or over
time. The leading software vendors continuously upgrade their product.
Usually a company pays a yearly license fee to have access to free
upgrades and technical support. The CMMS vendor usually makes
available an upgrade every other year or so and has a new major release
every 3 to 5 years. These changes to the software come about because
of the research being done by these vendors and because computer tech-
nology is evolving at breakneck speeds. Thus, a company has to spend
time and effort simply staying current with the latest CMMS software
from the vendor already selected and utilized. If a company does not
choose to install the latest software, the company risks soon having a
system that neither the vendor nor the IT department can well support.
This is not all bad. As computer technology evolves, companies may be
upgrading their equipment anyway. In addition, the expenses paid to
coordinate CMMS upgrades are investments in proper maintenance.
Poor maintenance is very expensive as well.
Implementing new software also requires other expenditures and
efforts. The data will have to be initialized into the new system includ-
ing inventory and equipment information.
Selection of a CMMS
Other major issues concern who and what is involved with selecting a
system. A team usually selects a system following a predictable routine.
The actual installation may proceed all at once or in predetermined
phases over several years. Again, App. L gives further information con-
cerning software projects.
Team
The persons involved in selecting a CMMS tend to be the planning
supervisor and a representative from the IT group being led by a plant
engineer. This group has frequent interaction with the maintenance
manager. The maintenance manager may have to ensure that the IT
group does not overwhelm the group with inadequate maintenance
process knowledge. It is also important that the plant engineer under-
stands the planning and maintenance processes. Another person on this
team should be a person who will become the system administrator. This
306 Chapter Nine
person will set passwords and grant other rights to users. This person
may also create standard reports and do some screen customization. It
is preferred that the system administrator be a plant engineer or main-
tenance representative rather than an IT person for several reasons. The
plant needs a local representative available to answer questions who
understands the plant maintenance organization and processes. The
system administrator choice should provide a person who will fulfill
the role for years to come rather than as a current IT assignment. Many
persons feel that it is better to have as a system administrator a main-
tenance person who becomes interested in computers rather than a
computer person who becomes interested in maintenance. The system
administrator should coordinate larger tasks of modification with the
IT department or the CMMS vendor. Planners play a major role in uti-
lizing a CMMS, but being a system administrator consumes a lot of
time. It may be practical to have a planner fulfill this role if there is an
abundance of planners, but this is usually not the case. Of course, for
standalone, single user versions, planners may be the only users that
directly enter or extract information. A planner would naturally be the
choice system administrator. With this team of persons, the company
might begin to select a CMMS. Teams such as this also frequently employ
the use of a consultant to do much of the legwork and supply more
familiarity with CMMS systems during the selection process.
Process
The actual selection process tends to be somewhat the same for many
companies. This is a very simplistic overview. Obtain a clear idea of the
objectives of why maintenance (or management) wants to buy a CMMS.
Assemble a team for the selection. Obtain internal views of what system
features are desired. Determine initial selection criteria. For example,
some companies desire a CMMS vendor to be an established company
that will stay in business. Some companies want specific industry expe-
rience. Some companies want geographical closeness for support. Some
companies require a specific operating platform. Survey technical mag-
azines for summaries of systems. List likely systems. Gather literature
from these companies. Call and ask them questions to see how they
view maintenance. Expect to establish a long-term relationship of sup-
port and continuing improvement. The ability of the company and
vendor to work together as a team in the future should be evaluated
along with the other technical requirements. Develop ideas of prices
to review with management because complete systems range in price
from under $1000 to well over $250,000. Invite vendors to make pre-
sentations and demonstrate systems. Refine and weight selection cri-
teria. Investigate selected systems. Check the claims of vendors where
appropriate. Ask for unabridged user lists and call users. Visit other
plants with the software. Call the CMMS support lines for responsive-
ness. Negotiate and sole source or bid final candidates. Do not expect
any one system to be perfect.
Again, remember the initial price tends to represent only a fraction
of the total cost, perhaps only 20%. The company personnel to install and
administrate the system consume an enormous amount of time. There
is also the matter of computer equipment upgrades either initially or
over time.
Implementing new software also requires other expenditures and
efforts. The data will have to be initialized into the new system. An
inventory system already computerized might have to be downloaded
into the new system. Who will make the links? Does the IT department
have time to write these “scripts” and execute them? Many companies
have a consultant who helped them in the CMMS selection or the CMMS
vendor themselves help make the transfers. If this is planned, it should
be part of the selection process. Computerizing of inventory for the first
time will require data entry. Does the maintenance organization have
the time to do this? Can temporary help be hired? Who will direct their
efforts? Can the consultant take care of this? Similarly, does equipment
already have unique equipment tag numbers? Is there an existing data-
base to transfer? If not, who will decide how to number equipment?
Who will hang the tags and enter them into the CMMS? Will the CMMS
have to communicate with other company programs such as payroll or
inventory? Who will program these relations? The IT department typ-
ically is cautious with new programs interfacing with existing ones.
Who will enter all the PM tasks? Could the consultant supply clerical
help to transfer an existing PM listing into the CMMS? In addition, as
the new system is implemented, many specific details will have to be
handled as they arise. Questions such as what to do if the new program
mandates the use of a different term for “waiting for scheduling” will
arise daily.
Also, do not presume that a company must install a CMMS fully all
at once. It may never need full installation. If the company bought the
CMMS for inventory and work order tracking, labor calendars and
vendor registries might wait for use. The company might initialize the
equipment module gradually as needed to reference work orders.
Similarly, the planners might initialize the planning module gradually
as they become familiar with the CMMS. On the other hand, the com-
pany would be wise to initiate automatic generation of PM’s sooner. Be
cautious that some CMMS systems use relational databases to such an
extent that one cannot implement only a portion of a CMMS package.
The decision on how to proceed with package implementation rests
on many factors. These factors include mature judgments of the
value of each feature of the CMMS, personnel and money available for
implementation, and management’s desire, willingness, or patience.
308 Chapter Nine
Management may be willing to allow full implementation, but may not

have the patience to provide support over a schedule of several years.
The success of the system does not rest on full implementation.
Success rests on being able to meet the original objectives for which it
was purchased. If the company purchased the system to allow origina-
tors to find out what happened to their work orders, the CMMS must
meet that objective. Implement other features of the system only as
they benefit the company.
Specific Planning Advice to Go Along

with a CMMS
The following briefly captures helpful advice for planners using a
CMMS. Appendix L amplifies this list, but more from the perspective
of what a planning group should request from a CMMS.
Use the planning module. Unbelievably, many companies buy a
CMMS and do not plan in the planning module. Instead, they plan jobs
directly on each work order. They bring up each new work order and add
job steps directly one by one. These companies should be planning the
jobs in the master plan area where they can save the job plan and then
attach it to the work order. The advantage of this proper method is the
planner can later bring up this saved master plan after receiving feed-
back and improve it to make a better starting point for the next plan.
Otherwise, a planner is simply typing each job from scratch. A similar
bad habit is the planner leaving each master plan in the planning
module too generic as only a template. These planners mistakenly think
they should attach the generic template to a new job and then make it
special for the job. Instead, the planners should make the master plans
as specific as possible for each job improving them continually with all
lessons and information available.
Add reference and history sections as described at the end of Chap. 5.
Computers lend themselves well to extended job steps that itemize ref-
erences and changes made to job plans.
Continually improve physical descriptions to print out on work orders.
(However, obviously planners can do this just as well with paper files.)
Always select that the inventory parts used on jobs automatically
become listed against equipment spare parts. In other words, the CMMS
adds the used part on the standard spare parts list for that equipment.
Common advice against this practice suggests that improper parts or
trivial parts may end up on the lists depending on what happens on work
orders. This advice suggests not automatically adding anything or
at least not adding certain parts (rags, bolts, etc.) automatically. The
danger of this advice is that it ends up in nothing ever being added.
It is much better to have everything ever used on a piece of equipment
added to its spare parts list than having nothing added. The planner can
sort through a list of 100 items used on the equipment in the past much
more easily than an entire storeroom catalog of 10,000 items. The argu-
ment that the planner must sort through 100 listed items to find 30 valid
items is meaningless when contrasted against the argument that that
the planner otherwise must sort through 10,000 items to find 30 valid
items. Do not make the mistake of thinking the list is perfect. Everything
in planning is a starting point. The experienced planners still must use
their knowledge. It is also helpful that the planner can improve the
specific equipment spares list and delete inappropriate items used in
the past.
Even with a CMMS, issue paper work orders into the field to capture
the best feedback. (Again, see Chap. 5.) Also, continue to file the paper
work orders into minifiles for research and reference. The major bene-
fits of a CMMS do not include reducing paperwork. The major benefits
most focus on promoting better information. The benefit of reduction of
paper is so minimal in most cases, it is usually wise to continue cap-
turing paper history
Try to incorporate equipment numbers into job plan numbers. This
makes it easier to use job plans for similar equipment as a starting
point. For instance, different job plans dealing with equipment N02-FC-
003 might be numbered N02-FC-003-1, N02-FC-003-2, N02-FC-003-
3REBUILD, and N02-FC-003STRAINER.
Have originators enter the equipment name at the beginning of the
work order description even though there is a separate field for equip-
ment name. For example, the problem description line would state “2A
BFP leaking at seal.” Reports that list the work orders will then make
more sense.
Participate in CMMS user meetings. These meetings allow the CMMS
vendor to grow and develop its product to be more helpful. Try to influ-
ence the product direction. In addition, the meeting allows the user to
learn from not only the vendor presentations, but from other users.
Network with other users of the CMMS to exchange ideas and to gain
contacts to call for advice. Some CMMS systems have on-line user
forums not even sponsored by the vendor to exchange ideas.
Buy computer typing games to improve planner keyboard proficiency
if needed.
When a company first implements a new CMMS, a major question
always arises regarding old closed work orders. Should they be entered
into the system? While it might seem relatively simple to have a clerk
enter them, it is not always practical, especially if the old work orders
have no explicit equipment numbers. Even if the equipment numbers are
present, this effort may be unnecessary. The repetition of maintenance
operations on specific equipment soon generates helpful information for
310 Chapter Nine
maintenance planning purposes. Maintenance does not have a critical

need to enter past work orders. A strategy of work order entry “from this
point forward” is frequently satisfactory.
Advanced Helpful Features for Planning

and Scheduling
From the standpoint of planning and scheduling as presented in this
book, the following represents some helpful features that may not be
common on some CMMS systems.
The CMMS would make it easy to enter actual job feedback on each
step rather than a general feedback field at the end of the work order.
It would also be easy to update actual parts and tools used.
Most entries would be done from a minimal number of screens, prefer-
ably a single one that resembles what is printed out as the work order form.
The planner could go to an O&M type module that contains most
equipment and job plan information, just like an actual physical O&M
notebook. The planner can cut and paste from this manual to form job
plans for individual jobs. The manual would have a “master” procedure
detailing everything that could be done on the pump complete with gen-
eral steps, parts, and tools. This plan would actually be developed by the
planner as new jobs are planned and feedback is received. With each new
job, the planner would check the master to see if the details are pres-
ent from which to cut and paste. Otherwise, the planner would add new
steps to the master to represent this latest job.
The entire CMMS would be backed up daily automatically or contin-
ually, along with the network automatic routines.
The CMMS inventory function would automatically record the pre-
vious use of parts by equipment. This would provide an ongoing devel-
opment of a parts list for each piece of equipment as maintenance works
on jobs. Unfortunately, many CMMS inventory modules do not provide
this automatic feature because they presume the plant has a complete
set of parts lists for all its equipment. The modules primarily concern
themselves with tracking quantities on hand and reservations for spe-
cific work order numbers.
The PM function could handle routes on multiple equipment and reg-
ister the history with the individual equipment.
The company could easily add fields to link or track particular codes
or information as needed.
One could easily find work orders and their status.
Supervisors could easily update job progress to help schedulers obtain
backlog information.
Supervisors could easily keep on-line calendars to help schedulers
obtain crew forecast information.
The scheduling routine would “work persons down” into lower skilled,
but higher priority jobs as necessary to create the weekly allocation.
Supervisors could easily assign names into a weekly schedule for a
single day.
Schedule compliance would be based on jobs started.
Timesheet information would form the actual cost collection, not feed-
back on work order forms.
Company would be able to implement the CMMS partially or in
phases.
Planners could save email by equipment in the CMMS.
Summary
Obviously, planning encompasses more than utilizing a computer.
Nevertheless, a modern CMMS can be an important information tool.
The planners need an accurate filing system and the CMMS links a
tremendous amount of information to individual pieces of equipment.
Many companies that implement CMMS packages are disappointed
with the results. This disappointment appears to stem from having only
vague expectations of expected results. Disappointment does not need
to be the case. CMMS software contributes to the bottom line when
purchased for specific information reasons. With appropriate software,
management can control and reduce inventory. Ad hoc and regular
reports can provide management with necessary information to control
the efforts of maintenance. The maintenance group can better visual-
ize, determine, and manage its backlog. The maintenance group should
be wary of becoming distracted with computerizing instead of main-
taining the plant, but generally, the computer should have a positive
impact on maintenance. The CMMS cannot help a planning system
floundering with the basics of planning, but can help in specific areas
of the planning process.
This chapter has also briefly characterized some of the wealth of
available information in the literature for guiding companies in select-
ing and using a CMMS. If a statement could succinctly sum up a com-
pany’s proper CMMS guidance as it seeks improvement, it might be
with a statement by Nicholas Phillippi (1997). He says, “The best invest-
ment protection is a thorough understanding of the existing mainte-
nance processes and application of the maintenance system in concert
with these processes.”
Understand, simplify, and then automate.
Chapter
Consideration of
10
Preventive Maintenance,
Predictive Maintenance,
and Project Work
This chapter covers the specific interfaces of these important areas with
planning for the overall success of maintenance. Appendix A describes
the concepts and importance of preventive maintenance, predictive
maintenance, and project work along with their general relationship to
maintenance planning. This chapter, after the development of the plan-
ning principles and practices, considers in practice how a planning and
scheduling system ties into PM, PdM, and project work. Companies
strive to do more preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance, and
project work to lessen the incidence of reactive maintenance work and
increase plant reliability. Planning can facilitate the use and effective-
ness of each of these preferred types of maintenance.
Preventive Maintenance and Planning

The planning department issues schedules and PMs even if an engi-
neering group with a living RCM program creates and reviews them.
Starting with a basic system, visualize a planning clerk who each week
types up work orders with preventive maintenance tasks due the following
week. The clerk looks at a spreadsheet or notebook that tells which PMs to
create each week. Some PMs have frequencies of every week, while others
may have frequencies of only once every 2 years. Many other PMs fall due
in between such extremes. The clerk’s listing of PMs organizes the various
PMs to allow easy determination of which PMs to issue at what time.
A PM listing probably gives only a very brief description of each PM
task. A planner should plan each of the PMs with a plan that the clerk
313

314 Chapter Ten
can reissue each time the PM is due. The plan should have a clear scope
and craft requirements including numbers of persons, work hours, and
duration. The plan should also list anticipated parts and special tools.
If none of the existing PMs has a plan, the planners could begin to plan
them as the clerk originates them.
The scope is of great importance in a PM work order. The scope of a
PM job plan should encompass more than simply changing a filter or
greasing a fitting. One of the greatest tools maintenance management
can bring to bear to improve equipment reliability is promoting close
involvement with the equipment. Even if the PM is an apparently simple
task to grease a coupling, the plan should specify that the technician
should note any unusual equipment conditions. The PM plan should
empower the technician to make any minor equipment adjustments or
minor repairs on the spot during execution of the PM if it does not require
special clearances or coordination. For example, if the technician notices
that the motor mount appears to be loose, the technician should tighten
the fasteners while he is on the coupling PM job. On the other hand, the
technician should write up as new work orders any equipment deficien-
cies that would take a significant amount of time or coordination to
remedy. The technician must not become bogged down in adjustments
or repairs that are not explicitly in the scope of the PM work order. If the
technician has been assigned several PM work orders, the technician
must work according to the assignment schedule to finish the assigned
work. Otherwise, the technician might thoroughly restore all problems
in the area of one PM, but not even start three other assigned PM work
orders. If the technician suspects that the loose fasteners have affected
alignment of the driven assembly, the technician should not then become
involved in a lengthy alignment task, but write a work order for the sit-
uation. One of the primary tasks of any PM work order plan should be
to identify any situations that require corrective maintenance.
Another aspect of the scope involves TLC. TLC is not “tender, loving
care,” but “tightness, lubrication, and cleanliness.” Terry Wireman (1996)
points out that not maintaining the basic conditions of cleanliness, lubri-
cation, and tightness contributes to 50% of all breakdowns. That means
that if a plant had a backlog of 400 serious equipment deficiencies,
about half could have been eliminated through proper PM in this area.
A brief scan of a company’s work history reveals the following situa-

tions as illustrations.
1. Generator foaming, tank level high alarm on constantly, linkage

loose, retightened, switch caked with dust deposits, replaced miss-
ing cover.
2. Sump pump, no foundation bolts in pump base, aligned and bolted
up piping.
Preventive and Predictive Maintenance and Project Work 315
3. Induced draft fan motor amps pegged meter then dropped to zero with
sparks from junction box, root cause of improper torque of terminal
block, power feed set screws.
4. Boiler feed pump tripped, inboard end throat bushing damaged,
retaining nuts on both discharge, and suction pump shaft sleeves
were loose.
5. Entire unit derated due to turbine generator, gear segment spider of
the valve operating mechanism binding up with excessive wear on
spider bushing, lack of lubrication noted throughout entire valve
train.
6. PdM collected lube oil noting that the B induced draft fan inboard and
outboard motor bearings were full of water.
7. Lab results of last four consecutive oil samples for boiler feed pumps
indicate upward trend of rust contaminants caused by moisture.
8. Decrease in bearing lube oil level was not detected due to a clogged
level gauge glass.
9. Instruments supervisor notes that nuisance alarms have gone down
significantly now that they routinely vacuum out control cabinets.
The vacuuming (with a special low static vacuum) operation initially
found cabinets with over an inch of dust buildup and many loose ter-
minal wire connections.
Cleanliness helps in a number of ways, not the least are reducing con-
tamination sources and allowing clean surfaces to reveal the presence
of new leaks. The very act of cleaning brings technicians close to the
equipment for observation. Cleanliness avoids expectations that dirty
equipment normally fails now and then. Dirt and grime also add unde-
sirable insulation conditions that may affect equipment performance.
PM plans should include general cleaning and wiping down of equip-
ment if possible under the existing maintenance culture. Filter replace-
ment should not be neglected as candidate PM’s for regular replacement.
Rags for cleaning should be included in many plans as special tools.
Proper fastening merits serious attention as well. A group of senior
technicians was asked if adding thread lubricant would increase or
decrease fastener torque requirements. Half of them were uncertain of
the answer. If a certain bolt requires 100 ft lb torque, adding a lubricant
would decrease the requirements to about 75 ft lb depending on the
lubricant. Lubricant reduces the friction necessary to set the fastener
threads; all the remaining torque goes toward stretching the fastener
to provide a tension that holds the assembly tight. If the technicians
increase the torque, say to 125 ft lb, their efforts might damage the bolt
by the application of 50 ft lb over the 75 required. The bolt would fail if
stretched beyond its ability to recover. Such a failed bolt would later
316 Chapter Ten
appear to be loose causing a vicious cycle of technicians believing they

were not providing enough torque.
PM plans should call attention to the general tightness of equipment
assemblies. They should specify torque requirements or attach torque
charts where appropriate. Some plans should include torque wrenches
as a special tool. Bolts have a limit to the number of times they can be
tightened and loosened. Planning for parts should encourage the replace-
ment of fasteners sometimes when technicians must otherwise dis-
semble a component for inspection or service. The cost of fasteners is
much less than that of equipment failure.
Lubrication is the most commonly recognized portion of a PM pro-
gram. Unfortunately, an improper lubrication PM can be more damag-
ing to equipment than having no PM service at all. For instance, many
times a technician introduces dirt into a bearing by not wiping a grease
fitting beforehand. Although general technician skill should prevent
such practice, PM plans can help by including rags for wiping. PM plans
can also specify removing old grease where components can be dissem-
bled. PM plans can also guard against using oil with any chance of
moisture content by specifying new containers where practical.
The emphasis on all PMs to inspect equipment for abnormal situations
makes the planner lean away from specifying only helpers that would
be too inexperienced to detect them. Unfortunately, many plant cul-
tures do value assigning experienced personnel to mundane tasks as
PMs with a focus on cleaning equipment. Nonetheless, as planning and
scheduling increase productivity and deplete existing backlogs, plants
assign more persons to PM tasks because they identify more work for
the crews. Planners should assign as experienced persons as allowed to
perform PM work orders.
For time estimates, the planners should go somewhat against the

previously established principle of not allotting any time for unantici-
pated delays. The planner should allow some extra time on all PM work
for making unspecified excessive cleaning, small adjustments, or minor
repairs. The time will also allow the technician to write work orders for
future correction of more extensive deficiencies. The plan might spec-
ify that the technicians write any work orders or that enough informa-
tion be given in the feedback to allow the planner to write work orders.
Finally, the plan must receive feedback to improve the PM work order
itself. Were there any unusual delays? Are any other parts or tools desir-
able? Should the hours or frequencies be adjusted? Just as with any
other work order, the planner should review the work order after job
completion to determine if the PM plan requires improvement.
The PM frequency is one of the most subtle areas for the planner to
manage. If a particular piece of equipment fails only once every 2 years,
the appropriate frequency for cleaning or inspection may still be once

every month. This is because PM frequencies must be set by age of
installation, likely failure modes, and criticality to plant process instead
of previous failure rate. Once the plant installs equipment, that equip-
ment must work through an early period during which it has a higher
than normal chance of failure. Newly installed equipment should be
inspected more often than older equipment for signs of failure. After the
proving period, PM frequencies might be lessened. Certain equipment
also has certain favored failure modes. A valve may exhibit a sticking
symptom several weeks before failure to operate. A flange may drip
months before leaking bad enough to cause a problem. The sound of cav-
itation may indicate a future pump problem. The PM frequency should
take into account the time between the appearance of a particular symp-
tom and the time the equipment may be restored to proper operating
time without experiencing a failure. In addition, certain failures may not
interrupt plant operation because of being in nonessential services or
having installed spare equipment the operators can utilize. If these fail-
ures do not cause more extensive repair operations than would be nec-
essary to prevent failure, the plant may exercise a strategy of minimal
PM effort or attention to set frequencies. On one hand, the planner wants
to set PM frequencies to minimize failures and generate corrective work
orders. On the other hand, the planner does not want to set excessively
short PM frequencies that would overtax personnel resources. The plan-
ner must balance these plant needs.
One particular issue dealing with PM frequencies is that of sliding
schedules. Some plants schedule the next PM work order a specified time
after the first work order is complete. In other words, say a PM is due
every 30 days. After the first time it is issued, the crew might not com-
plete the work for 10 days. The planning clerk then adjusts the schedule
to have the next PM come out in 30 more days, that is, 40 days after the
first PM was issued. As this cycle continues, instead of the PM being
done every 30 days, it is actually done on an average of 40 days or more.
A particular danger is if the crew delays in performing the work for sev-
eral months. With this process, another work order would not be issued
anywhere near the original desired frequency. Another version of slid-
ing schedules is having the work order come out more frequently than
really needed. For example, a PM comes out every 2 weeks, but really
needs to be done only once a month. The crew typically tries to complete
one of the work orders each month and ignores the other. Both sliding
schedule arrangements are unacceptable in most cases. If a PM should
be done every month, the work order should come out every month.
The planners should arrange a special file with the planning clerk to
handle the PM job plans. The PM job plans should be located next to the
planning clerk. They should be in files labeled with the PM identification
318 Chapter Ten
number on the planning clerk’s list. The clerk can then write a new PM
work order and attach a copy of the latest plan from the file cabinet
folder. After reviewing a completed PM work order, the planners should
file it in the same filing system in its respective PM folder. The planner
cannot utilize the minifile because many PMs cover multiple pieces of
equipment on routes or as systems. The planner should make a minifile
link, however, by identifying in each pertinent equipment’s minifile
what PM job plan number(s) covers its preventive maintenance.
The planners should also actively add new PMs to the list with the
intent of encouraging routine involvement with most of the plant’s equip-
ment. The planners should particularly cover critical plant processes
and equipment and previously identified high failure rate areas. Planners
should obtain and evaluate equipment manuals for new equipment man-
uals or PM advice. Planners should welcome plant engineer input for new
PMs needed, particularly as the result of investigation team efforts.
Planners should also review the histories and feedback from all work
orders they plan to determine if additional PM work orders are needed.
As the number of PM work orders increases, the sheer quantity could
overwhelm the planning department. A CMMS computer often becomes
valuable for managing the magnitude of the effort. At this point the
value of checklists or simple technician ownership becomes evident. A
supervisor may assign a checklist directly to a technician without a
work order. A commonly encountered PM card system works much the
same way because the cards are portions of a master checklist.
With checklists or cards, each PM work order begins to handle more
equipment to reduce the amount of paperwork. Instead of greasing one
or two pumps, a checklist might specify handling filters, alignment,
and greasing for all 20 pumps on the first floor of the shop. With own-
ership, the plant may avoid paperwork altogether and simply assign dif-
ferent equipment to different technicians for PM activities.
With either of these two plant preferences, the planning department
should still encourage the use of work orders specifying at least the
crafts and hours. Experience has shown some problems in PM systems
without work orders. For one thing, without a work order, the tendency
is to think of the work as nonessential or fill-in work which may not be
completed. For another thing, right or wrong, management reacts to
work order volumes, and the supervisor who manages a crew without
work orders is a candidate for losing persons to crews that have a visi-
ble backlog. Of course, with the planning and scheduling system, work
orders are necessary to allow efficient scheduling of resources. Even
with the computer assistance, planners should still be involved with
evaluating work order feedback.
Checklists can be compiled with or without the computer and the
planners can help technicians by typesetting their checklists. Checklists
may reside in binders left with the technicians who receive a work order
directing them to use their binders. Checklists might reside on the com-
puter printing out each time with the PM work order. Steve Stewart
(1997) of Tenneco and others recommend that these checklists be living
documents. Checklist items on pieces of equipment should evolve from
general inspections to more specific checks of particular details as expe-
rience is gained. “Check condition of bearing” might evolve to “Ensure
clearance is less than 5 mils.”
If the plant has no PM program or one that is clearly inadequate, the
establishment of one is beyond the scope of this book. However, the gen-
eral creation of such a program might begin with the prioritization of
equipment with regard to plant importance or criticality. Then the plant
would establish PM plans and frequencies for equipment in the order
of equipment criticality.
As a final note, the planning group should bring the PM work orders
into the normal routine of how it plans, schedules, and improves work
orders from feedback. The plant should not think of PMs as fill-in work
to do when it has time. PMs are real work.
Predictive Maintenance and Planning

The planning department plans and schedules PdM-initiated work orders.
Predictive maintenance (PdM) uses technology not available to the
regular maintenance work force. It is only natural that PdM personnel
“make the call” regarding the creation of new work orders. The often
more extensive experience of the maintenance planner may sometimes
disagree with the proposed work. Nevertheless, the PdM technology
has the potential of greatly moving the plant’s reliability upward. Even
when some PdM predictions do not prove valid, the predictions involved
in predictive maintenance show an important capacity for growth in
accuracy. However, the expertise of the PdM persons can only grow if
guided by experience. In addition, many of the initial predictions of the
PdM group are correct in identifying specific problems, but it is only the
few errors that receive publicity. Planners must resist the urge to com-
pete with the PdM group for identifying work scopes. Planners must
accept PdM work orders for jobs and translate them into the appropri-
ate scope for the maintenance crews. On the other hand, the planners
should continue to be a resource for the PdM group and be open for ques-
tions, especially those regarding past similar circumstances. Planners
should also facilitate PdM being present when equipment is worked so
that PdM personnel may quickly climb the learning curve. On PdM
requested work, the planner can easily place a direction in the job plan
for crew technicians to notify PdM personnel in time to witness certain
events in question.
Regarding files, PdM normally uses separate software and keeps its
own files of trends and past reports. Planners should presume PdM
320 Chapter Ten
knows which equipment to watch and will write work orders when nec-
essary. It is only these work orders which enter the planning files and
plant-wide computer system. Planners should insist that PdM uses the
same equipment tag numbers as the rest of the plant to ease commu-
nication problems. Planners can help PdM if PdM informs them of cer-
tain machines on the PdM “watch” list. PdM may feel reluctant to write
a work order yet, but would like to inspect certain machines if they
come down otherwise for maintenance.
Planners should also seek to utilize standards set by PdM for certain
jobs. These jobs may involve alignment criteria, bearing clearances, or
other rebuild tolerances. As with any plant engineering group, the PdM
group becomes involved in newer technology generally ahead of the
maintenance group. The PdM group can help update the technology of
the maintenance force, especially with the active assistance of the plan-
ning group.
Regarding the time accounting by the PdM personnel themselves,
PdM personnel function as do plant engineers, separate from work
orders in their daily duties. The planning department would issue work
orders for PdM routes only in the unusual circumstance where PdM per-
sons were technicians with little specialized training and were working
directly for the maintenance supervisors to run relatively simple routes
such as for thermography. On the other hand, the plant considers any
work orders initiated by the PdM group as predictive maintenance. For
example, the PdM work to take vibration readings is predictive main-
tenance, but not normally conducted under a work order. However, the
request by the PdM analyst to have the maintenance group replace a
suspected chipped impeller is also predictive maintenance and is done
through a work order.
Project Work and Planning

Similar to PdM work, the planning group plans and schedules work
orders to implement projects as regular jobs.
The difference is usually in the larger nature of projects coming from
the project group and the project group’s inclination toward using con-
tractors. The plant normally has the personnel to implement much proj-
ect work, especially with the productivity of a planning and scheduling
system. However, the project group usually favors contractors because
of a contractor’s ability to commit to a schedule and estimate. Plant
management should treat projects as outages and plan them into the
plant long-range schedule by working closely with the project group.
Planners should be able to estimate and commit to project schedules
with plant engineering and scheduler assistance. Planners should not
become too distracted away from planning day-to-day maintenance, but
can assist project work.
Even when not involved in the installation of projects, plant person-

nel should track and become involved with any new work to be done at
the plant. The plant personnel seek to influence the installation of reli-
able equipment before it is purchased. The plant personnel should be
involved with setting plant standards for the project group. The plant
personnel should spend time as directed with corporate teams and
review project plans seriously. Although many of these duties may be
shared among plant groups, planners typically have the edge over plant
engineers for valuable field experience. Maintenance supervisors or
senior technicians are preferred for these assignments, but frequently
management sees planners as somewhat more expendable. If a company
has only one or two planners, it may overwhelm the planners’ time to
become involved in all the standards or projects. On the other hand, if
there are 30 planners, it would make sense to have one planner involved
in motor standards, one involved in pump standards, one involved in this
project, and so on and so forth giving each planner a small additional
duty with respect to front end loading.
Planners can best accomplish certain tasks for large projects. Planners
must vigorously pursue collecting documentation to establish files and
PMs. Planners are also in an overview position where they can cancel
certain work orders to patch systems that are due for project replace-
ment or overhaul. This position also affords the planners a good view-
point for proposing new projects based on records of troublesome
equipment.
Other than for major projects, planners can propose new projects by
writing work orders or passing ideas to the plant engineering group.
Planners can also be as helpful as possible to plant engineers who select
equipment without becoming neglectful of their primary planning duties.
Chapter
11
Control
This chapter finally arrives at the all important issue: How does one
ensure planning itself works? Surprisingly, it is not on the basis of
indicators, although two of the 12 planning and scheduling principles
describe indicators. It is on the basis of the selection and training of
planners.
Organization Theory 101: The Restaurant Story

Dr. Stephen Paulson (1988) tells the story of John Smith who retired
from the Navy. John was at loose ends for a while and began meeting
daily for lunch with several of his friends. John naturally enjoyed cook-
ing and the lunch group usually met at John’s house where he made the
sandwiches. Everyone would always chip in to pay for the lunch. The
company and the sandwiches were good and soon more friends were
coming around at noon time. Someone eventually suggested that John
should lease a small shop where they could spread out and be more
comfortable. There seemed to be enough income from everyone’s con-
tributions so John found a small place in Jacksonville Beach where the
group could meet. Thus, John’s Sandwich Shop was born.
At first, everything continued as before. John made the sandwiches
and would join in the company and discussions around several tables.
The “organization” of the establishment, so to speak, was simply John
Smith. John took care of everything from opening the door in the morn-
ing, making the meals, and collecting the money to bussing the tables,
sweeping the floor, and closing the door in the late afternoon.
As word got around, some of John’s friends started bringing their other
friends making the place busier than ever. Soon, John had less time to
visit and was spending more time making sandwiches. That was okay
with John since he enjoyed cooking. However, he really needed help and
323

324 Chapter Eleven
so his wife, Mary, began coming in every day to help. The organization of
the sandwich empire consisted of two persons on equal footing doing
whatever needed doing. John did most of the cooking, but still helped
Mary clean tables and collect money. They even bought a cash register
to help make change. Communication was no problem. Whenever John
needed something, he called over to Mary. Whenever Mary needed some-
thing, she called over to John.
The happy atmosphere of John’s Sandwich Shop delighted friends
and other customers. Business thrived and soon John and Mary needed
more help running things. They both decided to hire someone and they
brought Joe on board for wages. Joe reported directly to John, who gave
direct supervision to his activities. Normally, John had Joe bussing
tables and washing dishes. Occasionally, John would direct Joe to per-
form other specific tasks. These tasks included activities such as sweep-
ing the floor or running an errand to buy certain supplies that were
running low.
With summer approaching and business booming, John and Mary
decided to expand and take a lease on the vacant shop next door.
Remodeling to remove part of the connecting wall almost tripled the
sandwich shop’s floor space. They also decided to hire three high school
students out of school for the summer. These students had no restau-
rant shop experience so John organized them behind a counter. John
planned for customers to enter the shop and then proceed to a counter
to place their orders with his wife. Mary would handle the cash regis-
ter and pour drinks. For the students, John wrote specific instructions
how to make three standard sandwiches customers could order. The
first student would set out and slice the type of bread requested apply-
ing the required dressing. The second student would add the required
meat and tomato or other required ingredients. The last student would
place the sandwich in a basket with chips and a cookie and hand it to
the customer. John planned to hang around and make any special orders
himself. John also continued to direct Joe in his normal assigned duties.
This arrangement worked very well and the business was very suc-
cessful. John did not look forward to the end of the summer when the
three students would leave to return to school.
Near summer’s end, John and Mary decided to hire three experienced
sandwich makers who had mentioned they would not mind working at
John’s Sandwich Shop. John had discussed their qualifications with
them at some length. These persons had quite a bit of restaurant expe-
rience which would allow John and Mary to change the organization.
The three professionals were able to handle operations behind the
counter almost entirely without instructions. They also were able to
expand the types of sandwiches being offered. Any of the three could
make nearly any specialty sandwich imaginable. They could each handle
Control 325
multiple complicated orders at the same time. For instance, each person
could handle making a meatball sandwich (light on the sauce), which
required microwaving while simultaneously shredding lettuce to place
on a cold ham sandwich. The resulting success behind the counter
allowed John to increase the amount of time he could visit with his
friends at the tables.
As the years went by, John and Mary opened another, identical shop
in neighboring St. Augustine. John and Mary later both stepped back
from day-to-day operations, allowing their son to run the original store
and their daughter to run the new store. Both stores remained very pros-
perous. John and Mary still maintained a corporate ownership of the
business, but their management style was to have a family business
meeting once each year after a special dinner gathering. At this meet-
ing, John would look at his children carefully and ask two questions very
seriously. The first question would always be: “What is the net profit
after taxes for each store?” The second question would always be: “Does
a meatball sandwich in the Jacksonville Beach shop taste exactly the
same as a meatball sandwich in the St. Augustine shop?” With these two
questions, John and Mary managed the multiple divisions of John’s
Sandwich Shop.
The restaurant story pointedly illustrates the different basic organi-

zation structures that exist, each doing best with a particular type of pri-
mary coordination method. An organization is a group of persons with a
common objective, such as the maintenance of an industrial plant. Where
different persons work together, they must coordinate their work.
Coordination methods and practices help direct the efforts of the differ-
ent persons. Planning itself is a coordination means. Planning coordinates
many of the specialized areas of maintenance. Most organizations typi-
cally utilize many different coordination methods at the same time, but
they usually emphasize a single primary or dominant coordination
method. Emphasizing the right primary coordination method with the
right type of organization makes an organization stable and effective.
Using the wrong kind of primary coordination method with a particular
organization structure will cause unnecessary problems and inefficiency.
Dr. Paulson’s story pictures the basic organization forms with their
preferred coordination methods described by Mintzberg (1983). The
account first shows John Smith as an individual doing everything by
himself. In the second situation, John and Mary organize and function
as an “adhocracy.” The adhocracy structure of organization consists of
different persons brought informally together. The adhocracy coordinates
its activities through frequent meetings and exchanges of information
(“mutual adjustment”) much as do Mary and John with their conversations
as they go about doing their jobs. The next organization where John
326 Chapter Eleven
supervises Joe represents a simple structure. John provides the coordina-

tion needed with his direct supervision of Joe. Next, the organization of
the summer students represents a machine bureaucracy. A machine
bureaucracy achieves efficiency by coordinating with explicit rules and
procedures. John wrote rules for the students to follow in their assign-
ments. An assembly line typifies this organizational structure. Of course,
if the business environment becomes more complex and varied or under-
goes rapid change, rules themselves might become too complicated or
subject to constant change, making this type of organization unsuitable.
As Mary and John transform the store to allow significant independent
judgment on the part of the sandwich makers, coordination by a set of
rules becomes impractical. The concentration on obtaining skilled
employees becomes their preferred coordination method. This organi-
zational structure is known as a professional bureaucracy. This structure
must be coordinated with attention to staffing, that is, hiring and train-
ing. When one thinks of a medical physician, one realizes that there
could not be a sufficient set of rules to handle the doctor’s behavior
throughout each day. The doctor constantly sees different situations
calling for independent judgment and skilled action. The expertise of the
doctor is much more important than the standard handbook of medical
procedures the doctor sometimes consults. Does the doctor have the
skill not only to select, but to execute the correct procedure? A profes-
sional bureaucracy coordinates itself through the procurement of skills.
Finally, Mary and John oversee the company as a divisionalized form of
organizational structure. Mary and John see two divisions as entities
to coordinate although there may be a different form or forms of orga-
nizational structure within each shop. From their level, Mary and John
best coordinate the effort of either shop with indicators. The use of indi-
cators comprises the preferred method of coordinating this type of struc-
ture. Obviously, Mary and John could not manage each shop with direct
supervision or constant meetings and communication. Other methods
of coordinating are also not appropriate for their level of management
in the organization. Variants exist, but these same basic organizational
structures are found in organizations throughout the world. The restau-
rant story shows which particular method of coordination is most appro-
priate for each of the different basic structures.
Selection and Training of Planners

With regard to maintenance planning, how do these lessons apply? The
identification of preferred coordination methods has direct application
to the planning department organization. To begin with, maintenance
work orders come in all sizes and shapes, from straightforward to incred-
ibly complex and from ordinary to unusual. Because of the extreme
diversity of jobs, planners cannot be given simple instructions for how
Control 327
to plan them. For example, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to

scoping jobs or determining what job details are critical for a job plan.
Planners may be directed to scope a job, yet the identification of the cor-
rect work scope is entirely a creation of the planner’s skill. A planner
may be directed to research a minifile, but the planner must recognize
what made the difference in the last two filed jobs. Similarly, only the qual-
ified planner can adequately anticipate likely job problems or spare part
requirements on equipment that has not yet been dissembled. The plan-
ners must function as a professional bureaucracy, being allowed to exer-
cise discretion and personal judgment in the effective planning
organization. Thus, the primary coordination method to manage the plan-
ning group must be an emphasis on staffing. The purpose of Planning
Principle 4 (skill of the planners) becomes more clear as one realizes that
having qualified planners controls the successful planning organization.
Does not every job require having a qualified person? Perhaps, but this
concept is not the sense of the professional bureaucracy. A person to oper-
ate under direct supervision must be willing to submit to direct super-
vision. A person willing to work on an assembly line must be willing and
able to follow specific instructions. However, the skills required within
the professional bureaucracy implies neither of these qualifications.
Without the obtaining of skilled planners as the primary coordination
method, none of the other coordination methods matter. First, planners
do not need to share information continuously with each other to plan
jobs. Neither is there time for each planner to communicate constantly
with other experienced personnel regarding job requirements. Second,
no planning supervisor could adequately directly supervise the activi-
ties of planners planning hundreds of diverse work orders each week.
Third, as previously discussed, no set of rules or guidelines could pos-
sibly take the place of the skilled planner on the majority of mainte-
nance plans. This explains one of the cautions with the template
approach to job planning. When all is said and done, the planner’s skills
must come into play to use the templates and to provide enough job spe-
cific expertise. Finally, indicators may show whether the planning group
is making a difference in the work force’s productivity, but indicators
cannot coordinate the activity of the planners. Indicators only show
whether the planners chosen have the skills necessary to make the
difference.
After the selection of planners, the emphasis of supervision should be
on training and other support. A school system provides an excellent
model. The principal does not directly supervise any of the classrooms.
The principal is not even present in the classrooms at all times. Instead,
the principal performs a primary duty by procuring qualified teachers.
Then the principal sustains or enhances those qualifications by making
training opportunities available to teachers. For example, these might
include seminars about new techniques or concepts of learning. Next, the
328 Chapter Eleven
principal supports the teachers by supplying everyday needs to allow the

teachers to execute their teaching skills rather than spend time gather-
ing supplies. For instance, teachers should not have to worry about
obtaining copy supplies, having adequate student desks, or providing
proper air conditioning of the classrooms. The principal organizes the
front office to support the teachers. Rather than have the principal direct
the teachers, the teachers should almost direct the principal and front
office group in their support needs. In this type of role, the principal
coordinates and controls the smooth functioning of the school organiza-
tion, a professional bureaucracy. If there are only a few planners, they
may adequately report to the maintenance manager or superintendent
who is also over the crew supervisors. The manager or superintendent
would ensure their proper selection and provide ongoing support. If there
are more planners, a planning supervisor or lead planner may be desired.
In either case, the ongoing objective would be to provide training and sup-
port to the planners. Training should consist of establishing the vision,
principles, and techniques of planning and scheduling. Training might
also include instruction in the use of computers and a CMMS computer
system. Support might include copy machines, paper supplies, computer
resources as needed, filing supplies, or other physical necessities that
would allow the planners to focus on planning jobs. The supervision over
the planners would ensure adequate office support exists. Finally, con-
sider that the objective of support is to keep qualified planners in place
adequately performing their planning duties. Planners’ wages should be
competitive to ensure that qualified persons have the desire to accept and
stay in the planner positions.
One sees that Planning Principle 5 (skill of the crafts) indicates that
crew technicians also function somewhat within a professional bureau-
cracy. In addition, Scheduling Principle 5 (crew leader handles current
day’s work) lends this same structure to crew supervisors. This is
because of the diversity of work orders and the increasing technologi-
cal sophistication needed to maintain modern machinery. This is why
one commonly hears admonitions to train and upgrade one’s workforce.
However, do not job plans provide work rules, which is the preferred
coordination method of the unchanging assembly line? Not at all. The
work plans provide support both to the crew supervisors and to the
craft technicians. The job plans provide information on job scope, crafts,
and hours to allow the supervisor to assign and schedule the correct
skills. The job plans provide filing support to avoid previous delays and
a head start on other job information for the technicians. A heart prob-
lem would be assigned to a cardiologist and a foot problem to a podia-
trist in a hospital. A cardiologist and podiatrist still refer to “tried and
true” procedures as references. The office staff and nurses would pro-
vide previous medical histories to help each doctor treat each patient.
Similarly, planners primarily perform triage and file services for crews.
Control 329
They do not normally dictate mandatory procedures. Their job plans pro-
vide support and helpful procedures.
There is simply not enough repetition of identical jobs to establish the
planners or the technicians into assembly lines coordinated with absolute
work rules. There is enough repetition of jobs to allow a planning func-
tion to support technicians in learning from past jobs and creating evolv-
ing procedures.
Within such a framework, the question of “How do I control planning?”
implies a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Once the plan-
ners have been hired, the majority of the control action has been completed.
Indicators
A wider perspective makes indicators or metrics also important. The
restaurant story suggests the plant manager might oversee the general
operation of the maintenance and operations departments as a “divi-
sionalized form” of organization structure. Without complete attention
to the inner workings of each department, the plant manager might
place heavy emphasis on indicators to control these departments. The
managers of these departments should be responsible for indicating
their efforts through indicators. Even within each group, opportunities
exist for indicators to help coordinate efforts, though perhaps not as a
primary means of coordination.
Persons can relate to overall plant availability or overall plant capac-
ity fairly well. Figure 11.1 shows a sample overall availability metric.
However, these indicators may be so global that they do not provide much
assistance in determining what to do to improve their score. What factors
have specifically contributed to maintaining a high availability or capac-
ity? What factors have specifically reduced the overall availability or
Figure 11.1 The simplest measure of overall maintenance effectiveness.

330 Chapter Eleven
capacity of the plant? Other indicators should support these global indi-
cators. Subindicators to availability or capacity might provide better
information for coordinating or managing resources. The following sec-
tions present common indicators of maintenance performance.
Planned coverage
Figure 11.2 illustrates planned coverage, a standard measure for a plan-
ning and scheduling system. Management desires that technicians
spend more hours on planned jobs than unplanned jobs. This indicator
is based on the actual hours technicians spend on jobs. The measure rep-
resents the percentage of these hours that are on planned work orders.
The actual hours are measured regardless of the originally estimated
hours of the planners. The metric utilizes actual labor hours as the unit
of measure rather than quantity of work orders because the size of work
orders can vary considerably. For instance, typical project work might
normally be larger work orders than breakdown work orders. In addi-
tion, preventive maintenance (PM) work orders might normally be
smaller than breakdown work orders. Management desires for mainte-
nance forces to spend adequate time on the appropriate type of work.
Therefore, the metric should utilize a time-based unit. On the other
hand, management could cautiously use work order quantities if actual
time values are not initially available.
Proactive versus reactive

This metric measures the reactive nature of the plant maintenance
work. Management desires reactive work to lessen in proportion to
proactive work (Fig. 11.3). This indicator is based on the actual hours
technicians spend on jobs. The actual hours are measured regardless of
the originally estimated hours of the planners.
Figure 11.2 Management wants more labor hours spent on planned jobs.
Control 331
Figure 11.3 Management wants to spend more hours on proactive work than
reactive work.
Reactive work hours

Figure 11.4 shows the absolute amount of reactive maintenance work.
Management desires not only to perform more proactive than reactive
work, it desires for the absolute amount of reactive work to decrease.
The score of this indicator may be very erratic on a monthly basis and
might be better measured on a yearly basis. The amount of reactive work
may also initially increase as crews increase their productivity and per-
form more work of all types. This indicator is based on the actual hours
technicians spend on jobs. The actual hours are measured regardless of
the originally estimated hours of the planners.
Work type
Management needs information regarding the different types of main-
tenance work performed. Specific areas of interest are proportions of
Figure 11.4 Management wants the overall amount of reactive work to

decrease.
332 Chapter Eleven
Figure 11.5 Another indicator of the proportions of reactive versus proactive

work.
preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance (PdM), project work,

and corrective maintenance versus actual failure and breakdown main-
tenance. This indicator is based on the actual hours technicians spend
on jobs. The actual hours are measured regardless of the originally esti-
mated hours of the planners. (See Fig. 11.5.)
Schedule forecast
Figure 11.6 shows an example of an indicator tracking forecasted hours.
Note how the chart indicates carryover hours. A large proportion of these
Figure 11.6 Maintenance might track forecast hours to help coordinate

the scheduling process.
Control 333
hours could indicate a scheduling problem. This indicator uses hours

taken directly off the form for Crew Work Hours Availability Forecast.
The sample hours shown are for B Crew’s forecast developed in Chap. 6.
Schedule compliance
As discussed in Chap. 3, weekly schedule compliance provides the ulti-
mate measure of proactivity. Some plants prefer the term schedule suc-
cess to clarify the objective to measure control over the equipment rather
than over the supervisors. Figure 11.7 shows a sample chart with data
illustrating B Crew’s performance. This company measures PM com-
pliance as well. Figure 11.8 illustrates a helpful worksheet to calculate
the schedule compliance score. Figure 11.9 illustrates the use of the
form with B Crew numbers. The scoring of compliance gives the crew
credit for all jobs that started during the week regardless of whether
they finished. Chapter 6 explains that this gives the crew every possi-
ble benefit of any doubt of compliance.
Howard Mathews, PE and Pamela Pifko, CMA of SaskPower devel-
oped a helpful report called the “Red Green Report.” This type of report lists
work orders from the previous week in three sections. The first section
lists all the work orders that maintenance completed that were on the
weekly schedule. The second section lists all the work orders that main-
tenance did not complete that were on the weekly schedule. The third
section lists all the work orders that maintenance completed that were
not on the weekly schedule. Each work order listed identifies its
description, priority, estimated hours (if any), and actual hours. With
these sections, management can easily see what scheduled work orders
Figure 11.7 Schedule compliance to measure schedule success.

334 Chapter Eleven
Figure 11.8 Sample of a helpful form to calculate schedule compliance.
maintenance did not complete and what other work orders took their
place. Management is interested to see that only higher priority,
unscheduled work orders replaced lower priority scheduled work orders.
Even then, management can question why the unscheduled work orders
could not be planned and scheduled for the following week. The name
“Red Green Report” derives from the practice many plants have of col-
oring the different sections to stand out. The completed scheduled work
orders would be colored green. The unscheduled schedule breakers
Control 335
Figure 11.9 Sample of schedule compliance calculations.
would be colored red. This is a remarkable report that easily helps man-
agement understand the progress on the schedule.
Wrench time
Figure 11.10 shows a sample wrench time metric. This indicator utilized
within maintenance measures the percentage of time technicians actu-
ally spend on the job. This would be time where otherwise available tech-
nicians are not involved in delays such as procuring parts, tools, or
336 Chapter Eleven
Figure 11.10 Sample indicator illustrating wrench time performance.
instructions. Industry commonly refers to this time as wrench time. In-

house analysts or consultants properly measure wrench time with a
work sampling methodology. What is more significant than the time on
the job is the analysis of the time and circumstances that delay techni-
cians from being on the job. Appendices G and H provide sample work
sampling studies.
One limitation of wrench time analysis is that it makes no presump-
tion of how productive a technician is while on the job. On the other hand,
one would presume that the on job productivity should stay the same
so increasing the amount of time on the job should increase the overall
amount of work produced. Planning Principle 6 in Chap. 2 explains that
increasing the amount of time technicians are on the job is the purpose
of planning. The measure of wrench time indicates the effectiveness of
the planning and scheduling process rather than the efforts of the tech-
nicians themselves.
Minifiles made
The creation of the minifiles described by Planning Principle 3 is of
great importance. A planning supervisor may want to count the number
of minifiles each month in the early months of a new planning organi-
zation. See Fig. 11.11.
Backlog work orders

Backlog of work orders is a very ominous indicator. Experience shows
that many management efforts to reduce the size of a backlog result in
Control 337
Figure 11.11 Ensuring planners understand the importance of the minifiles

when starting a planning group.
a reduced amount of new work orders written rather than an increased

number of work orders completed. The backlog is thus reduced by no
longer identifying the work to which the plant should attend. The gen-
eration of new proactive work orders especially suffers. Other games
played include writing larger work orders. Instead of writing a separate
work order to take care of each fuel oil pump, technicians might write
a single work order to take care of all three pumps. The backlog is thus
further reduced by hindering the opportunity to keep good equipment
records for each pump. If management intends to reduce equipment
problems, it should track backlog by specific work type. The plant desires
to reduce its reactive backlog, but increase its proactive backlog. The
plant might define reactive work orders as failure or breakdown work
orders plus other work orders as an urgent priority. The plant might
define proactive work orders as project work, PM, PdM, or corrective
maintenance except for ones that have become urgent. Through increas-
ing the detection of proactive opportunities the plant can reduce its fail-
ures and reactive situations that hurt reliability. Management should
vocalize this vision with caution. The simple command to reduce the
backlog, but only the reactive backlog, can become confusing and coun-
terproductive.
Work orders completed

Simply looking at backlogged work orders can be misleading. On the
other hand, measuring the number of work orders completed each month
provides an excellent check and balance when used with the backlog
number. Management is interested in the maintenance group complet-
ing more work orders each month as one indication of productivity
improvement. This indicator by itself might encourage the workforce to
338 Chapter Eleven
write smaller work orders. For instance, instead of writing one work
order to repair a pump, the indicator would tempt personnel to write
three separate work orders for disassemble, repair, and reassemble.
Because management pressure to reduce work order backlog tempts
personnel to write fewer work orders, these two indicators help balance
each other when used together.
Backlog work hours

Plants making sudden improvement gains in productivity often quickly
run out of backlogged work. Plants in highly reactive work environ-
ments should then take advantage of the opportunity to create proac-
tive work orders or generate reactive work orders that would have been
ignored in the past. The plant’s objective with a stable work force should
be to maintain at least 2 weeks of craft backlog. Such identification of
work promotes the smooth operation of a productive maintenance
department with planning and scheduling. Unfortunately, simple quan-
tities of work orders do not indicate labor requirements. Prompt plan-
ning should establish a backlog in terms of hours. Dividing the normal
paid hours of each craft into the backlog hours produces a number of
backlog weeks. Because the paid hours are normally higher than the
available hours for each craft, a goal of at least 2 weeks provides ample
work. Management may desire to be aware of how many weeks of back-
log are available for each craft. Further analysis by crew or specific
skill level is unnecessary.
Summary
The management of the planners themselves is best conducted as a pro-
fessional bureaucracy. That is, management emphasizes selecting per-
sonnel and training them. Management does not emphasize direct
supervision, procedures, indicators, or frequent meetings for coordina-
tion. A great deal of importance rests on the qualifications of each indi-
vidual planner. Organizations should select planners with an aptitude
for planning. Organizations should train them in the principles and tech-
niques of planning. The organization may obtain qualified planners
either through hiring or developing persons with the necessary poten-
tial for success. Appendix M, Setting up a Planning Group, discusses how
to accomplish the selection and training of maintenance planners.
While selection of planners handles the majority of planning control,
management of overall maintenance does make use of several common
indicators. The chief of these is overall availability. Other indicators
include ones for measuring the proportion of work hours that are
planned and the proportions of different types of proactive work versus
reactive work. Management should use simple indicators of backlog
Control 339
with caution because the plant must generate a backlog to take care of
maintenance. Schedule compliance helps determine if the maintenance
force is controlling the equipment or if the equipment is controlling the
maintenance force. Management measures crew forecasts and carryover
work to help understand the functioning of the schedule process.
Management uses these indicators to coordinate the efforts of the divi-
sions or groups together.
Chapter
Conclusion: Start
12
Planning
What is maintenance planning?
Maintenance planning as envisioned by the Maintenance Planning

and Scheduling Handbook IS NOT preventive maintenance (PM).
Maintenance planning IS NOT planning how to establish and organ-
ize a maintenance department.
Maintenance planning IS NOT using a computer.
Maintenance planning IS NOT providing a detailed procedure every
time describing how to perform every maintenance task.
Maintenance planning IS NOT simply identifying spare parts and spe-
cial tools before a job starts.
Maintenance planning IS providing file information to technicians to
allow them to learn from past jobs and avoid delays. Planning also
helps ensure the availability of anticipated spare parts and special
tools.
Maintenance planning IS providing crew supervisors with job scopes
plus craft and work hour estimates to allow them better to assign daily
work.
Maintenance planning IS advance scheduling to allow managers to
allocate work for crews based on forecasted labor availability.
Why do companies need maintenance planning? They need mainte-

nance planning because it helps increase the amount of time technicians
spend on direct work, actual work without delays. Maintenance plan-
ning reduces the time technicians spend in gathering parts, in finding
tools, in receiving instructions, or in many other delay situations. In
341

342 Chapter Twelve
industry today, delays commonly cause maintenance crews to spend only

25 to 35% of their time on job sites making job progress. These delays do
not even include time lost to vacation, training, or other type of admin-
istrative absences. Maintenance planning helps boost the direct work or
wrench time of technicians to as much as 55%. A good company at 35%
with 30 maintenance technicians would enjoy the effect of having 47 tech-
nicians if it had 55% direct work time. The company would add 17 extra
technicians without cost to its maintenance efforts. The company with
90 maintenance technicians would see the effort of 141 technicians, a
51-person improvement. And lest one should think maintenance planning
helps only the large corporation, the company with 10 maintenance tech-
nicians would see the effort of 15 technicians, a 5-person improvement.
Why have companies not taken advantage of such an opportunity?
Companies have not exploited maintenance planning for several reasons.
The biggest reason has to do with a belief that direct work time could not
possibly be as low as 35%. Yet, study after study reveals that companies
have a typical direct work time of 35% at best without planning and sched-
uling. Other reasons primarily include fundamental misunderstandings
of exactly how a planning and scheduling system properly works. This
explains the great frustration of many companies that have unsuccessfully
attempted improvements through maintenance planning. The inner work-
ings of a proper system have seen limited study because of its position in
the organization. The plant manager often sees maintenance planning as
too low in the organization to give it direct attention. The plant engineer
often sees planning as “low tech” and so not of much interest. The main-
tenance manager often sees planning as requiring too much of a change
to the existing process of maintenance and not clearly worth the effort.
Resulting efforts at planning see implementation without clear guidelines,
practices, or even vision of its purpose. These companies do planning
only because they are “supposed” to do planning.
Planning does not just happen. Experience has shown that planning is
a system with many subtleties requiring attention. The preceding chap-
ters have established 12 basic principles that resolve the issues involved
with a maintenance planning system. Specifics of actual practice help
explain the principles. Companies might easily implement each princi-
ple to establish a maintenance planning system that allows attainment
of dramatic maintenance improvement. The first principle requires keep-
ing planners separate from the supervision of the individual crews.
Separation best allows planners to concentrate on planning future work.
The second principle is to avoid delays rather than to merely help deal
with delays of a job that is already in progress. This principle takes advan-
tage of the repetitious nature of most maintenance work and moves jobs
up a learning curve. The third principle recognizes that planners can
only practically retrieve prior job information for learning if linked to
specific equipment. Specific equipment minifiles establish this link for
Conclusion: Start Planning 343
paper documents. It is primarily within this linking principle that the

computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) has its place.
Besides helping with inventory tracking, the CMMS allows management
to leverage key information regarding work orders and equipment. On the
other hand, a CMMS can significantly automate and otherwise facilitate
the overall efforts of maintenance planning. The fourth principle pro-
vides for easy, practical estimation of job requirements through the expert-
ise of an experienced technician as planner. The fifth principle has this
planner utilize the skills of the field technicians and avoid giving more
procedural information than necessary on initial job plans. The last plan-
ning principle, wrench time, embodies the purpose of planning to reduce
delays to help technicians spend more time on jobs. Planning also involves
scheduling because reducing delays during individual jobs allows super-
visors to assign more jobs. Six more principles address scheduling. The
first principle specifically obligates each job plan to estimate time
requirements and lowest craft skill levels. To reduce interruption delays,
the second principle advocates the practice of not interrupting jobs already
in progress through proper prioritization of work. The third principle
commits crew leaders to forecast labor hours for craft skills for the next
week. The fourth principle combines the forecasted labor hours with esti-
mated job hours, sometimes utilizing persons beneath their maximum
skill levels for the good of the plant. Although a scheduler in the planning
department allocates the week’s goal of work, crew leaders best handle
the daily work assignments as established by the fifth principle. The sixth
and final principle establishes the importance of schedule compliance.
Not an end unto itself, this indicator measures the success of the crew
taking control of the equipment. One overall consideration makes these
principles practical, making the difference in their successful application.
Planning must not constrain crews from immediately beginning work on
urgent jobs. On reactive work planning can abbreviate its efforts while
still providing helpful information. Together, these principles make the
difference and make planning work.
In learning about maintenance planning, one also sees that there
exists no magic answer by itself. Rather than being the latest manage-
ment fad, one sees that planning provides a benefit by helping coordi-
nate the rest of the maintenance group’s resources. This brings up a valid
concern. If maintenance planning assists in coordinating the rest of
maintenance, how does one coordinate planning itself? The key to the
coordination of activity within the planning group lies principally with
the proper selection of the planners. Many times companies want to
organize a new group by quickly hiring personnel and then drafting
numerous procedures to govern their activities. Direct supervision or
indicators then track adherence to these activities. This approach will not
work with maintenance planning. Management must first, above all else,
carefully select qualified planners. After selecting planners, management
344 Chapter Twelve
must then imbue them with the vision and general principles of proper
planning. Then management must support them in their knowing how best
to conduct maintenance planning. This book explains what maintenance
planning is all about and why it works. Seek the advice in App. M on how
to establish a new planning organization or transform an existing one.
WIIFM means “What’s In It For Me?”

For the technicians, they have a file clerk that faithfully pledges to
help them avoid the painful lessons and delays of the past. They have
a head start from an experienced technician that anticipates the prob-
lems of the job about to start. The file clerk helps them codify these les-
sons into helpful procedures over time.
For the supervisors, they have the means of knowing how many jobs
they can assign to which skilled technicians. They have a subset of
appropriate work orders called from a much larger plant blocklog. They
also have a means to leverage the knowledge of an experienced techni-
cian across all the jobs of the crew. Ironically, supervisor fear of losing
“control” presents one of the chief impediments to planning and sched-
uling. Yet, the planning and scheduling system gives supervisors more
control. They receive job information and a backlog service allowing
them to assign jobs better and freeing them to spend more time with
their crews.
For the managers, they have the means of improving productivity
through knowing how much work that crews should execute each week
and how to allocate it. Managers have the tool to assist 30 technicians
achieve the effort of 47 technicians.
For the companies, they have a means of practically coordinating the
expensive resources they have acquired for maintenance to improve and
maintain superior plant reliability.
In conclusion, start planning.

Epilogue: An Alternative Day
in the Life—May 10, 2010
This section has four short narratives typical of maintenance with proper
planning help. These accounts are revised versions of the misadventures
set forth in the Prologue, just before the Preface of the book. The
Prologue recounts these situations as they might occur without the
assistance of a planning group.
Bill, Mechanic at Delta Ray, Inc.

Bill reported to work on time and went straight to the crew break area.
There the supervisor gave out the assignments for the day. Bill received
the four jobs he was expecting because he had seen the daily schedule
sheet posted the previous day. He was there for a 10-hour shift and the
job estimates totaled 10 hours. There were three jobs for 3 hours each
and a simple 1-hour job. The big jobs were fixing a leaking valve on the
northeast corner of the mezzanine floor, replacing a gasket on a leak-
ing flange for the demineralizer, and regreasing the coupling and laser
aligning a boiler fill pump. The last job was to lubricate and change the
packing on a valve that was becoming difficult to operate.
Bill had worn his old boots since he knew about the valve jobs. The
first thing Bill did was review the job plans written on the work orders.
All four jobs were staged in the tool room. Bill went to the tool room and
presented the work order numbers to the attendant. The attendant
shortly brought out a box with the parts for all four jobs. Copies of the
work orders he had in his hand were attached to groupings of the parts.
There was a 4-in valve body with two gaskets and eight bolts with
matching nuts. There was a sheet of Teflon gasket material and 12 bolts
with nuts. There was a package of grease for the pump. And there was
an applicator for grease to be used on the valve. Bill wanted to go ahead
and check out the laser alignment kit. Since there were only two of them,
the tool room attendant told him that his supervisor had reserved one
for him for the afternoon.
Normally, since Bill knew what size the bolts were for the mezzanine
valve and de-mineralizer flange, he would just take a couple of wrenches
with him. But since he had the pump job which was near the other jobs,
he might need an array of other tools, so he decided to take his whole tool
box along. In addition, the planner had not noted what size packing was
345

346 Epilogue
needed, so any of the different size pieces of packing he normally car-

ried in his tool box might be needed.
The first job was cleared as expected and Bill started unbolting the
old valve. Bill remembered the old days when the work orders were not
planned to specify whether a mechanic would be needed for a bolted
valve or a welder might be needed for a socket welded valve. Bill noted
that the work plan stated that he should replace the valve because the
valve had failed after being repaired twice this year so far. “So that’s why
I’m not just repairing it,” Bill thought. Bill replaced the valve, gaskets,
and bolts and was soon cleaning up. Bill radioed his supervisor to turn
in the work permit so the operations group could begin unclearing the
valve instead of waiting until the end of the day. Bill was a little ahead
of schedule and decided to go ahead and take a short break. This would
be a good time to call the dentist from the break room.
After break at the demineralizer, the area was also cleared and Bill had
the right work permit. The deficiency tag was hung near a pipe flange.
The planner had noted that this was a water line and not an acid line, so
Bill took the flanged connection apart at the demineralizer. Just as the
planner had anticipated, in order to obtain access to the leaking flange
Bill had to disassemble two other connections as well. With the gasket
material in hand, Bill went to his work bench and cut out three gaskets
using one of the old gaskets as a template. The planner had requested that
Bill draw a copy of the gasket template on the back of the work order for
keeping in the file for next time. Bill realized that with these gaskets, he
could finish up this job in no time. That would allow him plenty of time
for the other two jobs. Bill gathered up his gaskets and started toward
the job. On the way he passed Gino cutting out some gaskets at his work
bench. After stopping to compare notes for a few minutes, they both
noticed it was almost lunch time, so they decided just to stay in the shop
and talk.
After lunch Bill started reassembling the flanges. Most of the bolts
looked in good shape, but bolts were inexpensive and the policy was to
not take a chance on worn out bolts. Bill replaced all the bolts and nuts
using the supplied items from the tool room. Soon Bill finished the job
and he wiped down and cleaned up the area. He then radioed to his
supervisor so this work permit could be signed off and taken to the con-
trol room. By then, there was about an hour left before break time so Bill
took his stuff over to the boiler fill pump.
The pump was cleared and Bill sat down for a moment to look over
the pages of the pump manual the planner had attached to the job plan.
The coupling came apart easily and Bill wiped out all of the old grease.
He then applied new grease and fastened it back together. Then Bill
headed for the tool room to pick up the laser kit before break time. After
break, he set up the laser device and aligned the pump. This time, how-
ever, the job ran into problems. No matter what he tried, the pump
Epilogue 347
would not go into alignment. Bill finally called his supervisor, who came
over to help. After a while, Bill told his supervisor that it did not look
like he was going to finish his last job, repacking the valve. The super-
visor said that was okay and it could be done tomorrow. The supervisor
ended up by calling a mechanic with more expertise to look at the pump
problem and the three of them finally got the pump aligned. Bill really
enjoyed working with pumps and was glad they had enough time to do
it right. The supervisor’s main concern was writing down on the work
order the specific alignment problem and resolution for the history file.
It was customary that the crew could use the last 20 or 30 minutes of
the day filling out time sheets and showering. Bill had about 40 min-
utes left after the pump job and really did not want to start the repack-
ing since sometimes a simple repacking job would run into trouble. But
he did take his tool box, the lubricant, and the packing to the valve site
so he could knock it out the next day. Then he filled out a time sheet and
headed to his car at the end of the day.
On the way to his car, Bill felt good about his performance against
today’s schedule.
Sue, Supervisor at Zebra, Inc.

Sue considered herself a capable supervisor. She knew in order to keep
the operations group satisfied, the maintenance crew had to keep the
equipment from failing. She worked the crew steady and kept on top of
all of the maintenance work that would keep problems from developing.
Whenever a priority-one work order came in, she assigned it when some-
one was finished with what he or she was doing. She never interrupted
jobs already in progress unless it was a priority-zero emergency. The
crew knew the importance she placed on completing high priority work
and was always willing to work overtime when required. Normally,
however, the crew worked steadily on a batch of work orders that the
planning group would assign for the week and did not require much
overtime. The planning group would take her estimate of how many
labor hours she would have for the next week and give her that much
work to assign. Sue recognized that plant management supported pre-
ventive maintenance because the weekly backlog contained a sufficient
portion of it. She was sure that this mix of work was in the best inter-
est of the plant in keeping production at high capacity.
Her normal method of job assignment was to assign to each techni-
cian a full day’s worth of work. She knew how long each job should take
and what type craftperson she should assign because the planning group
planned each job. Sometimes this required the art of deciding who would
receive which jobs. She simply could not hold back the critical jobs for
certain persons or she would not be able to complete all the work. She
would simply have to provide coaching for persons whose skills were not
348 Epilogue
yet up to par. She selected the day’s work one day ahead of schedule from
the week’s backlog from planning. Thankfully, she did not have to dig
through the entire plant backlog each time she wanted to assign a job.
She knew the crew worked productively because they generally com-
pleted much of the work assigned each week and made few extra trips
to the tool room or storeroom.
Lately it seemed that fewer higher priority work orders were being
written with urgent problems. This enabled the crew to work without
interruption to maintain the plant’s capacity. She used to feel that some-
times the operations crews would exaggerate the priority of minor jobs
just to make sure they were done. However, from looking at the recent
work orders, there seemed to be a team atmosphere between the main-
tenance and operations groups with both sides writing low priority work
orders to head off problems. She knew the crew was enjoying receiving
planned work orders where they had a head start on what to do and could
suggest future improvements. Sue’s supervisory approach was to assign
the work from the weekly backlog and monitor how much work the crew
and individuals completed. She was usually in the field seeing where she
could provide help to do work in a quality fashion. Since there was some
schedule pressure, she sometimes had to remind technicians that doing
the job right was more important than meeting the precise time estimate.
She just needed feedback to know why they needed changes. Things
were fairly calm. The crew kept moving along with the visible goal of daily
work. Break times never seemed to be a problem, and neither were start-
ing or quitting times. Things seemed to be fine.
Juan, Welder at Alpha X, Inc.

Juan received three planned jobs for the day. Two were 4-hour jobs for
valves that were leaking through. Eli in the predictive maintenance
group had used thermography to find the problems. The third was a 2-hour
job to pull up and tighten the packing on a number of boiler valves to
prevent problems. It looked like a full day of work.
Juan and his helper got to the site of the first job and Juan looked at
the work order again. The west economizer drain root valve was leak-
ing through. The work plan called for replacing the valve with one he
had checked out of the tool room per the job plan tool list. The plan gave
the following steps.
Cut the seat using kit instructions.

Cut new packing.
Cut out and replace valve.
Record title and page # of procedure from company welding manual.
Epilogue 349
Total time: 4 work hours for certifield welder.

Duration: 6 hours (including heat treatment).
Juan noticed the plan called for recording information to keep in the
valve file for the future. Juan also noticed that the planner had identi-
fied the cost of the valve at $1200. The planner had also written special
instructions for the operations group to drain this particular root valve
during the night. The history file showed that a job done last year had
been delayed 3 hours waiting for the leg to drain. Juan remembered that
drawn out job.
Juan began cutting out the valve seat. It made sense that planning
would take care of all the little details so Juan could go to work.
Jack, Planner at Johnson Industries, Inc.

Jack came in ready to go. As a planner for 20 technicians, he knew that
each day he needed to plan about 150 hours worth of work orders.
Standard preventive maintenance work orders that needed no plan-
ning would add about 50 hours. That would keep 20 technicians busy
for a 10-hour shift. He could not afford to become bogged down.
Reviewing the work requests from the previous day, Jack got to work.
He decided first to check the minifiles and then make a field inspection
for eight of the most pressing work orders. He hoped to have them
planned before lunch and start on another group. Jack found and took
the minifiles to his desk for six of the jobs. The files had plans and part
numbers used previously. Four had small equipment manuals. Jack
hoped that knowledge of the previous work would help him scope the
current jobs. He gathered the eight work orders on his clipboard and
headed for the door. At the door he met George and Phil. They had just
started a pump job and wanted the pump manual. Jack pointed them
toward the technical file, OEM section. He cautioned them to copy what
they needed if they found a manual. They should leave it on the table
when finished so he could put it on the right shelf later. Then he went
out the door.
Jack had no problem finding and scoping most of the jobs, but one
job was hard to find. Jack radioed the operations coordinator assigned
to help planning. He agreed to come to where Jack was to help. While
he waited a moment, Jack hoped the other jobs he had planned last
week were going smoothly. He knew the technicians or supervisors
would take care of any problems and give him feedback on the com-
pleted work orders to help future jobs.
Jack and the operations coordinator found the elusive job site. Jack
made a mental scope of the job and headed for the planner office. Once
there, he noticed Jim searching the files for bearing size information on
350 Epilogue
an unplanned job. Eventually, Jim called the manufacturer who was glad
to help. Jack asked Jim to make sure to write down the tolerances on
the work order so Jack could file it for future use. Even though Jack was
very adept at finding information, there were 20 technicians to sup-
port. From the very first days when they began establishing the files,
it made better sense for the supervisor and all the technicians to search
for information the first time they performed a job. Jack’s value added
was filing the information once found and then retrieving it to avoid
repeating a search. Over time, maintenance technicians usually
repeated jobs requiring the same information. The technicians under-
stood if they did not receive certain information on a job, that it was not
readily available. Then they would have to hunt for it themselves and
count on Jack to file it for the next time. Jack’s job existed to support
the field technicians and supervisors. He was able to give technicians a
head start on jobs from past information. He was able to give supervi-
sors time estimates and craft information to allow better job assignment.
After break, Jack sat down to write work plans for the jobs he had
scoped. He wrote the craft, time estimate, and objective of each job along
with parts information available from the file. He only had to consult
the storeroom catalog for two of them. He called the storeroom to reserve
parts for six jobs. He asked the purchaser to procure parts for the other
two jobs. Jack had completed plans for 62 hours of technician work. He
then chose another batch of eight work orders. Jack planned to check
the minifiles for these jobs and complete some of the field inspections
before lunch. That should allow him to finish the plans well before
break. Then he could plan a few more work orders and still have time
for reviewing and filing information from completed work orders before
the day ended. Maintenance seemed to be in a cycle where the infor-
mation from previous job plans and feedback made it easier to plan new
work orders more helpfully. It just seemed that everything was fine.
Appendix
A
Planning Is Just One Tool;
What Are the Other Tools Needed?
This appendix explains that planning is only a “tool” and where it fits
into the maintenance picture. Figure A.1 shows that while planning
does not solve everything by itself, planning has a special relationship
with the other areas of maintenance. Planning brings together, inte-
grates, and even drives many of the other aspects of maintenance. This
appendix identifies other necessary maintenance tools and their rela-
tionship to planning. Other tools needed include a work order system;
equipment data and history; leadership, management, communication,
and teamwork; qualified personnel; shops, tool rooms, and tools; store-
room support; process improvements; and maintenance measurement.
In addition, the chapter considers essential reliability maintenance con-
sisting of preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance, and project
maintenance. The intent of this chapter is not to be a complete hand-
book on its own for maintenance management. However, planning is
deeply integrated into most of the other aspects of maintenance.
Therefore, this appendix finds it worthwhile not only to identify these
other areas and their relationship to planning, but to illustrate common
opportunities for improvement within them as well.
A tool is a device or instrument that helps one accomplish a task more
easily. The tool is not an end unto itself. A mechanic uses a tool called a
wrench to fasten bolts. Just by purchasing a wrench and putting it into
a toolbox, a mechanic has not provided the employer any benefit from the
wrench. The employer benefits only when the mechanic uses the wrench
to fasten bolts during the alignment of a pump and the pump operates
without interruption to produce a product for sale. The tool (the wrench)
helps. On the other hand, what if the mechanic really prefers another
tool, the pipe bender? Even if the mechanic prefers the pipe bender, it is
the wrong tool for fastening bolts and the mechanic cannot use it for the
351

352 Appendix A
Planning is
not
“The silver bullet”
Figure A.1 Planning may not solve everything by
itself, but it certainly helps.
fastening part of the alignment procedure. If the wrench remains in the

toolbox during the alignment procedure, then the wrench itself is not help-
ful. On the other hand, if the mechanic pulls the wrench out of the tool-
box, this correct tool still may not be helpful. The mechanic may incorrectly
use the wrench to apply so much excess torque that the bolts fail. Then
the pump soon fails and interrupts production, and the employer does not
benefit. Another aspect of using a tool is that frequently a tool is not useful
by itself. A wrench may not be the only tool needed to align a pump. A laser
device or reverse dial indicator device helps the alignment job. Training
for the mechanic to know a lubricated bolt requires less torque to tighten
than a dry bolt also helps the alignment job. The mechanic must use each
tool correctly for its intended purposes to provide a benefit.
Similarly, planning is just a tool. One that the company can use cor-
rectly, use incorrectly, or simply leave in the toolbox and not use at all.
Neither does planning work in a vacuum once the maintenance man-
ager takes it from the toolbox. A maintenance organization does not “do
planning” simply because it is “committed to planning.” A company does
planning because it understands the intended purpose of planning. A
company then still must use the planning tool correctly to receive a
benefit. Using the planning tool incorrectly or for the wrong reason does
not contribute a tangible benefit to the maintenance organization.
Planning as a tool greatly depends on the other maintenance
resources. Planning exists as a methodology to use the rest of the main-
tenance department’s resources. Planning coordinates them together.
Consider a particular job to be done. The workforce consists of varied
crafts and skills. Planning connects the right craft and skill level to
this particular job. The storeroom has many parts. Planning connects
the right part to this particular job. The tool room has many special tools,
machines, and equipment. Planning connects the right special tool to
this particular job. The plant backlog has many jobs waiting. Planning
job scopes and time estimates allow scheduling this particular job at the
optimum time according to the other jobs in the priority order and
according to craft time available. Other jobs competing for assignment
may include preventive maintenance to reduce failures, projects to
lessen failures, or jobs recommended by predictive maintenance per-
sonnel to avoid failures. Management involvement ensures the use of
the planning process to integrate the other aspects of maintenance
Planning Is Just One Tool; What Are the Other Tools Needed? 353
rather than acceptance of the lower productivity and overall lower effec-
tiveness that would result from individual efforts not working together.
Planning works to coordinate all the other maintenance resources.
Because planning integrates the other plant resources, if the rest of
those resources exist either marginally or not at all, planning is not going
to be much help. Planning cannot coordinate things that do not exist.
For example, what good is a job plan identifying a certain part if the
storeroom does not carry that part and purchasing will not order it?
What good is a plan identifying job time estimates if crew supervisors
merely assign one job at a time expecting no timely completion? What
good is a plan identifying only minimal mechanical skill if the supervi-
sor assigns a highly skilled, certified welder? What good is a plan iden-
tifying certain gasket material if no equipment history file exists to tell
that this material has not held up well in the past? The various main-
tenance resources do not help maintenance if they are underutilized. The
planning methodology coordinates their utilization. The optimum uti-
lization of the maintenance resources yields superior maintenance per-
formance. However, first of all, these resources must exist.
The planning function can also help identify areas in the resources
that do exist, but are weak and need improvement. Planning can help
improve the weak areas because the planning function interacts with
them so much. For example, the planning personnel can help improve
a problematic purchasing process. Planning highlights the delays caused
by poor purchasing. Planning actually drives the improvement and uti-
lization of the other resources. This driving is not a by-product of the
planning function, it is one of the main values of planning. Coordination
is not merely information flow. Planning is not merely “Information
Central.” Planning is “Control Central.”
Why does planning have to drive these resources and processes? Could
not a manager exercise the same control? Indeed, a manager could per-
form these tasks of coordination. Even so, the coordination of the main-
tenance process to this extent demands a significant involvement in
the routine maintenance processes themselves. How many managers
would this take? Too many. In addition, the manager’s best position is
usually outside the routine processes. The manager ensures that the
processes are working. The manager typically should not be a part of
any process itself. On the other hand, planning deeply involves itself in
the maintenance processes. Planning is one of the manager’s best tools
because of its routine involvement to keep processes working. One of a
manager’s responsibilities is to provide control. The manager uses the
maintenance planning tool being “Control Central” to assist in this area
of responsibility.
Some maintenance improvement programs fail because they only
address certain areas and are not comprehensive enough to have a
bottom line impact. If many of the other aspects of maintenance exist
354 Appendix A
only marginally or not at all, the company must improve them. Simply
starting a planning program will not do by itself. Moreover, simply
improving one or two other areas by themselves may not help. For exam-
ple, it does no good to give technicians better hand tools if there are still
insufficient spare parts to utilize in the work. Consequently, there is lim-
ited improvement, but not great advance. That is why this chapter illus-
trates the existence of many common improvement opportunities.
Understanding that all the areas depend on each other also helps. The
essence of maintenance management manages continual improvement
in all the maintenance areas. Management can mount an aggressive
effort to improve system reliability simply by making a list of areas or
“tools” to improve. The tools are not complex; what management needs
is the desire to improve. Formally, maintenance could manage a program
through regular meetings of supervisors who were responsible for the
various aspects of the improvement program. A multifaceted mainte-
nance management improvement program ensures continued mainte-
nance effectiveness.
Several factors may hinder the improvement of the overall mainte-
nance program. First, any normal company not in obvious danger of
going out of business has probably developed a culture around the
status quo. Resistance to change is natural. Second, many companies
have witnessed trial-and-error approaches to maintenance improve-
ment. Management by fad has tried all the latest one-size-fits-all
maintenance programs. Third, be aware of the blind squirrel theory.
The blind squirrel theory is that even a blind squirrel finds a nut some-
times. Applied to maintenance this means just because the mainte-
nance program is doing something right, that does not mean that
the overall program is going in the right direction. Fourth, early successes
may hamper future improvement. As maintenance starts heading in
the right direction, there may be a feeling that the program “has
arrived.” Employees may resist further changes. Fifth, there is a cycle
in maintenance maturity. Mature programs have learned what needs
to be done and have implemented programs to accomplish those objectives.
However, as dependable equipment reliability becomes routine, there
is a tendency toward complacency. The company forgets the reasons
behind the current methods of doing maintenance. The company makes
ill-advised changes and a slide begins back toward the time when
equipment was not so reliable. “Tampering” makes changes to a pro-
gram without factual basis and could just as well be detrimental as
helpful. All of these factors may hinder the improvement of a mainte-
nance organization. Consequently, maintenance management must
be an intelligent force behind a comprehensive and continual devel-
opment of the maintenance program. Even in mature maintenance
organizations, management exerts effort to prevent drifting away from
success.
In improving an overall maintenance program, realize first that all

the areas must at least exist. It is more important to be doing the right
thing somewhat inefficiently than to be doing the wrong thing very
well. Maintenance organizations with great success do the right things.
Yet in spite of the progress and results so far, they discover the major-
ity of the areas within their programs have not yet achieved their poten-
tial. If effectiveness (doing the right thing) comes first, efficiency (doing
it the right way) can then be improved. There continues an upward
trend in availability of production capacity. The continued emphasis on
all of the elements of the program furthers the success as key areas
become fully implemented and mature. Make sure first that the right
key areas exist, then strive for efficiency.
How much does an area need to be improved? The potential of an area
may not necessarily be everything possible. Consider obtaining 80% of
the improvement possible out of any single area and then moving on to
the next area for attention. The last 20% may be beyond the point of
diminishing returns and not ever worth the effort to maximize its full
potential. Obtaining up to 80% in the next area to be addressed is over-
all worth more than going beyond 80% in the current area. The time to
address any of the remaining 20% may be after most of the areas are
near 80%. For example, first start using a work order form; later worry
about having the perfect work order form. First worry about having the
right parts in the storeroom; later worry about having too many parts
in the storeroom.
The basic planning tool has been described along with the general
importance of the other tools of maintenance. The following sections
describe other necessary maintenance tools and their relationship and
relative importance to planning. Other tools needed include a work
order system; equipment and history; leadership, management, com-
munication, and teamwork; qualified personnel; shops, tool rooms, and
tools; storeroom support; focus on improved work processes; and relia-
bility maintenance. Reliability maintenance consists of preventive main-
tenance, predictive maintenance, and project maintenance. Finally, the
necessary tool of maintenance metrics shows where the maintenance
program currently stands to guide improvements and to avoid losing
ground.
Work Order System

A work order system provides perhaps the most highly leveraged tool a
maintenance force can possess. This tool allows control of the mainte-
nance work.
A work order system is merely a formal method of requesting and
recording work done in the plant. In its simplest form, someone who
356 Appendix A
wants some specific maintenance work performed fills out a specific

document. The person turns that document over to the maintenance
group who then uses the document to keep track of the work through
its execution. The document is known as the work order form and the
process of how the document is used is the work order system. As a
system becomes more developed, the document itself may exist only on
the computer and the work order itself is the identification of the work.
This book generally uses the term work order to refer to the identifi-
cation of the work whether or not an actual physical paper document is
involved and whether or not the work has been approved for execution.
Some plants call the first identification of the work desired a work
request. These plants use the term work order to describe work that the
proper authority has approved or authorized for execution. In these
plants a work request becomes a work order after some management or
supervisory level agrees to perform the work. The work is first
“requested,” then the work is “ordered.” Normally anyone may request
work be done, but only certain persons can agree to perform the work.
Usually a plant uses the same document for the work request as for the
work order, the difference being the application of the required approval.
Why is the work order system so important? Think about a typical
maintenance supervisor with eight maintenance technicians. Every day
each of these technicians might complete two or three maintenance
tasks. The entire crew might complete 40 to 60 work assignments in a
5-day week. The supervisor’s crew handles a lot of work items. First,
without a prescribed method to receive the work requests, the supervi-
sor receives requests for work through a myriad of communications.
They might include phone calls, emails, verbal discussions, yellow sticky
notes, and notes jotted on envelopes at best. They might include mental
imaginings at worst. Many persons needing work just presume or imag-
ine that the crew supervisor knows everything that the plant needs.
Second, after receiving all manner of requests, the supervisor must con-
sider what work the plant has actually authorized and which work the
crew should complete ahead of other work. Third, the supervisor must
take the work selected for that week or that day and assign it to crew
members. Finally, the supervisor must track the work for proper com-
pletion. A standardized work order system provides the documentation
of all identified work to allow control in managing maintenance work.
The work order system reduces confusion by standardizing how persons
in the plant should request work. The work order form (or computer
screen) also facilitates receiving desirable information by setting forth
questions to be answered by the work requester. In addition to a descrip-
tion of the work requested, the work order form may request identifi-
cation of equipment, location, and a statement of importance or
suggested priority. With a consistent manner of identifying plant work,
management can also set up a method of authorizing individual work
requests instead of just having general guidelines. If desired, manage-

ment or the appropriate level of authority can review work orders before
giving authorization. A paper work order form also allows the supervi-
sor to have a tangible handle on the workload and physically to hand
out assignments consistently. (The supervisor can also similarly manage
a computer listing of the work. The important consideration is that the
work order system consistently documents all the work.) Each crew
member becomes responsible for an assigned number of work orders.
The supervisor can conceptualize and control the work. After comple-
tion of a work order, maintenance can send a copy to notify the requester
of work completion. Maintenance can file the original paper document
if not kept as a computer record. The primary need for a formal work
order system is simply to allow better control of the process of accom-
plishing work.
If maintenance initially does not persuade the plant to use a work
order system, the maintenance department should record each instance
of work requested onto a work order document of its own and use it
within the maintenance department.
In addition to helping the plant identify, keep track of, and manage
the execution of work, the work order system has many other important
values. The work order system facilitates keeping equipment histories,
tracking cost, analyzing, and planning and scheduling maintenance
work.
The work order documents (whether on paper or in the computer)
assist keeping useful equipment histories and tracking cost. Maintenance
can simply keep the paper forms in different files for different pieces of
plant equipment. Equipment history is important for a number of rea-
sons. History tells how reliable individual equipment is. History tells
how individual equipment has failed in the past. History tells what
parts maintenance used in the past. History tells who worked on the
equipment. The work order system also allows tracking the cost of indi-
vidual maintenance tasks. The recording of parts and labor as well as
plant down time allows telling how much a piece of equipment cost
the plant. Maintenance must include monetary cost in discussions
with management for that is the language of higher management,
bottom line cost. How many times have engineers or maintenance super-
visors been turned down in their quests to replace older equipment with
newer equipment simply because there is no cost data? These persons
use statements such as “Pump XYZ really hurts us and we need to
spend $5000 on a new pump” or “Trust us” to request newer equipment.
Management frequently must turn them down when allocating scarce
renewal funds. Instead, tracking maintenance and cost allows person-
nel to state that “Pump XYZ has cost $11,000 over the past 2 years in
maintenance as well as $20,000 in lost production revenue. The fluid
drive causes the primary problems. We could invest $5000 in a new
358 Appendix A
transmission and eliminate this recurring expense.” Maintenance per-

sonnel must factor cost into equipment decisions. If one does not know
how much it cost to work on a piece of equipment in the past, one cannot
determine the best economic decision of whether maintenance should
repair or replace it in the future. One cannot arrive at the cost without
work orders. Maintenance is an investment in equipment reliability.
Tracking equipment maintenance and cost with a work order system
allows determination and communication of wise investments of main-
tenance funds.
Analyzing maintenance work involves a variety of actions and ben-
efits for the plant. A formal work order system makes coding work
orders easy for a number of purposes. The plant can determine how
much work it spends on reactive tasks rather than on preventive-type
maintenance work. The plant can determine how many work orders
are in a backlog, perhaps divided by craft or crew. The plant can deter-
mine how many work orders operating crews write versus mainte-
nance crews. The plant can determine how long work averages staying
in the backlog before completion. The plant can also use codes to facil-
itate completing the right work. Status codes assist in sorting out
work ready for assignment or work already completed. Status codes
can also tell what completed work still needs as-builts. Priority codes
assist sorting work to keep less serious work from interrupting more
important maintenance. Outage codes allow the selection of jobs to
work during periods when the plant is in an outage condition.
Equipment codes allow the sorting of work by plant or plant process.
These codes help ensure assigning all the available work during the
maintenance of a particular system. They also allow analysis of what
type of work maintenance has already performed on a particular
system. A formal work order system lends itself easily to many types
of analysis. The consistency of the process of handling maintenance
work lends itself to coding the work orders.
Beyond facilitating the management of the day-to-day work, tracking
history and cost, and allowing other analysis of maintenance work, a
work order system is the vehicle that allows maintenance planning and
scheduling. Planning and scheduling are almost entirely dependent on
having a controlled work order process. In a simple paper system, plan-
ners write maintenance plans onto (or attached to) the written work
requests. Maintenance schedules consist of grouping the planned work
orders into blocks of assigned work. In this respect, maintenance plan-
ning and scheduling are subsets of a formal work order process. In
another respect, planning controls the overall work order system.
Planning processes the work orders. Planning coordinates work order
coding and authorization. With a paper system, the planning group files
work order history and data into equipment files and then checks file
information on new jobs. Planning would also be responsible for ensuring
the supply of the work order forms themselves. With any computeriza-
tion of maintenance, planning would also guide the development and be
the major users of the system. The statement that planning is second
only to a work order system in its leverage of the maintenance force
revolves around the fact that planning could not exist without a work
order system.
The intent of this book is to develop the concept and details of main-
tenance planning and scheduling. Nevertheless, the maintenance work
order system is so intimately related that this section presents several
pertinent details of a desirable work order system. In addition, App. J
presents a sample plant work order manual with example forms and
codes.
First, “No work order, no work.” If the plant performs the prepon-
derance or even much of maintenance work without work orders or on
blanket work orders, there is inadequate control of maintenance. For all
of the reasons above, the plant must document work. Make it known that
maintenance must do all work on work orders, but be flexible. Try not
to discourage work from being requested. Accept only 80% of the work
being on work orders depending on the initial resistance or effort
involved in ensuring compliance. Organizational discipline varies from
plant to plant. Document emergency work on work orders after the fact.
Discourage informal requests, but help people to write work orders.
Second, limit each work order to a single piece of equipment where
possible because of the intent to file the work order to provide history
and data for a single piece of equipment. If someone writes one work
order to rebuild all the control valves in the plant, one has to weigh the
convenience of a single work order against not having specific valve
history. Planners may have to split up multiple equipment work orders
after receiving them.
Third, work orders should be written to request work, not just docu-
ment work already completed. (It may seem needless to mention this.)
The work order documents the proper execution of work, but the work
order also identifies work at the outset of the process of requesting
work. The work order system via the work order facilitates the effective
and efficient use of the plant maintenance resources.
Fourth, there are two schools of thought on recording action taken
during the execution of a job. One school holds that the job should be
executed as planned so that no comments are needed. Deviations should
be approved by planning in advance and the plan reworked where
needed. This book holds to a second school of thought where the tech-
nicians are greatly empowered to use their skill and training to accom-
plish a job as necessary. Plans only offer general job scopes counting on
the skill of the technicians. Therefore, job comments on action taken are
mandatory for adequate file information. These comments are part of
the work order form. This methodology may not be suited for certain
360 Appendix A
industries such as those with extreme regulation, but it is further dis-

cussed as one of the planning principles in Chap. 2.
Fifth, deficiency tags greatly improve the efficiency of the work order
system and planning. The requester hangs a deficiency tag on the equip-
ment needing service. The deficiency tags help for several reasons. Once
equipment has a deficiency tag, other persons know someone else has
already written a work order. The presence of the tag avoids someone
writing a duplicate work order. The absence of a tag would indicate
that no one had yet written a work order. Another reason is that the defi-
ciency tag cautions potential users of the equipment of a certain condi-
tion. The most useful reason of a tag to planning is that it helps the
planner and the maintenance technician find the equipment. Many
plants have instances where the maintenance crew serviced the wrong
equipment due to faulty identification. The deficiency tag helps reduce
the potential for this problem as well as speeding up service by reduc-
ing search or question-the-operator time. The hanging deficiency tag
may also help find the specific work order number if there is a cross ref-
erence from the deficiency tag number being entered into a computer
work order data field.
Although a formal work order system appears to be merely a method
of documenting maintenance work, it is one of the most important tools
because it allows precise control of the maintenance process. A mainte-
nance work order system is also the vehicle that allows maintenance
planning.
Equipment Data and History

Having equipment information is a necessary tool for effective mainte-
nance. Equipment information as a tool is basically the existence of
plant equipment files. This tool helps the plant base the proper main-
tenance required on knowledge rather than on memory or trial and
error. This knowledge comes from recording and referencing equipment
data or specifications and the result of previous maintenance actions.
The amount of equipment information available to maintenance per-
sonnel varies greatly from plant to plant. The absolute minimum that
a plant would have in the way of information would be the equipment
nameplate data attached by the original manufacturers. At the other end
of the spectrum would be plants with comprehensive libraries or docu-
ment control sections. One would go to counter and check out necessary
reference material through a librarian or clerk.
Beyond the minimum of equipment nameplates, many plants have
equipment manuals from the manufacturers sitting on shelves or
in file cabinets in supervisors’ offices. The supervisors may have the
original bid specifications and purchase orders detailing the original
equipment specifications as well. The next step higher in available

information would be the storing of work orders showing past main-
tenance performed on equipment. Many plants have computer data-
bases with technical equipment data and work order history. Whether
the plant relies on computer databases or paper hard copy, the plant
should make use of both equipment technical data and maintenance
work order history.
Some plants have either equipment files with no work order history
or work order history with no equipment files. In the first situation,
supervisors or technicians consult equipment manuals or equipment
specifications as needed. Yet without a work order system, there is insuf-
ficient record of past maintenance performed on the equipment. When
was the last time maintenance changed the oil? Does the technician real-
ize that engineering had a new style impeller installed last year?
Maintenance needs this information to plan properly for the correct
maintenance actions for the present and future. These plants may
use a work order system to manage ongoing work, but they do not file
work orders after job completion. Every job is a new job, not referenc-
ing lessons learned from the past. On the other hand, in the second sit-
uation where the files collect only work order history, maintenance slows
down continually to consult the field nameplates or call vendors to check
on equipment details. Many vendors and sales representatives keep
their own databases and records of equipment their customers own.
In many cases the vendors maintain better records than does the
plant, and the vendors greatly assist in decision making regarding
plant maintenance.
A plant that has maintenance planning uses the planning depart-
ment to operate the plant filing system. Maintenance planning uses
equipment files to review equipment technical details and to review
past maintenance performed to guide new strategies. If a valve keeps
failing, perhaps planning should consult engineering for a new material.
If unexpected safety concerns delayed a previous job, those concerns can
be anticipated this time. After job completion, the maintenance planner
files feedback from the field. The maintenance planner essentially
becomes a file clerk for the crew. Because of the importance of the rela-
tionship between the plant files and planning, one of the principles of
planning (Principle 3) in the following chapter addresses files. Chapter 7
and App. M also address the files.
Plant files whether electronic or paper should collect work order his-
tory, nameplate data, technical specifications, parts lists, manufacturer
and vendor contacts, and correspondence. Work orders should include all
work done on the equipment. Field technicians must include feedback
stating exactly what they did and what parts they used. Technical spec-
ifications usually come from engineering and project groups when they
362 Appendix A
purchase new equipment. In addition, engineering and project groups

must understand the importance to procure and deliver as-builts and
equipment manuals. Where the plant has previously kept poor records,
the plant can begin collecting equipment specifications and data from
manufacturers or when the specifications and data are otherwise dis-
covered or uncovered during the maintenance of the equipment.
Proper maintenance uses the important tool of equipment informa-
tion. Equipment data and history do not necessarily require a computer
database, but the maintenance group needs records. Records become
helpful only when they are created, maintained, and consulted. Planning
makes the most of this vital area.
Leadership, Management, Communication,

Teamwork (Incentive Programs)
Rather than distinguish the differences between leadership and man-
agement or dwell on whether or not they are actually tools, the point
must be made that leadership and management greatly affect the suc-
cess of maintenance. These intangible tools are of great importance in
achieving the goal of superior plant reliability.
Leadership and management go hand in hand. Leadership must intro-
duce the proper strategies of maintenance. Management intelligently
provides for ongoing maintenance programs. Leadership is concerned
with whether management or key leaders in the organization will under-
stand and make the correct strategic decisions directing the entire main-
tenance focus. Leadership then motivates the organization to support
the decisions. Leadership addresses these questions: Will planning be
initiated as a group? Will the company implement predictive mainte-
nance techniques? Management is more the ongoing stewardship of the
selected processes.
Plant management must be interested in maintenance as a central
part of company operations rather than as a necessary evil. Beyond
having simple intelligence, does the maintenance manager really
understand maintenance? Management of maintenance must extend
beyond fixing things as soon as they break and be interested in advanc-
ing the way in which maintenance operates. This effort requires intel-
ligent, dedicated, and active maintenance managers. The maintenance
process must be managed. At stake is the capacity that the plant oper-
ates. Providing capacity is the maintenance mission; simple repair
effort does not result in plant reliability. Can the maintenance man-
ager speak the language of company profit in terms of finance and
maintenance investment? Can the maintenance manager explain the
job of maintenance? “Work harder” does not cut it.
With leadership and management in mind, maintenance success needs
management commitment and organizational discipline. Management
must sincerely and actively desire particular aspects of maintenance to

succeed. Management must recognize and deal with elements in the
organization not supporting those aspects.
Eleanor Kelley (1993) makes an excellent point about what makes a
computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) project work
that applies to almost any project or program. The company simply
needs two white knights. One white knight is a corporate manager. This
white knight comes to the plant asking questions and expecting answers.
How many hours do crews spend on planned jobs? How many planners
were put in place? The second white knight is a person in a key plant
position. This white knight honestly believes in the new program enough
to do the leg work to make it happen.
In the case of planning, someone high enough must insist planning hap-
pens. A corporate manager might drive the program and ensure that the
plant places a capable person as planning supervisor. Alternately, for a
plant not needing a planning supervisor, a plant manager makes sure a
competent planner is in place. A maintenance manager could also make
sure a competent planner was in place. However, planning requires a com-
mitment to change the momentum and culture of the current way of doing
business. Planning involves organizational changes including new posi-
tions. Sometimes plant level managers resist initiating change because
they feel corporate management above them expects a certain status quo.
Plant level management may be reluctant to expend the energy to create
a planning function. Will upper management support or even understand
the changes? Upper management will definitely understand if upper man-
agement drives the changes. The higher position the top person pushing
occupies, the easier becomes the start of planning. On the other hand, while
corporate management support is desirable, it is more common to have
superior plants than to have superior corporations in terms of effective
maintenance. This means that the practice of maintenance involves cru-
cial attention to details difficult to establish corporation-wide.
The importance of details makes the second white knight that much
more important for any maintenance program. There must be at the
plant level someone with the energy, time, and freedom to make a pro-
gram work. This could be the enlightened maintenance manager, but
more often it is a person doing the work who really believes. This person
must also have the proper understanding of the program’s intent. If the
program in question is predictive maintenance, will the assigned person
be free to procure the right tools and have the authority to interact with
the equipment and crews? Perhaps the first white knight will give actual
authority. In the case of planning, the planners themselves or the key
person directing the planners must be empowered to make it happen.
Management commitment also calls for organizational discipline.
Along with the responsibility for making maintenance progress, man-
agement has the authority. In exercising authority, management and
364 Appendix A
leadership must capably deal with issues such as active resistance to

change, indifference, and vicious compliance. Organizational discipline
comprises the willingness of the maintenance personnel to comply with
the direction set forth by management. Management must lead the
changes and not accept contrary behavior undermining the integrity of
any maintenance program. This is especially important for mainte-
nance planning where the workforce may not clearly perceive the mis-
sion. For example, the planning function sometimes becomes the
scapegoat for nonperforming maintenance crews. The crews might com-
plain that the planners do not deliver good technical information from
the files, but in reality the crews do not give good job feedback to help
the planners accumulate good file information. Not only must manage-
ment understand how the process works, management must take cor-
rective action at the proper points of leverage. Management must insist
on proper job feedback to develop files. Management must insist on
high crew productivity and use maintenance planning as a tool to go
there. Management must insist on everyone being “on the same page,”
which is organizational discipline.
A final note on management commitment: Management must be able
to support a concept through to implementation. Even with pilot pro-
grams, management usually does not have the luxury of waiting to see
something first work in practice. Management must look ahead and
determine what processes or changes they must bring into existence. If
management does not wholeheartedly support a program or change
until it is working well, it will never work well.
Leadership and management vitally affect maintenance overall, as well
as any individual aspect of maintenance. Management commitment and
organizational discipline are elements of leadership and management.
Communication is another aspect of maintenance closely related to

leadership and management. A maintenance organization takes a big
step forward when it realizes that it has room for improvement and
that everyone can help.
Peter Senge (1990) states that “when people in an organization come
collectively to recognize that nobody has the answers, it liberates the
organization in a remarkable way.” Managers must let their employees
participate.
Plants need to reduce the problem of communication being restricted
to the chain of command. Supervisors generally tend to resolve problems
based on their own personal experience, which limits the opportunity
for information sharing and innovative solutions. While decisions should
be made through the chain of command, “everyone should be talking to
everyone” to share information and ideas. The company vision should
be to produce and sell a product to make money for everyone in the
company. The maintenance vision should be to keep high availability for
production capacity to make the product. The maintenance vision should

not be: “Managers are smarter than supervisors who are smarter than
technicians. I hope I can be promoted up the chain.” If this is not the
stated vision, is it what everyone is practicing or thinking? Plant and
corporate management contribute to the success of open communication
by frequently touring the work areas and holding open exchanges of
ideas and information with the maintenance crews. Managers should
frankly tie discussions to the corporate vision: “That’s a valid idea, but
it might not apply here because what we are trying to do is this… .” One
of the main aspects of these exchanges should be a focus on quality. The
overall indicator of maintenance quality is availability to run at capacity
and produce product. Management contributes to the effectiveness of
open communication to improve the maintenance organization.
Another aspect of communication is the reflection of teamwork in the
plant’s terminology. Is there really teamwork or does everyone use the
terms “we” versus “them”?
Teamwork helps the plant accomplish effective maintenance.

Management must bring resources together even as it is empowering
and giving ownership to the workforce. The true coordination by man-
agement has specialized groups working effectively together.
One of the greatest tools to encourage teamwork and communication
is the use of common incentive programs. Incentive programs can pull
a team together.
Shared incentive programs give a common reward to everyone
whether it is a common actual dollar value or a common percentage of
salaries and wages. For example, one company gives an annual wage
bonus of up to 5% to everyone. The company bases the bonus on achiev-
ing certain levels of plant availability, unit efficiency, safety, and dollars
spent on operation and maintenance. If the targets achieved totaled up
to, say, 4%, everyone would receive an additional check equaling 4% of
their last year’s wages. The incentive program made a significant effect
on the communication within the workforce. Operations became less sat-
isfied operating whatever was available and actively worked with main-
tenance to increase unit availability. Maintenance became less prone to
suggest that operations did not care about the equipment. The groups
came much closer together through focusing on a common language, the
incentive program. The terminology became “How can we earn more
bonus?” rather than “When will you fix it for us?”
Some companies feel that bonus plans reflect an improper attitude on
the part of the employees or an ineptitude on the part of the managers.
After all, are not these employees being paid already to do the best they
can? Well, yes and no. Yes, the employees are being paid to do the best
they can. No, they may not be doing the best they can regardless of the
best of cultures. Shared incentive programs have improved performance
366 Appendix A
even in companies already working well and having capable employees

and managers. Profit sharing and employee stock ownership are simi-
lar aids.
Two reasons that incentive programs work is they take attention off
the clock and direct it toward the goals of the company. Many mainte-
nance employees actually think they are paid for the hours worked. In
reality, the only reason they are paid at all is they perform maintenance
so the plant may produce a product for sale. It is impractical in many
companies to tie pay to piece work directly, that is, to pay for how many
pieces or items of work an employee performs. There is also a serious
quality issue if employees become excessively fixated on production or
quotas. Nevertheless, a company can tie some compensation directly to
overall goals. Employees not only generate some additional interest in
the well being of the company as a whole, they may also come to real-
ize how their jobs fit into the overall company vision. For example, one
manager learned that a project engineer honestly did not know his job
was related to availability, efficiency, safety, and cost at the plants. The
manager discovered this when the manager first explained the overall,
shared incentive program.
Some considerations to make in an incentive program are who receives
a bonus, how tough are the goals, how constant are the goals, how much
is the potential reward, how pertinent are the goals, and how easy are
they to understand.
As previously mentioned, incentive rewards should be shared. It
seems that in pushing for an incentive program, if the ones pushing for
the bonus system exclude their own level and higher from reward, the
program may be more acceptable to implement. If the very top, profes-
sional, corporate management pushed for installing the incentive pro-
gram, everyone under them would benefit, but not they themselves. If
the plant manager pushed for the program, everyone under the plant
manager would benefit. The question to ask is: Which levels need a pro-
gram to encourage them to work better and work better together? The
persons above the highest of these levels should push for the program.
The CEO of one company implemented a program and is the sole
member of the company not to receive a bonus from it. Under the level
of the person who set the program in place, everyone should both receive
a portion and should feel there is an equitable division of the rewards.
If the program only rewarded the managers, the employees would feel
slighted. The result of implementing a program that rewards only man-
agers might be to make rank and file employees even less productive.
Some companies may have a steady stream of promotion into manage-
ment, where the benefits of becoming a manager encourage rank and
file employees to work more productively and cooperatively. However,
many companies with a stable workforce and infrequent promotion
opportunities would do well to consider a bonus program with more
immediate rewards. In some companies, only the rank and file employ-
ees receive a share in a specific incentive program. The managers may
be considered already well enough compensated, more professional in
seeking improvement, or part of another bonus plan. These arrange-
ments are counterproductive. The goal of the incentive plan itself is to
provide a common focus or language. The managers need to be able to
say “we” and be included just as much as any operations or maintenance
group. Both the work and the coordination of the work are equally
important. Managers and rank and file should share in the company’s
success under a common incentive program.
The toughness of the goals may influence whether behavior really
changes. If the goals are too easy, they will encourage entitlement.
Employees will expect the bonus every year and behavior will not
change. Only in an unusual year does the plant not achieve the goal.
Then everyone is upset. The results are no behavior change, extra cost
for the program, and the potential of upsetting employees who count on
the money. If the goals are too difficult, there will also be no effect on
behavior as employees consider the goals unreachable. There may be
frustration and mistrust of management ineptitude for such goal set-
ting from ivory towers. On the other hand, stretch goals may encourage
the workforce and provide a return for the company. Communication and
education may also inform everyone what is or is not achievable. Some
of the best of these type goals provide a target range where some
improvement will result in some reward and great improvement will
result in great reward. For example, if current annual plant availabil-
ity has averaged about 85%, the program might set an initial level of
reward at achieving 88% and additional levels of rewards at 90%, 92%,
and 94%. Rewarding at initial levels, but allowing the reward to increase
as behavior stretches, encourages employees to keep going.
Goals that always change cause much frustration with an incentive
program. Every time employees achieve a goal, the company changes
and sets the goal higher. The company feels that the correct behavior
has been taught, employees have been shown the way, and higher chal-
lenge is needed. Consider instead a challenging set of goals that may
take about 5 years to achieve. By rewarding initial levels to these goals
as suggested above, employees have a continued interest in chasing a
fixed target that does not appear to waver. The company may decide the
real goal is, say, 94% plant availability and that reaching this goal in
5 years would be a significant achievement. The plant would set in
place a constant 5-year goal of 94%, but allow some reward at levels of
88%, 90%, and 92%. If the plant stretches and achieves 94% the very
first year of the program, that is great! Keep the goals in place to demon-
strate management commitment to promises, sharing the success of
the company, and assurance of 94% or better each year. Then after the
5 years, study the situation and set new 5-year targets. Keep in mind
368 Appendix A
that setting a single year target of 94% may convince employees the goal
is too hard. Setting a single target of 88% may cause frustration from
later endless goal changing. Keep the same goals and pay-out formula
(percentage of salary, etc.) for several years at a time.
Several guidelines for the value of the reward may be given. First,
consider how much any improvement is worth. How much is a 5%
improvement in availability worth to the company? How much would
the value of the company increase as a result of achieving specific
levels of the goals? How much would the company’s profit increase? Try
to base the reward to the employees on a percentage of this amount.
It is not unreasonable to think of the bonus paid to the employees as
a finder’s fee for the big company profit. Also consider how realistic the
profit or savings for the company would be. Are the numbers certain
or very indefinite? It is not unreasonable to suppose if the company
were sure to realize a $10 million windfall every year of the improved
maintenance, that the company would want to hand out $1 million in
bonuses. The company should be pleased at the prospect of being able
to hand out $1 million every year after earning an extra $10 million.
Second, the amount of money that motivates any particular individ-
ual varies. Rewards do not even have to be monetary. However, money
allows an individual to purchase something that truly suits that indi-
vidual. No company gift catalog program comes close to that ability.
Consider beyond the $100 to $200 range. Consider a maximum bonus
of 5% of one’s salary or more. Some companies routinely give annual
bonuses equaling 1 or 2 months’ salary. On the other hand, these latter
companies may base the bonuses upon the overall profitability of the
company without specific goals or formulas. Also, if the pay out is rou-
tine, there may be less effect on behavior modification. Third, the goals
should be specific and the goal formulas should be set so the employ-
ees feel the security of knowing better how much their additional
efforts will pay back. The company should decide how much they are
willing to pay before the 5-year cycle starts, not after the employees
meet the goal. Fourth, the arrangement of the goals into levels of pay
off raises interest even when the employees have not fully met the goal.
A small bonus gives a taste of extra money without working extra
hours and makes one think about achieving the higher levels in the
coming year. Fifth, do not structure a new program to replace exist-
ing wages or take the place of raises that the company would obviously
have otherwise given. Clearly relate the incentive program to extra
effort. The company is willing to pay extra for levels of performance
not commonly achieved.
Consider next the pertinence and clarity of the goals. First, a perti-
nent goal would be a goal related to one’s work and also one that makes
a big difference in the company. Yet remembering that shared goals are
desired, the goal should not be one that only a few persons can affect.
For instance, the annual purchase cost of fuel may greatly affect the
bottom line of the company, but only a few persons might handle the fuel
buying process. Another problem with such a goal is that the cost of an
item such as fuel may even greatly depend on events outside the con-
trol of anyone in the company. In contrast, if the goal involves through-
put or labor hours per unit product, most of the plant employees realize
they have an effect. Overall operations and maintenance nonfuel cost,
overall plant capacity, plant availability, plant efficiency, and safe hours
worked give examples of possible goal areas that might be both perti-
nent and shared for most of the workforce. Second, clear goals would be
easy to keep up with and understand. At most a company should con-
ceive of only having four or five goals in an incentive program. Having
too many goals might simply make everyone just want to work harder
in general rather than think about the specific areas of concern. The pro-
gram ought to give regular feedback on how the effort is coming along
and if things kept up as they are going, how much would be the reward.
What areas could be better and why? What areas are fine and why?
What specific things could we do or do better? Clarity also might have
an opposing element to pertinence. Relating a goal to a general overall
indicator may be more understandable to most plant persons than some
specific, precisely measured, maintenance indicator that is technically
superior. For example, tracking the overall number of unit trips may be
more clear than tracking trips of large units over 100 MW during peak
seasons when backup generators are unavailable. True, the latter meas-
ure may have a larger effect on the company bottom line. Nevertheless,
working toward the former measure with a bit of common sense on the
part of management may provide the same overall results and be much
easier to keep up with and understand.
Remember that a properly structured incentive program may greatly
assist plant management in bringing everyone together as a team to
accept change and improvements in a maintenance program.
Planning most decidedly causes major changes in the maintenance

process. Because of natural resistance to change, the implementation
of planning requires organizational discipline coming from manage-
ment commitment. Good leadership and communication help make
changes more acceptable. Working together as a team toward a new chal-
lenge set forth by an incentive program may also make change more
acceptable.
Qualified Personnel
Another critical aspect of maintenance is having qualified persons to
perform the maintenance. All the organizing and managing in the
world will not help if the plant utilizes mechanics not possessing the
370 Appendix A
necessary skills to accomplish the work. Maintenance planning will not

help if there is no one to plan for or if the workforce lacks proficient
craft skills. How many persons of each craft are necessary? How should
they be hired? How much training should they need? How about mul-
ticraft jobs? How about ongoing training for experienced technicians
and supervisors? A superior maintenance program addresses these
areas.
Management allocates human resources as one of its most impor-
tant jobs. Management must provide enough qualified personnel
resources to perform maintenance. This statement applies to com-
pany managers if the company performs its own maintenance or to
the managers of a maintenance management company contracted to
perform maintenance. Management needs to know how many persons
are necessary and hire or develop the necessary skills in the persons
utilized.
One key value of a work order system earlier discussed is in identi-
fying work needs. Planning then transforms that work backlog into
work hour estimates for particular craft skills. Having a handle on how
much work exists in a demonstrable form, the work orders and plans,
allows managers to determine precise labor needs. If the work load nor-
mally consists of 80 hours of electrical work, the work load could sup-
port two electricians. However, plants that do not have even a work
order system would have to wonder if they had enough work to keep an
electrician or two busy. If their two electricians stay busy but are not
working on work orders, it is fair for higher management to consider if
only one electrician might be able to handle the work load. Many plants
have their personnel resources outright stripped away by corporate
management that sees no visible backlog of work or record of work com-
pleted. These plants use a handful of blanket work orders if they use any
work orders at all to maintain the entire plants. After losing a workforce
through being unable to prove a work backlog, these plants suffer. Lack
of work documentation cripples management’s ability to manage the
quantity of craftpersons. Right or wrong, management sees labor needs
through a visible work order backlog, especially when planned with
labor hour estimates. Plant management can thereby intelligently deter-
mine which work the maintenance group should perform and use that
as a basis to determine labor needs.
Management invests in plant capacity by providing sufficient, qual-
ified maintenance persons. Management can make a poor investment
by not providing enough persons to maintain the plant and capacity suf-
fers. Management can also make a poor investment by providing more
persons than are needed to maintain the plant. The plant may preserve
capacity at excessive cost because personnel are very expensive.
Management’s first responsibility is to provide sufficient personnel to
run a maintenance operation, but these persons must also be qualified.
Management must have the proper persons in place. Managers

must spend time putting the right persons into place. Putting the
right persons in the right places sounds like obvious good practice, but
many times managers attempt to legislate their way to success. The
real world sees this problem frequently. Managers quickly hire or
shuffle persons from crew to crew, reorganizing overnight; then they
will spend the entire next year overusing rules and procedures to try
and make the wrong persons perform the way the managers want.
Managers want to get the personnel placement quickly out of the way
so they can go back to their “real” job of making it work. These man-
agers should realize that their real job is the allocation of resources,
not just the direction of a set workforce. Different persons have dif-
ferent talents. Managers must spend time before hiring persons and
before reorganizing persons. Managers must spend time training and
assisting persons become the best persons they can become in any par-
ticular position. Qualified persons in the places they belong can accept
empowerment and help the organization succeed.
Classification
Different companies train and classify their personnel in very diverse
ways. For the sake of illustration, this book considers a workforce con-
sisting of mechanics, welders, machinists, painters, electricians, and
instrument and controls (I&C) technicians. This book calls all of the pre-
ceding craftpersons as “technicians” or “techs” for the purposes of gen-
eral discussion. Furthermore, the workforce includes apprentices and
trainees for each of the above classifications. Apprentices are generally
less skilled than the technicians themselves and trainees even less so.
Apprentices and trainees generally do not become assigned to jobs by
themselves such as jobs requiring only a nominal skill level. Apprentices
and trainees go as helpers with technicians so they can learn their
crafts. This conceptualization of the crafts in the workforce helps the dis-
cussion to address the pertinent aspects of maintenance and the prin-
ciples of planning. Maintenance planning activities would use the
established classifications in a specific company to communicate the
skills necessary to execute work.
This book uses also the terms workforce, labor, craftpersons, main-
tenance personnel, field technicians, and technicians interchangeably.
In general, the use of one of these terms refers to the actual persons
doing the hands-on work of maintenance. It is these persons who would
receive and execute planned and scheduled job assignments. The sched-
uling sections of this book, especially Chaps. 3 and 6, make a greater
distinction of actual classifications.
Crew supervisors are also giving way in industry to crew leaders. This
signifies the adoption of an approach away from looking over shoulders
372 Appendix A
to an emphasis on coaching and motivating. So this book uses the terms

crew supervisor and crew leader interchangeably as well.
Hiring
Hiring employees with high potential for achievement begins the
process of having qualified employees. Management must put consid-
erable thought behind the overall process of hiring. Management must
understand what skills the maintenance group needs in order to assess
the potential of job applicants. For example, do the maintenance tasks
require reading and comprehension skills to allow job plans to be used?
Then management must have a sufficient number of applicants from
which to choose. Are the wages and benefits sufficient to attract appli-
cants with sufficient potential to succeed? If a company needs to hire
for 14 positions and only has 14 applicants, this could be a sign of
trouble. One company advertised for a class of new apprentices and had
over 1000 applicants for a handful of positions. This company was
able to be quite selective in the process of hiring. Because of the impor-
tance of not rushing the hiring practice, a company might anticipate
ahead of plant expansions and gradually staff up as applicants with
enough potential become known. Sometimes a company might run
lean and not hire when applicants simply are unqualified. A company
might make use of some contract or temporary personnel to assess abil-
ities before hiring someone. Hiring the wrong persons costs a com-
pany dearly from the standpoint of wasted effort in hiring and training
only to end up with an unqualified technician to meet company needs.
Management must carefully handle hiring to acquire only candidates
that have the potential and ability to succeed.
Training
Keith Mobley (1997) says it is not unusual, but typical, that employees
do not have sufficient experience, skills, or tools to do their jobs. The
actual training most employers provide is primarily dedicated to manda-
tory training required by government agencies such as OSHA.
Training time takes time away from maintaining equipment.
Nevertheless, state-of-the-art science and engineering continually
places new equipment in the production loop. Training programs qual-
ify employees for maintaining them. Just as management keeps equip-
ment from becoming out of date and obsolete, management must
update the skills of human assets correspondingly. Mechanics, elec-
tricians, and I&C persons must keep abreast of new technology as
new materials are developed and applied. For example, manufactur-
ers are integrating electronic sensors into even the most basic of
mechanical machines. Attrition also replaces experienced persons with
new hires that may not yet have the necessary skills. Management
must make continuing investments in training time to maintain the

workforce itself. A workforce without the skills necessary to maintain
equipment properly does not keep plant capacity very reliable. The goal
of maintenance is to provide reliable plant capacity, not simply to pro-
vide an available workforce.
Not only does training improve the skills, it improves the coordination
of the specialized workforce. Training goes hand in hand with commu-
nication. Joe Spielman (1997) of General Motors says that often a surly,
uncooperative technician is someone whose skills the company has
allowed to become outdated. Persons must have the skills if the company
expects them to go out and use the skills. A company organizes to bring
certain skills to bear in certain areas. Do those skills really exist? Just
because a plant has always had a mechanical maintenance crew does not
mean the mechanics can work on the latest mechanical equipment in the
plant. Most organizing schemes recognize that employees have skills, but
the actual practice of maintenance must ensure keeping those skills up
to date.
Management makes an important investment in ensuring that they
have qualified employees through training of maintenance personnel.
Maintenance training encompasses new apprentices, existing techni-
cians, and maintenance supervisors. Training yields ever increasing
benefits in future years.
Apprenticeship. One step in having qualified employees could be the

establishment of an apprenticeship program. The program could be
informal with apprentices simply assigned to assist experienced field
technicians. The program could be more formal and include a struc-
tured classroom with the field training. The company should address two
issues up front with any apprenticeship or trainee program. These issues
are the expected contribution of the apprentices to the current work load
and the eventual promotion of the apprentices.
First, an apprenticeship program provides skilled employees in the
years to come. The company hires apprentices to learn, not necessarily
to be an extra set of hands. Management hired them to be the future.
Most of their work should be with skilled persons on jobs the appren-
tices could not do themselves. In this manner, the apprentices learn to
become skilled persons. The apprentices may be an extra set of hands,
but only to assist experienced technicians. The time spent on a job
requiring two persons may be shorter if the supervisor assigns two expe-
rienced technicians. However, assigning one experienced technician and
an apprentice creates a worthwhile training period while accomplish-
ing the plant’s work. Field work does not take as much time away from
maintenance as does classroom training.
Second, the company should address promotion. A primary concern
is any promotion system in place that requires competition among
374 Appendix A
apprentices for promotion to technician. This type system inherently

discourages employees from sharing techniques and building team-
work. Apprentices will not help each other and some technicians may
be reluctant to help certain apprentices. Therefore, have a policy that
allows promoting all apprentices when they become qualified. Keeping
from having too many technicians requires management planning to
keep a steady low number of apprentices coming up through the ranks
to replace technicians who leave the workforce. Management should be
flexible to withstand occasional periods of having a slight abundance
or scarcity of technicians.
Technician. Apprenticeship seems to be primarily a method of bringing

newer, green employees up to speed. Apprenticeship brings up their
skills to the level of existing technicians. Existing technicians also have
a continual need to stay up to speed or current with technology as the
plant evolves. After promotion from apprentice, additional programs
keep skills current for existing technicians.
Some plants have recognized an overwhelming shortfall in skill level
and suddenly decide to do something about it. These plants may have
to establish formal classroom training just to bring apprentices and
technicians up to the current state of the art. Perhaps the plant may
suffer briefly or use contract labor to supplement the workforce while
management provides intensive training. Other plants make a com-
mitment to gradual upgrading of the workforce being conscientious to
assign the few skilled technicians in more of a teaching role out with the
other employees on jobs.
Many plants merely want to stay current with workforce competency.
To continually possess a competent workforce takes management com-
mitment in the area of skill improvement. Skill improvement can be con-
ducted during or apart from normal work hours. The company has a
number of options. During work hours, plants can bring in specialists
or training companies on a routine basis and either require or encour-
age employee participation. Plants can send employees to schools or
classes. Apart from normal work hours, plants may establish tuition
reimbursement programs for desired course work, conduct night time
classes themselves, or encourage employees through pay program
inducements to seek out training. Pay programs may be as simple as
having pay grades that compensate employees better that have higher
skills or certificates. Other employees seeking better wages must better
their skills. One problem in this area is in deciding how the employees
should demonstrate mastery of new skills. Finally, companies might
stay attentive toward hiring new employees who already have the req-
uisite skills as natural attrition causes other employees to leave the com-
pany. Since all new skills have to come from somewhere, essentially
this latter philosophy is having someone else do the training.
Plants need existing technicians to have up-to-date skills. After pro-

motion from apprentice, additional programs keep skills current for
existing technicians.
Multicraft programs. Multicraft programs make sense when they allow

jobs that require more than one skill to be completed with fewer persons
assigned. This lowers coordination problems of putting the right persons
in place or of overstaffing a job. Both individual job productivity and
overall workforce productivity improve.
A multicraft program or system gives craftpersons additional job
responsibilities they normally would not have at the plant. For example,
there is a job to rebuild both a pump and its motor. The mechanic that
must rebuild a pump might also have to perform the field work for the
pump motor. The mechanic might have to disconnect the motor for deliv-
ery to the electric shop and then reconnect the motor later. Before mul-
ticrafting, the mechanics and electricians would have had to coordinate
their field work. This coordination may have caused some waiting for one
craft or the other. In addition, the field work may have required only a
few hours while the most important work was to be in the mechanic and
electrical shops. By having only one person make the field trip, mainte-
nance might save labor or time overall. It is true that an electrician
probably would be more efficient or productive in actually disconnecting
the motor. On the other hand, overall productivity would be worse
because the electrician spends time to set up and travel to the job site.
Another example is that some plants require all welding be done by
trained welders instead of mechanics. Teaching a mechanic to be able to
use a torch to cut off rusted bolts rather than having the mechanic always
wait on a welder may save job and company time and expense. The com-
pany not only requires fewer persons to complete some maintenance
tasks, the company has more choices of whom to assign work. A company
that has taught its mechanics to do light structural welding would not
have to tie up its scarce certified welders for some simple welding tasks.
So multicraft programs basically train employees to take on more job
responsibility to give the company more flexibility in assigning work
and reduce coordination problems for better overall productivity.
Multicraft programs can run into problems for several reasons. These
problems include employees resisting acquiring new skills, insufficient
work to keep skills proficient, and mistrust or fear of losing work by
other crafts.
One might think that individual job satisfaction would encourage
employees to desire more varied work experiences or more control over
individual jobs. Nevertheless, employees previously kept in fairly rigid
classifications may resent having to learn new skills. On one hand, a mul-
ticraft program obviously has a company benefit; but what is the bene-
fit to the employee? One reason to accept multicrafting is job security
376 Appendix A
through company competitiveness and survival. Management shares the

vision down through the line on the importance of multicraft helping the
company. Management’s consistent, previous fair dealings also help
encourage employees to do what it takes. Another reason to accept mul-
ticrafting is ultimate job security. The employees become more valuable
to themselves if they can do more. The employees thereby gain real job
security beyond even the immediate company. Nevertheless, the com-
pany might avoid needless hard feelings by sharing the monetary value
of the multiskill arrangement. One company created a new classifica-
tion for multicraft mechanics where mechanics learned light structural
welding and certain light machining skills. The company made the new
classification significantly higher paid because the company could define
the financial benefit. Promotion into the new classification was volun-
tary and provisional. The company immediately boosted the persons
accepting the promotion to the new wage level and allowed a given time
period to acquire the new skills through an on-company-time training
program. Anyone who desired could stay in the old mechanic classifi-
cation and anyone not able to learn the new skills had to revert to the
old classification. Only a few persons close to retirement elected to stay
in the old mechanic classification. Eventually only another very few per-
sons that did accept the promotion were unable to learn the new skills
and had to revert to the old classification. Employees should be open
to multicraft opportunities to help the company and themselves.
Management should consider paying more for multicraft classifica-
tions beginning even before the technicians acquire the necessary skills.
Sometimes the maintenance group trains persons to acquire new
skills where insufficient work exists to go around to keep the skills pro-
ficient. This can lead to fewer persons than before having a valid profi-
ciency in a vital skill area. It may be reasonable that all mechanics
should be able to use torches to burn off rusted bolts, but is there enough
structural welding work for all the mechanics to practice? Is there much
high pressure welding work? If there is not enough high pressure weld-
ing work available, it does not make sense to train or pay everyone to
become certified in high pressure welding. There may be enough flange
facing and bolt cutting opportunities to justify training all the mechan-
ics in some light machining. There may not be enough heavy machine
work opportunities to justify making everyone a certified machinist.
Management must be attentive to the exact identification of actual
opportunities frequent enough to justify the extra training and perhaps
wages involved in multicraft arrangements. Companies should restrict
multicraft arrangements to these opportunities.
In some organizations because of heavy tradition or union restric-
tions, persons may be unable to work outside narrow classifications.
A real win–win opportunity exists for the company and the employees
if the company is willing to pay a premium for the new skills before the
employees acquire the skills. The company could propose a new classi-
fication that persons from both of the previous, narrow areas could
enter and immediately make higher wages. Mechanics to do light torch
work and welders to do light mechanical work could enter a new class
of “mechanical technician” paying higher than either former position.
The company might alleviate the craft fears of losing work by allowing
everyone affected the opportunity to learn and practice some new skill.
The key to this whole area is an intelligent management assessment of
the situation. Management must have a conviction of the overall prof-
itability for taking advantage of specific multicraft opportunities.
Another problem concerns the previous exclusive owners of the skill.
Experienced practitioners of certain skills may be concerned about the
abilities of newcomers to that skill area. For example, electricians may
have valid concerns about the competency of mechanics trying to dis-
connect motors. This concern may be alleviated in two ways. The first
is the initial thoroughness of management including receiving craft
feedback when selecting candidates for what work to multicraft.
Management might ask the electricians what electrical work a mechanic
might be able to do that would help either the electricians or the com-
pany overall. The second is including the primary skill holders in lead-
ing the training. If the electricians themselves train the mechanics, the
electricians have more confidence in the capabilities of the mechanics.
Planning utilizes the multicraft classifications when figuring which
skills individual jobs need. For example, the planner indicates that a
mechanical technician could do the light welding portion of a mechan-
ical job rather than adding a certified, high pressure welder to the work
plan. Another example: the planner indicates that a mechanic could
disconnect a motor rather than adding a requirement for an electrician.
The crew supervisors subsequently have the right to assign welders or
electricians to the respective jobs. The planner has provided helpful
information that increases the supervisor’s flexibility when assigning
work and given the opportunity for overall productivity increases.
Multicraft programs benefit the company when they allow jobs that
require more than one skill to be completed with fewer persons assigned.
Management must be careful when establishing such a program to
avoid common problems. Planning helps promote the use of the multi-
craft classifications.
Certification. A plant may wish to add a certification program to its

maintenance effort. A certification program would recognize and reward
special expertise or effort developed in a person’s primary skill area. For
instance, everyone in a certain classification would receive the estab-
lished wages, but certified employees would receive additional payments.
378 Appendix A
Such certification pay depends on having passed prescribed certification

requirements.
Certification arrangements have advantages and disadvantages over
creating new classifications. One advantage includes more acknowl-
edgment that skills must be maintained. A disadvantage might be the
administration of continually checking skill levels. Another advantage
may be the company’s relative flexibility in establishing or changing cer-
tification programs to meet needs. A disadvantage might be an incon-
sistency in how the management acts. Perhaps the primary advantage
of the concept is that management can demand high enough standards
for a really necessary skill. The company can tailor the pay benefits to
entice the desired number of persons to develop or keep the pertinent
skills. Establishing an entire classification on the other hand might
tempt management to water down the eligibility requirements or by
practice establish an errant tradition of promotion into the classifica-
tion without sufficient merit.
In many plants, employees follow different career paths according to
their interests in specializing in different areas or skills that the plant
needs. The plant may hire persons with different skills to match plant
needs. The plant should be flexible and try to match persons with jobs
and training opportunities that match their interests. There might be
skilled areas that the plant needs covered where either there are no
employees that have those skills or the plant cannot keep employees
with the necessary skills.
A case in point: the plant might have many mechanical technicians
that can do some light welding or torch work, but the plant needs at least
a few highly skilled, pressure vessel welders. Management does not
desire to add a new classification, but is willing to pay extra for extra
skills. A certification program would encourage and train those employ-
ees with the aptitude and desire to become such expert welders. The
amount of special certification pay arrangements would be just enough
to provide the plant with the numbers of high performers the plant
needed. The plant would use the certification program to guide exist-
ing employees to develop necessary skills.
In another case, the plant realizes that among its technicians, certain
performers far exceed the average technician in their capabilities.
Management wishes to keep these employees from seeking employment
elsewhere. These employees may be able to distinguish themselves by
passing certification programs.
A plant may also be unable to keep persons with necessary skills in
certain areas. The company might lose highly skilled persons or other
high performers to the market. The plant underpays those persons
according to the market with respect to the skills in question. They
develop the skills and other companies hire them away. A certification
program may raise pay to help this situation.
Planners use certification designations on plans to help identify spe-

cial skills certain jobs require. The designations facilitate communica-
tion among the planners and supervisors regarding job needs and
assignments.
Certification programs recognize and reward skills that the company
values without creating new classifications. This may allow the company
to tailor a program to adequately compensate high performers or attract
only the required numbers of persons to a particular high skill area.
Supervisor. Supervisors who run crews make a tremendous contribu-

tion to maintenance success. These persons essentially control the cul-
ture in many plants. Craftpersons respect these capable men and women
who have worked their way from the jobs of the crafts themselves to posi-
tions of leadership. These persons have daily contact with almost all of
the craft technicians. The technicians solicit and listen to the opinions
of the crew supervisors. The supervisors have a profound effect on the
attitude of the plant overall when it comes to accepting or resisting
change. In addition, the supervisors play an actual part in many main-
tenance processes, whereas managers typically remain outside of the
plant processes. For instance, supervisors make job assignments.
Therefore, the execution of many processes as prescribed by manage-
ment lies directly under the control of the supervisors. For these rea-
sons, management must give careful regard to the development or
training of supervisors.
Maintenance supervisors and assistant supervisors who run main-
tenance crews should have their job descriptions and training programs
oriented more toward being coaches and encouragers and away from
their traditional roles as schedulers and overseers. Such crew leaders
need to be in the field with their crew members. All too often, the
“system” saddles these key players with endless administrative tasks
such as checking time sheets, purchasing parts, attending a myriad of
meetings, or even writing up employee evaluations. Supervisors should
be coaches in the field, not clerks, planners, or secretaries. A guideline
for supervisor time should be 6 hours in the field and 2 hours in the office
for an 8-hour day.
Why should not the supervisors plan work instead of having special
planners? Many plants utilize their supervisors to fulfill planning duties.
The problem with this arrangement is that the very word “planning”
implies something done before the work begins. The supervisor needs
to be with the crew during execution of the work, something that cannot
be done if planning chores preempt supervisor time. Planning works as
a service for the supervisor to make work ready to go before job assign-
ment and execution. Planning also works as a service for the supervi-
sor after job completion to file feedback and manage equipment
information. The planning department accomplishes activities both
380 Appendix A
before and after job execution and frees the supervisors to work with
their crews.
A superior maintenance program has qualified persons to perform

the maintenance. Management must establish competent hiring and
training practices for employees at all levels including supervisors. The
mechanic must be at the plant with the necessary skills to accomplish
the work. Supervisors focus on coaching crews during job execution.
Planning interacts with the issues of craft skill and supervision.
Planning uses the established designations for skill levels in the job
plans. Planning helps free the supervisor from activities before and
after job execution.
Shops, Tool Rooms, and Tools

Shops, tool rooms, and hand tools contribute to a superior maintenance
program. Shops are special areas within the plant where technicians
may work on equipment taken from the field. These shop areas may con-
tain special work aids such as work benches for laying out parts and spe-
cial tools such as lathes or other machining equipment. Tool rooms help
manage keeping and sharing large or expensive tools occasionally
required by technicians. Such tools would not be practical to keep in
standard tool boxes because of their large size or infrequent use. Tool
rooms might also issue individual consumable items taken from the
storeroom in bulk such as ear plugs or fasteners. Hand tools are items
that a technician would normally carry in the tool box. The frequency
of use and size of the items might dictate what a technician would prefer
to carry routinely. Shops, tool rooms, and hand tools have a significant
role in the management of maintenance and planning. A few words
regarding them are appropriate.
Maintenance shops aid in doing the work right. Additional logistics
may be involved in moving field equipment to shops for maintenance.
Yet, working in a clean, equipped shop rather than in a field environ-
ment (hanging upside down off a boiler comes to mind) favors quality.
One of the ideas behind a shop is to allow cleanliness. Contamination
with dirt or grime affects the success of many maintenance jobs. A tech-
nician should be able to concentrate better doing the job in a clean envi-
ronment without having to worry about debris on flange faces. In
addition, stores and special tools normally close to shops reduce travel
delays when tasks require additional resources.
Shops should be properly outfitted to be most helpful to maintenance.
A properly outfitted machine shop contributes to quicker and higher
quality machine jobs. Consider upgrading all of the plant shops includ-
ing mechanic shops, welding shops, paint shops, electric shops, and
instrument shops. Upgrades should be done based upon recommenda-
tions from the persons who must use the new facilities.
The use of the shops to accomplish individual maintenance tasks may

be planned by the planning department or left to the discretion of the
field technician. The planner generally considers the technician to be
competent in using plant resources to accomplish maintenance assign-
ments. The planner may call for a valve rebuild and the trained tech-
nician would know to perform the job on the technician’s shop work
bench.
A tool room consists of a special area where technicians can borrow
tools that would not ordinarily be found in their tool boxes. From a
crane to a come-a-long, the right special tools make technicians more
effective. Certain tools should be managed. For example, a tool room
could properly store ladders and have them ready for use. Depending
on the size of the maintenance operation and the complexity of the tools,
the tool room increases in complexity. For small groups, having one or
two certain technicians responsible for the tool room in addition to their
other duties might be fine. The tool room might simply be a storage room
where all technicians have free access. Larger maintenance forces might
benefit from having a restricted access or a check out counter arrange-
ment. Some tool rooms might benefit from having a full staff with a ded-
icated manager. The staff issues the tools and manages the maintenance
of the tools themselves.
The plant maintenance force benefits when a knowledgeable, experi-
enced maintenance technician works in the tool room. Many times a
technician will come to the counter and describe a problem. The tool
room attendant can suggest the proper tool. One oil well service com-
pany places the job of tool room attendant above the field technician in
the company’s line of promotion. The tool room attendant knows what
tools technicians need, why they are important, how they work, and how
to keep them working.
In addition to a central tool room, certain areas of the plant may have
specialized tool needs. The plant might benefit from having certain tools
remotely kept near those areas. A secure shed could contain specialized
turbine tools on the turbine deck of a steam plant. Such a secure area
may have a counter with an attendant and open only during certain tur-
bine work. Otherwise, limited access would be available to supervisors
or certain technicians. A particular job on a burner deck might require
specialized tools not used anywhere else in the plant. It would make
sense to have the burner deck tools located in a tool box on the burner
deck ready for use.
Even when the tool room has a check out counter, free access to cer-
tain items facilitates productivity. Open cribs contain bolts, washers,
cleaning rags, and common consumable items in the waiting area of the
tool room. Candidates for the free access cribs would be consumable
items that are relatively inexpensive and frequently used. They may also
be consumable items that technicians may need to inspect during selec-
tion. A technician may want to inspect the different washers available
382 Appendix A
to select one with a desired thickness. These open cribs keep technicians
from wasting expensive labor time waiting in check out lines for inex-
pensive items. The tool room attendants would replenish the cribs as
needed.
Maintenance planning identifies special tools on job plans. Rather
than make several trips to a tool room as they identify needs, techni-
cians can gather previously identified special tools before beginning a
job. The technicians’ feedback on special tools actually used on partic-
ular jobs aids the planner plan work better in the future.
Hand tool management also contributes to maintenance success.
Many plants suffer from technicians having inadequate hand tools avail-
able. Efforts to identify and equip individuals with proper hand tools
improve job quality and productivity. The objectives are to reduce prob-
lems caused by using incorrect tools and reduce delays in finding cor-
rect tools. Maintenance planning presumes technicians are adequately
equipped with the common tools of their crafts.
Maintenance programs should consider the effectiveness of current
shops, tool rooms, and hand tools. Maintenance planning coordinates the
use of the special tools of the tool rooms, whereas the shops and hand
tools are more of an extension of the qualifications of the individual
crafts or technicians.
Storeroom and Rotating Spares

Maintenance must also consider inventory management when prepar-
ing for success. Five areas merit special comment. All of these areas con-
cern interfaces between storeroom and maintenance groups and justify
special attention. These areas are the control of the storeroom, identi-
fication of usage, standardization, use of critical spares, and use of open
cribs.
First, many maintenance departments should but do not have author-
ity over their storerooms. The companies position the management of
the storerooms separate from even the plants in some cases under spe-
cial storeroom departments or under the purchasing departments. The
companies feel this arrangement provides a check and balance. The
processes of operating a storeroom may be more similar to those of a
retail store or purchasing group than to the running of large machin-
ery in an industrial plant. The company is trying to protect against the
storeroom operation not being managed properly as a storeroom.
Storeroom operations can demand sophisticated controls and proce-
dures. In other cases, the company feels that the large monetary value
of the storeroom justifies a separate management group. The value of
storeroom facilities and inventories certainly is large enough in many
plants to be treated as significant and managed with qualified personnel.
On the other hand, the less visible but real value of proper maintenance
and reliable plant capacity nearly always favors the maintenance group
having ultimate control over the storeroom.
In situations where the maintenance department does not control
the storeroom, maintenance management must give constant vigilance
to the interfaces between the storeroom and maintenance group.
Improvements within the group that a manager controls receive most
of the attention and processes hopefully become smoothed out and effi-
cient over time. Interfaces between groups receive much less attention
and frequently offer major areas of improvement. Managers of store-
rooms and maintenance must communicate and constantly watch over
areas to avoid suboptimizing their individual systems to the overall
higher expense to the company. Suboptimization might occur when the
storeroom’s major goal is to reduce inventory regardless of the cost to
maintenance who might order parts frequently on an emergency basis
or lose plant capacity.
Second, storerooms carry such a large value of stock that a natural
tendency to reduce inventory exists. Stock is expensive, but less so than
poor availability of plant capacity. A plant must have a handle on stock-
outs before it can consider reducing stock. What is the incidence of not
having requested items? If a plant has frequent stockouts, it cannot yet
consider reducing stock. Effectiveness must come before efficiency. A
storeroom must adequately supply maintenance with parts before the
storeroom can identify an overstocking problem. If a storeroom is not
adequately supporting maintenance with the parts it needs, manage-
ment might want to consider an aggressive program of identification and
purchasing. The company priority order should be first an increase in
plant reliability, second an increase in maintenance productivity, and
third reduction in excessive inventory.
Maintenance may consider other options rather than keeping inven-
tory on site. With a successful maintenance program that has few break-
downs, a planning function should know the need for certain parts
ahead of time. Under those circumstances a plant may decide not to
stock items that are readily available on a 24-hour notice. A plant may
also set up blanket purchase orders with suppliers for common materi-
als to reduce purchasing efforts at the times maintenance needs the
items. Management should be cautious not to lose control over having
critical items available for circumstances that could suddenly restrict
plant capacity.
Third, inventory store quantities may be excessive because the plant
has so many different types of equipment performing the same service.
Companies can easily determine the lowest purchase price for an indi-
vidual pump and perhaps make an effective judgment of the operating
cost in terms of energy used over several years of projected use.
Companies less often consider the maintenance cost or the cost of keep-
ing spares on hand. These latter costs are very difficult to determine,
384 Appendix A
but that does not mean they are insignificant. If the plant values reli-
ability and the cost of inventory stores, it should consider some equip-
ment standardization guidelines. Technicians enhance plant reliability
when they can work enough on the same type equipment to develop a
close familiarity and when they know that the storeroom has ready
spare parts. A management convinced of the overall company benefit
should allow maintenance to dictate certain equipment standards for
purchasing and engineering to follow. Maintenance management should
take on such a course of action as an important responsibility, not one
simply to be recognized, but to be continually managed.
Many plants have decided that standardization is the most important
key to reliability, high capacity, and profits. These companies have stan-
dardized and reduced entire assembly lines or processes to standardize
as much as possible. They have even standardized or restricted allow-
able suppliers and vendors to a select few with whom they develop close
relations and high expectations for consistency.
Another aspect of inventory standardization within the sole control
of the storeroom concerns duplication. Many different suppliers deliver
virtually identical parts, sometimes even from the same manufacturers.
Although identical, these parts arrive with different vendor identifica-
tion numbers and the storeroom stores them as different items. The
storeroom may have eight categories of a certain type gasket with each
bin containing ten gaskets. In reality the gaskets are the same and the
plant keeps an excess of 80 gaskets on hand. The storeroom may have
opportunities to reduce its inventory by intelligent identification of parts
for plant use. Standardization of equipment and suppliers also reduces
these problems of multiple part numbers.
Fourth, another success in the inventory area can be a rotating spares
program especially for a plant designed with few equipment redun-
dancies and limited physical room for adding them later. A rotating
spares program identifies critical equipment whereby the plant pur-
chases entire replacement assemblies to keep in stock. In the event of
failure, maintenance can quickly exchange complete assemblies for
failed equipment. Then under controlled, nonemergency conditions, the
maintenance group can rebuild the failed components and put them
into stock. The term rotating spares comes from the plants who usually
find most of their critical spares have rotating elements such as pumps.
The term also could apply to the fact that the spares rotate to exchange
places. One spare “rotates” into service as the failed assembly “rotates”
into the shop for rebuilding and then into the storeroom to take the orig-
inal stock item’s place. Some ships use an arrangement known as bulk-
head mounted spares. The crew mounts the spare assembly right
alongside the service equipment for easy use. In addition, a storeroom for
a ship may not be readily accessible when needed. Most industrial plants,
however, prefer spares be kept in the cleaner and better controlled
environment of a storeroom rather than allow them to clutter an oper-

ating area.
The use of a rotating or critical spares program directly benefits plant
capacity during emergency maintenance. If troubleshooting cannot
quickly find an easy fix, the plant may suffer as extended diagnostic
work or repair time drags on excessively. Yet with a rotating spare avail-
able, the supervisor may call for its use after only a few moments of
unsuccessful troubleshooting to reduce the potential of an extended
down period. The supervisor or manager makes an educated call. The
supervisor might realize uncertainty of the in-place repair time that
could last either 2 or 24 hours. On the other hand, exchanging the entire
assembly would require a guaranteed 5 hours. The use of the rotating
spare reduces plant uncertainty in emergencies. Moreover, the use of the
rotating spare reduces uncertainty for scheduled maintenance. Consider
a particular deficiency with the in-place equipment that has not yet
caused a problem, but that maintenance needs to correct. The plant
may decide to have the equipment exchanged with the rotating spare
at the plant’s convenience. Then maintenance may carefully examine
and maintain the removed equipment in a shop environment.
Management should consider the use of a rotating spares program to
improve maintenance success.
Fifth, open cribs for certain inventory items as discussed for the tool room
might be advantageous. The company must choose between specifically
accounting for every minute inventory transaction and reducing delays
encountered by maintenance technicians having to wait for service.
Maintenance management might weigh the cost of having an extra
counter clerk against the value of not only possible missing stock, but
possible lower productivity and plant capacity. The plant might also
want to consider if it sends contradicting statements to employees. The
plant trusts and empowers the technicians in word, but in action does
the company trust the technicians with easy access to any inventory
items to increase productivity?
Planning drives the best use of the inventory stock. Rather than main-
tenance technicians determining what parts they need in the midst of
a maintenance task, planning reserves likely parts before the crew
begins the work. This manner of operation reduces stockouts at the
time of work execution because of advance notice of part requirements.
Parts identification that occurs days in advance of execution also allows
inventory reduction. Storeroom or tool room personnel directed by plan-
ning can make use of blankets to pick up certain items from local ven-
dors in time before job execution begins. In addition, planning acts on
technician feedback. Often a technician that had a difficult time obtain-
ing the correct parts for a task may simply be relieved when the task is
completed. But planning has the time to evaluate the technician’s job
feedback and work with the storeroom or other processes to determine
386 Appendix A
if stock levels need adjustment. The planner fulfills a clerical or admin-

istrative role for the technician to keep the inventory system working
well. Many times management implements a process of some sort with-
out providing an ongoing administration of the process. With regard to
the interface of the storeroom and the maintenance needs for specific
parts, planning fills this role. Planning also has a broad enough view of
maintenance to play a large role in the determination of likely equip-
ment candidates for standardization. It also aids the planning effort
when standardization helps technicians to be familiar with equipment
rather than technicians frequently requiring equipment information
about unusual repair procedures.
Inventory control is an important tool of maintenance management.
Certain areas of inventory management regarding interfaces warrant
special mention. Management must continually be vigilant with respect
to the effectiveness of the storeroom in supporting maintenance and
plant reliability. Management should first ensure the availability of
needed parts and materials before considering efficiency of storeroom
operations. Standardization concepts help maintenance by reducing the
incidence of unfamiliar, unique maintenance operations and allow store-
rooms to concentrate on proper stocking of fewer parts. Finally, use of
open cribs may help reduce delays for technicians. Planning plays a
key role in guiding and administrating the usage of parts from its van-
tage point in having a broad view of maintenance and time to pursue
inventory issues.
Reliability Maintenance
While correcting equipment failures efficiently and effectively is impor-
tant, anticipating and heading off failures is also a major part of the
maintenance management tool box. This effort is made through concepts
known collectively as reliability maintenance. Reliability maintenance
concerns itself with keeping equipment from failing in the first place.
Really, this should be the principal focus of any maintenance force. The
maintenance group does not want to be in the business of fixing broken
equipment while plant capacity suffers. Rather, the maintenance group
wants to take necessary steps to keep equipment in proper operation and
maximize plant capacity. Nevertheless, the term reliability mainte-
nance in industry usually refers to specific programs maintenance man-
agement undertakes with regard to keeping equipment from failing.
Many maintenance improvement programs in the area of reliability
maintenance have various names such as reliability centered mainte-
nance (RCM) or preventive maintenance (PM) Optimization. Even with
varying terminology, most of these efforts seem to revolve around three
principal activities. These activities or tools are preventive mainte-
nance, predictive maintenance, and project work.
This section of the book briefly defines the basic concepts of these three
tools and their general relationship to planning. Guidelines for specific
interfaces with these programs warrant the inclusion of Chap. 10
Consideration of PM, Predictive Maintenance (PdM), and project work.
Planning is intimately involved in the execution of this work. Chapter 10
defines specific tasks of planning with regard to how these programs
operate.
Preventive maintenance
Preventive maintenance is maintenance activity repeated at a predeter-
mined frequency. The frequency may be based on calendar time or other
occurrences such as service hours or number of starts. For example, some-
one may change the oil in a car every 3000 miles or every 3 months. What
is significant is that the company does not schedule the activity based on
a particular noticed problem, but upon an expectation that the regular
maintenance will reduce or prevent the appearance of problems.
Because existing problems do not direct PM, one of the key elements
of a PM program is deciding what activities to include. Consider a
modern steam plant with over 10,000 pieces of equipment. Identification
of what items need repair is relatively easy compared to identifying
what items need PM attention regardless of condition. Most PM activ-
ities are set up based on experience from past failures, equipment char-
acteristics, and vendor recommendations. Preventing past failures from
recurring decides many PM procedures. If a pump has failed a number
of times from alignment problems due to fasteners coming loose, a PM
procedure might be set up to check fastener tightness for the pump
each month. As the plant ages, the company has identified many
common failure patterns that are being headed off by prudent PM action.
Equipment characteristics such as age, type, or criticality may also
cause the plant to set up PM procedures. Newer equipment is more
prone to infant mortality and may justify routine checks of operating
conditions after initial installation. A new pipeline may receive frequent
walkdowns after construction to verify leak-free service. The type of
equipment may dictate inclusion in a PM program. Equipment with
rotating elements may be checked for tightness. Engines may have oil
replaced. Devices with filters may have filters replaced. Criticality to
the plant process may determine inclusion in a PM program. A single,
stand-alone pump that is vital to production may receive more atten-
tion than an identical pump used elsewhere with an installed spare.
Finally, equipment manuals from the manufacturer or vendor usually
recommend routine maintenance procedures to keep the equipment in
good operating order. However, because vendors are not involved in
the specific application of their equipment, technicians and operators
intimately involved with the specific installations should usually be the
388 Appendix A
final judge on which recommendations are pertinent. In addition, it is

possible that vendors may have a bias toward recommending excessive
maintenance on their equipment.
This concern of excessive PM is valid. How much PM is too much
PM? One hears percentages suggesting that 10 to 20% of maintenance
should be preventive maintenance. This raises two important ques-
tions. What is the other 80% of maintenance supposed to be? Should not
all maintenance be preventive maintenance? Consider that if the plant
spends a lot of time on breakdown maintenance, then the plant does not
spend enough time on preventive maintenance. Consider also another
type of maintenance, corrective maintenance. Corrective maintenance
resolves deficiencies after they are found so that operations does not
have a problem with an actual breakdown. One aim of preventive main-
tenance is to find deficiencies that need corrective maintenance.
A less commonly perceived benefit of preventive maintenance is active
involvement with the equipment on a routine basis. Technicians serv-
icing equipment should notice some equipment deficiencies through
their proximity to the equipment alone. The technicians become used
to seeing the equipment in proper working order and notice deviations
from their expectations. A plant should prefer that maintenance tech-
nicians notice and report the majority of maintenance problems. Why
should not this be the operators’ duty? Are not the operators at the plant
using the equipment around the clock whereas the maintenance techni-
cian may come by the equipment only once each month? The answer goes
back to the concept of reliability maintenance. The maintenance depart-
ment desires to provide the operators with a plant to run at capacity. The
maintenance department wants to avoid a reactive mode where main-
tenance only quickly fixes problems operators report. Many equipment
problems derive from gradual failure modes. The equipment fails over
a period of time where symptoms of impending failure become more
evident. The operator who knows the equipment is working correctly
may be content to report only the end failure if it occurs. The mainte-
nance technician has time in the frequent PM service schedule to notice
symptoms of equipment deterioration. Therefore, the technician can
report the condition in time for maintenance intervention on an efficient,
scheduled basis before the operator ever has time for alarm. The oper-
ator could be more aware of failure symptoms, but the preferred direc-
tion of maintenance evolution is for the maintenance force to provide an
operating plant. This movement is being accelerated as plant operation
is becoming more automated. Plant operators used to make frequent
rounds to check on equipment. Now with downsizing and automation,
operators spend more time in the control room and less time out on the
plant floor. Therefore preventive and corrective maintenance go hand
in hand to reduce breakdowns and increase plant reliability. It may be
that the routine inspection aspect of preventive maintenance to find defi-

ciencies is more important than the servicing activities themselves.
This reasoning is inherent in the strategy of some companies to give
“ownership” of equipment to certain technicians because it provides a
responsibility to keep in tune with the equipment.
After it decides what items to include in a PM program, the plant
must actively manage the program. A review system needs to be in place
to reduce or otherwise adjust PM frequencies as the plant gains experi-
ence with failure patterns. If an item receives PM attention continually
and never develops a problem, should the program lessen the PM atten-
tion? If equipment keeps failing, should the program increase the PM
attention? Is the PM attention causing problems? PMs must also be cre-
ated for new equipment. Many times a company pours resources into
developing an extensive PM program, but does not give the ongoing
administration of the program much thought. If a plant wants to avoid
problems and have most of a plant’s maintenance as preventive in nature,
it should pay attention to the ongoing management of the program.
Preventive maintenance is often confused with planned maintenance.
The PM jobs are planned in the sense that the plant plans or expects in
advance to do this work usually on a scheduled basis. While this is a
valid assessment, under this book’s conception of maintenance plan-
ning, planning is done for preventive, corrective, and breakdown main-
tenance. Planning is the act of making the job ready to go by the advance,
preparatory work of a maintenance planner. Therefore, all PM work
orders are considered to be planned work every time they are issued. This
is because they possess a planned scope of work, time estimates, mate-
rial estimates, and the other elements of a planned job. This is true even
though the planner may not have to do any further work after the ini-
tial issue of a PM planned work order. On the other hand, corrective and
breakdown maintenance may be done on a planned or unplanned basis
depending on whether the work orders go through a planning process
to make the work ready.
Because preventive maintenance is not only a vital tool of mainte-
nance, but maintenance activity itself, planning has a large degree of
involvement. The planning department usually sets up and standardizes
the PM jobs. That is, once the PM jobs are planned for the first time, they
continue to be issued with the same job plan at their predetermined fre-
quency. The company also usually charges the planning department with
managing changes to the PM program. As the plant maintains equipment,
planners review equipment history and suggest changes to established
PM frequencies. Planners coordinate PM recommendations from inves-
tigation teams that may analyze equipment failures. Planners also review
equipment manuals when new equipment is received to determine PM
requirements. Preventive maintenance and planning go hand in hand.
390 Appendix A
Preventive maintenance reduces or prevents plant breakdown situa-

tions. Including and adjusting the correct preventive maintenance activ-
ities involves a balance between excessive labor and the appearance of
breakdowns. Maintenance planning is in a position to administrate the
PM program.
Predictive maintenance
A predictive maintenance program (PdM) goes far beyond normal,
frequency-based preventive maintenance. Techniques such as vibration
monitoring, oil analysis, and thermography detect early warnings of
serious equipment problems. Plants commonly attribute instances of
preventing catastrophic failure of major equipment each year to PdM.
In addition, the knowledge learned from analyzing equipment facilitates
the use of new alignment, rebuild, or other techniques to extend the
trouble-free running times of equipment dramatically. PdM analysis also
delays much routine servicing, thus completely avoiding the significant
potential of reassembling error inherent in rebuilding equipment.
The idea behind predictive maintenance is that modern technology can
detect some equipment problems much earlier than other previous
means. Say a certain pump develops a vibration problem that would lead
to failure in about 2 months if left to become worse. PdM diagnosis
might detect the problem within a week as PdM personnel monitor the
pump on a route taking vibration readings. The vibration signature
indicates a cracked impeller. PdM personnel write a work order to repair
the impeller sometime within the month at the plant’s convenience.
The maintenance work can be planned and scheduled for efficient exe-
cution. On the other hand, if the vibration had been left to previous
modes of detection, an operator may not have noticed a decline in pump
performance until the impeller actually broke apart. At that time, the
failure would have shut down the plant process and damaged the casing
of the pump. Another scenario might have had the maintenance tech-
nician or operator notice marked vibration only several days away from
actual failure. In this case, an already set maintenance schedule would
have had to been interrupted. Both latter cases interfere with mainte-
nance efficiency and increase the potential of plant capacity loss. The
early PdM detection gives the plant ample time to prepare for efficient
maintenance. The advance notice allowed by PdM also allows the plant
to alter a routine overhaul strategy as well. Past plant practice might
have been to replace certain fans or pumps based on a calculated life
expectancy. The plant would rather replace the equipment while it still
ran well than to take a chance of it suddenly wearing out at an inop-
portune moment. This practice not only meant the plant might waste
plant availability and labor discarding perfectly good equipment, but the
practice introduced new or rebuilt equipment subject to infant mortality.
The use of PdM might avoid all of these situations. Near the end of an
equipment’s expected life PdM monitoring might pronounce the equip-
ment in good shape. Continued monitoring might mean years of addi-
tional service beyond any traditional replacement period. So PdM
techniques can be extremely valuable in monitoring equipment condi-
tion to give additional life and then timely notice for maintenance needs.
PdM uses many techniques. Among these techniques are vibration
analysis, tribology or oil analysis, infrared thermography, boroscopic
examinations, and ultrasonic testing. Some of the techniques involve
trend analysis where the single observation is not as important as the
direction of the trend of readings. Is the vibration becoming worse rap-
idly or is it staying about the same? PdM groups also provide special
services to the plant in connection with their technologies. These serv-
ices include balancing of rotating machinery, laser alignment training,
preparation of standards for equipment repair, and quality assurance
checks of repairs made. PdM also implements continuous monitoring
systems that reduce the need for traveling PdM routes. Some of the
issues involved in using PdM techniques are placement of sensors and
proper interpretation of data by PdM persons. New technologies are
being developed continuously, and one of the responsibilities of a PdM
group would be to evaluate new ideas.
Some of the techniques first utilized by predictive maintenance
become taken over by maintenance technicians. Laser alignment pro-
vides a good example. After demonstration that a laser-aligned machine
outperforms otherwise aligned equipment, maintenance usually
becomes interested in having all its equipment laser aligned. Soon PdM
personnel train maintenance technicians to use laser alignment gear
checked out from the tool room.
Due to the different technical nature of the work, a company typically
does not organize a PdM group under the maintenance department,
but positions it similarly to the plant engineering group if one exists.
PdM might be a subset of plant engineering or the plant technical serv-
ices group. The PdM group might even report to a corporate department
away from the plant organization. Nevertheless, the PdM department
works closely with the maintenance group because of their direct
involvement with individual pieces of installed equipment. Many main-
tenance technicians have even been placed in PdM groups working
alongside engineers doing the diagnostic work. To initiate work based
on PdM recommendations, PdM personnel write work orders just as do
any other persons requesting plant work. PdM submits work orders to
the planning department for prioritization along with the rest of the
plant’s backlog. This statement necessitates distinction of types of pre-
dictive maintenance work. Generally, the PdM group does diagnostic
work monitoring and testing plant equipment with special devices. The
work orders they submit are also considered predictive maintenance
392 Appendix A
work in the sense the work was initiated by PdM personnel. Plant main-
tenance technicians execute these work orders.
In any case, planners do not do any PdM diagnostic work. The PdM
personnel generate work requests. Planners plan work requests. PdM
identifies work needing to be performed. Planning takes this work iden-
tification and prepares proper job scopes, time estimates, material and
tool requirements, and other information necessary for scheduling and
assignment of the work to plant technicians. It is impractical for plan-
ners to use PdM techniques to check on suspicious areas. PdM persons
constantly check all candidate areas of the plant to find suspicious
areas. Proper PdM inspection should already have caught areas oper-
ating deficient enough to be noticed. PdM inspection is not considered
to be a part-time duty for other personnel.
The PdM tool particularly requires management commitment and
organizational discipline, especially for a new PdM group or one begin-
ning to use a new technique. The PdM group must be allowed to learn.
Frequently PdM makes a wrong call. The PdM group might determine
that a pump has a cracked impeller as a case in point. When the plant
takes the unit off line and maintenance opens up the pump, the impeller
might be in perfect condition. After a few of these errant work orders,
animosity develops between the maintenance and PdM groups. The
maintenance force feels the PdM group wastes plant time and resources.
Plant management must promote the use of PdM and communicate the
learning curve problem. PdM must be allowed to be on site when main-
tenance opens up equipment to check results to help guide future calls.
PdM and the maintenance personnel do well to keep a sense of per-
spective and humor during these early experiences. Plant management
does well neither to override PdM calls nor to become involved in indi-
vidual plant circumstances too frequently. Rather, plant management
should set a policy that the company has set up PdM to have the expert-
ise to make the call.
On the other hand, PdM persons should respect the years of experi-
ence of the crafts and planners. Many engineers pressed into predictive
maintenance service do not have years of witnessing specific, repeated
failure modes. Plant technicians have personally witnessed specific
problems in this specific plant for years upon years. Planners have par-
ticular expertise in personal experience as the plant typically selects top
craftpersons for planners.
Plants prefer advance warning of problems to improve maintenance.
Predictive maintenance techniques reduce instances of surprise cata-
strophic failure and extend the trouble-free running times of equip-
ment. Routine servicing can rationally be delayed to reduce the potential
of infant mortality after servicing. PdM knowledge also introduces the
use of new routine maintenance techniques such as improved align-
ment techniques. Planning does not perform the duties of predictive
maintenance, but plans their requested work orders for execution.

Because of the learning curve involved in PdM utilization, management
commitment becomes almost a requirement. Plants want to do predic-
tive maintenance rather than reactive maintenance and recovery from
breakdowns.
Project maintenance
Reliability maintenance also includes project work. Project work makes
up an important part of maintenance strategy. A project results in an
addition or modification performed on a one-time basis. Project work
intends to make the plant or involved equipment better. While normal
maintenance aims to preserve the function of equipment by keeping
equipment in its present condition, project maintenance aims to preserve
the function of equipment by improving upon equipment. If a particu-
lar piece of equipment has inherent features that lessen its reliability,
perhaps the equipment can be modified to make it more reliable. The
plant desires to do reliability maintenance, not breakdown mainte-
nance. The plant desires to do more preventive, predictive, and project
work, and do less reactive work.
Many companies have separate project, engineering, and construction
departments for major projects. Their completed projects to install equip-
ment and systems will have to be maintained in the future. The out-
standing opportunity for the current maintenance department to control
its future is in “front end loading.” Maintenance departments in general
have accepted a role that whatever is installed, they maintain. This is
a true statement, but harmful if it inhibits the maintenance department
from working with the corporate groups. The overwhelming best time
to make equipment more reliable is before the company purchases the
equipment. If maintenance acknowledges that certain equipment and
system designs are inherently more reliable than others, then mainte-
nance must spend adequate time with equipment issues before pro-
curement and installation. Typical corporate engineers or project
managers do not have the maintenance expertise existing in the main-
tenance department.
Maintenance might accomplish front end loading through a number
of activities. Maintenance might establish equipment and vendor stan-
dards, assign certain maintenance supervisors or planners to spend
time with corporate groups on specific projects, and give a review of pro-
posed project specifications serious attention. Planning performs an
important activity with respect to corporate project work. Plants often
assign planners to work with corporate teams or to review project spec-
ifications and drawings. Planners must also collect project documenta-
tion and establish new files for equipment. The best time to establish
files is before the manuals have been delivered and lost through a lack
394 Appendix A
of designated document control. Equipment operation and maintenance

manuals, as-builts, and project specifications should all be collected for
future reference. Maintenance and planning groups must not solely
concern themselves with maintenance of existing equipment. They must
take advantage of the great opportunity to increase the reliability of
future equipment. They must become involved with corporate projects
that will place new equipment and systems at the plant requiring future
maintenance.
In addition to corporate projects, the plant also carries out project
work at the plant level. Any work order that modifies equipment or
restores equipment to perform at a superior level may be considered a
project. Changing impellers from bronze to stainless steel would be an
example. The plant should continually be evaluating project ideas for
making the plant more reliable.
Theoretically, maintenance, operations, and plant engineering dis-
tinguish themselves around these issues. Operations sees itself as
responsible for operating the current equipment. Maintenance sees
itself as responsible for maintaining the current equipment. Plant
engineering sees itself as responsible for the current design. So plant
engineering might take the lead in evaluating the idea to switch mate-
rials of construction for an impeller. Actual practice greatly blurs these
areas of responsibility and rightly so. Operations and maintenance
should consider and propose new ideas, although the plant engineers
ordinarily have the time and technical expertise to evaluate certain
changes to plant design. Just as in PdM practice, plant engineers do
well to include the experience of other personnel in their delibera-
tions. Plant engineering frequently consults maintenance planning
for two reasons. Generally planners are top technicians in their crafts
and the planners also have the best access to plant records and files.
Planners also take a lead in changing the plant design with limits set
by plant practice. After noticing that a certain type of valve commonly
fails in a specific situation, a planner may have the expertise and expe-
rience to plan for the craft to install a new type valve. Depending on plant
policy, the process application, and specific persons involved, the plan-
ner may or may not consult with engineering or operations. The plan-
ners continually seek to improve plant reliability as the plant gains
experience through years of maintenance practice.
What types of maintenance situations call for projects and how does
the plant decide which projects to implement? Anyone who writes a
work order for routine maintenance to correct a discovered deficiency
might consider if a modification might make the equipment avoid
future deficiencies. The company specifically gives the plant engineers
the tasks of considering the current design and thinking about trou-
ble areas. Planners should be vigilant to notice repeated maintenance
situations that could be avoided. Perhaps the most important times to
seek to identify a project opportunity is when the plant loses capacity.

Any event that causes the plant to lose capacity should be scrutinized
for a project. Many times maintenance reacts to a capacity loss with a
temporary repair that becomes permanent. Maintenance never upgrades
the repair after resolving the initial emergency. However, some plants
assign a specific cross-functional team appropriate to the failure to
address and find the root causes of any specified events. These specified
events might include any capacity loss and certain types of regulatory
or safety concerns. The team not only searches for the root cause, but
recommends any future work needed to provide a permanent repair
beyond the initial one already in place. Some plants also provide root
cause analysis training to craft technicians. These plants have them fill
out a root cause analysis work sheet after certain failures even if they
are not directly tied to capacity losses. Much project maintenance is
essentially the repair of a failed mechanism beyond its original capa-
bility such as using a better material or different type of component for
the service. On the other hand, some project work calls for significant
changes to plant design and may also be costly. Many plants have spe-
cific processes to approve and prioritize such work. The plant may have
a limited capital improvement budget and cannot afford all the projects
that otherwise make economic sense to implement.
Planning performs a key role in project work whether at the corpo-
rate or plant level. The planning department plans the specific work
orders that the plant craftpersons will execute. The planning depart-
ment manages receiving and filing new information received to assist
future maintenance work. Planning also helps the plant execute a front
end loading strategy utilizing its position of plant knowledge to assist
corporate or any group to procure equipment that has reliable per-
formance and ease of maintenance in mind. Upon receiving any work
order to plan, the planning department fulfills some of its most vital
roles. The planning department’s experienced personnel see all the pro-
posed work and the history of the affected equipment. Therefore, the
planning department not only proposes or initiates project upgrades,
they might also detect and head off unwarranted changes to equipment
proposed by persons with less familiarity or expertise. Planning may
resolve the concerns with the originators or coordinate concerns with
supervisors, manager, engineers, or operations as appropriate. In addi-
tion, the planning group might hold off current work orders to repair cer-
tain systems if they know a current project in the works will make the
work orders unnecessary. Planning plays an important role in making
project maintenance more effective.
Project work comprises an important part of the reliability mainte-
nance strategy. By modifying the design, project work intends to improve
plant reliability. Project work consists of modifications at the plant level
as well as large, corporate projects. In either case, planning is well
396 Appendix A
suited to initiate and coordinate plant needs to improve maintenance

involving projects.
To summarize, reliability maintenance focuses on specific strategies

to keep equipment from failing and involves the overall areas of pre-
ventive maintenance, predictive maintenance, and project maintenance.
Preventive maintenance attempts to prevent problems from ever occur-
ring by such means as keeping equipment clean and keeping equip-
ment from coming loose. Cleanliness keeps contamination away and
includes activities such as changing lubrication and filters. Keeping
equipment from coming loose includes attention to tightening fasteners.
Preventive maintenance also provides a close association with the equip-
ment to allow early detection of the symptoms that would indicate equip-
ment deficiencies or impending failure. These situations can be resolved
through corrective maintenance before problems develop. Predictive
maintenance uses technically sophisticated diagnostic equipment or
trending analysis to provide earlier warning of developing equipment
problems. Project maintenance takes aim at correcting the root causes
of failure by modification to equipment or systems. Maintenance wisely
invests resources in spending time and expertise in front end loading
with project groups before the plant procures new equipment.
The planning function helps maintenance management utilize the tool
of reliability maintenance. The planning group leads and administrates
the PM program. This includes planning the initial PM work orders and
issuing subsequent repetitions. The planning group changes the fre-
quencies and modifies job steps as necessary. Specialized PdM personnel
lead the PdM program. These persons issue work order requests for the
planning group to plan as any other work order. Planning plays a larger
role in project maintenance, often recommending new projects for plant
execution. The planning group coordinates project input from plant engi-
neering and operations. For projects coordinated by a corporate project
group, the planning group plays a key interface role. Planning also
receives operation and maintenance manuals after the installation of
new equipment and develops new PMs. Planning also receives other proj-
ect information such as specifications and as-builts to update plant main-
tenance files. Planning plays a significant role in reliability maintenance.
Improved Work Processes

There are always opportunities to improve. Not only by creating new
tools, but also by refining existing tools. Interfaces among the tools usu-
ally are also prime candidates. An environment should exist where the
maintenance supervisors and technicians themselves initiate a host of
miscellaneous new methods of doing business. Examples are standby
crews, alignment techniques, and shutdown checklists. Rotating standby
crews with electronic pagers reduce time to respond to off-hour emer-

gencies. New techniques for alignment might come out of predictive
maintenance experience. Checklists and advance plans facilitate work
for short notice shutdowns.
Some managers tend to see areas such as management commitment,
communication, and development of craft personnel as areas to take
action to address the overall environment of the plant. Other managers
tend to establish formal teams or programs to give employees time to
meet and propose improvements to plant equipment or work processes.
Still other managers consider the culture itself. The culture stems from
tradition, peer pressure, perceptions of management bias, previous labor
problems, home family situations, individual personalities, status sym-
bols, work hours, and a host of other general and plant-specific cir-
cumstances. These managers address individual circumstances their
management intuition leads them to feel will make a difference. In any
case, management must actively manage to encourage attention to cur-
rent practices and awareness of potential areas of improvement.
Maintenance Metrics
The term maintenance metrics simply means the measures and scores
of particular maintenance activities or results. Maintenance metrics
involve selecting, collecting, analyzing, and presenting maintenance
data. Measuring the total number of work orders in a backlog is an
example of a maintenance metric.
Ron Reimer (1997) of Eli Lilly declares that metrics enlist manage-
ment support to change specific company behavior. Create a metric for
the behavior and show it to management. Let management react to the
metric. Behavior will change. There is a lot going on in most companies.
Management commitment is real, but management needs assistance
seeing exactly what is happening. Maintenance metrics help clarify
particular situations for everyone.
The use of maintenance metrics dictates their value. Many companies
collect a myriad of metrics without properly using them to manage.
Management can make many errors regarding maintenance metrics.
First, management errs when it does not create metrics that are nec-
essary or would greatly assist making proper decisions. Second, man-
agement errs when it has metrics created that are unnecessary to
consult when managing. Third, management errs when it has metrics
created, but makes decisions without consulting them. Fourth, man-
agement errs when it consults the wrong metrics when making deci-
sions. Finally, management errs when it creates and consults the right
metrics, but misinterprets their meaning.
Management can make decisions without formal indicators, but they
enhance many decisions by the use of them. Some early automobiles
398 Appendix A
were made without a gas gauge. Motorists had to refuel regularly to

avoid running out of gas. Later models included a reserve gas tank to
be engaged when the primary tank ran dry. Modern automobiles with
gas gauges allow the operators to manage their time and refill at their
convenience. The gas gauge is a metric. Simple measurements of indus-
trial plant fuel inventory allow managing purchasing decisions that affect
the company’s very ability to stay in business. On the other hand, creat-
ing and maintaining metrics can be very expensive itself. While a man-
ager might dictate the establishment of a new metric in the 10 seconds
it takes to voice the command, the company might expend 40 hours per
month in analyst time carrying out the mandate. In 40 seconds the
manager can establish four new metrics possibly requiring a full time
analyst. The actual labor time to create and maintain the metric might
be minimal, but it might be significant. One plant figured that a sub-
contractor might be taking unfair advantage of being under the mini-
mal oversight of a company supervisor. The company assigned a full time
engineer to manage the subcontractor. One has to wonder if the extra
monitoring of the subcontractor was worth the extra cost to the company
of a degreed engineer. Consider also the opportunity cost for the ana-
lyst or engineer. This person presumably performed some profitable
duty for the company before being assigned to compile the new metrics.
Is the task of providing the metrics to management a better investment
of time than the previous duty? Is there another more profitable oppor-
tunity in which to employ a person currently compiling metrics?
Management must allocate scarce resources toward the activities most
profitable for the company. Management should not be compiling met-
rics just “because everyone else does.”
Management’s insistence to create and consult unnecessary metrics
frustrates analysts who waste effort compile the information. It also
leads to faulty decisions and inappropriate cries of “wolf” that lend skep-
ticism to the use of any metrics. The company should also be leery of col-
lecting data that “might be useful one day.” Computers add to the
temptation to compile unnecessary metrics. Computers allow collection
of data much more easily in many cases, but computer equipment, com-
puter operators, data input clerks, and analysts to manage new metrics
also add substantial cost.
Nonetheless, just because management establishes the proper met-
rics does not mean management will consult them when making deci-
sions. Management may have the appropriate metrics available, but
choose to consult nothing or the wrong metrics when making certain
decisions. Even when consulting the proper metrics, management may
misinterpret the results. To illustrate these cases, consider a simple
metric showing a backlog of work measured by quantity of work orders.
Based on a large backlog, management determines there is work to be per-
formed at the station and keeps maintenance personnel at the station for
its completion, a proper management decision based on an appropriate

metric. However, even without consulting this available metric, man-
agement might decide to keep personnel at the station. Management
might even consult another metric instead. The other metric might be
previous work hours at the station. If the previous work hours indicate
a certain quantity of persons normally work maintenance at the station,
management may decide to maintain the same assignments. This is
faulty management reasoning. Past work hours may be an excellent
indicator of plant cost, but does nothing to show how much work the
plant needs in the present. The wrong indicator was consulted. However,
even consulting the appropriate metric does not guarantee appropriate
interpretations of meaning. A large backlog of work orders may mean
personnel are needed, but a small backlog by itself does not mean main-
tenance personnel are not needed. Consider a management interpreta-
tion that a large backlog of work orders means the plant has too many
breakdowns. The large backlog of work may mean the plant has a lot of
broken equipment or it may mean that many corrective and preventive
work orders have been identified to keep the equipment from breaking.
Many times management actually prevents the plant from generating
enough work orders to head off problems by applying an undue pressure
to reduce backlogs. A small backlog of work may indicate either that
maintenance is overstaffed or that maintenance is not generating
enough work to maintain plant reliability. The value of maintenance
metrics comes from their proper use. The proper use of metrics leads to
better maintenance decisions to improve equipment performance and
reliability.
The maintenance manager should work with the person who would
be doing the compilation when deciding what to measure and how.
Managers have the experience and know what decisions they could
improve with metric data. The analyst may know what is practical to
collect. For example, a manager may desire a mean time between fail-
ure (MTBF) metric to help the plant focus on its most troublesome
equipment. Theoretically, equipment that has a lower MTBF has more
problems because its frequency of failure events is higher than other
equipment. From a managerial standpoint, MTBF seems to be a rela-
tively easy metric to develop. Simply track the number of days between
failures for plant equipment and report the average number of days for
each. However, consider these issues that the analyst has to resolve.
Suppose certain equipment has never yet failed? The analyst could
somewhat easily resolve this by not including equipment until it does
break or selecting an arbitrary past or present date to begin for all equip-
ment. Equipment with a known last failure date could be started with that
known date. Next, the analyst must decide what is a “failure.” Suppose
the PdM group requests balancing a fan based on vibration trending.
Maintenance subsequently takes the fan out of service, balances the fan,
400 Appendix A
and avoids a “failure.” Suppose maintenance performs a monthly PM to

lubricate the fan and tighten its fasteners. During this PM work, a tech-
nician notices that the fan casing has considerable corrosion and writes
a corrective maintenance work order to refurbish the fan casing.
Maintenance subsequently takes the fan out of service to refurbish the
casing and avoids a “failure.” Would the analyst classify the PdM bal-
ancing, the PM servicing, or the casing refurbishment as equipment fail-
ures? The fan failed to stay in balance and the casing failed in the sense
it corroded. However, in none of the cases did the fan fail to provide the
plant with its intended gas moving service. Yet both maintenance oper-
ations caused the fan to be taken out of service. What if instead of need-
ing balancing, PdM discovered extensive fan blade damage requiring the
fan to be taken out of service immediately for two weeks? What if the
plant could wait a week before taking the fan out of service? What if
instead of PdM, the operator noticed unusual noises from the fan that
upon inspection dictated a rebuild even though the fan was performing
at its design level? Did the fan fail? The analyst also realizes that cer-
tain machines are rebuilt after a specified service life. Consider a pump
that is on a 5-year rebuild schedule. Would the rebuild be counted as a
“failure” for the purpose of MTBF? Probably not. However, the plant
sometimes experiences infant mortality of equipment after rebuilds.
Would the days between the rebuild and the new failure or between the
new failure and the last real failure be utilized for the metric? The
analyst would have to define what “failure” means for the metric. Next
the analyst must consider whether to take different components on a
single piece of equipment into account. One time the fan impeller fails
and the next time a bearing on the fan fails. Is MTBF being tracked for
the fan overall or for type of failure? Probably for the fan overall. Even
so, the MTBF from the last impeller failure is hardly a measure of repair
quality on the impeller if the bearing caused the next failure. Would the
analyst be able to extend this reasoning and track MTBF for a whole
gas path system if one time the fan fails and the next time a damper
fails? Next, the analyst might have to decide how to interpret data. If a
particular valve expected to last only 3 months in severe service has a
MTBF of 6 months, how does that compare to a pump expected to last
5 years that has a MTBF of 2 years? Moreover, is the MTBF of two
years statistically significant if only measured over two or three failures?
Finally consider from a management perspective that failures should not
happen. Maintenance’s goal is to preclude failure, not simply lessen its
frequency. Each failure might dictate changes in maintenance practice,
perhaps a better quality rebuild, perhaps more PM attention, and per-
haps more frequent PdM observation. The point of all this discussion
is not to resolve the proper application of a MTBF metric. Rather, it
is to suggest that management might dictate a metric without fully
considering its practicality of being compiled or interpreted and its
actual benefit in use. The manager with the analyst together makes a
better team to decide what to measure.
Carrying this reasoning further, many managers involve supervisors
in not only selecting what to measure, but in compiling the metric. A
supervisor may be judged by the proportion of reactive work orders
compared to proactive work orders for the equipment under his or her
control. That supervisor might be more interested and better motivated
when having a hand in collecting the data personally. Of course, admin-
istrative work can easily mount up and keep a supervisor from the
prime duty of a field presence with the crew if the manager is not care-
ful in this regard.
The purpose of this section is more to caution that the value of met-
rics comes from their proper use than to enumerate necessary metrics.
However, it is appropriate to point out a framework of metrics and men-
tion several pertinent ones regarding planning. Chapter 11, Control, fur-
ther discusses the use of indicators for planning.
Considering a framework for metrics, the ultimate measure of qual-
ity is plant availability of capacity. The plant must be able to run to pro-
duce a product to sell for profit. It does not matter how hard everyone
is working if the plant has poor availability. Plant availability is rather
easy to measure, but difficult to attribute to specific maintenance fac-
tors or break down into availability for specific systems. For instance,
condenser availability may be poor, but masked by even worse boiler
availability. Every time the unit comes off line for boiler repairs, main-
tenance personnel also patch the condenser. Breaking down the metric
for plant availability is not as simple as creating subindicators. That is
why this chapter explains that all of the aspects of maintenance are
interdependent and a conscious and motivated management must prop-
erly integrate them to achieve plant reliability. Metrics may be difficult
to tie directly to plant availability, but must assist the manager to make
better decisions related to improving plant availability. Then, only after
the plant achieves high availability, the plant may consider efficiency.
Managers can establish efficiency indicators much easier normally than
availability indicators. Management may examine overall cost, cost per
unit, overall labor hours, labor hours per unit, overall fuel use, or fuel use
per unit of product produced. A concern here is that the manager should
not dictate an improvement in the metric by simple math. For example,
the manager knows fuel use cannot be reduced by simply dictating a 20%
reduction. Why would the manager dictate the use of fewer persons as a
means of achieving fewer persons? In other words, if it takes 10 craftper-
sons to maintain a plant, then simply reducing the labor force to 8 persons
without changing some process or at least considering the existing work
situation may not be intelligent management. Availability or reliability
comes before efficiency and these areas are the ends of all metrics.
402 Appendix A
Chapter 11, Control, reviews pertinent metrics associated with plan-

ning. These indictors include planned coverage, work type, schedule
compliance, and backlog of work hours among others. Chapter 2 covers
a wrench time metric or indicator as a specific principle of planning.
Planning helps improve the amount of work time where a craft is directly
working on a piece of equipment rather than wasting time such as to
gather parts, tools, or instructions, or even travel on the plant site.
Planning does not improve administrative time such as time spent for
training, meetings, or supervision, or vacation, the latter obviously.
Administrative time can be quite large. Of the nonadministrative time,
the plant desires that most of the work done in the plant be planned to
maximize its efficient use of resources. The plant terms the planned por-
tion of total work hours spent as planned coverage. The plant includes
PM hours as planned hours. An associated metric is work type. The
plant desires most of its work be on work to preclude or reduce failures
rather than work on breakdowns. Schedule compliance measures the
success of the plant in guiding its workforce productively toward work
to increase plant reliability. Backlog kept by planned work hour assists
the scheduling process and staffing process of the plant. Management
considers these indicators associated with planning.
Notice that the above indicators primarily make use of hours, not
numbers of work orders. Some studies indicate that, on the whole, work
order counts can approximately show where time is spent. This suggests
that in certain circumstances the instances of small work orders and
large work orders balance out without skewing metric meaning. For
example, a metric showing that the plant completes more preventive
maintenance work orders than reactive work orders would suggest the
plant spends most of its time heading off breakdowns. On the other
hand, the plant might actually spend more work hours on reactive work.
The metric might not reveal the true situation if the reactive work typ-
ically requires large work orders, whereas the preponderance of PM
work orders are small tasks. The reactive work orders might frequently
require two or more persons for several days. The PM work orders might
normally require only several hours to make inspections or minor adjust-
ments to equipment. Simple quantities of work order metrics are easier
to establish than metrics using work hours, but they must be used with
more caution. Work hours usually reveal proportional metrics better
than simple quantity of work orders because productivity usually is the
same across different types of work orders.
Even using work hours requires some judgment. Work hours are not
only more difficult to collect, but can be difficult to define. Consider a
work order that planning has estimated to take a single person a single
hour to complete. However, the assigned craftperson took 5 hours to com-
plete the task. Then the person reported that the job took 2 hours on the
job feedback of the work order. Finally, the person reported 8 hours on
the daily time sheet. The technician had no other jobs assigned that day
so he took his time. When writing the work order feedback, he knew he
had taken more than the estimated 1 hour, but was reluctant to claim
it took 5 hours so he wrote down 2 on the work order. The timesheet was
more problematic for the technician because it had to total to 8 hours
for the entire day and he only had one job. The technician therefore used
the only work order assigned to allocate time on the required daily
timesheet. Payroll required a timesheet from each technician every day.
Did the job cost the company 1, 5, 2, or 8 hours? The company certainly
paid the technician for 8 hours, but the experienced planner had deter-
mined that the job warranted only a single hour. Did the low produc-
tivity cost any time? Did the supervisor’s method of assigning only a
single job at a time cost any time? Would a methodology of scheduling
enough work to fill up a technician’s day help reduce the cost of indi-
vidual jobs? These are some of the considerations one must make when
dealing with actual work hours. The job actually cost the company 1 hour.
The maintenance process cost the company 7 hours. The timesheet is
the desirable reporting device for hours because it accounts for all paid
hours. Maintenance planning aims at remedying this problem.
Management desires to have more hours on planned and scheduled jobs
as a means to reduce this discrepancy.
Maintenance metrics are another tool of the maintenance manager.

The use of the maintenance metrics dictates their value. Is the quality
of management decisions proportionately increased? The maintenance
manager should work with the person who would be doing the compi-
lation when deciding what to measure and how. This is because there
are so many judgments and interpretations involved with even some of
the most apparent straightforward measures. Maintenance planning
makes use of several metrics in particular dealing with work hours.
Summary
Planning is only a tool, but planning is a key coordinating tool that
assembles, integrates, and helps manage many of the other tools of
maintenance. These other tools include a work order system; equip-
ment data and history; leadership, management, communication, and
teamwork; qualified personnel; shops, tool rooms, and tools; storerooms;
continual process improvements; and maintenance metrics. In addi-
tion, management considers essential reliability maintenance composed
of PM, PdM, and project maintenance. On one hand, next to a work order
system, maintenance planning is one of the most valuable tools main-
tenance management has. Yet on the other hand, maintenance planning
is useless without the other tools. Maintenance management seeking to
maintain high plant reliability places due emphasis on all the various
aspects of maintenance. Nearly all of these areas present opportunities
for management to improve their contribution to maintenance success.
Appendix
B
The People Side of Planning
This brief appendix contains an important word about the people side
of planning. Management must be cognizant of and deal with this issue
in order to manage the planning program. An old adage says that engi-
neers who get Master of Business Administration (MBA) degrees think
of people as numbers. But, people are not numbers. People are humans.
In fact, companies humanize machines ahead of persons. They think of
“taking care of ” and making a machine “happy” so it will not break
down. Even the newer phrase “people are our greatest assets” could be
construed to reduce persons to things.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1980) defines culture as “The
totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institu-
tions, and all other products of human work and thought characteris-
tic of a community or population.” The maintenance workforce is a
community and the beliefs of the maintenance community affect its
behavior and the work it accomplishes. Many companies wrongly think
culture is simply a matter of “organizational discipline” which shows evi-
dence of these companies’ machine mentalities. Companies that do not
recognize culture as a vital aspect of maintenance cannot fully engage
the power of the workforce. Companies that do recognize culture as
being important take into consideration employee beliefs and thought
characteristics. This is a not a manipulative effort on their part, but a
true effort to engage the minds of their employees as well as their hands.
Furthermore, frontline leaders, the crew supervisors, are the keepers
of the plant culture. What these persons believe is the embodiment of
the plant culture and affects how the workforce behaves. Supervisors
do “take care of their people.” The front line employees interact daily
with the crew supervisors and express the frustration, problems, ideas,
beliefs, and circumstances of daily work. To each expression, the crew
supervisors respond with their vision of what is going on. This may or
405

406 Appendix B
may not be the management vision. Why would the supervisors have a
vision apart from the management? The supervisors form their vision
based on management’s actions more than management’s stated vision.
For instance, management expresses a vision of having a first class
maintenance program. The supervisor sees that management has not
allowed replacement of three retired mechanics and won’t make the
storeroom carry a routinely used item. The supervisors form a vision
that management doesn’t care. In spite of this, the supervisors devise
ways to obtain the nonstocked item anyway and make provisions not
to work the remaining mechanics “to death.” Thus the employees feel
that supervisors care even if management does not. The wise man-
agement recognizes the impact of the supervisors on plant culture and
effectiveness.
The People Rules of Planning

In working specifically with planning and scheduling over the past two
decades, the following themes seem to be recurring topics that greatly
affect the emotions of maintenance organizations. Management that
honestly and openly addresses these concerns and emotional needs are
better able to implement the significant organizational changes a plan-
ning and scheduling program requires. The following themes have been
expressed as rules to guide program thinking.
Rule 1: The planning program is not trying to

give away the plant's work to contractors
Many technicians resist planning programs because they feel the plant
is trying to write up formal job plans in order to obtain contractor quotes.
If sufficiently scoped and planned, they think contractors can easily do
the work instead of the plant technicians. In addition, the technicians fear
giving feedback to improve the information and expertise the planners
can provide to the contractors.
In general, plants should prefer to use their own regular workforce
which is already being paid to be on hand, than engage additional
resources. In addition, some maintenance forces find they have to be on
hand to guide persons unfamiliar with the plant or go behind them to
ensure proper maintenance. Only in the case of unusual specialty work
or periods of unusually heavy work would many plants consider con-
tractors.
The planning program is also oriented more toward in-house labor.
Principle 5 requires taking into account the skill of the crafts and not
waste time including unnecessary details that a skilled technician
should know. This thought pattern extends to not wasting time includ-
ing information that persons at the plant should normally know.
The People Side of Planning 407
Planners cannot waste time on the multitude of job plans making them
complete enough to give contractors firm specifications for work.
Moreover, planning tries to fulfill a mission to be a technician library
service so that technicians can use lessons of the past without having
their individual lockers full of poorly organized technical details for var-
ious pieces of equipment. Planning is trying to give the technicians a
head start, not give contractors a complete job.
Tell supervisors and technicians that the intent of planning is not to
give away the plant's work. Tell them that planning is part of the main-
tenance group and not part of a projects group to engage outside con-
tractors. Tell them that the planning program is part of an effort to
increase the efficiency of the in-house group, so it can do as much of the
maintenance as possible without contractors.
Appendix Q further analyzes contracting.
Rule 2: Planners cannot plan the perfect job

Management may have implemented planning in the past under an
incorrect premise claiming that technicians would never have to hunt
for parts because the planner would identify them all ahead of time.
Technicians soon received job plans that did not have perfect parts infor-
mation. The planner simply was not able to identify all the parts cor-
rectly for many jobs. This really did not bother the technicians too much
as long as the planner was willing to help straighten out the job plan
by searching for the extra parts the technicians discovered were neces-
sary once the job began. However, the technicians also received a lot of
unplanned jobs without any parts identified and would ask for planner
help to search for parts for them as well. As a result, management was
frustrated that the crews did not work much planned work.
The problem is that no one can possibly anticipate all the parts needed
for maintenance work ahead of time. But because equipment needs
repeated maintenance service over time, proper planning sets up a
system to improve maintenance plans continually over time.
Tell supervisors and technicians not to expect perfect plans but head
starts. Explain the cycle of maintenance and position the planning
department as a library service to use technician feedback on imperfect
jobs to improve future plans. Confide that it’s expected that plans will
not be perfect and they are only a starting point based on the informa-
tion available. Tell them that if they run into problems on jobs they
should resolve them as best they can consulting other technicians, super-
visors, file information, or even vendors. Whatever problems they run
into must be reported as feedback and they should expect planning to
fulfill a solemn duty to use feedback information on future work so tech-
nicians will not have to “reinvent the wheel.” Proper frustration is aimed
at planning only if they fail to use the feedback information. Technicians
should only have to hunt for the correct part a single time.
408 Appendix B
Rule 3: Planning is not designed to take the

brains out of the technicians
Planning is not a plant strategy to allow hiring less skilled labor.
Planning counts on skilled technicians receiving the job plans to execute
the work. Planning does not waste time including information on job
plans that skilled technicians should know. Including enough informa-
tion on every job so that anyone could execute the work would slow the
planners to a point where they could not plan all the work. In addition,
the plant hires and trains skilled technicians because even with excru-
ciatingly detailed plans, not just anyone could execute work requiring
competent maintenance journeymen. Management should not imple-
ment planning expecting that it can now hire less competent technicians
or reduce training needs for the current workforce.
Tell supervisors and technicians that the planning system depends on
their skills and competence. The planners add value to the current prac-
tices by viewing and using historical efforts by these competent techni-
cians to improve job plans. The planners then preview jobs to give the
technicians a head start, but expect the technicians to respond to the
actual circumstances of the job using all of their skills and abilities to
perform the correct work needed.
Rule 4: The technicians own the job after the

supervisor assigns it to them
In the past before the plant had a planning organization, when a super-
visor assigned work to maintenance technicians, the technicians
“owned” that work and responsibly made any decisions necessary to pro-
duce the proper maintenance results. Now with planning, many plan-
ners have a tendency to feel that they “own” the jobs even into the
execution phase of the work. Sometimes the planners complain “The
technician did not do the job as it was planned.” Planners do not own
the work after they finish planning it. The planning function gives the
technicians a head start and then the technicians own the work to exe-
cute however they deem necessary. The proper planner attitude should
be that they simply want the feedback about what the technicians actu-
ally did. Competent planners work with competent technicians jointly
to develop better and better job plans to meet true equipment needs.
Explain to planners that they do not own the jobs and that it's okay
for the technician to deviate from job plans. On the other hand, instruct
planners that it is quite proper to complain on completed jobs about not
getting enough feedback to understand what work the technicians actu-
ally performed.
Rule 5: Planners cannot make the perfect

time estimate
Anyone that has ever worked on their own automobile or plumbing can
testify that a job planned for a few hours one morning can easily take
all day or a job thought to take a whole day might suddenly be finished
in only an hour or two. Such is the nature of maintenance. The vast
majority of maintenance work consists of jobs that technicians can
accomplish within a single work day whether the jobs are estimated for
a few hours or for an entire shift. On the other hand, maintenance work
is not comparable to assembly line operations where industrial engineers
can map out and set exact time standards. Maintenance work might
mean technicians responding to equipment needs on any one of thou-
sands of pieces of equipment in the plant. And each time the equipment
is serviced, it might be by a different technician. Plus, the equipment
might require attention only once or twice in an entire year. The best
the planners can do is use their own extensive experience to guess how
long a plan might take to execute if a good technician experiences a
smooth job with nothing unexpected happening. As discussed above
simply with parts, it is also impossible for a planner to anticipate cor-
rect parts on every job. The planners can consult history files for pre-
vious job actual times, but must remember that each of these jobs had
particular technicians and particular circumstances of its own that
affected the time. Thus, management cannot expect the planned jobs to
have perfect job estimates for labor hours.
Of course, as explained by Chaps. 5 and 6, the accuracy of the esti-
mates for individual jobs are only “plus or minus 100%.” But these esti-
mates are normally distributed and as many jobs run over their
estimates as run under. This distribution means that given enough jobs,
the estimates are very useful for scheduling a week’s worth of work for
an entire crew. They are also helpful for attempting to assign the proper
amount of work to any technician for a single entire day.
Tell planners not to worry that they cannot magically estimate exact
times for jobs. Tell them that management selected them in part based
on their craft expertise and to take their best shot at the time estimate
and forget it.
Rule 6: Management cannot hold technicians

accountable to time estimates for single jobs
Because of the wide variation of the accuracy of individual job time esti-
mates, technicians cannot be held accountable for hours expended on
individual jobs. The planning system allows “best practice” assignment
of work. Planners can allocate a reasonable amount of work for a crew
for a week and supervisors can assign a reasonable amount of work for
a technician for a day. Maintenance productivity improves because the
plant assigns a reasonable amount of work.
Tell supervisors and technicians that it's okay if the hours are not met
for a single work order. The technicians should aim their efforts at com-
pleting all the work assigned for a day. Even then, it’s okay if all the tech-
nicians cannot complete all the work assigned in a single day. Tell them
410 Appendix B
that time estimates are only estimates, but over the long run it is
expected that on many days technicians will probably be able to com-
plete all their work.
Rule 7: Showing what is not correct is often

as important as showing what is correct
Planning has such a great potential for adopting bad practices that it
is essential management discuss these practices. It is not proper for
planners to help out on crews doing either technician work or helping
them “chase parts.” Planners cannot adequately retrieve records if they
are stored in large system files rather than by their individual compo-
nent equipment numbers. And planners need not put extensive job steps
into job plans when those steps are unnecessary for the skilled techni-
cian. Talking about these false steps helps the planner better understand
the correct method of achieving planner objectives. Many planners feel
they are fulfilling the principles when in fact they are doing the exact
opposite.
On the technician side, feedback on job plans gives the technicians the
opportunity to say what is not right about an individual job plan.
Incorrect steps can be crossed out and correct steps written in by tech-
nicians.
Explain to planners not only the correct principles of planning, but
specifically mention incorrect actions as a way of clarifying expecta-
tions. Tell supervisors and technicians to feel free to mark up job plans
and correct them.
Rule 8: Planners do not add value if they

help jobs-in-progress
Planners might help jobs-in-progress for several reasons. Planners sin-
cerely want to help technicians with jobs-in-progress. In the case of a
planned job, it seems only “right” that a planner help straighten out a
job not planned perfectly. Shouldn't the planners “redeem” themselves
by helping correct their plans? In fact, the technicians feel very strongly
that planners have an obligation to correct their errors. And for
unplanned work, the planner often has the superior data and computer
skills in the maintenance group for finding information. Why wouldn’t
the technicians seek out planners for help on troubled jobs-in-progress?
It is very natural for planners to help jobs-in-progress.
However, if helping current jobs, planners merely replace activities
the technicians used to do by themselves, with supervisors, with peers,
or with vendors. Planners add value when they look at jobs and history
before the job is assigned to give the technicians a head start. The prob-
lem with helping jobs-in-progress is that since planners cannot plan
perfect jobs there are too many jobs that would require their help.
Helping nearly every job that requires more information keeps planners
from focusing much attention on future jobs and the planning cycle of
improving work through feedback collapses. And the scheduling program
cannot advance because the backlogged work does not have planned time
estimates. The future work being improved from planning and the sched-
uling process constitute new activities to the maintenance effort. Helping
jobs-in-progress merely replaces what other persons were doing and
does not add value.
Explain to planners why they do not add value when they do techni-
cian work for the technicians. Tell supervisors and technicians not to
expect perfect jobs, but do their best to execute the work and resolve
problems they can report as feedback. Explain to them the concept of
added value and the importance of allowing the planners freedom to plan
future work.
Rule 9: Everyone is an adult

This is a variation of Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X and Theory Y
state that if management treats employees as if the employees are lazy,
the employees will act as if they do not want to work, but if management
treats employees as if they want to work and do a good job, they will. It
is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the case of maintenance, man-
agement should share information with technicians.
The most widely abused aspect of this concept occurs when plant
policy dictates not putting time estimates on the technician copies of the
job plans. In other words, if the planner plans a job for say 3 hours, the
technician will not have the 3 hour estimate on the printed out work
order. The thought behind this practice is “If the technicians can do the
job in less than 3 hours, they will drag it out for the whole 3 hours!” One
problem with this thinking is that without the time estimate, what
keeps the technicians from dragging out the job for the whole day?
Another problem is without the time estimate, how can the technicians
let the supervisor know they are running into unexpected problems? If
problems arise and the technicians know the estimate is 3 hours, they
would notify the supervisor that it looks like the job will run over a few
hours. Without the estimate, why would they notify the supervisor? If
the estimate was a 16 hour one and the technicians don't understand
why the job should take more than an hour or two, the discrepancy also
brings up communication. They call the supervisor or reread the job plan
to make sure they understand what is needed. Why would the techni-
cians speak up if they don't have a time estimate that might indicate a
problem with understanding the job plan?
Proper job assignment through daily scheduling greatly relieves any
concerns that technicians might “milk” job plans. Simply by scheduling
technicians a full day’s worth of work minimizes the opportunities to slow
412 Appendix B
down on any particular job. For example, don’t simply assign one 3-hour
job with the instruction for the technicians to come back as soon as they
are finished. If they are working an 8-hour shift, assign the 3-hour job
plus a 4-hour job and a 1-hour job. If they finish the 3 hour job in 1 hour,
they need to start the 4-hour job because it might take 6 hours. And the
1-hour job may take an entire hour or more. Well, what if the technicians
finish all three jobs (8 hours of work) in only say 5 hours? The quick man-
agement response might be that they were not given enough work. But
isn’t finishing three jobs better than finishing just the one job which
might have been all that was completed without assigning a full day of
work? At most maybe only two jobs might have been completed if the
technicians came back for more work. Management’s case for not plac-
ing time estimates on the work orders seems to be a case for limiting the
amount of work completed.
Don’t play games by not including time estimates on the work orders
the technicians receive. Give the technicians as much information as pos-
sible on job plans.
Rule 10: Everyone should enjoy their work

Two areas of planning particularly concern enjoying work. One is a
technician fear of downsizing and the other is a management drive for
productivity that doesn’t recognize human social needs.
Companies that engage planning with the idea of creating room for
downsizing may not find planning successful. Planning benefits from
maintenance-wide support. Planners need technician feedback. Planners
need supervisor acceptance of a weekly work allocation. The fear of
downsizing greatly diminishes enthusiastic support of new approaches
such as planning.
Don’t push for planning so that downsizing can follow. If the plant
must downsize, do so and then implement planning to pick up produc-
tivity so that everyone can keep their jobs.
Management also sometimes has such a push for productivity that it
cannot stand basic human social interactions on the shop floor. John
Naisbitt in his acclaimed book Megatrends discusses High Tech, High
Touch. This concept predicts that technology will never progress to the
point where persons do not have to interact with each other on jobs. The
more technology advances where persons can work apart, the more they
create reasons for getting together. This means that occasionally tech-
nicians do chat with each other at work, but that does not mean pro-
ductivity will suffer. Management best handles productivity by assigning
enough work through planning and scheduling and allows employees to
talk as much as they want to if they are getting all their work done.
Don’t worry about supervisors and technicians spending too much
time talking. Ensure that planners allocate a week's worth of work each
week to each crew and that supervisors assign a full day’s work each day
to each technician. Then monitor Schedule Success.
Rule 11: Everyone should go home at the end

of each day knowing if they have won or lost
Assigning a full day of work to each technician at the beginning of each
day greatly reduces stress among technicians. In plants with the bad
habit of assigning one job at a time, self starters and technicians who
need more supervision each feel a certain amount of anxiety. The self
starters finish jobs as soon as possible and go back for more work. Yet
they do wonder what the next job will be and if it will be a worse job than
the one they just finished. In addition, they also become an object of
peer pressure to slow down to the average pace of the workforce. It also
aggravates them that they push and push each day to accomplish as
much as possible, yet the supervisor accepts the slower pace of the others.
And pay is equal among the same rank crafts. Along the same lines and
even worse, less motivated technicians may even dread the prospect of
the unknown, of the next job. They may be currently working on repair-
ing a ground level water line. What if the next job involves a down-in-
the-mud sewer line? Maybe it is best not to hurry along the current task.
They feel the faster technicians make them look bad. They wonder how
fast should they go and how much should the other technicians slow
down? What is a reasonable pace that the supervisor will accept? All of
this can be avoided by simply assigning all the work at the beginning of
the day. But how much work is enough work? Using the planner hour
estimates allows the crew supervisor to assign the right amount of work.
Yes, the estimates are plus or minus 100%, but given several jobs helps
dampen out the variation, and having a respected planner make the
estimates makes the daily assignment reasonable. Technicians then
have a goal of how much work to do each day. They can speed through
the day and ask for more if they finish everything. Or they can pace
themselves to finish at the end of the day. And stress drops because the
technicians know what the next assignment is. They know what to look
forward to. Even better is the supervisor making the assignments the day
before to reduce the stress of “I wonder what is going on tomorrow?”
Help the supervisors develop a daily scheduling routine not only as a
tool for working down the weekly schedule to increase productivity, but
because technicians appreciate seeing all of what is expected of them
each day. Then they can go about accomplishing that goal.
Rule 12: Wrench time is not strictly under

the control of the technicians
A low wrench time does not indicate lazy, slow technicians. Wrench time
merely records the amount of time on jobs. It does not even measure how
414 Appendix B
fast they work once they are on jobs. Wrench time identifies weaknesses
in support areas. If the plant has a terrible storeroom without necessary
parts, a situation where special tools are hard to find, technicians having
to share hand tools, poorly written work requests, minimal explanations
of work desired, and a system of assigning a single job at a time, how
can technicians be responsible for low wrench time? Are technicians
spending a great deal of time trying to find parts? Is trying to get the
proper tools an area of common delay? Do technicians frequently have
to leave the job in order to get more instructions? All of the preceding
delay areas occur during specific jobs. In most cases, wrench time is low
because of delays between jobs. This may be evidenced by high break
time, late arrivals, early departures, or high unaccountable times. Are
these signs of slow technicians? Not necessarily. Experience shows that
they usually indicate supervisors are not assigning enough work. Many
plants charge the technicians with doing as much as they can and
assign them one job at a time. Technicians should not be responsible
for finding their own jobs. Holding them responsible to find their own
work leads to a general sense of apprehension in the workforce and
average productivity finding a middle ground of mediocrity. Wrench
time is a measure of the overall productivity of the work system, includ-
ing planning and scheduling. It is not strictly under the control of the
technicians.
Tell supervisors and technicians that wrench time measures how well
management is supporting maintenance in terms of adequate ware-
housing, tooling, job plans, scheduling, and work assignment. Tell them
management evaluates the delays identified by wrench time studies to
see how it can better support technicians doing their work. Management
does not want to pay technicians and then have a system that prevents
them from actively working on equipment.
Rule 13: Schedule compliance is not strictly

under the control of the crew supervisors
Just as wrench time is not under the control of technicians, schedule
compliance is not under the control of crew supervisors. It’s “okay” for
the supervisors to break the schedule and work on an unscheduled job
or even an unplanned job. In fact, the supervisor had better abandon the
daily schedule even if it means reassigning the entire crew to work on
an emergency breakdown. And, the supervisor had better deviate from
the weekly schedule allocation to attack an urgent breakdown that can
wait until tomorrow but not next week. Thus, the schedule compliance
is more a measure of how reactive is the plant rather than how compliant
is the supervisor. Many plants entering into a formal schedule program
tie supervisor pay to schedule compliance. This is the definition of
stress: Should I meet the schedule to help my pay or help the plant with
emergency work and hurt my pay? In reality management does not

want perfect schedule compliance, it wants perfect plant performance.
Perfect plant performance is best achieved by maintenance crews quickly
reacting to emergency work and productively pursuing regular main-
tenance work in the absence of emergencies. Productivity improves
when supervisors begin each week with a weekly schedule, supervisors
receive help setting up a daily schedule routine, and management exam-
ines weekly schedule compliance scores. Management does not have to
tie supervisor pay to schedule compliance.
Tell supervisors that management wants them to start each week with
a goal of work to accomplish and management is interested in knowing
each week how much work got done. Tell them that management wants
them to use some sort of daily scheduling. Tell them that the intent of
scheduling is to line up and accomplish as much work as possible to
reduce potential emergencies from happening. The measure of success
of this strategy is the schedule compliance score because it measures the
reactive nature of the plant. In fact, call schedule compliance schedule
success because everyone wants the schedule to succeed. But also very
clearly tell them that it’s “okay” to break a schedule because it was just
a starting point. Don’t tie pay to schedule compliance.
Rule 14: It is better to train employees

and lose them than to not train them
and keep them
So much new equipment is technologically superior to items of the past
that technicians, planners, and supervisors need ongoing training. In
addition, techniques of modern maintenance and management improve
over the years. Companies should take time to invest training in employ-
ees because these employees have careers spanning decades. One prob-
lem with training employees is losing them to other companies,
especially the most valuable employees. Often these employees have
improved their value through acquiring advanced skills and abilities.
However, a problem with not training is ending up with more and more
employees that are not contributing as much as they could with better
skills. Instead of training, some companies hire more and more outside
contractors and consultants to provide a technical expertise lacking in
the plant. The medium range result of not training would be paying an
unskilled workforce on hand and also paying a skilled consultant. The
longer range result of not training would be losing the workforce through
retirement and having an entire contractor and consultant base doing
the maintenance. Or it would mean having a newly hired young work-
force on hand and still having to hire contractors and consultants.
Sitting back and taking a proper perspective seems to indicate that a
company that wants an effective in-house workforce should train its
416 Appendix B
employees continually. Extra costs for hiring and training new employ-
ees for ones lost and extra costs for raising wages to keep skilled employ-
ees would be offset by savings of not hiring outside forces and having
skilled persons on hand familiar with the plant and its equipment.
Train employees and pay them what they are worth. Be conscious of
the false savings of not spending money training.
Rule 15: Modern maintenance needs

to do less with less
In Joel Leonard (2003) said that “Companies will continue trying to do
more with less until they can do everything with nothing!” This state-
ment points out the unreasonableness of simply cutting maintenance
resources in an attempt to improve the bottom line. Nevertheless, this
philosophy appears to guide many companies when they reduce main-
tenance budgets while at the same time add activities and duties to
maintenance staffs. In reality, companies should invest more resources
where they create a sufficient return or a profit and reduce investments
in nonprofitable activities. Companies calculate net present values or
returns on investments for judging new investments in capital equip-
ment. Companies should also consider the returns or lack thereof when
cutting investments in maintenance, whether it be labor, spare parts,
or tools. Unfortunately, maintenance has a hard time quantifying finan-
cial figures concerning what might break if the plant does not replace
a retired electrician. In this environment, Larry Bradley (2005),
Technical Superintendent of St. John’s River Power Park, suggests
“doing less with less.” He says that maintenance must recognize and stop
those activities which do not produce sufficient return. For example,
Bradley’s plant stopped the routine calibration of pressure gauges that
were not tied to transmitters. Instead, operators should report obvi-
ously faulty gauges and report process problems that might lead to per-
forming special calibrations. This saves a great quantity of instrument
technician hours each year.
Planning enters this discussion in two ways. One, companies that
add new programs to maintenance each year while reducing its budget
have a hard time implementing each new program. Maintenance may
view planning as another program it will not have the resources to oper-
ate. Two, planning does have the potential to help identify areas of
maintenance excess. Planners can see histories of individual equipment
needed excessive attention and suggest projects to engineering. Planners
can help supervisors not waste time assigning incorrect craft skills for
uncertain time periods. Planners can help technicians not waste time
repeating searches for parts, tools, and instructions that were sought
out the last time the equipment was serviced. Less time spent on unpro-
ductive activities is less work for maintenance.
Carefully introduce planning as not another burden on maintenance,

but as a means to help reduce wasted activities to make technicians more
productive such as better utilizing lessons of the past through a library
service.
Summary
The successful implementation of planning requires attention to the
people side of planning and maintenance. The planning program pro-
foundly impacts the maintenance organization because it completely
changes the business process of maintenance. Because organizations
consist of persons, management must consider the culture and mind-set
of these persons. Carefully considering a number of issues that affect
the beliefs and thoughts of maintenance employees greatly improves the
likelihood of success for a maintenance planning program.
Appendix
C
What to Buy and Where
The intent of this appendix for suppliers is to:
1. Identify the materials mentioned in this book helpful to a mainte-

nance planning operation.
2. Identify the type of supplier for the material.
3. Give a starting place for procurement. The intent of this section is not
to endorse any particular supplier.
Minifile Folders
These folders for creating equipment files are pockets to keep loose doc-
uments from spilling. The reinforced side gussets reduce tearing as per-
sons repeatedly tug on the pockets to remove the file folders from the
shelf. Three sizes listed below allow having small folders for most equip-
ment, but larger sizes for equipment files expected to hold more docu-
mentation and manuals. Other styles are available besides one with side
tabs designed for an open filing system. These products are available
through many local office supply stores.
Smead or Pendaflex expanding end tab pockets

Legal size Straight cut 13/4-in expansion
Company: The Smead Manufacturing Company
Phone 651-437-4111, fax no. 1-800-959-9134.
Attention: Smead Marketing Department.
www.smead.com
419

420 Appendix C
Minifile Labels
Color labels greatly simplify filing and retrieving information. The color
combinations allow easy identification of incorrectly filed folders. The
planner places the correct combinations of color labels on minifile folders
to identify equipment. The folders listed above will hold eight large char-
acter labels on the side tabs. Plants with more than eight characters in
the equipment number arrangement (not including hyphens or dashes)
should use smaller size character labels. The plant should order a complete
set of alphabetic (A–Z) and numeric (0–9) character labels depending on
what characters could be used to identify equipment. Plants should order
labels in rolls rather than sheets. The rolls make creating the minifiles
much more easy. These products are available through many local office
supply stores.
Tabbies Color Coded Labels

1-in high letters and numbers No. 90100 (or 71000) series (Specify
rolls)
500 labels per roll
Company: Tabbies Division of Xertrex International, Inc.
Itasca, Illinois USA 60143-1171
www.tabbies.com This site has a listing of local stores that carry
Tabbies.
Miscellaneous Office Supplies

A new planner may benefit from office assistance that other office per-
sonnel take for granted. This is especially true as a company moves a
mechanic or other type technician from the field into the planning office.
The new planner may benefit from receiving a desk calculator, diction-
ary, and thesaurus as well as a calendar type organizer. Many planners
benefit from a small hand held electronic spell checker. Computer typing
tutor games help planners increase keyboard skills. These products are
available through many local office supply stores.
Franklin Webster’s Spelling Corrector Plus

Office Depot No. 350-959
About $20
Texas Instruments Display Desktop Calculator
About $9
Saunders Snapak Aluminum forms holder. Helps planner take mul-
tiple work orders around in the field.
About $35
What to Buy and Where 421
Typing Instructer Deluxe

Office Depot No. 835-273 (requires Microsoft Windows and CD-ROM)
About $40
Company: Office Depot
1-800-60-DEPOT(463-3768) Fax no. 1-800-685-5010
www.officedepot.com
Equipment Tags
Many companies exist that can deliver generic or customized equip-
ment tag numbers on many different types of tag material. Many plants
find customized tags consisting of engraving on plastic tags suitable.
These tags can be obtained from local trophy shops. A plant would give
the trophy shop a list of the tag numbers and equipment names along
with the size tag desired for each. The plant might specify the need for
having a 3/16-in hole drilled in the top right corner or both top corners
to allow hanging with wire. The plant probably would elect to drill holes
themselves later when attaching the tags. The plant might want to
attach the tags without holes and wires by means of common silicone
adhesive caulk. The plant should specify color tags. Appendix K,
Equipment Schematics and Tagging, further discusses selection and
utilization.
Recommended tag sizes and colors.
Normal size custom plastic equipment tags 2 × 3 in.

Two-color laminate material, 1/16 in thick.
Letters: Gothic style, combined letter height should generally equal
40 to 60% of tag height for readability. This depends on number of
lines, typically equipment number 5/16 in high, equipment description
1/4 in high.
Large size custom plastic equipment tags 6 × 8 in for large equipment.

lines.
Super-large-size custom plastic equipment tags 12 × 16 in for large
equipment such as tanks and whose tag numbers should be readable
at some distance.
lines.
422 Appendix C
(Optional minisize custom plastic equipment tags 1 × 2 in.

Limited use for short equipment numbers and only one or two word
equipment descriptions.
Letters: Gothic style, equipment number 1/4 in high, equipment
description 3/16 in high.)
Standard stock, high contrast colors:
Black over white (white letters)

Blue over white (white letters)
Green over white (white letters)
Red over white (white letters) (may have limited use due to possible
safety or warning color confusion)
White over black (black letters) (Preferred in low light areas)
Special order material available for special circumstances as
Decorator colors such as wood grains may be preferred in office areas

Ultraviolet safe for extreme sunlight in outdoor usage
More sturdy material for unusually high ambient temperature areas
The Trophyman (this local trophy shop does local, national, and inter-
national business).
1225 North 4th Street
Jacksonville Beach, Florida USA 32250
1-904-246-4919
Email: [email protected]
The Trophyman can receive Microsoft text files to facilitate engrav-
ing tags.
Wire to Hang Tags on Equipment

This wire will not break after repeated bending and twisting. It comes
in convenient one pound, spool containers.
Aircraft Stainless Steel Lockwire 1 lb

Diameter 0.032-in wire, steel corrosion-resisting
Form 1, cond. A, comb. 302/304
Spec. MS20995-C (chem. and tensile only)
ASTM A580 nonelectrical
Malin Company
Brookpark, Ohio USA 44142
(800) 0167-9697
What to Buy and Where 423
Deficiency Tags
Deficiency tags mark equipment that has been written up on work
orders. A local print shop can make simple tags such as that shown by
Fig. B.8 in App. B. LEM Products, Inc. makes a special tag with a self-
laminating feature that allows the tag to be weatherproof after hang-
ing. It also allows the originator to have a carbon copy to take back to
the office with information to write the work order. LEM Products, Inc.
inserts a brass eyelet in the top hole eyelet. Plant may specify whether
it wants tag company to preattach a string or wire to the eyelet. Plant
may specify a consecutive number sequence on the tags.
Lama-Tag LTC hanging style deficiency tag, blue with carbon, 31/4 ×
1
5 /2-in, perforate with brass eyelet, attach wire, consecutively numbered
starting with 00001.
LEM Products, Inc.

P.O. Box 190
Doylestown, PA USA 18901
1-800-220-2400 1-800-355-1414 (fax)
Shop Ticket Holders

Crews may wish to have reusable, plastic pockets help technicians
keep work order forms clean and handy in the field. They come in boxes
of 25.
Shop ticket holders No. 46912

C-Line Products, Inc.
1100 Business Center Drive
Mt. Prospect, IL 60056
1-800-323-6084
1-847-827-6661
1-847-827-3329 Fax
www.c-lineproducts.com
Open Shelf Files

Open shelves reduce filing space. They also encourage the use of files
because of their visibility. Legal size files are preferred for ease of placing
manuals and drawings in minifiles. Open shelves for filing systems can
be procured from a number of companies.
Company: The Smead Manufacturing Company

Additional information available through fax no. 1-800-959-9134
Attention: Smead Marketing Department
651-437-4111
424 Appendix C
CMMS
This edition will not list any CMMS suppliers. To be honest, this is for
two reasons. First, if nothing else, this entire book has set forth that
maintenance planning is not a software project. Proposing a supplier
herein might suggest that one needs to purchase a CMMS. A computer
system is helpful, but not essential to implement effective maintenance
planning. Chapter 9, The Computer in Maintenance, describes the com-
puter’s proper place in maintenance. Second, so many good systems are
available in all price ranges that attempting to identify several would
surely leave out others worthy of note. Chapter 9 and App. L suggest how
one might go about selecting a system adequate for one’s individual cir-
cumstances. Many journal articles and books are also available to assist
in a CMMS evaluation.
Appendix
D
Sample Forms and
Work Orders
This appendix gives a complete set of forms (Figs. D.1 to D.14) used in
this handbook. Purchasers of this book may use them as they are or
modify them for maintenance in their organizations.
This appendix also shows sample work orders, all completed with tech-
nician feedback. These helpful examples illustrate proper information
included at various stages of the maintenance process: requested work,
coded work, planned work, and completed work. These samples may be
used for a variety of purposes including determining what would be
included in a work plan, what level of detail is needed for a work plan,
and what is good feedback. It is one thing to explain what is needed, but
samples showing what is meant prove helpful to the reader.
Work orders are typeset for ease of legibility to the reader of the
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook. In actual practice,
the work order request, plans, or completed work feedback might be
handwritten or typed depending on the exact forms used or any com-
puter system employed.
The following sample work orders (Figs. D.15 through D.26) are taken
from the daily schedule illustrated in Chap. 7, Daily Scheduling and
Supervision, for B Crew.
425

426 Appendix D
Figure D.1 Sample work order form.

Sample Forms and Work Orders 427
Figure D.2 Crew work hours availability forecast form.

428 Appendix D
Figure D.3 Advance schedule worksheet.

Figure D.4 Advance schedule worksheet 2 to measure schedule compliance.

430
Figure D.5 Daily schedule form.

Figure D.6 Sample alignment readiness form.

432 Appendix D
Figure D.7 Sample burner checksheet form.

Figure D.8 Sample deficiency tag form.

434
Figure D.9 Sample minifile form for history.

Figure D.10 Sample minifile form for equipment data. The “standard plan” indicates
a booklet kept in the paper file. It might be updated on a word processor.
436 Appendix D
Figure D.11 Sample minifile form for spare parts.

Figure D.12 Sample minifile form for PM’s.

438 Appendix D
Figure D.13 Sample form to ensure an even balance of work sampling study observations.
Figure D.14 Sample form to record work sampling observations.
439
440 Appendix D
Work order
#015
Unit 2 polisher tank A (N02-CP-010) underdrain has high
differential. Please clean. Def. Tag #010897.
No outage required. Clearance req. Yes confined space.
J. Jones 5/4/99 1:15 pm. Approval: S. Brenn 5/4/99
Planning section Attached blank permit form.
B Crew. Obtain confined space permit. Vacuum out old
resin. Blow out drain screen.
Labor: 1 Tech 20 hr Total labor 40 hr Actual 13
1 Tech∗ 20 hr Job duration 20 hr Actual 13
∗(certified confined space lookout)
Parts: None
Tools: 6' step ladder
10 gal shop vac
25' air hose with regulator
Planner: Rodgers 5/5/99 Job estimate: $1000 Actual: $325

Craft feedback
Cleaned underdrain. Used 2' extension on shop vac and
did not need to enter polisher. 1 mech-13 hours
Job started 5/7 7:30 am. Finished 5/11 10:30 am.
S. Jensen 5/11/99 Approval: J. Field 5/11/99

Coding Plan type RE Group/syst CP Crew B
Figure D.15 Sample completed work order to illustrate information added at each
work process step.
work process step.
442 Appendix D
work process step.
Work order
#019
Unit 2 "C" Vacuum Pump (N02-CV-022) running hot.
Def. Tag #010562.
No outage required. Clearance req. No confined space.
Hernandez 4/28/99 3:10 pm Approval: Stanwick 4/28/99
Planning section
B Crew. Inspect all intake valves for "C" Vacuum pump.
Take appropriate corrective action.
Labor: 1 Mech 20 hr Total labor 20 hr Actual 25

Job duration 20 hr Actual 25
Parts: Channels VAL-PU-015∗ Qty 10 Cost $7.18ea
Reeds VAL-PU-015∗ Qty 10 Cost $0.85ea
Backing plate VAL-PU-015∗ Qty 10 Cost $24.60ea
∗Reserved
Tools: Mech's box.
Planner: Rodgers 4/29/99 Job estimate: $550 Actual: $630
Craft feedback Inspected all intake valves. Found
#1& #2 inlet valves with bad reeds and replaced. Ran
pump. Checked okay.
1 mech-25 hours. Job Start 4/7 10 am. Finished 4/12 4 pm.
S. Adamson 5/12/99 Approval: J. Field 5/12/99

Coding Plan type PE Group/syst FC Crew B
work process step.
444 Appendix D
work process step.
Figure D.20 Sample completed work order to illustrate information added at each work
process step.
446 Appendix D
work process step.
work process step.
448 Appendix D
work process step.
process step.
450 Appendix D
work process step.
process step.
Appendix
E
Step-by-Step Overview
of Planner Duties
This appendix runs through the planner’s duties step by step without
commentary. This accounting of the duties provides a starting point for
the required actions of specific planners in specific companies. Chapter 5
establishes the reasoning. Chapter 11 describes the importance of the
planner selection. Appendix M describes the qualifications of the plan-
ner and issues related to planner hiring. Appendix N gives a sample
formal job description of a maintenance planner.
I. New Work Orders
A. Collect and review new work orders prior to the managers and
supervisors meeting each morning. Code work orders and list
work order numbers with a brief description on the Morning
Meeting List. Copy each work order for the Planning Clerk to
begin computer entry. Send a copy with the list to the morning
meeting.
B. Open any authorized emergency work orders for immediate
work on computer systems to inventory and time sheet trans-
actions.
II. Before Job Scheduling
C. Select authorized work orders to plan per priority guidelines
from waiting-to-be-planned file. Make a working copy of the
work order and file the original work order form in planner
active file.
D. Determine the type of work order to determine the type of plan-
ning required per guidelines (proactive or reactive work order).
E. For a proactive work order, determine the level of detail required
for planning the job per guidelines (extensive or minimum main-
tenance).
453

454 Appendix E
1. For a proactive, extensive work order:

a. Record the work order number and description on the
Equipment History Data Sheet in the Equipment History
Files for the component level file (minifile). If there is no
minifile, create one. If a minifile cannot be created because
there is no equipment number reported, create the
minifile after the field inspection.
b. Scope the job to determine the exact problem or situation
using minifile and computer information, field inspec-
tion, and personal experience. Perform a root cause analy-
sis if required per guidelines. When necessary, research
Equipment Technical Files and Vendor Files for informa-
tion; copy useful information to the minifile when found.
When necessary, get knowledgeable maintenance or oper-
ator assistance including talking to Originator, reviewing
Operating Crew Log Reports, and operating the equipment.
Refer work orders requiring predictive testing, perform-
ance testing, or engineering to the Planning Supervisor for
consultation and possible reassignment. During the field
inspection, verify whether a unit outage is required and
what type of outage. Verify whether insulation work is
required and whether asbestos is suspected. Determine if
clearance or confined space permits are required. Note if
there is no component tag. Update work order form for all
information discovered on the field inspection.
c. Plan the general strategy of the job such as repair or
replace to fix the probable cause permanently and outline
overall steps when necessary such as “(1) erect scaffold-
ing, (2) repair valve, (3) remove scaffolding.” If necessary,
attach a copy of useful information such as helpful pro-
cedures, sketches, and equipment specifications, draw-
ings, or data using resources such as the History,
Technical and Vendor Files. (Gather and develop these
items as needed and always put a copy in the minifile.)
d. Attach a Standard Plan if available.
e. Plan the classification and number of personnel required
including all crafts.
f. Plan the number of work hours and duration hours to
complete the job.
g. Provide a listing of anticipated as well as other possible
material required including complete equipment part
breakdowns.
(1) Coordinate with the Storeroom or Maintenance
Purchaser for unavailable needed parts and put the
work order in the waiting-for-parts file.
(2) Reserve anticipated parts.
Step-by-Step Overview of Planner Duties 455
h. Provide a listing of any special tools, equipment, or con-

tractors (including insulation work) needed.
i. Designate whether there are any job safety requirements
and explain.
j. Complete a cost estimate on work order form for all antic-
ipated resources (labor, material, and special tools/con-
tractor). Total all information on work order form. Confirm
authorization with the planning supervisor if total cost
estimate exceeds $5000.
k. Attach any necessary data sheets identifying them on
work order form.
l. Update computer for planning information and status.
m. File the completed planned work package in the waiting-
to-be-scheduled file.
2. For proactive, minimum maintenance work order:
there is no equipment number reported, create the minifile
after the field inspection.
using the minifile (if available) and computer information,
field inspection, and personal experience. Determine if
clearance or confined space permits are required. During
the field inspection, verify whether a unit outage is required
and what type of outage. Verify whether insulation work is
required and whether asbestos is suspected. Determine if
clearance or confined space permits are required. Note if
there is no component tag or silver tag on the piece of equip-
ment. Update the work order form for all information dis-
covered on the field inspection.
replace to fix the probable cause permanently.
d. (No Standard Plan is necessary.)
complete the job.
g. Provide a listing of anticipated material. Include other
possible material required including complete equip-
ment part breakdowns only if already available in the
minifile.
(No parts ordering or reserving is necessary.)
h. Provide a listing of any special tools, equipment, or con-
tractors (including insulation work) needed.
456 Appendix E

and explain.
j. Complete the work order form for all anticipated resources
(labor, and special tools/contractor). Total all information
on the work order form.
k. Attach any necessary data sheets identifying them on the
work order form.
l. Update the computer for planning information and
status.
m. File completed planned work package in the waiting-to-
be-scheduled file.
F. For a reactive work order, determine the level of detail required
for planning the job per guidelines (extensive, or minimum main-
tenance).
1. For a reactive, extensive work order:
there is no equipment number reported, create the
minifile after the field inspection.
using the minifile and computer information, field inspec-
tion, and personal experience. During the field inspection,
verify whether a unit outage is required and what type of
outage. Verify whether insulation work is required and
whether asbestos is suspected. Determine if clearance or
confined space permits are required. Note if there is no com-
ponent tag on the piece of equipment. Update the work order
form for all information discovered on the field inspection.
replace to fix the problem and outline overall steps when
necessary such as “(1) erect scaffolding, (2) repair valve,
(3) remove scaffolding.” If necessary, attach a copy of
useful information such as helpful procedures, sketches,
and equipment specifications, drawings, or data only if
already available in the minifile.
d. Attach a Standard Plan if available.
complete the job.
g. Only if already available in the minifile, provide a listing
of anticipated as well as other possible material required
including complete equipment part breakdowns.
Step-by-Step Overview of Planner Duties 457
(1) Coordinate with the Storeroom or Maintenance

Purchaser for unavailable needed parts and put the
work order in the waiting-for-parts file.
(2) Reserve anticipated parts.
h. Only if already known or available in the minifile, provide
a listing of any special tools, equipment, or contractors
(including insulation work) needed.
and explain.
j. Complete a cost estimate on the work order form for all
anticipated resources (labor, material, and special tools/
contractor). Total all information on the work order form.
Confirm authorization with the planning supervisor if the
total cost estimate exceeds $5000.
k. Attach any necessary data sheets identifying them on
work order form.
l. Update the computer for planning information and status.
m. File completed planned work package in the waiting-to-
be-scheduled file.
2. For a reactive, minimum maintenance work order:
a. Check to see if there is a minifile with useful information.
(No minifile creation or recording of information is nec-
essary if there is no minifile existent. Record information
if there already is a minifile.)
using personal experience only if the stated problem is
unclear. A field inspection is highly recommended, but
not mandatory. Determine if clearance or confined space
permits are required.
replace to fix the problem.
d. (No Standard Plan is necessary.)
complete the job.
g. Only if already available in the minifile, provide a listing
of anticipated as well as other possible material required
including complete equipment part breakdowns. (No parts
ordering or reserving is necessary.)
h. Only if already known, provide a listing of any special
tools, equipment, or contractors (including insulation
work) needed.
and explain.
458 Appendix E
j. Complete a cost estimate on the work order form for all

anticipated resources (labor and special tools/contractor).
Total all information on the work order form.
k. Attach any necessary data sheets identifying them on the
work order form.
l. Update the computer for planning information and status.
m. File the completed planned work package in the waiting-
to-be-scheduled file.
III. After Job Scheduling
G. Stage parts and tools for scheduled jobs per guidelines. Identify
items as staged on the work order form.
IV. After Job Execution
H. Receive the work order after job execution and review for feed-
back information completeness (including any attachments).
Clarify feedback as necessary to allow improvements to planned
work packages for future work. Complete the work order form
for actual cost and totals.
I. Discard the Minimum Maintenance work orders with no his-
torical value.
J. File other work orders in their respective minifiles. Update the
Equipment History Data Sheet and other minifile sheets and
information as necessary to allow improvements to planned
work packages for future work. Make a work order copy for the
Planning Clerk for final close out and distribution to the
Originator. Indicate if a copy needs to go to engineering to show
plant modifications.
K. Initiate necessary proactive work orders for additional work based
on feedback from completed work orders. Create new standing pre-
ventive maintenance work orders, if necessary. Also, adjust the
existing standing preventive maintenance work orders, if necessary.
V. Other Duties
L. Develop and maintain work packages for PM routes (and on
individual equipment) to facilitate initiation of proactive work
orders by maintenance forces performing PM work.
M. Maintain History, Technical, and Vendor Files.
N. Develop and maintain Standard Plan packages.
O. Minimize unplanned work order backlog.
P. Coordinate process problems with crew supervisors on a peer level.
Q. Perform related duties as directed by the supervisor of the plan-
ning department.
Appendix
F
Step-by-Step Overviews
of Others’ Duties
This appendix follows in the steps of the previous appendix and runs
through the relevant step-by-step duties of persons other than the plan-
ner without commentary. This accounting of the duties provides a start-
ing point for the required actions of those specific persons in specific
companies.
The following positions are included.
Maintenance Scheduler
Maintenance Planning Clerk
Operations Coordinator
Maintenance Purchaser or Expediter
Crew Supervisor
Planning Supervisor
Maintenance Manager
Maintenance Planning Project Manager
Maintenance Analyst
Maintenance Scheduler
These duties would belong to the planners if the company does not uti-
lize a special scheduler.
A. Work with the Operations Coordinator to prioritize work orders for

planning and scheduling.
B. Receive craft hours availability forecasts for the next week from the
crew supervisors.
459

460 Appendix F
C. Develop a 1-week schedule for each crew of work orders to be worked

from the waiting-to-be-scheduled file.
D. Begin coordination of work involving more than one craft technician.
E. Begin coordination of work involving advance notice to a contractor
of more than a day or two.
F. Work with planners to stage parts for scheduled jobs.
G. Work with crew supervisors to coordinate work through planning
that is approved to disrupt the current week’s schedule of work.
H. Assist with measuring Schedule Compliance.
I. Work with crew supervisors to develop schedules for short notice
outage work (SNOW).
Maintenance Planning Clerk

The clerk’s duties may be classified onto ones dealing with new work
orders, ones dealing with work orders after execution, and other duties.
New work orders
A. Open work orders to computer systems using work order copies.

After decisions are made at the morning meeting, update entries
using a work order worksheet. File past work order copies and work-
sheets in a chronological file.
B. Open authorized emergency work orders to computer systems for
immediate work.
After job execution
C. Receive the work order after job execution and distribute to a respon-
sible planner for review. After planner review, update the computer
systems for job completion and closure.
D. Distribute a copy of work order form to the originator.
E. If the planner indicates the work order form contains any changes
to equipment drawings or technical data, send a copy to the plant
engineer.
F. File specified closed work orders in their respective files if requested
by planner.
Other duties
G. Assist planners in maintaining History, Technical, and Vendor Files.

H. Maintain a database for established Preventive Maintenance (PM)
work orders. Print and distribute PM work orders as scheduled.
Step-by-Step Overviews of Others’ Duties 461
I. Perform related duties as directed by the supervisor of the planning

department, such as maintaining reports, creating files, coding
work orders, and ordering office supplies.
J. Perform Purchaser duties assigned by planning supervisor.
Operations Coordinator
A. Review new work orders for appropriate priorities; adjust as needed.

B. Review work orders in the waiting-to-be-planned file to verify pri-
orities for planning attention.
C. Review work orders in the waiting-to-be-scheduled file and verify pri-
orities for scheduling attention.
D. Assist maintenance planners with troubleshooting and planning
work orders from an operation’s perspective.
E. Assist crew supervisors to coordinate clearances and other operations
needs.
Maintenance Purchaser or Expediter

These duties would belong to the planners if the company does not uti-
lize a special purchaser. Some of the duties could be handled by the
plant administration group.
A. Order, track, and expedite nonstock equipment and materials for

maintenance planners and for maintenance craft crews. Order from
blanket purchase orders where applicable and track blanket totals.
Order items not on blankets. Obtain quotations and availability as
requested. (The research to select specific items is normally accom-
plished by the requesting planner or craftperson.)
B. Walk emergency purchase orders through to expedite orders.
C. Update the computer system information for orders.
D. Assist planning with creating or updating bills of material or illus-
trated parts breakdowns for equipment.
E. Establish blankets purchase orders for maintenance support.
F. Evaluate items for stock versus nonstock status. Process requests for
making nonstock items into stock items.
G. Identify and resolve recurrent stockout problems.
H. Provide administrative support for off-site work. This includes coor-
dination of shipment, processing of purchase orders, tracking
progress, and receiving of equipment upon return. Others such as
the planner, craft supervisor, or plant engineer develop the work
scope and usually obtain quotations.
462 Appendix F
I. Meet with vendors, manufacturers, storeroom, planners, and craft-

persons to avoid or resolve material problems.
J. Assist in determining acceptable “equals” or alternatives.
K. Assist in receiving purchases and coordinating quality assurance.
L. Participate on standardization committees to standardize stock
materials and equipment or parts purchases.
Crew Supervisor
This is an overview of the duties of the crew supervisor only in regard
to planning and scheduling.
Before job execution
A. Provide the Maintenance Scheduler with a craft work hours avail-

able forecast for the next week identifying hours by skill level.
B. Schedule work orders to be worked by crew individuals for the next
day in accordance with the 1-week schedule, carryover work, new
high priority reactive work orders, and other scheduling guide-
lines.
C. Coordinate any necessary clearances and any work involving other
crafts for the next day.
D. Distribute the work order form to assigned lead technician.
E. Decide which material is appropriate to stage 1 day in advance and
work with the planner to stage it.
During job execution
F. Reschedule work to handle emergencies and SNOW work.

G. Assist assigned crew personnel to resolve any problems with work
packages utilizing planning files and information as necessary.
Coordinate obtaining of unanticipated parts that are not in inven-
tory through the storeroom (stockouts) or maintenance purchaser
(noninventory items).
After job execution
H. Coordinate returning of equipment back to Operations.

I. Receive work order forms after job execution from technicians.
Clarify feedback as necessary to allow improvements to planned
work packages for future work.
Step-by-Step Overviews of Others’ Duties 463
J. Initiate necessary work orders for additional work based on feedback

from completed work orders including “permanent fixes” and refur-
bishing parts.
K. Return the completed work order form to planning with all attach-
ments and planned work package material.
Other duties
L. Coordinate process problems with planners on a peer level.

M. Perform related duties as assigned by the Maintenance Manager.
Planning Supervisor
A. Supervise the planning group, especially the selection and training

of new planners. Support the needs of planners.
B. Coordinate insulation contractor work.
C. Coordinate engineering assistance.
D. Review plans where the planner estimate exceeds $5000. Confirm
authorization with management where planner estimate exceeds
$15,000.
E. Assist in the coordination of planning interfaces and concerns with
crew supervisors and affected departments.
F. Maintain awareness and advise management of accuracy of com-
puterized maintenance management system (CMMS).
G. Coordinate the receipt, distribution, and filing of operation and
maintenance manuals. Coordinate their review for new PM recom-
mendations.
Maintenance Manager
Read this book. Ask the right questions. Appendix P suggests some
questions.
Maintenance Planning Project Manager

The company may assign a person the responsibility for implementing
a new planning system or altering an existing one.
A. Develop and maintain maintenance planning vision, strategies, prin-

ciples, and techniques. Advise management on planning performance.
B. Coordinate planning vision and strategies with supervisors and
affected departments.
464 Appendix F
C. Help select a Planning Supervisor. Advise and coach the Planning

Supervisor.
D. Help select planners. Train and coach planners and crew supervisors
on planning techniques.
E. Manage implementation and utilization of any computer system
1. Establish and manage a milestone schedule for utilization.
2. Establish and manage guidelines for customization and provide
overall direction to computer system administrator.
3. Establishes signature authorities for system access and utilization.
4. Coordinate with the computer system vendor on nontechnical
details.
5. Coordinate necessary initial training for managers, supervisors,
engineers, operators, clerks, planners, maintenance personnel, and
computer support.
6. Coordinate with other groups in company using computer.
Maintenance Analyst
A. Work with management to determine appropriate metrics or indi-

cators to establish and track.
B. Establish, track, and report appropriate metrics.
C. Perform in-house studies or coordinate outside help to conduct work
sampling studies.
Appendix
G
Sample Work Sampling
(Wrench Time) Study:
“Ministudy”
Two appendices on work sampling, Apps. G and H, contain the reports of

actual studies. This type of productivity study is the primary measure of
planning and scheduling effectiveness. Consultants typically conduct work
sampling studies. Both example studies contain complete procedures for
conducting an in-house study. Appendix G shows a streamlined, simple
study requiring a minimum of effort. Appendix H contains a more tradi-
tional study with many more measurement observations. The traditional
study contains a section validating the accuracy of streamlined studies.
This appendix includes the details, results, and analysis of an actual
wrench time study, and a procedure for doing an in-house study without the
need for a consultant. This appendix is a shortened version of a full-blown
study that is shown in the next appendix, App. H. Such a ministudy ade-
quately establishes a measure of the so-called wrench or direct work time
of a craft for the purpose of improving a planning and scheduling operation.
(Note: Although this is a copy of an actual work sampling study, the
names have been changed. Minor areas have also been altered to clar-
ify peculiar company jargon and further author’s notes have been
inserted to call attention to particular details.)
WORK SAMPLING STUDY OF I&C MAINTENANCE,

OCTOBER–DECEMBER 1993. FINAL REPORT, MARCH 25, 1994.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
465

466 Appendix G
Category Definitions
Study Results
Collection of Observation Data
Analysis
Overall
Personnel
Unit Status
Time
Conclusions
Recommendations
Attachment A: Procedure for Measuring Workforce Productivity
by Work Sampling
Attachment B: Work Sampling Calculations
Executive Summary
A work sampling study was performed in-house by North Station I&C
Maintenance. This study measured current performance and provided
a baseline against which to compare future studies. It also helped sta-
tion personnel become accustomed to being measured. The study used
the same observation and analysis criteria as previous studies had done
for the mechanical maintenance craft.
Current wrench time is 38.54%, almost 4 hours per 10-hour day, with
a margin of error of 6%, as shown in Fig. G.1. The major adverse impact
on wrench time is the combination of work assignment and waiting for
Figure G.1Instrument and Controls group without planning

department assistance.
Sample Work Sampling (Wrench Time) Study: “Ministudy” 467
instructions, both of which are information sharing processes. Together

these two areas consume over 2 hours each day.
Hour by hour, wrench time changes during the day affected mainly
by break, lunch, and meeting times. Other than that, work remains at
a good steady pace all day extending even into the last hour.
Future studies should help distinguish wrench time for special group-
ings such as unit event, crew, or day of week. More observations being
added to the database will allow making more statistically valid analysis.
Introduction
In October 1993, the Maintenance Management Improvement (MMI)
program initiated a work measurement study of I&C maintenance at
North Station. The objectives of the study were to (1) analyze delays for
improvement opportunities, (2) establish a baseline against which to
compare future studies, and (3) help station personnel to become accus-
tomed to being measured as normal practice for a first-rate maintenance
organization.
This study lasted a period of 7 weeks during October through December
1993. Observations were taken evenly over 10-hour, first-shift work peri-
ods, excluding the lunch period from 12:00 noon to 12:30 PM. Observations
were only made of personnel within the plant grounds and did not include
personnel going outside the main gate to the fuel oil dock nor to other com-
pany facilities. Care was taken to duplicate as much as practical the study
practices of earlier studies for other crafts. This study utilized Attachment
A, Procedure for Measuring WorkForce Productivity by Work Sampling.
The measurement focus of this study is on quantifying the amount of
time spent by the work force in various types of activities when the
employees are present to work for an entire 10-hour shift. The time
spent performing work at a job site is direct work or wrench time. Time
spent otherwise, such as in traveling or waiting, is indirect work. From
quantifying and analyzing indirect work activities, action can be taken
to reduce their amounts and increase the amount of time spent produc-
tively performing work at the job site. By conducting follow-up studies,
the effect of such action taken may be determined.
The MMI Job Planning Coordinator performed the duties of observer
and study analyst for this study.
It should be mentioned that as indicated by the margin-of-error per-
centage, results are more statistically significant for larger numbers of
observations. This statement means that the accuracy of the results changes
from being highly accurate for the overall I&C maintenance work force to
being less accurate for an individual crew or craft skill level. Likewise,
results for an individual employee are not statistically significant at all due
to the low number of observations and are therefore not reported.
468 Appendix G
Category Definitions
The following are definitions for each of the work sampling study cat-
egories. Note that “other” categories are left available to capture spe-
cial situations that clearly would not fall into set categories.
Note: As studies progressed, occasional activities were observed
which did not fall neatly into one of the predefined categories. When
necessary, after consulting with either the maintenance supervisor or
maintenance manager, a category was selected and an appropriate
category clarification was made in these instances. The criteria for
altering a classification are usually twofold. First, preference is given
to the benefit of the craft technicians, i.e., it gives them credit for
more wrench time. It is very important to “bend over backwards” to
avoid giving unnecessary criticisms of the study by the crafts them-
selves. Second, the work sampling categories are mindful not to
include in direct work time, wrench time, any activity in which the
planner could leverage planning time and avoid a larger delay later
in the field.
In addition, as electrical crafts and I&C crafts were included in sub-
sequent studies to the initial mechanical studies, the categories also
evolved somewhat. For example, frequently I&C work requires careful
study of plant controls schematics. While a planner finding technical
drawing data could probably help a field mechanic save time later, an
I&C planner doing too much beyond drawing identification would only
be duplicating what the I&C field tech would later have to do. Electrician
and I&C research of drawings is considered wrench time, but not for
mechanical crafts. To avoid confusion, a consistent set of classifications
is used as presented below and represents the most current evolution
of the classifications as of 1997.
Working
1. Working. This category was used when persons were performing

work (including troubleshooting) physically at the work site or shop. For
the I&C and electrical crafts only, this category includes all trou-
bleshooting, whether it is at work site or not. Also considered as this cat-
egory were completing any job related paperwork or conferring with a
planner to help the planner plan future work. If one or more persons of
a work team were working and other members of the team were idle,
then all members of the team were to be judged as working. An exam-
ple would be the “hole person” who must be outside the boiler when
others are working inside. An exception is that an I&C or electrical
person away from the work site that is merely waiting for another
person to troubleshoot is not in this category. (Troubleshooting is defined
as determining the cause of a problem rather than finding information
such as clearances, etc.)
(Note: It is Category 1 that is considered direct work or wrench time.

The objective of planning and scheduling is to help keep the craft labor
hours in this category. Examining how much time is spent in the other
categories facilitates this objective.)
2. Work travel. This category includes walking to the work site; walk-
ing to the shop, supply room, tool room, or operations room, etc.; or
traveling by vehicle in connection with work. Traveling within the work
task location (e.g., as from one side of the boiler to the other) was not
included in this category, but rather was considered as “working,”
Category 1 above.
(Note: It is invaluable to ask and tabulate why someone is traveling
because travel is not done unto itself. For example, if getting parts
causes most of the travel, then that valuable information guides the
improvement of planning or other maintenance processes.)
3. Set-up and take down. This category has been infrequently
observed and so is not used. This type of work is included in Category 1,
Working.
4. Work assignment. Work assignment included any regular crew
meeting for sharing information and any occasion involving reassign-
ment to another task, upon completion of a job during the day. This cat-
egory included being idle between jobs unless in the break room or other
break area.
5. Wrap-up. Wrap-up was only used at the end of the day when per-
sons were filling out time sheets, cleaning up after working, and meet-
ing at the end of the shift.
Waiting
6. Waiting for materials. This category was used when a person

was waiting at the storeroom for materials, or in the case of a team,
when persons were waiting for another person to return with the sup-
plies or materials needed for them to continue their job.
7. Waiting for tools. This category was used when a person was
waiting at the tool room (or any other tool location away from the
work site), or in the case of a team, when persons were waiting for
another person to return with a tool(s) needed by them to continue
their job.
8. Waiting for instruction. This category was used when persons per-
forming the job were delayed by the necessity to acquire resolution of
questions raised concerning some aspect of the job. It was also utilized
as a category for capturing time expended answering telephone calls
when a person was paged by another company employee. It was also uti-
lized whenever a person was discussing any work related question with
a co-worker (unless in the case of troubleshooting by I&C or electrical
craft) or supervisor.
470 Appendix G
9. Clearance delay. Clearance delay was employed as a category when

a team was delayed from working by the necessity to acquire clearance
for a piece of equipment prior to continuing work on their project.
10. Interference. This category was used when a person or team was
not able to perform their job until another person or team completed
theirs.
11. Other work waiting. This category was never utilized.
12. Waiting for operator. When an operator or engineer was required
to inspect or assist in the work and was not available, and therefore cre-
ated a delay, this category was utilized.
13. Weather delay.
14. Other. This category was never utilized.
Other
15. Meetings. Though most meetings are administrative and not

included in study time (for company safety meetings or other gather-
ings), there are meetings such as with operators, supervisors, or ven-
dors that are brief and usually unscheduled, and therefore are included
in the study.
(Note: We are only interested in studying persons who are available
for work. That is, for persons available to the supervisor to work an
entire 10-hour shift, how is their time spent? The planner and super-
visor cannot do anything to leverage required administrative time
and so that is of no interest here. However, administrative time away
(vacations, illness, training) can be a significant management prob-
lem worthy of study in itself.)
16. Training. This category was never utilized.
(Note: See above discussion for Category 15.)
17. Idle. Idle was used usually at the job site when work, tools, equip-
ment, assignment, etc., appeared to be available, the person did not
appear to be performing work, and there did not appear to be any obvi-
ous interference or delay preventing the employee from performing
the job.
(Note: This is an area where it helps if the study observer has some
familiarity with the craft work being done. It is sometimes difficult to
tell if a team is idle or being delayed. Questioning without craft famil-
iarity usually does not lead to a confession of idleness.)
18. Rest room. This category was used when persons were in the rest
room at times other than traditional break time, lunch or afternoon
meeting.
(Note: An example of the considerations one has to make in such a
study is that it could be a form of sexual harassment if a male observer
knocked on a ladies rest room to ask if a particular person was therein.
A claim might be that the observer “was trying to catch a glimpse of
someone undressed.” It is not harassment for a designated observer

on a designated study to ask someone of the appropriate sex to go into
the rest room to inquire. Fortunately, this situation can be avoided
nearly altogether if the observer is familiar with the plant and the
day’s job assignments. With that information, the observer can nor-
mally find the person being searched out and leave checking the rest
rooms as a last resort.)
19. On break. Persons were considered on break from the time they
arrived at the break room or at either their desks or the shop area table
without work until the time they left. Walking to and from the break
room was categorized as work travel, as described in Category 2 above.
It was also utilized when persons were in the break room or washing
up early for lunch or remaining after lunch. At other times during the
day, unless due to a delay or interference, such an observation was con-
sidered break time, not idle time because some crafts have no set times
for breaks.
20. Other personal allowance. This category was utilized when per-
sons were conducting what appeared to be personal business not
required by their assigned task, such as taking medication (unless in the
break room).
21. Other. This category was utilized on one study for filling out an
accident report.
Unaccountable
23. Unaccountable. This category was used when a person could not
be found at the person’s assigned work location, or the tool room, store-
room, office, etc., and was only utilized after a 15–20 minute attempt to
locate the person was unsuccessful. This category is not intended to
indicate that the employee was either working or not working, but
simply that the employee could not be located.
(Note: This is an area in which it is important for the observer to have
a working knowledge of the plant areas and practices, if for no other
reason than to be able to find persons. While observations are some-
times not used at the beginning of a study because persons observed
have to settle down to their normal behavior, a practical use of begin-
ning observations is to practice finding persons. Unaccountable inci-
dents are useful information if there seems to be certain patterns,
such as if the incidents are clustered around the day’s end.)
Study Results
The following sections discuss the collection and the subsequent analy-
sis of the observations.
472 Appendix G
Collection of observation data

During each observation numerous data were collected to allow analysis
of the workforce in many ways. This data included employee identification,
craft, supervisor, work category, unit status, date, day of week, hour of day,
plus comments regarding certain individual observations. Codes used for
craft were IT and IA for I&C technicians and apprentices, respectively.
The following list defines the hour periods used in the study. Each
period defines the time frame in which the search began.
Period 8 is 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM.

Period 9 is 8:30 am to 9:30 am.
Period 12 is 11:30 am to 12:00 pm and 12:30 pm to 1:00 pm.
Period 13 is 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm.
Table G.1, Classification of Observations by Hour, is a checking tool

to verify that an equivalent number of observations were made each
hour of the day for the study overall to avoid skewing the data. For all
persons combined, there is an overall uniformity of about 29 average
observations for each period. The fewer than average observations (24)
in the 11:00 AM period reflect the weekly crew meeting with the Director
of Engineering which was not included nor expected to skew the results.
A similar analysis is made throughout the study of examining the obser-
vation distribution for specific cases under consideration.
TABLE G.1 Classification of Observations by Hour
Hour period All I&C tech I&C appr
8 30 19 11
9 29 17 12
10 30 14 16
11 24 14 10
12 27 13 14
13 30 13 17
14 29 14 15
15 29 15 14
16 30 13 17
17 30 11 19
Totals 288 143 19
Analysis
The study analyzed the observations in different manners to gather
conclusions regarding differences among personnel classifications, dif-
ferences among different unit status, and differences among different
time periods.
Overall. Table G.2 summarizes the data for all categories during the
observation period for this 1993 study. Each category percentage must
be considered in light of its margin of error (MOE) shown in Table G.2.
Table G.2 and Fig. G.2, Distribution of Time, show the relative impact
of each category’s percentage of time. The greatest impact is made by
Categories 2, Travel (14.24%), and 4, Work Assignment (11.11%). Table G.3,
Minutes per Day for Each Category, shows that these categories take
TABLE G.2 Results for All Personnel
Category Fri Mon Tues Wed Thur Obs. Percent MOE,∗ %
Work
1 21 18 30 18 24 111 38.54 6
2 16 10 8 5 2 41 14.24 4
4 6 9 3 8 6 32 11.11 4
5 2 1 1 4 3 11 3.82 2
Subtotal 67.71
Waiting
6 2 8 3 0 4 17 5.90 3
7 0 1 1 2 1 5 1.74 2
8 2 4 1 5 7 19 6.60 3
9 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.35 1
10 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.35 1
12 0 1 0 0 1 2 0.69 1
Subtotal 15.63
Other
15 0 1 2 0 3 6 2.08 2
17 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.35 1
19 5 3 7 6 3 24 8.33 3
20 0 0 2 0 1 3 1.04 1
21 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.35 1
Subtotal 12.15
Unaccountable
23 4 4 2 0 3 13 4.51 2
Subtotal 4.51
Totals 60 60 60 49 59 288 100.00
NOTE: There were no observations in any categories not shown.

∗
MOE = margin of error.
474 Appendix G
Figure G.2 Time spent in different categories.
TABLE G.3 Minutes per Day for Each Category
Minutes/
Category Name Percent day Comment
1 Working 38.54 231

2 Work travel 14.24 85
3 Set-up & take down 0.00 0 Category not used
4 Work assignment 11.11 67 Three daily crew meetings
5 Wrap-up 3.82 23
6 Waiting for materials 5.90 35
7 Waiting for tools 1.74 10 Mostly from I&C shop
8 Waiting for instruction 6.60 40 Supvr. or waiting on partner
9 Clearance delay 0.35 2
10 Interference 0.35 2 Mechanical maintenance
11 Other work waiting 0.00 0 Category not used
12 Waiting for operator 0.69 4
13 Weather delay 0.00 0
14 (Category not used) 0.00 0
15 Meetings 2.08 12 Crew safety
16 Training 0.00 0 Category not used
17 Idle 0.35 2
18 Rest room 0.00 0
19 On break 8.33 50
20 Other personal 1.04 6
allowance
21 Other 0.35 0 Accident paperwork
23 Unaccountable 4.51 27
Total for day 600 minutes
up 85 and 67 minutes per day, respectively. Categories 6, Materials

(5.90%, 35 minutes/day), 8, Instruction (6.60%, 40 minutes/day), and
19, Break (8.33%, 50 minutes/day) also have an appreciable impact.
Reviewing the comments recorded for individual observations in each
category allowed accounting for most of the travel by purpose of the
travel. Table G.4 and Fig. G.3 illustrate the result of adjusting the per-
centage of time in major categories by including their associated travel.
TABLE G.4 Comparison of Study with Travel Adjustment
Travel Percent after travel Adjusted

Category Name Percent adjustment adjustment minutes/day
Working
1 Working 38.54 0.00% 38.54% 231

2 Work travel 14.24 −12.12% 2.12% 13
4 Work assignment 11.11 2.78% 13.89% 83
5 Wrap-up 3.82 0.69% 4.51% 27
Subtotal 67.71 −8.65% 59.06%
Waiting
6 Waiting for 5.90 2.78% 8.68% 52

materials
7 Waiting for tools 1.74 1.39% 3.13% 19
8 Waiting for 6.60 0.35% 6.95% 42
instruction
9 Clearance delay 0.35 0.14% 0.49% 3
10 Interference 0.35 1.04% 1.39% 8
12 Waiting for 0.69 0.00% 0.69% 4
operator
13 Weather delay 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0
Subtotal 15.63 5.70% 21.33%
Other
15 Meetings 2.08 0.00% 2.08% 12

17 Idle 0.35 0.00% 0.35% 2
18 Rest room 0.00 0.69% 0.69% 4
19 On break 8.33 2.43% 10.76% 65
20 Other personal 1.04 0.00% 1.04% 6
allowance
21 Other 0.35 0.00% 0.35% 2
Subtotal 12.15 3.12% 15.27%
Unaccountable
23 Unaccountable 4.51 0.00% 4.51% 27

Subtotal 4.51 0.00% 4.51%
Totals 100 0% 100% 601 Min
NOTE: There were no observations or adjustments in any categories not shown.

476 Appendix G
Figure G.3 Reasons for time spent traveling.
A significant amount of time spent traveling was involved with Work

Assignment, Materials, Tools, and Break. After adjusting for travel, the
initial categories for greatest impact (Work Assignment, Materials,
Instruction and Break) increased from about 3 hours to over 4 hours per
day versus less than 4 hours per day in Category 1, Working.
Categories 4, Work Assignment, and 8, Waiting for Instructions, are
closely related as they involve sharing information. Together these two
categories consume over 2 hours per day. They are the largest opportu-
nity for improvement. The comments made for observations in these
areas show the three daily crew meetings consuming the bulk of
Category 4 and the time split between getting the supervisor informa-
tion and watching a partner research files consuming Category 8.
When considering associated travel, Category 19, Break consumes
65 minutes each day. Similarly, Category 6, Materials, accounts for
52 minutes each day. Most job delays waiting for materials involved
items kept in the shop rather than the storeroom.
Analyzing the comments for Category 1, Working, gives insight on the
type of work done by the I&C craft. Of the 111 Category 1 observations,
39% were of work directly on plant equipment out in the plant. 15% were
of work on a computer, 10% were associated with documenting work, and
8% were troubleshooting in files or with other knowledgeable persons.
6% were of work advising others, 6% were on a special assignment to
organize the shop, and finally 6% were of work being done in the shop
itself on the work benches.
Personnel. The study also analyzed wrench time considering different

personnel. The study made classifications by craft skill level and by crew.
Figure G.4, Distribution of Time by Craft Skill, shows the relative per-
centage of time spent by each level in each category. Tables G.5 and G.6
show the summary data with actual percentages of time, margin of
error, and number of observations for each level. Table G.1 allows deter-
mination of whether the distribution of observations might have skewed
the results for either level.
Figure G.4 shows that technicians have a higher wrench time
(Category 1) and Materials delays (Category 6) than apprentices, but
these differences are not statistically significant within the margin of
error of the study.
On the other hand, at first glance it does appear significant that tech-
nicians have a higher amount of time in Category 4, Work Assignment,
and a lower time in Category 8, Instructions. The work assignment
time is higher only because the observation distributions are skewed,
showing markedly more technician observations during the morning
meeting time and less technician observations during the last hour of
the day. (That skewing is also responsible for showing technicians with
a lower wrap-up time, Category 5.) The lower waiting for instruction
time is not unexpected as technicians should require less time receiv-
ing directions than apprentices.
(Analysis by crew was also made. Initial inspection showed the two crews
having different wrench times, one at 44.52% and one at 32.99%. But fur-
ther analysis showed the low crew’s observations were decidedly skewed
Figure G.4 Technicians and apprentices spend time differently.

478 Appendix G
TABLE G.5 Results for I&C Technicians

∗
Category Fri Mon Tues Wed Thur Obs. Percent MOE, %
Work
1 11 13 12 12 9 57 39.86 8
2 6 6 2 1 1 16 11.19 5
4 4 7 2 2 5 20 13.99 6
5 2 0 1 1 0 4 2.80 3
Subtotal 67.83
Waiting
6 2 4 1 0 3 10 6.99 4
7 0 1 1 1 0 3 2.10 2
8 0 2 0 2 2 6 4.20 3
9 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.70 1
10 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.70 1
12 0 1 0 0 1 2 1.40 2
Subtotal 16.08
Other
15 0 1 0 0 1 2 1.40 2
17 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.70 1
19 2 2 1 2 2 9 6.29 4
20 0 0 2 0 1 3 1.04 1
21 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.70 1
Subtotal 9.09
Unaccountable
23 3 3 1 0 3 10 6.99 4
Subtotal 6.99
Totals 32 40 21 22 28 143 100.00

∗
toward more break and meeting time observations, which explained their
apparent low Category 1, Working, time as well as high time for travel, work
assignment, and break (Categories 2, 4, and 19). Therefore, no graphs or
tables were presented. Incidentally, this type of situation was expected
where a study of limited observations was conducted. However because the
database was constructed to be additive, later studies adding to the obser-
vation amount may help analysis of this area.)
Unit status. The study did not make an analysis by unit event, such as
for days when a unit was in outage. There were too few observations for
each of the multiple plant conditions observed. Later studies may allow
examination of this area.
TABLE G.6 Results for I&C Apprentices

∗
Category Fri Mon Tues Wed Thur Obs. Percent MOE, %
Work
1 10 5 18 6 15 54 37.24 8
2 10 4 6 4 1 25 17.24 6
4 2 2 1 6 1 12 8.28 5
5 0 1 0 3 3 7 4.83 4
Subtotal 67.83
Waiting
6 0 4 2 0 1 7 4.83 4
7 0 0 0 1 1 2 1.38 2
8 2 2 1 3 5 13 8.97 5
Subtotal 15.17
Other
15 0 0 2 0 2 4 2.76 3
19 3 1 6 4 1 15 10.34 5
20 0 0 2 0 1 3 2.07 2
Subtotal 15.17
Unaccountable
23 1 1 1 0 0 3 2.07 2
Subtotal 2.07
Totals 28 20 39 27 31 145 100.00

∗
MOE = margin of error
Time. Finally, the study analyzed work activity over time itself. Figure G.5,
Wrench Time Categories by Hour, demonstrates the variance by hour.
Category 1, Working, is between 50 and 55% during periods away from
day start, day end, lunch, and traditional break or meeting times.
However, it drops to between 18 and 30% around breaks, meetings, or
lunch time. And while it drops to 20% for the first hour of each day, it
is still about 30% for the last hour of each day.
The categories which most vary (indirectly) with wrench time are
Category 19, Break, and Category 4, Work Assignment, as expected.
Category 2, Travel, is interesting in that most travel appears to be in
the afternoon hours.
On the other hand, Category 8, Instructions, seems pretty much con-
stant throughout the day until it drops off for the last 2 hours. (An
exception is during the 10:00 AM break time when no instruction obser-
vations are made at all.) This constancy indicates a steady work pace.
480 Appendix G
Figure G.5 Wrench time changes every hour.
Category 6, Waiting on Materials, also seems to be roughly level over

the course of the day indicating a steady work rate.
Finally, Category 5, Wrap-up, is only 30% (less than 20 minutes) for
the last hour. This time does not include any time spent completing job
reports as that was considered Category 1, Working.
In summary of Fig. G.5, it appears that persons work at a steady rate
over the entire course of the day, but work is impacted by significant
break and meeting times.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are made.
1. A baseline has been established against which to compare future

I&C studies.
2. Current wrench time is 38.54%, or almost 4 hours per 10-hour day
with all categories summarized in Table G.1. Analysis of the comments
and time of day for each observation raises concerns that a significant
amount of time is spent sharing information through crew meetings
and individual instruction. Together these two areas consume over 2
hours per day.
3. The main difference between technicians and apprentices appeared

to be that apprentices experienced more delays in receiving individual
instruction.
4. Hour-by-hour wrench time does change throughout the day, but the
study suggests that a steady work pace is kept up all day even up
through the last hour.
5. Wrench time measured for only 7 individual days (approximately
one per week) during the study had an acceptable margin of error, 6%,
for overall wrench time. This result suggests that the limited observa-
tion effort yielded valid results provided that the days selected are con-
sidered typical of the ongoing period.
6. The process of occasional observations over 7 weeks appeared to
acclimate the work force to being measured. It should be noted that the
I&C personnel had a definite professional nature, and so wrench time
might not improve merely as a result of them being observed. But this
quality should help the I&C group use measurement results to improve
themselves.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made.
1. Emphasis should be given to addressing communication areas to
improve wrench time.
2. A continuing in-house study of observations only one day each
week should be conducted to give ongoing feedback on wrench time.
3. Future observation data should be structured to be additive as
well as separate from previous observations to allow reduced margins
of error to be developed in the analysis of specific groupings such as for
supervisors, craft skill level, and special events such as outages and
trips.
Attachment A: Procedure for Measuring Work

Force Productivity by Work Sampling
This study utilized the following procedure.
1. The Job Planning Coordinator (JPC) and the appropriate man-
agers or supervisors select the workforce personnel and time period to
be studied. In addition, work type categories are reviewed.
2. The JPC assigns each person in the study a one- to three-digit,
unique number for the purposes of tracking. (The JPC attempts to
utilize the same number for persons included in previous studies.)
The JPC records each person’s name, number, and craft with current
skill level in Table G.7. Table G.8 presents codes for craft with current
skill level.
482 Appendix G
TABLE G.7 Persons in Study
Name Number Craft & level
Davenport 201 IA
Dowenger 202 IT
Fass 203 IA
Gee 204 IA
Henry 205 IT
Hilliard 206 IT
Jorge 207 IT
Lucien 208 IA
Pole 209 IT
Robertson 210 IT
Rou 211 IA
Sandez 212 IA
Sandhill 213 IT
Williams 214 IT
TABLE G.8 Craft and Skill Designations
Designation Craft and skill
MR Mechanical Trainee
MA Mechanical Apprentice
M Mechanic (pre-1994 designation)
W Welder (pre-1994 designation)
H Machinist (pre-1994 designation)
MT Mechanical Technician
P Painter
CP Certified Painter
MC Certified Mechanic
WC Certified Welder
HC Certified Machinist
IR I&C Trainee
IA I&C Apprentice
IT I&C Technician
ER Electrical Trainee
EA Electrical Apprentice
ET Electrical Technician
A Mechanical Apprentice (pre-1994 designation)
T Mechanical Trainee (pre-1994 designation)
TABLE G.9 Supervisors of Crews in Study
Supervisor
number Supervisor
9 Paddington
900 Paddington crew when no supervisor present for the day
901 Anyone working up for Paddington
3. The JPC enters the names of the crew supervisors who have per-
sonnel being studied in Table G.9. The JPC assigns each person a one-
to three-digit, unique number for the purposes of tracking.
4. For the ministudy, the JPC privately selects observation days from
the overall study duration to cover each individual observation time
once. The ministudy covers a 40-hour period, but the study is spread over
at least 7 weeks. Each afternoon before or morning of a planned obser-
vation day, the JPC obtains a schedule or agenda of the day’s work with
the names of assigned personnel from each supervisor. This helps the
JPC to locate persons. It also allows a crew to be on its best perform-
ance and less apt to disagree with final study results.
5. Each observation day the JPC utilizes that day’s work schedule to
select employees to observe and record their work category. The JPC gen-
erally selects employees and exact times to observe so as to include as
many observations of different employees and times as possible. (The
JPC keeps an informal check sheet, such as Fig. G.6, to ensure making
an even number of observations each hour of the overall study.) Typically
the JPC selects three persons in the same area of the plant to minimize
time spent locating the employees. The instant the JPC locates each
selected employee, the JPC records that employee’s activity in a work cat-
egory on the Wrench Time Observation Data Sheet (Fig. G.7). (The JPC
may occasionally question the employee if it is not certain which cate-
gory is appropriate for the current activity observed.)
Two sampling methods would ensure representative data, random
and sequential. Either method provides nonbiased samples. The
observer uses a list of crew employees to create a “sequential” obser-
vation strategy. At the beginning of the study, the observer simply
starts at the top of the list to select the initial person for the first obser-
vation. However, the study also takes advantage of the crew supervi-
sor assigning some employees together as teams and other jobs being
in the same area of the plant as the initially chosen person. Because
the observer must select three persons each half-hour, the observer
selects the initial person and the two supposedly closest persons to
that person. Then the observer checks all three names of the crew list.
For the next half-hour, the observer goes down the list “sequentially”
to select the next unchecked person and then selects the two closest
unchecked persons to that person. The observer checks off these three
names. When there are not three names left on the list, the observer
continues around back to the top of the list. The observer keeps the
place on the employee list at the end of a day for the beginning of
another day. In this manner, the observer has an equal chance of
observing every employee throughout the study and keeps the sample
statistically unbiased.
6. After collecting all the study observations, the JPC counts the
observations in each category by whichever criteria necessary to make
484 Appendix G
Figure G.6 Informal checks to ensure even observations.
the desired comparisons and contrasts. This study reports this analy-
sis in tables and figures. The JPC calculates the margin of error for each
observation category using the formulas in Attachment B.
(Note: Manual counting and calculations are adequate for short stud-
ies. Appropriately constructed databases or spreadsheets facilitate
making the tabulations and calculations.)
Figure G.7 Form to record work sampling observations.

The company specifications for the work measurement study state: “The
proposed study design will include the methodology for assuring accuracy
within ±10% with a 95% confidence level based on the direct work category.”
Three study criteria are important to ensuring study accuracy. These
criteria are having the observation period span a sufficient portion of
the year, having the observations evenly spread out over the course of
the shift, and having a sufficient number of observations.
First, the study covered a period of 7 weeks, which should be of suf-
ficient duration to classify as a representative period of typical working
conditions and cancel out the effect of most special, limited-duration
events that may impact wrench time.
Second, keeping a check sheet ensured making an equal number of
observations during each 30-minute block of the entire 10-hour shift by
the end of the study. In addition, during the analysis of the results, a
check was made of the hourly distribution of observations to determine
if any skewing of data might be present. (For example, having a more
than average number of observations during the traditional morning
break period may cause an artificial decrease in reported wrench time.)
Overall there appeared to be an even distribution of observations. In the
486 Appendix G
special cases where there was a slightly uneven distribution, the results
are noted as possibly skewed with the possible effect described.
Finally, the margin of error (absolute accuracy) for the direct work cat-
egory was 6%, well within the 10% required. There were 288 total obser-
vations, of which 111 are of direct work, Category 1. The percentage of
direct work is 111 divided by 288 which is 38.54%. The margin of error
is found by the following equation:
2 1/2
a = {[k (1 − p)p]/n}
where a = margin of error

k = number of standard deviations (k = 2 represents a 95%
confidence level)
p = percent occurrence of the activity or category
n = sample size (total observations)
Thus,
a = {[22(1 − 0.3854) 0.3854]/288}1/2 = 5.7% (rounded up to 6%)
This calculation means that 95 percent of the time, any duplicate

study done over the same 7-week period and making observations at the
same hourly points should have reported a direct work percentage
within 6% of the 38.54% reported in this study. Because the study is only
repeatable and valid over duplicate conditions, it is clear to see the
importance of having a representative study period and an even hourly
distribution of observations.
Appendix
H
Sample Work Sampling
(Wrench Time) Study:
Full-Blown Study
Two appendices on work sampling, Apps. G and H, contain the reports of

actual studies. This type of productivity study is the primary measure of
planning and scheduling effectiveness. Consultants typically conduct
work sampling studies. Both example studies contain complete proce-
dures for conducting an in-house study. Appendix G shows a streamlined,
simple study requiring a minimum of effort. Appendix H contains a more
traditional study with many more measurement observations. The tra-
ditional study contains a section validating the accuracy of streamlined
studies.
This appendix includes the details, results, and analysis of an actual
wrench time study, and a procedure for doing an in-house study without
the need for a consultant. This appendix is a full-blown study that ana-
lyzes work, making an exhaustive number of comparisons. The preceding
ministudy, App. G, did not contain enough observations to make such
analysis. However, such a ministudy adequately establishes a measure of
the so-called wrench or direct work time of a group of craftpersons for
improving a planning and scheduling operation.
(Note: Although this is a copy of an actual work sampling study, the
names have been changed. Minor areas have also been altered to clar-
ify peculiar company jargon, and further notes have been inserted to call
attention to particular details.)
WORK SAMPLING STUDY OF MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE,

JANUARY–MARCH 1993.
FINAL REPORT, APRIL 29, 1993
487

488 Appendix H
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Category Definitions
Study Results
Analysis
Overall
Personnel
Unit Status
Time
Validity and Implications of In-House Studies
Measurement Acclimation
Conclusions
Recommendations
Attachment A: Procedure for Measuring Work Force Productivity by
Wrench Time
Executive Summary
The Maintenance Management Improvement (MMI) program performed
a work sampling study for North Station Mechanical Maintenance. The
team performed this study to determine the validity of in-house studies
and to compare current performance against previous studies. The team
also did the study to help accustom station personnel to being measured.
A consultant performed the two previous studies of working (wrench)
time in 1990 and 1991. In addition to comparisons to the previous stud-
ies, analysis of the current study proved the validity of the current
study.
The results also suggest future studies can be done with greatly
reduced efforts relying on 1-day-per-week observations. These studies
should give ongoing feedback of performance and better acclimation of
personnel to being measured. It is recommended such future studies be
done.
Comparison to previous studies shows wrench time being the same
despite changes in other time categories. Current wrench time is sta-
tistically unchanged at 35.08% or 31/2 hours per 10-hour day with a
margin of error of 4%. The previous studies place wrench time at
approximately 37% for past years. However, travel has improved from
21 to 15% and work assignment from 5 to 2%. But wrench time apparently
Sample Work Sampling (Wrench Time) Study: Full-Blown Study 489
does not rise because break times and unaccountable times get worse (as
do material and instruction delays to a lesser extent). An analysis of the
comments and the time of day for each observation indicate that sched-
uling and motivational concerns might be associated with these results.
(For example, most of the unaccountable observations occur at day
start, lunch, and day end.)
There are differences in wrench time among the crafts, with machin-
ists being the highest at almost 51%, or 5 hours per day, and painters
being the lowest at about 26%, or 21/2 hours per day. There are also dis-
tinct differences in the other categories for each craft.
The only event that appeared to affect wrench time significantly was
when a unit was tripped or called. Wrench time then fell. Other occur-
rences such as day of week or loaning of personnel did not affect wrench
time significantly.
Future study should help distinguish wrench time per crew, which
now appears different among crews, but with overlapping margins of
error.
Hour by hour, wrench time changes throughout the day. Overall, there
is moderate wrench time in the morning, peak wrench time (over 50%)
for 2 consecutive hours after the lunch period, and then less than mod-
erate wrench time thereafter. All of the morning hours have a higher
than average delay time waiting for tools and, to a lesser degree, parts
and instructions. The initial morning hour has low wrench time asso-
ciated with high travel and unaccountable personnel. Break and lunch
associated periods have only somewhat higher than normal travel. The
two periods of peak wrench time also have substantial travel and delays
for instructions. The final hour experiences almost no wrench time with
high break, wrap-up, and unaccountable percentages.
Introduction
In January 1993, the MMI team initiated a third work measurement
study of mechanical maintenance at North Station. The objectives of the
study were to (1) analyze results and compare them against two previ-
ous studies reported by an earlier paid consultant in September 1990 and
July 1991, (2) consider the validity and implications for the future of
doing an in-house study, and (3) help station personnel become accus-
tomed to being measured as normal practice for a first-rate maintenance
organization.
This study was conducted over 7 weeks during January through
March 1993. Observations were taken evenly over 10-hour, first-shift
work periods, excluding the lunch period from 12:00 noon to 12:30 PM.
Observations were only made of personnel within the plant grounds
and did not include personnel going outside the main gate to the fuel
490 Appendix H
oil dock or to other company facilities. Care was taken to duplicate, as

much as practical, the practices of the earlier studies. Attachment A,
Procedure for Measuring Workforce Productivity by Work Sampling,
was developed and utilized for this study.
The measurement focus of this study is on quantifying the amount of
time spent by the workforce in various types of activities when the
employees are present to work for an entire 10-hour shift. The time
spent performing work at a job site is direct work or wrench time. Time
spent otherwise, such as in traveling or waiting, is indirect work. From
quantifying and analyzing indirect work activities, action can be taken
to reduce their amounts and increase the amount of time spent pro-
ductively performing work at the job site. By conducting followup stud-
ies, the effect of such action taken may be determined. The validity of
in-house studies may be assessed from comparing the results and meth-
ods of this study with previous studies and using the experience of the
study analyst and MMI project team to review the results versus expec-
tations.
The Job Planning Coordinator (JPC) performed the duties of observer
and study analyst for this study.
It should be mentioned that as indicated by the margin-of-error
percentage, results are more statistically significant for larger numbers
of observations. This statement means that the accuracy of the results
changes from being highly accurate for the overall mechanical mainte-
nance workforce to being less accurate for an individual craft. Likewise,
results for an individual employee are not even statistically significant at
all due to the low number of observations and are therefore not reported.
Category Definitions
The following are definitions for each of the work sampling study cate-
gories. Note that “other” categories are left available to capture special
situations that clearly would not fall into set categories.
(Note: As studies progressed, occasional activities were observed
which did not fall neatly into one of the predefined categories. When
necessary, after consulting with either the maintenance supervisor or
maintenance manager, a category was selected and an appropriate
category clarification was made in these instances. The criteria for
altering a classification are usually twofold. First, preference is given
to the benefit of the craft technicians, i.e., gives them credit for more
wrench time. It is very important to bend over backwards to avoid
giving unnecessary criticisms of the study by the crafts themselves.
Second, the work sampling categories are mindful not to include in
direct work time, wrench time, any activity in which the planner could
leverage planning time and avoid a larger delay later in the field.
In addition, as electrical crafts and I&C crafts were included in subse-

quent studies to the initial mechanical studies, the categories also evolved
somewhat. For example, frequently I&C work requires careful study of
plant controls schematics; and while a planner finding technical drawing
data could probably help a field mechanic save time later, an I&C plan-
ner doing too much beyond drawing identification would only be dupli-
cating what the I&C field technician would later have to do. Electrician
and I&C research of drawings is considered wrench time, but not for
mechanical crafts. To avoid confusion, a consistent set of classifications is
used as presented below and represents the most current evolution of the
classifications as of 1997.)
Working
1. Working. This category was used when persons were performing

work (including troubleshooting) physically at the work site or shop. For
the I&C and electrical crafts only, this category includes all trou-
bleshooting whether it is at the work site or not. Also considered as this
category were completing any job-related paperwork or conferring with a
planner to help the planner plan future work. If one or more persons of
a work team were working, and other members of the team were idle,
then all members of the team were to be judged as working. An exam-
ple would be the “hole person” who must be outside the boiler when
others are working inside. An exception is that an I&C or electrical
person away from the work site that is merely waiting for another
person to troubleshoot is not in this category. (Troubleshooting is defined
as determining the cause of a problem rather than finding information
such as clearances, etc.)
(Note: Category 1 is considered direct work or wrench time. The objec-
tive of planning and scheduling is to help keep the craft labor hours in
this category. Examining how much time is spent in the other cate-
gories facilitates this objective.)
2. Work travel. This category includes walking to the work site; walk-
ing to the shop, supply room, tool room, operations room, etc.; or travel-
ing by vehicle in connection with work. Traveling within the work task
location (e.g., as from one side of the boiler to the other) was not included
in this category, but rather was considered as “working,” Category 1 above.
(Note: It is invaluable to ask and tabulate why someone is traveling
because travel is not done unto itself. For example, if getting parts
causes most of the travel, then that valuable information guides the
improvement of planning or other maintenance processes.)
3. Set-up and take down. This category has been infrequently
observed and so is not used. This type of work is included in Category 1,
Working.
492 Appendix H
4. Work assignment. Work assignment included any regular crew

meeting for sharing information and any occasion involving reassignment
to another task, upon completion of a job during the day. This category
included being idle between jobs unless in the break room or other
break area.
5. Wrap-up. Wrap-up was only used at the end of the day when per-
sons were filling out time sheets, cleaning up after working, and meet-
ing at the end of the shift.
Waiting
6. Waiting for materials. This category was used when a person was
waiting at the storeroom for materials, or in the case of a team, when
persons were waiting for another person to return with the supplies or
materials needed for them to continue their job.
7. Waiting for tools. This category was used when a person was wait-
ing at the tool room (or any other tool location away from the work site),
or in the case of a team, when persons were waiting for another person to
return with a tool(s) needed by them to continue their job.
8. Waiting for instruction. This category was used when persons
performing the job were delayed by the necessity to acquire resolution
of questions raised concerning some aspect of the job. It was also uti-
lized as a category for capturing time expended answering telephone
calls when a person was paged by another company employee. It was
also utilized whenever a person was discussing any work-related ques-
tion with a co-worker (unless in the case of troubleshooting by I&C or
electrical craft) or supervisor.
9. Clearance delay. Clearance delay was employed as a category
when a team was delayed from working by the necessity to acquire clear-
ance for a piece of equipment prior to continuing work on their project.
10. Interference. This category was used when a person or team was
not able to perform their job until another person or team completed
theirs.
11. Other work waiting. This category was never utilized.
12. Waiting for operator. When an operator or engineer was required
to inspect or assist in the work and was not available, and therefore cre-
ated a delay, this category was utilized.
13. Weather delay.
Other
15. Meetings. Though most meetings are administrative and not

included in study time (for company safety meetings or other gather-
ings), there are meetings such as with operators, supervisors, or vendors
that are brief and usually unscheduled, and therefore are included in
the study.
(Note: We are only interested in studying persons who are available
to work, that is, for persons available to the supervisor to work an entire
10-hour shift, how is their time spent? The planner and supervisor cannot
do anything to leverage administrative required time and so that is of
no interest here. However, administrative time away (vacations, illness,
training) can be a significant management problem worthy of study in
itself.)
16. Training. This category was never utilized. (Note: See above
discussion for Category 15.)
17. Idle. Idle was used usually at the job site when work, tools, equip-
ment, assignment, etc., appeared to be available, the person did not
appear to be performing work, and there did not appear to be any obvi-
ous interference or delay preventing the employee from performing the
job. (Note: This is an area where it helps if the study observer has some
familiarity with the craft work being done. It is sometimes difficult to tell
if a team is idle or being delayed. Questioning without craft familiarity
usually does not lead to a confession of idleness.)
18. Rest room. This category was used when persons were in the rest
room at times other than traditional break time, lunch, or afternoon
meeting. (Note. An example of the considerations one has to make in
such a study is that it could be a form of sexual harassment if a male
observer knocked on a ladies rest room door to ask if a particular person
was therein. A claim might be that the observer “was trying to catch a
glimpse of someone undressed.” It is not harassment for a designated
observer on a designated study to ask someone of the appropriate sex
to go into the rest room to inquire. Fortunately, this situation can be
avoided nearly altogether if the observer is familiar with the plant and
the day’s job assignments. With that information, the observer can nor-
mally find the person being searched out and leave checking the rest
rooms as a last resort.)
19. On break. Persons were considered on break from the time they
arrived at the break room or at either their desks or the shop area table
without work until the time they left. Walking to and from the break
room was categorized as work travel, as described in Category 2 above.
It was also utilized when persons were in the break room or washing
up early for lunch or remaining after lunch. At other times during
the day, unless due to a delay or interference, such an observation was
considered break time, not idle time because some crafts have no set
times for breaks.
20. Other personal allowance. This category was utilized when per-
sons were conducting what appeared to be personal business not
required by their assigned task, such as taking medication (unless in the
break room).
494 Appendix H
21. Other. This category was utilized on one study for filling out an
accident report.
Unaccountable
23. Unaccountable. This category was used when a person could not
be found at the person’s assigned work location, or the tool room, store-
room, office, etc., and was only utilized after a 15–20-minute attempt to
locate the person was unsuccessful. This category is not intended to indi-
cate that the employee was either working or not working, but simply that
the employee could not be located. (Note: This is an area in which it is
important for the observer to have a working knowledge of the plant areas
and practices, if for no other reason than to be able to find persons. While
observations are sometimes not used at the beginning of a study because
persons observed have to settle down to their normal behavior, a practi-
cal use of beginning observations is to practice finding persons.
Unaccountable incidents are useful information if there seems to be cer-
tain patterns, such as if the incidents are clustered around day end.
Study Results
The following sections discuss the collection and the subsequent analy-
sis of the observations.

During each observation numerous data was collected to allow analy-
sis of the workforce in many ways. This data included employee identi-
fication, craft, supervisor, work category, unit status, date, day of week,
hour of day, plus comments regarding certain individual observations.
Codes used for craft were M, P, W, H, A, and T for mechanics, painters,
welders, machinists, apprentices, and trainees, respectively.
The two previous studies by the paid consultant measured appren-
tices and trainees but did not classify them separately. They counted
them as part of the craft in which they were working. However, between
the time of the last study and this study, several changes occurred in the
workforce. First, many of the apprentices were promoted to journeyman
status. Second, all the journeymen were promoted provisionally to a
newly created multiskill technician status. Finally, the company hired
a class of eight new apprentices into the workforce. Yet at the time of
this third study, work was still being assigned on the basis of previous
craft designation. Because most of the new apprentices were less accus-
tomed to power plant maintenance than were previous apprentices and
because work was still assigned by previous designations, a decision was
made to use the previous craft designations plus new apprentice and
trainee designations to classify the workforce.
Analysis
The study analyzed the observations first on an overall basis with every-
one and every circumstance included, then for different subsets of crafts,
crews, and other circumstances.
Overall. Table H.1, Comparison of Studies, compares each work category

across the three studies. Each category percentage must be considered in
light of its margin of error (MOE) shown in Table H.2, which summarizes
the data for all categories during the observation period for this 1993 study.
As can be seen in Table H.1 and Fig. H.1, there is no significant
change in Category 1, Working, which was measured at 35.08%.
However, a reduction in time spent is shown in the following cate-
gories: 2, Travel; 4, Work Assignment; 10, Interference; 13, Weather;
and 15, Meetings. The reduction in travel might be explained by a com-
bination of utilization of the new golf carts and possibly fewer trips in
general being made. One new policy in place allows an employee to take
a break when it is convenient for the job under way rather than at a spe-
cific time each day. In this manner, it is desired that persons take their
break in route to a new task rather than take a separate trip. (However,
most persons still took their breaks at the traditional times of 10:00 AM and
3:00 PM.) Work Assignment, Interference, and Meetings, presumably are
reduced because of the deletion of the morning crew assignment meet-
ings in favor of utilizing posted daily work schedules. The supervisors
developed and posted these schedules each day before the work day.
The following categories showed increases: 6, Waiting for Materials; 8,
Waiting for Instruction; 19, Break; and 23, Unaccountable. Explanation
for Instruction might be in that some discussions regarding work could
have been classified as Meetings or Instructions. Break time might
have increased because of no longer having set times for break.
Unaccountable presumably increased because of methods utilized by
the observer. The previous studies made use of specially prepared lists
given by the supervisor each morning listing work locations as given at
that morning’s assignment meeting. But the current study utilized the
job schedule completed the day in advance. In addition, where the pre-
vious full-time observers allowed a full half hour to locate each set of
three persons, the observer for this study made observations in 20-minute
blocks to facilitate doing the study on a part-time basis. (Note: subse-
quent in-house studies reverted to the 30-minute allocation as shown
in the ministudy, App. G.) Finally, late morning arrivals to work typi-
cally would not be measured in the previous studies since the people
TABLE H.1 Comparison of Studies
Change
Category Name 1990 study 1991 study 1993 study direction Comment
Working
1 Working 37.45% 37.70% 35.08% NSC∗

2 Work travel 22.03% 21.46% 15.33% Down Carts, no set
break time?
3 Set-up & 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Category
take down not used
4 Work 3.95% 5.14% 1.80% Down Three daily
assignment crew
meetings
5 Wrap-up 6.05% 5.95% 7.87% NSC
Subtotal 69.48% 70.25% 60.08%
Waiting
6 Waiting for 2.18% 1.37% 2.76% ?

materials
∗
7 Waiting for 2.18% 4.10% 4.83% NSC
tools
8 Waiting for 3.15% 2.81% 3.87% Up Some were
instruction “meetings”?
∗
9 Clearance 0.56% 0.88% 0.69% NSC
delay
10 Interference 2.26% 1.45% 0.28% Down Daily schedule
meeting
helped?
11 Other work 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Category not
waiting used
12 Waiting for 1.86% 0.96% 1.24% NSC∗
operator
Down No severe
13 Weather delay 0.00% 0.56% 0.00% weather
Subtotal 12.19% 12.13% 13.67%
Other
15 Meetings 0.56% 0.40% 0.28% Down Some classed

as Cat. 8?
16 Training 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Category not
used
17 Idle 1.86% 2.97% 2.21% NSC∗
18 Rest room 0.80% 0.80% 1.24% NSC∗
19 On break 10.90% 10.21% 13.67% Up Policy of no
set break
time?
20 Other personal 0.16% 0.16% 0.97% NSC∗
allowance
Subtotal 14.28% 14.54% 18.37%
Unaccountable
23 Unaccountable 3.95% 3.05% 7.87% Up

Subtotal 3.95% 3.05% 7.87%
Totals 100% 100% 100%

∗
NSC = no significant change.
496
TABLE H.2 Results for All Personnel
Work
1 51 26 61 52 64 254 35.08 4
2 25 14 25 18 29 111 15.33 3
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 1 5 4 2 13 1.80 1
5 12 4 9 20 12 57 7.87 2
Subtotal 60.08
Waiting
6 0 1 7 8 4 20 2.76 1
7 6 6 7 7 9 35 4.83 2
8 3 3 8 7 7 28 3.87 1
9 0 0 0 2 3 5 0.69 1
10 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.28 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 5 2 2 9 1.24 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 13.67
Other
15 1 0 0 1 0 2 0.28 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 4 2 3 3 4 16 2.21 1
18 2 3 1 1 2 9 1.24 1
19 12 12 19 28 28 99 13.67 3
20 3 1 2 0 1 7 0.97 1
Subtotal 18.37
Unaccountable
23 9 9 15 15 9 57 7.87 2
Subtotal 7.87
Totals 129 82 168 168 177 724 100.00

∗
498 Appendix H
Figure H.1 Mechanical group with evolving planning department

assistance, but no advance scheduling.
arriving late were not yet scheduled to work. But in the current study,
these persons were counted as unaccountable if they had been selected
to be observed from the advance schedule and did not subsequently get
annual leave permission.
The following list defines the hour periods used in the study. Each
period defines the time frame in which the search began.

Period 12 is 11:30 AM to 12:00 PM and 12:30 PM to 1:00 PM.
Period 13 is 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM.
Table H.3, Classification of Observations by Hour, is a checking tool

to verify that the observer made an equivalent number of observations
each hour of the day for the study overall to avoid skewing the data. For
all crafts combined, there is an overall uniformity of about 72 average
observations each period. The traditional break times have fewer than
average observations and the most observations were in the 2:00 PM
TABLE H.3 Classification of Observations by Hour
Apprentices
Hour period All Technicians and trainees M P W H A T
8 69 56 13 26 11 11 8 7 6
9 78 56 22 22 17 9 8 11 11
10 69 56 13 31 9 9 7 7 6
11 72 56 16 27 17 6 6 8 8
12 75 58 17 37 7 9 5 9 8
13 66 55 11 25 15 7 8 9 2
14 82 58 24 35 8 7 8 14 10
15 66 52 14 28 5 8 11 9 5
16 71 56 15 30 11 7 8 13 2
17 76 56 20 34 9 7 6 10 10
Totals 724 559 165 295 109 80 75 97 68
period. These variances may slightly skew the reported results toward
showing a higher work time and lower break time than actually exists.
A similar analysis is made throughout this study of examining the obser-
vation distribution for specific crafts or other cases under consideration.
Figure H.2, Distribution of Time, shows the relative impact of each cat-
egory’s percentage of time. Greatest impact is made by Categories 2, Travel
(15.33%), and 19, Break (13.67%). Table H.4, Minutes per Day for Each
Category, shows that these categories take up 92 and 82 minutes per day,
respectively. Categories 5, Wrap-up (7.87%, 47 minutes/day), and 23,
Unaccountable (also 7.87%, 47 minutes/day) also have an appreciable
impact.
Figure H.2 Time spent in different categories.

500 Appendix H
Reviewing the comments recorded for individual observations in each

category allowed accounting for most of the travel by purpose of the
travel. Table H.5 and Fig. H.3 show the results of adjusting the per-
centage of time in major categories by including their associated travel.
A significant amount of time spent traveling was involved with breaks
(and lunch period). Travel dropped to 3.76% (23 minutes/day) and Break
increased to 16.70% (100 minutes/day). Wrap-up increased to 8.28%
(50 minutes per day). After subtracting the total 30 minutes allowed for
breaks and 30 minutes for wrap-up, there was an additional 90 minutes
per day spent in these areas (100 + 50 − 30 − 30 = 90). Table H.5 and
Fig. H.3 also showed an increase in the relative impact of Categories 6,
Materials (4.6%, 28 minutes/day); 7, Tools (7.86%, 47 minutes/day);
and 8, Instructions (4.56%, 27 minutes/day) after including their asso-
ciated travel. Some of the material delays noted in the comments for
Categories 2 and 6 were for nuts and bolts that may be difficult to plan
or stage. On the other hand, some materials such as drive belts or “all
thread” may be easier to anticipate. The most notable of the comments
involved tools and appeared to be more schedule than planning related.
Many of the observations for Categories 2 and 7 involved tool delays
TABLE H.4 Minutes per Day for Each Category
Category Name Percent Minutes/day Comment
1 Working 35.08 210

2 Work travel 15.33 92
3 Set-up & take down 0.00 0 Category not used
4 Work assignment 1.80 11
5 Wrap-up 7.87 47
6 Waiting for materials 2.76 17
7 Waiting for tools 4.83 29
8 Waiting for instruction 3.87 23
9 Clearance delay 0.69 4
10 Interference 0.28 2
11 Other work waiting 0.00 0 Category not used
12 Waiting for operator 1.24 7
13 Weather delay 0.00 0
15 Meetings 0.28 2
16 Training 0.00 0 Category not used
17 Idle 2.21 13
18 Rest room 1.24 7
19 On break 13.67 82
20 Other personal allowance 0.97 6
23 Unaccountable 4.51 27
Total for day 600 min
TABLE H.5 Comparison of Study with Travel Adjustment
Percent after
Travel travel Adjusted
Category Name Percent adjustment adjustment minutes/day
Working
1 Working 35.08 0.00% 35.08 210

2 Work travel 15.33 −11.57% 3.76 23
4 Work 1.80 2.48% 4.28 26
assignment
5 Wrap-up 7.87 0.41% 8.28 50
Subtotal 60.08 −8.68% 51.40
Waiting
6 Waiting for 2.76 1.93% 4.69 28

materials
7 Waiting for tools 4.83 3.03% 7.86 47
8 Waiting for 3.87 0.69% 4.56 27
instruction
9 Clearance delay 0.69 0.14% 0.83 5
10 Interference 0.28 0.00% 0.28 2
12 Waiting for 1.24 0.00% 1.24 7
operator
13 Weather delay 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0
Subtotal 13.67 5.79% 19.46
Other
15 Meetings 0.28 0.00% 0.28 2

17 Idle 2.21 0.00% 2.21 13
18 Rest room 1.24 0.00% 1.24 7
19 On break 13.67 3.03% 16.70 100
20 Other personal 0.97 0.00% 0.97 6
allowance
Subtotal 18.37 3.03% 21.40
Unaccountable
23 Unaccountable 7.87 0.00% 7.87 47

Subtotal 7.87 0.00% 7.87
Totals 100.00 0.00% 100.00 601 min

502 Appendix H
Figure H.3 Reasons for time spent traveling.
such as the moving of personal tools, the obtaining of small tools that
could be anticipated such as shackles or grease guns, or the schedul-
ing of use of equipment such as a crane. Most of the instruction delays
were associated with a person-to-person discussion of work-related
issues rather than for researching file information. Better clarification
of instruction versus meeting categories may be advisable.
Personnel. The study also analyzes wrench time considering different
personnel. The study makes classifications by craft, by days when only
one or two crews are present, by supervisor, by when persons are loaned
to another plant, and finally by when the apprentices are sent to train-
ing. The study compares these classifications to previous study results
when the data exists from previous studies.
Figure H.4, Distribution of Time by Craft, shows the relative per-
centage of time spent by each craft in each category. Tables H.6 through
H.11 show the summary data with actual percentages of time, margin
of error, and number of observations for each craft. Table H.3 (previously
shown) allows determination of whether the distribution of observa-
tions might have skewed the results for any one craft.
The first cluster of bars in Fig. H.4 shows Category 1, Working, for
mechanics (34.21%), painters (25.6%), welders (33.75%), machinists
(50.67%), apprentices (40.21%), and trainees (30.88%). The percentages
for the first four of these crafts from the last study (N2) are 34.64%,
26.09%, 37.73%, and 82.17%, respectively.
The only statistically significant change between studies in work time
is for the machinist craft which dropped over 30%. This drop is neither
Figure H.4 Separate crafts spend time differently.
within the margin of error for the 1991 study, 9%, nor this study, 12%.
Table H.3 does not indicate a significant skew of the observations.
Between the studies travel rises about 4%, wrap-up about 5%, and
break about 1% for machinists. More remarkable, however, is that in
the last study there is zero percentage (0%) for Categories 6, Materials; 7,
Tools; 8, Instructions; and 17, Idle, as well as for 18, Bathroom; and 23,
Unaccountable. These categories are 1.33, 4.00, 8.00, 4.00, 4.00, 6.67,
and 1.33%, respectively, in the current study. The first five of these cat-
egories total 21.33% and it is possible that some observations in these
categories might have been counted as work time in the previous study
for machinists if the previous study observer limited the number of
questions asked of the persons. This difference might explain the results
of machinist work time and give validity to the current study results.
Figure H.4 shows that the highest bars for Category 2, Travel, are
observed in the apprentice (19.59%) and trainee (25.00%) craftpersons.
(Review of the individual observation comments also showed a large pro-
portion of material and tool-related travel by apprentices and trainees
even though many apprentices were not present for most of the study.)
This high travel might be explained by the apparent practice of send-
ing these craftpersons to pick up items when needed by the techni-
cians. Mechanics show the next highest travel at 16.61%. All of the
504 Appendix H
TABLE H.6 Mechanics
Work
1 30 6 19 21 25 101 34.24 6
2 11 5 14 9 10 49 16.61 4
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 1 1 2 1 6 2.03 2
5 4 1 5 10 9 29 9.83 3
Subtotal 62.71
Waiting
6 0 0 5 2 2 9 3.05 2
7 4 1 3 5 4 17 5.76 3
8 2 0 6 1 4 13 4.41 2
9 0 0 0 2 1 3 1.02 1
10 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.34 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 1 2 5 1.69 2
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 16.27
Other
15 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.34 1
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 1 1 1 1 6 2.03 2
18 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.34 1
19 4 5 7 8 12 36 12.20 4
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.34 1
Subtotal 15.25
Unaccountable
23 3 1 2 8 3 17 5.76 3
Subtotal 5.76
Totals 62 22 65 71 75 295 100.00

∗
TABLE H.7 Painters
Work
1 2 6 7 4 9 28 25.69 8
2 3 2 2 2 4 13 11.93 6
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 0 1 0 2 0 3 2.75 3
Subtotal 40.37
Waiting
6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.92 2
7 0 0 1 1 0 2 1.83 3
8 0 2 0 2 0 4 3.67 4
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 6.42
Other
15 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.92 2
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 1 1 2 1.83 3
18 0 1 0 0 1 2 1.83 3
19 1 5 2 13 7 28 25.69 8
20 1 1 2 0 0 4 3.67 4
Subtotal 33.94
Unaccountable
23 4 4 5 5 3 21 19.27 8
Subtotal 19.27
Totals 12 22 19 31 25 109 100.00

∗
506 Appendix H
TABLE H.8 Welders
Work
1 4 3 8 5 7 27 33.75 11
2 2 0 2 0 2 6 7.50 6
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.25 2
5 2 1 0 2 1 6 7.50 6
Subtotal 50.00
Waiting
6 0 1 0 2 1 4 5.00 5
7 0 2 1 0 0 3 3.75 4
8 0 0 1 1 1 3 3.75 4
9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.25 2
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.25 2
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 15.00
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 1 0 0 0 1 1.25 2
19 5 1 5 4 1 16 20.00 9
20 1 0 0 0 1 2 2.50 3
Subtotal 23.75
Unaccountable
23 2 2 2 1 2 9 11.25 7
Subtotal 11.25
Totals 12 22 19 31 25 109 100.00

∗
TABLE H.9 Machinists
Work
1 6 0 9 11 12 38 50.67 12
2 1 0 2 1 3 7 9.33 7
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 1 1 2 2.67 4
5 3 0 1 2 0 6 8.00 6
Subtotal 70.67
Waiting
6 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.33 3
7 0 0 0 1 2 3 4.00 5
8 0 1 0 3 2 6 8.00 6
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 13.33
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 1 0 1 0 1 3 4.00 5
18 2 0 1 0 0 3 4.00 5
19 0 0 2 1 1 5 6.67 6
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.67
Unaccountable
23 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.33 3
Subtotal 1.33
Totals 14 1 16 22 22 75 100.00

∗
508 Appendix H
TABLE H.10 Apprentices
Work
1 9 2 10 8 10 39 40.21 10
2 6 2 1 3 7 19 19.59 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 1 0 2 2.06 3
5 2 0 3 3 1 9 9.28 6
Subtotal 71.13
Waiting
6 0 0 1 2 1 4 4.12 4
7 2 0 1 0 1 4 4.12 4
8 1 0 1 0 0 2 2.06 3
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 0 0 2 2.06 3
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 12.37
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 1 1 0 2 2.06 3
18 0 0 0 1 1 2 2.06 3
19 1 0 0 2 4 7 7.22 5
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 11.34
Unaccountable
23 0 1 4 0 0 5 5.15 4
Subtotal 5.15
Totals 21 5 25 21 25 97 100.00

∗
TABLE H.11 Trainees
Work
1 0 9 8 3 1 21 30.88 11
2 2 5 4 3 3 17 25.00 11
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 2 2.94 4
5 1 1 0 1 1 4 5.88 6
Subtotal 64.71
Waiting
6 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.47 4
7 0 3 1 0 2 6 8.22 7
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.47 4
10 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.47 4
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.47 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.71
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 1 1 0 0 1 3 4.41 5
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 0 1 3 0 3 7 10.29 7
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.71
Unaccountable
23 0 1 2 0 1 4 5.88 6
Subtotal 5.88
Totals 4 21 23 7 13 68 100.00

∗
510 Appendix H
technician craftpersons show reductions in travel from the previous

study which did not separate out the apprentices and trainees.
Category 5, Wrap-up, appears highest for mechanics at 9.83% (margin
of error = 3%). This percentage means that on the average, a mechanic
spends 59 minutes each day in wrap-up (41 to 76 minutes within the error
margin). The apprentices are close behind (9.28%, 56 minutes). In order,
machinists are 8.00% (48 minutes), welders are 7.50% (45 minutes),
trainees are 5.88% (35 minutes), and painters are only 2.75% (17 minutes).
The fact that painters spend less time in wrap-up than allowed might
be partially explained by the painters having the largest occurrence in
Category 23, Unaccountable, of 19.27%.
Trainees show the highest relative percentage of time in Category 7,
Waiting for Tools, at 8.87%.
Painters have a large decrease in Category 8, Waiting for Instructions,
from 13.04% (the highest of all craftpersons) in the previous study to
3.67% (among the lowest) in the current study. This decrease might be
explained by the work consisting of mainly three large work orders
which remained open the entire duration of the current study.
Category 19 shows four crafts over 10% for break time and all crafts
over the 5% allowed break time even without including associated travel
time. It is possible that the observer did not diligently note if persons in
the break room were waiting while being delayed on their assigned jobs
or were awaiting job assignment. In order, the break time is painters at
25.69%, welders at 20.00%, mechanics at 12.20%, trainees at 10.29%,
apprentices at 7.22%, and machinists at 6.67%. In the previous study
these percentages are all lower: 17.39, 11.49, 10.68, and 5.48% for
painters, welders, mechanics, and machinists, respectively.
For Category 23, Unaccountable, the painters and welders have the
most time with percentages of 19.27 and 11.25%. In the previous study
painters had a similar score, but welders had only a 1.25% percentage.
Table H.12 compares the categories for all of the technicians combined
and the apprentices and trainees combined. The notable differences
are more travel time and less break time for apprentices and trainees.
Tables H.13 through H.15 classify work categories by crew.
Each supervisor has a similar percentage of time in Category 1, Working,
each within the others’ margin of error. Note that Crew 3 has an above
average, 20.79%, travel time, but a below average, 6.93%, break time.
The study examined the observation data for possible skewing and
crew composition notes. The reported wrench time for Crew 1 might
have been a little high due to a skew of having more observations than
average in the peak work time periods. There was a fairly even dis-
tribution of observations or even trade-offs between opposite effect
periods for Crew 2 and 3. It was notable that Crew 1 had all of the
painters and Crew 2 had no trainees. Crew 2 also had the majority of
the machinists.
TABLE H.12 Comparison of Technicians versus Apprentices and Trainees
Category Name Technicians, % Apprentices, % Trainees, %
Working
1 Working 34.70 36.36 35.08

2 Work travel 13.42 21.82 15.33
3 Set-up & take down 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 Work assignment 1.61 2.42 1.80
5 Wrap-up 7.87 7.88 7.87
Subtotal 57.60 68.48 60.08
Waiting
6 Waiting for materials 2.68 3.03 2.76

7 Waiting for tools 4.47 6.06 4.83
8 Waiting for instruction 4.65 1.21 3.87
9 Clearance delay 0.72 0.61 0.69
10 Interference 0.18 0.61 0.28
11 Other work waiting 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 Waiting for operator 1.07 1.82 1.24
13 Weather delay 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 13.77 13.34 13.67
Other
15 Meetings 0.36 0.00 0.28

16 Training 0.00 0.00 0.00
17 Idle 1.97 3.03 2.21
18 Rest room 1.25 1.21 1.24
19 On break 15.21 8.48 13.67
20 Other personal 1.25 0.00 0.97
allowance
Subtotal 20.4 12.72 18.37
Unaccountable
23 Unaccountable 8.59 5.45 7.87

Subtotal 8.59 5.45 7.87
Totals 100 100 100

512 Appendix H
TABLE H.13 Crew 1
Work
1 21 22 24 17 27 111 31.99 5
2 15 11 7 5 10 48 13.83 4
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 4 0 0 4 1.15 1
5 3 3 4 10 5 25 7.20 3
Subtotal 54.18
Waiting
6 0 1 1 5 0 7 2.02 2
7 5 6 3 1 6 21 6.05 3
8 0 3 0 4 1 8 2.31 2
9 0 0 0 1 3 4 1.15 1
10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.29 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 2 0 3 0.86 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 12.68
Other
15 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.29 1
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 2 0 1 1 6 1.73 1
18 0 3 0 0 1 4 1.15 1
19 2 12 12 18 18 62 17.87 4
20 2 1 2 0 0 5 1.44 1
Subtotal 22.48
Unaccountable
23 7 8 11 5 6 37 10.66 3
Subtotal 10.66
Totals 58 72 70 69 78 347 100.00

∗
TABLE H.14 Crew 2
Work
1 13 2 16 19 21 71 40.57 7
2 3 1 4 5 8 21 12.00 5
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 0 1 1 1 4 2.29 2
5 3 1 1 6 3 14 8.00 4
Subtotal 62.86
Waiting
6 0 0 0 3 3 6 3.43 3
7 1 0 3 3 2 9 5.14 3
8 0 0 0 3 2 5 2.86 3
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 0 1 3 1.71 2
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 13.14
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 2 0 1 3 1.71 2
18 1 0 1 1 1 4 2.29 2
19 5 0 6 8 4 23 13.14 5
20 1 0 0 0 1 2 1.14 2
Subtotal 18.29
Unaccountable
23 0 1 3 6 0 10 5.71 4
Subtotal 5.71
Totals 28 5 39 55 48 175 100.00

∗
514 Appendix H
TABLE H.15 Crew 3
Work
1 17 2 21 16 16 72 35.64 7
2 7 2 14 8 11 42 20.79 6
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 1 0 3 1 5 2.48 2
5 6 0 4 4 4 18 8.91 4
Subtotal 67.82
Waiting
6 0 0 6 0 1 7 3.47 3
7 0 0 1 3 1 5 2.48 2
8 3 0 8 0 4 15 7.43 4
9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.50 1
10 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.50 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 0 1 3 1.49 2
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 15.84
Other
15 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.50 1
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 0 1 2 2 7 3.47 3
18 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.50 1
19 5 0 1 2 6 14 6.93 4
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 11.39
Unaccountable
23 2 0 1 4 3 10 4.95 3
Subtotal 4.95
Totals 43 5 59 44 51 202 100.00

∗
There was insufficient unskewed data to allow reporting of wrench

time for when there was no supervisor or when someone was working up.
Table H.16 shows the effect of when the work force decreases by loan-
ing personnel to another plant. Category 1, Working, increases by 1 to
36.16% and Category 2, Break, decreases by 1 to 12.52%. All of these
changes are within the margin of error of the study. Also, Table H.17
shows there are fewer observations than average in periods 8 and 10 and
more observations in period 14. This uneven distribution might artifi-
cially raise the reported wrench time and lower the reported break time.
Similarly, Table H.18 shows a decrease of from 1 to 33.89% in Category 1,
Working, for the apprentices being sent to training. Category 2, Travel,
also decreases by about 1 to 13.93%, but Category 19, Break, increases
by over 2 to 16.22%. Again, all of these changes are within the margin
of error for each category so they are not statistically significant.
If the change was significant, the decreased travel might be explained
by better anticipation of needed parts and tools by technicians who do
not have helpers. The lower wrench time and greater break time might
be explained by having less peer pressure around to keep on the job.
Table H.19 does not indicate a skewed result due to observation
distribution.
The final personnel classification is a repeat of the previous study to
examine whether work days with only one or two crews present (usually
Monday and Friday) versus the other days with all the crews present
have an effect on wrench time. Tables H.20 and H.21 show overall wrench
time appears to be higher on “short crew days” (37.82 vs. 33.41%).
Tables H.22 through H.25 show mechanics also had higher wrench
time (40.71 vs. 30.22%), but welders had lower wrench time (33.33 vs.
34.00%). These results agreed with the previous study.
Apprentices and trainees (not classified in previous studies) also seem
to have higher wrench time on short crew days, but within large margins
of error (Tables H.26 through H.29).
Tables H.30 through H.33 show painter wrench time was lower on
short crew days than on other days (23.68 vs. 26.76%) as was machin-
ist wrench time (40.91 vs. 54.72%). These results were reversed from the
previous study.
With the exception of the mechanics all of the differences between
short crew days and other days are within the study margin of error. For
the mechanics the data appears to be skewed as shown by Tables H.34
and H.35 by having an unequal number of observations in the 17 (5:00 to
6:00 PM) time period perhaps artificially creating a significant difference.
The previous study differences also were within the margins of error for
each craft.
It is possible that any actual higher wrench time on short crew days
might be explainable by having fewer people to cause disruptions. It
might also be explained by the fact that individuals were usually
516 Appendix H
TABLE H.16 After Personnel Loaned to Another Plant
Work
1 28 26 51 44 56 205 36.16 4
2 19 14 22 11 22 88 15.52 3
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 1 4 3 0 8 1.41 1
5 7 4 9 13 9 42 7.41 2
Subtotal 60.49
Waiting
6 0 1 7 7 3 18 3.17 1
7 5 6 6 5 6 28 4.94 2
8 2 3 8 5 7 25 4.41 2
9 0 0 0 2 3 5 0.88 1
10 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.35 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 3 0 2 5 0.88 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.64
Other
15 1 0 0 1 0 2 0.35 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 2 3 3 4 14 2.47 1
18 1 3 1 0 2 7 1.23 1
19 5 12 16 17 21 71 12.52 3
20 2 1 1 0 1 5 0.88 1
Subtotal 17.46
Unaccountable
23 7 9 13 8 5 42 7.41 2
Subtotal 7.41
Totals 79 82 145 119 142 567 100.00

∗
observed more frequently on these days, possibly causing them to be

overly sensitive to the observation process. From examining the results
with previous studies, it is concluded there appears to be no appreciable
difference in actual wrench time overall for short crew days.
Unit Status. Next the study analyzes unit status.
Table H.36, Days When One or Both Units Are On-Line, shows a
Category 1, Working, time of 36.10%. This improvement of 1% versus the
overall study average is not significant within the study’s margin of
error. In addition, Table H.37 indicates a slight skew of observations
away from the traditional break times.
On the other hand, for days when either a unit tripped or was called,
the results are more interesting. Table H.38 shows a decrease of 3% in
Category 1, Working, time to 32.14%. In addition, there is also a decrease
in almost all waiting categories and travel. At the same time there are
increases in Categories 4, Work Assignment; 5, Wrap-up; 17, Idle; and
19, Break. A possible explanation is that reassignment time to routine
start-up and shut-down tasks affects wrench time. The tasks are consid-
ered routine because of few delays for parts, tools, or instructions. While
there are few observations that cause large margins of error, Table H.39
shows a skew of observations that should cause break time to be under-
reported. So actual wrench time may be even less. This area may be desir-
able for collecting additional observations in future studies. Nevertheless,
unit trips and calls are not every day occurrences, so lower wrench time
might be acceptable.
Time
Finally, the study analyzes work activity and time itself.
Figure H.5, Wrench Time Categories by Hour, demonstrates the
variance by hour. Category 1, Working, is between 40 and 53% during
TABLE H.17 Classification of Observations by Hour after Personnel Loaned

to Another Plant
Hour Apprentices
period All Technicians and trainees M P W H A T
8 49 38 11 15 9 8 6 6 5
9 53 37 16 14 15 5 3 7 9
10 48 36 12 20 6 5 5 6 6
11 60 45 15 21 15 4 5 7 8
12 60 43 17 25 7 7 4 9 8
13 54 46 8 20 15 4 7 6 2
14 72 50 22 28 8 6 8 14 8
15 53 40 13 21 3 6 10 8 5
16 56 43 13 20 11 4 8 11 2
17 62 43 19 23 9 6 5 9 10
Totals 567 421 146 207 98 55 61 83 63
518 Appendix H
TABLE H.18 With New Apprentices Sent to Training
Work
1 30 22 49 33 29 163 33.89 4
2 10 11 17 14 15 67 13.93 3
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 0 3 4 2 10 2.08 1
5 9 3 3 13 8 36 7.48 2
Subtotal 57.38
Waiting
6 0 1 7 3 2 13 2.70 1
7 1 6 6 5 5 23 4.78 2
8 3 3 8 4 6 24 4.99 2
9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.21 0
10 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.42 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 5 2 1 8 1.66 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.76
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 2 2 2 3 11 2.29 1
18 2 3 0 1 0 6 1.25 1
19 10 12 18 20 18 78 16.22 3
20 1 1 2 0 0 4 0.83 1
Subtotal 20.58
Unaccountable
23 2 8 8 11 6 35 7.28 2
Subtotal 7.28
Totals 71 72 129 113 96 481 100.00

∗
TABLE H.19 Classification of Observations by Hour with New Apprentices Sent

to Training
Hour Apprentices
8 52 46 6 22 11 7 6 2 4
9 58 42 16 17 10 8 7 5 11
10 54 45 9 26 5 8 6 3 6
11 54 44 10 20 16 5 3 3 7
12 51 41 10 27 5 6 3 2 8
13 37 32 5 16 7 6 3 3 2
14 44 33 11 20 5 5 3 2 9
15 34 31 3 19 2 4 6 1 2
16 41 36 5 22 4 5 5 3 2
17 56 44 12 25 9 6 4 3 9
Totals 481 394 87 214 74 60 46 27 60
periods away from day start, day end, lunch, and traditional break
times. However, it drops to between 23 and 33% around breaks or lunch.
It drops further to 18.84% for the first hour of each day and only 3.95%
for the last hour of each day.
The category which most varies (indirectly) with wrench time is
Category 19, Break. The morning break consumes 42.03% of the hour
between 9:30 and 10:30 (25 minutes) and the afternoon break 33.33%
(20 minutes) between 3:00 and 4:00 without even considering associated
travel. Similarly, lunch time accounts for 18.87% (11 minutes) of the half
hour before noon and the half hour after 12:30 without considering asso-
ciated travel or the half-hour lunch period itself.
Category 2, Travel, is highest in the first period of the day at 26.09%.
So, on the average, 16 minutes is taken by each person just in traveling
before job site work begins. Appendix E, Classification of Comments by
Hour, shows that this travel is split among getting parts, getting tools,
and actually going to the job site. Travel is lowest for the last period of
the day (5.26%, 3 minutes). Travel near break time and lunch time
appears higher than other times with the exception of the 1:00 to 2:00 PM
period. It is noteworthy that the 1:00 to 2:00 period has the highest
wrench time, but also the second highest travel.
The next category of note is Category 23, Unaccountable. This cate-
gory is much higher near day start, lunch, and day end. It is between
11.84 to 17.39% for these periods versus 1.45 to 7.58% for the other
periods of the day.
Category 6, Waiting on Materials, seems to be a greater problem, in
the morning as does Category 7, Waiting on Tools. Category 8, Waiting
on Instructions, appears higher during periods of high wrench time
plus during the first hour of the work day.
520 Appendix H
TABLE H.20 Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 51 26 27 0 0 104 37.82 6
2 25 14 10 0 0 49 17.82 5
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 1 0 0 0 2 0.73 1
5 12 4 3 0 0 19 6.91 3
Subtotal 63.27
Waiting
6 0 1 4 0 0 5 1.82 2
7 6 6 4 0 0 16 5.82 3
8 3 3 4 0 0 10 3.64 2
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.73 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 12.00
Other
15 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.36 1
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 4 2 1 0 0 7 2.55 2
18 2 3 0 0 0 5 1.82 2
19 12 12 7 0 0 31 11.27 4
20 3 1 1 0 0 5 1.82 2
Subtotal 17.82
Unaccountable
23 9 9 1 0 0 19 6.91 3
Subtotal 6.91
Totals 129 82 64 0 0 275 100.00

∗
TABLE H.21 Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except Tuesday after Holiday)
Work
1 0 0 34 52 64 150 33.41 4
2 0 0 15 18 29 111 13.81 3
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 5 4 2 11 2.45 1
5 0 0 6 20 12 38 8.46 3
Subtotal 58.13
Waiting
6 0 0 3 8 4 15 3.34 2
7 0 0 3 7 9 19 4.23 2
8 0 0 4 7 7 18 4.01 2
9 0 0 0 2 3 5 1.11 1
10 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.45 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 3 2 2 7 1.56 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.70
Other
15 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.22 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 2 3 4 9 2.00 1
18 0 0 1 1 2 4 0.89 1
19 0 0 12 28 28 68 15.14 3
20 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.45 1
Subtotal 18.71
Unaccountable
23 0 0 14 15 9 38 8.46 3
Subtotal 8.46
Totals 0 0 104 168 177 449 100.00

∗
522 Appendix H
TABLE H.22 Mechanics Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 30 6 10 0 0 46 40.71 9
2 11 5 6 0 0 22 19.47 7
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 1 0 0 0 2 1.77 2
5 4 1 2 0 0 7 6.19 5
Subtotal 68.14
Waiting
6 0 0 2 0 0 2 1.77 2
7 4 1 2 0 0 7 6.19 5
8 2 0 3 0 0 5 4.42 4
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.88 2
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 13.27
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 1 1 0 0 4 3.54 3
18 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.88 2
19 4 5 2 0 0 11 9.73 6
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.88 2
Subtotal 15.04
Unaccountable
23 3 1 0 0 0 4 3.54 3
1 Subtotal 3.54
Totals 62 22 29 0 0 113 100.00

∗
TABLE H.23 Mechanics Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except Tuesday

after Holidays)
Work
1 0 0 9 21 25 55 30.22 7
2 0 0 8 9 10 27 14.84 5
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 2 1 4 2.20 2
5 0 0 3 10 9 22 12.09 5
Subtotal 59.34
Waiting
6 0 0 3 2 2 7 3.85 3
7 0 0 1 5 4 10 5.49 3
8 0 0 3 1 4 8 4.40 3
9 0 0 0 2 1 3 1.65 2
10 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.55 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 1 2 4 2.20 2
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 18.13
Other
15 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.55 1
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 1 1 2 1.10 2
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 0 0 5 8 12 25 13.74 5
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 15.38
Unaccountable
23 0 0 2 8 3 13 7.14 4
Subtotal 7.14
Totals 0 0 36 71 75 182 100.00

∗
524 Appendix H
TABLE H.24 Welders Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday after Holiday)
Work
1 4 3 5 0 0 12 33.33 16
2 2 0 0 0 0 2 5.56 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 2 1 0 0 0 3 8.33 9
Subtotal 47.22
Waiting
6 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.78 5
7 0 2 1 0 0 3 8.33 9
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 11.11
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.78 5
19 5 1 3 0 0 9 25.00 14
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 2.78 5
Subtotal 30.56
Unaccountable
23 2 2 0 0 0 4 11.11 10
Subtotal 11.11
Totals 16 11 9 0 0 36 100.00

∗
TABLE H.25 Welders Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 0 0 3 5 7 15 34.09 14
2 0 0 2 0 2 4 9.09 9
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 0 0 1 2.27 4
5 0 0 0 2 1 3 6.82 8
Subtotal 52.27
Waiting
6 0 0 0 2 1 3 6.82 8
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
8 0 0 1 1 1 3 6.82 8
9 0 0 0 0 1 1 2.27 4
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 1 0 1 2.27 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 18.18
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 0 0 2 4 1 7 15.91 11
20 0 0 0 0 1 1 2.27 4
Subtotal 18.18
Unaccountable
23 0 0 2 1 2 5 11.36 10
Subtotal 11.36
Totals 0 0 11 16 17 44 100.00

∗
526 Appendix H
TABLE H.26 Apprentices Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 9 2 4 0 0 15 45.45 17
2 6 2 0 0 0 8 24.24 15
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 2 0 0 0 0 2 6.06 8
Subtotal 75.76
Waiting
6 0 0 1 0 0 1 3.03 6
7 2 0 0 0 1 2 6.06 8
8 1 0 1 0 0 2 6.06 8
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 0 0 1 3.03 6
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 18.18
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 1 0 0 0 0 1 3.03 6
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 3.03
Unaccountable
23 0 1 0 0 0 1 3.03 6
Subtotal 3.03
Totals 21 5 7 0 0 33 100.00

∗
TABLE H.27 Apprentices Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except Tuesday

after Holidays)
Work
1 0 0 6 8 10 24 37.50 12
2 0 0 1 3 7 11 17.19 9
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 1 0 2 3.13 4
5 0 0 3 3 1 7 10.94 8
Subtotal 68.75
Waiting
6 0 0 0 2 1 3 4.69 5
7 0 0 1 0 1 2 3.13 4
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.56 3
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 9.38
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 1 1 0 2 3.13 4
18 0 0 0 1 1 2 3.13 4
19 0 0 0 2 4 6 9.38 7
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 15.63
Unaccountable
23 0 0 4 0 0 4 6.25 6
Subtotal 6.25
Totals 0 0 8 21 25 64 100.00

∗
528 Appendix H
TABLE H.28 Trainees Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 0 9 4 0 0 13 39.39 17
2 2 5 3 0 0 10 30.30 16
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 1 1 0 0 0 2 6.06 8
Subtotal 75.76
Waiting
6 0 0 1 0 0 1 3.03 6
7 0 3 0 0 0 3 9.09 10
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 12.12
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 1 1 0 0 0 2 6.06 8
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 0 1 0 0 0 1 3.03 6
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 9.09
Unaccountable
23 0 1 0 0 0 1 3.03 6
Subtotal 3.03
Totals 4 21 8 0 0 33 100.00

∗
TABLE H.29 Trainees Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except Tuesday

after Holidays)
Work
1 0 0 4 3 1 8 22.86 14
2 0 0 1 3 3 7 20.00 14
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 2 5.71 8
5 0 0 0 1 1 2 5.71 8
Subtotal 54.29
Waiting
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
7 0 0 1 0 2 3 8.57 9
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
9 0 0 0 0 1 1 2.86 6
10 0 0 1 0 0 1 2.86 6
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 0 0 1 2.86 6
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 17.14
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 1 1 2.86 6
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 0 0 3 0 3 6 17.14 13
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 20.00
Unaccountable
23 0 0 2 0 1 3 8.57 9
Subtotal 8.57
Totals 0 0 15 7 13 35 100.00

∗
530 Appendix H
TABLE H.30 Painters Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 2 6 1 0 0 9 23.68 14
2 3 2 0 0 0 5 13.16 11
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.63 5
Subtotal 39.47
Waiting
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
7 0 0 1 0 0 1 2.63 5
8 0 2 0 0 0 2 5.26 7
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 7.89
Other
15 1 0 0 0 0 1 2.63 5
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.63 5
19 1 5 0 0 0 6 15.79 12
20 1 1 1 0 0 3 7.89 9
Subtotal 28.95
Unaccountable
23 4 4 1 0 0 9 23.68 14
Subtotal 23.68
Totals 12 22 4 0 0 38 100.00

∗
TABLE H.31 Painters Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 0 0 6 4 9 19 26.76 11
2 0 0 2 2 4 8 11.27 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 0 0 0 2 0 2 2.82 4
Subtotal 40.85
Waiting
6 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.41 3
7 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.41 3
8 0 0 0 2 0 2 2.82 4
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 5.63
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 1 1 2 2.82 4
18 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.41 3
19 0 0 2 13 7 22 30.99 11
20 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.41 3
Subtotal 36.62
Unaccountable
23 0 0 4 5 3 12 16.90 9
Subtotal 16.90
Totals 0 0 15 31 25 71 100.00

∗
532 Appendix H
TABLE H.32 Machinists Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday after Holidays)
Work
1 16 0 3 0 0 9 40.91 21
2 1 0 1 0 0 2 9.09 12
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 3 0 1 0 0 4 18.18 16
Subtotal 68.18
Waiting
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
8 0 1 0 0 0 1 4.55 9
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 4.55
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 1 0 0 0 0 1 4.55 9
18 2 0 0 0 0 2 9.09 12
19 1 0 2 0 0 3 13.64 15
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 27.27
Unaccountable
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Totals 14 1 7 0 0 22 100.00

∗
TABLE H.33 Machinists Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except Tuesday

after Holidays)
Work
1 0 0 6 11 12 29 54.72 14
2 0 0 1 1 3 5 9.43 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 1 1 2 3.77 5
5 0 0 0 2 0 2 3.77 5
Subtotal 71.70
Waiting
6 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.89 4
7 0 0 0 1 2 3 5.66 6
8 0 0 0 3 2 5 9.43 8
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 16.98
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 1 0 1 2 3.77 5
18 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.89 4
19 0 0 0 1 1 2 3.77 5
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 9.43
Unaccountable
23 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.89 4
Subtotal 1.89
Totals 0 0 9 22 22 53 100.00

∗
534 Appendix H
TABLE H.34 Classification of Observations by Hour on Monday and Friday (plus Tuesday
after Holidays)
Hour Apprentices
8 27 23 4 12 8 2 1 2 2
9 30 17 13 8 2 5 2 5 8
10 31 27 4 13 4 6 4 1 3
11 32 24 8 12 6 3 3 5 3
12 31 24 7 15 4 5 0 3 4
13 22 19 3 10 3 4 2 2 1
14 30 20 10 14 3 2 1 5 5
15 25 19 6 13 0 3 3 4 2
16 22 18 4 10 0 2 2 3 1
17 25 18 7 6 4 4 4 3 4
Totals 275 209 66 113 38 36 22 33 33
Finally, Category 5, Wrap-up, is not only 61.84% (37 minutes) for the
last hour, but 12.68% (8 minutes) of the preceding hour (4:00 to 5:00 PM).
This time does not include break time in the last 2 hours, an additional
7.04% (4 minutes) and 9.21% (6 minutes). (Observations made in the
beginning 20 minutes of the last hour were normally considered
Category 19, Break.) This time also does not include any time spent com-
pleting job reports as that was considered Category 1, Working. The
result is that on the average, 55 minutes is spent by each person on
break or wrap-up in the last 2 hours of the day.
TABLE H.35 Classification of Observations by Hour on Tuesday, Wednesday, and

Thursday (except Tuesday after Holidays)
Hour Apprentices
8 42 33 9 14 3 9 7 5 4
9 48 39 9 14 15 4 6 6 3
10 38 29 9 18 5 3 3 6 3
11 40 32 8 15 11 3 3 3 5
12 44 34 10 22 3 4 5 6 4
13 44 36 8 15 12 3 6 7 1
14 52 38 14 21 5 5 7 9 5
15 41 33 8 15 5 5 8 5 3
16 49 38 11 20 7 5 6 10 1
17 51 38 13 28 5 3 2 7 6
Totals 449 350 99 182 71 44 53 64 33
TABLE H.36 Days when One or Both Units Are On-Line
Work
1 28 26 33 44 56 187 36.10 4
2 19 14 12 11 22 78 15.06 3
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 1 4 3 0 8 1.54 1
5 7 4 6 13 9 39 7.53 2
Subtotal 60.23
Waiting
6 0 1 3 7 3 14 2.70 1
7 5 6 3 5 6 25 4.83 2
8 2 3 4 5 7 21 4.05 2
9 0 0 0 2 3 5 0.97 1
10 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.39 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 0 2 3 0.58 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 13.51
Other
15 1 0 0 1 0 2 0.39 1
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 2 2 3 4 13 2.51 1
18 1 3 1 0 2 7 1.35 1
19 5 12 12 17 21 67 12.93 3
20 2 1 1 0 1 5 0.97 1
Subtotal 18.15
Unaccountable
23 7 9 13 8 5 42 8.11 2
Subtotal 8.11
Totals 79 82 96 119 142 518 100.00

∗
536 Appendix H
TABLE H.37 Classification of Observations by Hour when One or Both Units Are On-Line
Hour Apprentices
8 47 36 11 13 9 8 6 6 5
9 50 36 14 13 15 5 3 6 8
10 41 31 10 17 6 4 4 5 5
11 53 40 13 17 15 4 4 6 7
12 54 39 15 22 7 6 4 8 7
13 49 41 8 17 15 3 6 6 2
14 66 46 20 25 8 6 7 13 7
15 48 35 13 18 3 5 9 8 5
16 54 41 13 19 11 3 8 11 2
17 56 39 17 20 9 6 4 8 9
Totals 518 384 134 181 98 44 55 77 57
In summary of Fig. H.5, it appears that persons have moderate wrench

time in the morning, peak wrench time (over 50%) for 2 consecutive
hours after the lunch period, and then a less than moderate wrench time
thereafter. All of the morning hours have a higher than average delay
time waiting for tools, and to a lesser degree, parts, and instructions (as
persons determine what they need?). The initial morning hour has addi-
tional low wrench time associated with high travel and unaccountable
personnel. Break and lunch associated periods have only somewhat
higher than normal travel, but certainly lower wrench time. The two peak
wrench time periods also have substantial travel and delays for instruc-
tions. The final hour experiences almost no wrench time with high break,
wrap-up, and unaccountable observations. Tables H.40 through H.49
contain wrench time observation data for each hour.
Next, the results of the study as the weeks in the study period pass
are examined. At this point it must be noted that this study was
markedly different from previous studies in the leveling of observa-
tions. In the previous studies an equal number of observations were
taken each half hour of each date throughout the study (with the excep-
tion of skipping one different day each week to allow one full-time
observer to observe 10-hour shifts). In the present study, the part-time
observer carefully planned for an equal number of observations in each
hour and each day of the week for the whole study, but not necessarily
for each particular date. In other words, while each hour of the whole
current study had a consistent number of observations (about 72), that
does not mean that 10 observations were collected in each of the 7 weeks
of the study for each hour. Therefore, while the current study was rep-
resentative of the workforce over the whole period, it was not necessarily
so for individual weeks.
TABLE H.38 Days when Unit Tripped or Was Called
Work
1 0 0 12 16 8 36 32.14 4
2 0 0 8 4 4 16 14.29 7
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 2 1 0 3 2.68 3
5 0 0 6 6 5 17 15.18 7
Subtotal 64.29
Waiting
6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.89 2
7 0 0 1 1 0 2 1.79 3
8 0 0 0 1 2 3 2.68 3
9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.89 2
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 6.25
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 1 1 2 4 3.57 4
18 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.89 2
19 0 0 1 6 9 16 14.29 7
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 18.75
Unaccountable
23 0 0 7 4 1 12 10.71 6
Subtotal 10.71
Totals 0 0 39 42 31 112 100.00

∗
538 Appendix H
TABLE H.39 Classification of Observations by Hour when Unit Was Tripped or Called
Hour Apprentices
8 16 12 4 4 3 4 1 2 2
9 10 7 3 3 2 0 2 2 1
10 6 5 1 3 2 0 0 0 1
11 12 8 4 4 3 1 0 2 2
12 9 8 1 7 0 1 0 0 1
13 9 7 2 4 0 2 1 1 1
14 11 8 3 3 2 1 2 2 1
15 6 3 3 2 0 1 0 2 1
16 17 14 3 6 5 1 2 3 0
17 6 11 5 7 2 1 1 2 3
Totals 112 83 29 43 19 12 9 16 13
Figure H.5 Wrench time changes every hour.

TABLE H.40 For Period 8 (7:30 to 8:30)
Work
1 5 2 3 2 1 13 18.84 9
2 5 1 6 3 3 18 26.06 11
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 1 1 3 4.35 5
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 49.28
Waiting
6 0 0 0 0 3 3 4.35 5
7 1 0 1 1 0 3 4.35 5
8 1 0 0 0 2 3 4.35 5
9 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.45 3
10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.45 3
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 2 0 2 2.90 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 18.84
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 1 0 1 0 1 3 4.35 5
18 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.45 3
19 0 1 0 1 4 6 8.70 7
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.49
Unaccountable
23 1 4 6 1 0 12 17.39 9
Subtotal 17.39
Totals 14 9 18 12 16 69 100.00

∗
540 Appendix H
Work
1 8 6 9 7 7 37 47.44 11
2 3 0 4 2 2 11 14.10 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 0 1 2 2.56 4
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 64.10
Waiting
6 0 0 2 1 0 3 3.85 4
7 0 4 1 0 2 7 8.97 6
8 0 0 2 2 0 4 5.13 5
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 0 0 2 2.56 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 20.51
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 1 0 2 3 3.85 4
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 0 0 0 2 2 4 5.13 5
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.28 3
Subtotal 10.26
Unaccountable
23 0 0 0 4 0 4 5.13 5
Subtotal 5.13
Totals 12 10 22 18 16 78 100.00

∗
Work
1 5 0 7 1 3 16 23.19 10
2 3 2 2 2 3 12 17.39 9
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 0 0 2 0 3 4.35 5
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 44.93
Waiting
6 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.45 3
7 1 0 1 0 2 4 5.80 6
8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.45 3
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 8.70
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 1 0 0 0 1 2 2.90 4
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 2 6 6 10 5 29 42.03 12
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 44.93
Unaccountable
23 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.45 3
Subtotal 1.45
Totals 13 8 18 15 15 69 100.00

∗
542 Appendix H
Work
1 9 4 9 5 7 34 47.22 12
2 0 1 2 2 4 9 12.50 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 59.72
Waiting
6 0 1 2 0 0 3 4.17 5
7 0 1 1 3 1 6 8.33 7
8 2 1 0 1 1 5 6.94 6
9 0 0 0 0 2 2 2.78 4
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 0 0 2 2.78 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 25.00
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.39 3
19 1 0 2 2 0 5 6.94 6
20 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.39 3
Subtotal 9.72
Unaccountable
23 1 0 2 1 0 4 5.56 5
Subtotal 5.56
Totals 14 8 21 14 15 72 100.00

∗
TABLE H.44 For Period 12 (11:30 to 12:00 and 12:30 to 1:00)
Work
1 3 2 6 5 9 25 33.33 11
2 4 0 0 4 3 11 14.67 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 48.00
Waiting
6 0 0 0 2 0 2 2.67 4
7 0 1 1 1 1 4 5.33 5
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.33 3
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 1 0 1 2 2.67 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 12.00
Other
15 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.33 3
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 2 0 1 0 0 3 4.00 5
18 0 2 0 0 0 2 2.67 4
19 3 3 1 1 6 14 18.67 9
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.33 3
Subtotal 28.00
Unaccountable
23 2 0 3 3 1 9 12.00 8
Subtotal 12.00
Totals 15 8 14 17 21 75 100.00

∗
544 Appendix H
Work
1 9 1 5 9 11 35 53.03 12
2 3 2 3 0 6 14 21.21 10
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 74.24
Waiting
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
7 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.52 3
8 0 2 0 2 0 4 6.06 6
9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.52 3
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.52 3
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 10.61
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 2 0 2 3.03 4
18 0 0 0 1 1 2 3.03 4
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
20 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.52 3
Subtotal 7.58
Unaccountable
23 0 0 0 3 2 5 7.58 7
Subtotal 7.58
Totals 12 5 10 17 22 66 100.00

∗
Work
1 6 8 8 9 12 43 52.44 11
2 2 3 2 2 1 10 12.20 7
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.22 2
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 65.85
Waiting
6 0 0 0 5 0 5 6.10 5
7 2 0 0 1 0 3 3.66 4
8 0 0 6 0 0 6 7.32 6
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 17.07
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.22 2
19 0 0 0 1 6 7 8.54 6
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 9.76
Unaccountable
23 3 0 0 1 2 6 7.32 6
Subtotal 7.32
Totals 13 11 18 19 21 82 100.00

∗
546 Appendix H
Work
1 3 2 7 2 5 19 28.79 11
2 3 2 3 3 2 13 19.70 10
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 1 1 0 0 2 3.03 4
5 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.52 3
Subtotal 53.03
Waiting
6 0 0 2 0 0 2 3.03 4
7 0 0 0 0 3 3 4.55 5
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
9 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.52 3
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 9.09
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 4 2 4 8 4 22 33.33 12
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 33.33
Unaccountable
23 1 1 0 0 1 3 4.55 5
Subtotal 4.55
Totals 12 8 17 14 15 66 100.00

∗
Work
1 3 1 5 11 9 29 40.85 12
2 1 2 2 0 4 9 12.68 8
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.41 3
5 2 1 2 4 0 9 12.68 8
Subtotal 67.61
Waiting
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
7 2 0 0 1 0 3 4.23 5
8 0 0 0 2 1 3 4.23 5
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 8.45
Other
15 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.41 3
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 2 0 1 0 3 4.23 5
18 1 0 0 0 1 2 2.82 4
19 1 0 3 0 1 5 7.04 6
20 1 0 0 0 1 2 2.82 4
Subtotal 18.31
Unaccountable
23 1 1 1 0 1 4 5.63 5
Subtotal 5.63
Totals 13 7 13 20 18 71 100.00

∗
548 Appendix H
Work
1 0 0 2 1 0 3 3.95 4
2 1 1 1 0 1 4 5.26 5
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.32 3
5 9 3 7 16 12 47 61.84 11
Subtotal 72.37
Waiting
6 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.32 3
7 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.32 3
8 0 0 0 0 2 2 2.63 4
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 5.26
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
19 1 0 3 3 0 7 9.21 7
20 0 1 0 0 0 1 1.32 3
Subtotal 10.53
Unaccountable
23 0 3 2 2 2 9 11.84 7
Subtotal 11.84
Totals 11 8 17 22 18 76 100.00

∗
Figure H.6 Wrench time varies each week.
Figure H.6 shows that as the 7-week study progressed, reported

Category 1, Working, time improved from around 32 to 35%. (It must
be remembered that unequal hourly observations were made in indi-
vidual weeks so the different results reflect only those hours as meas-
ured in each individual week.)
Figure H.7 again shows wrench time each week, but with events and
unit status added.
Figure H.7 Plant events during each week of study.

550 Appendix H
Figure H.8 compares wrench time with unaccountable percentages.

There appears to be no strong correlation.
Finally, seven separate dates were selected from the study period,
approximately 1 day per week, where the observations were level with
respect to hours of the day. Table H.50, 7 Days, shows every time cate-
gory being within the margin of error of the complete 7-week study.
Table H.51 shows a fairly even distribution of observations.
This study made this analysis to determine if a 1-day-per-week type
of observation gathering might be statistically valid. It appears that it
is valid.
Validity and implications of in-house studies.The original company spec-

ification for the first wrench time study specifies a 10% accuracy for the
overall wrench time. The first two studies achieve margins of error of
3% for Category 1, Working, from over 1200 total observations in each
study. This current study achieves 4% with over 700 total observations.
Statistically, the in-house study is valid.
However, an important question beyond the study’s validity is whether
the classification of observations were consistent enough with the previ-
ous studies to allow comparison. The fact that many observations had to
be carefully examined before classifying would tend to support trying to
keep the same observer or group of observers involved in the observation
Figure H.8 Wrench time and time charged to persons who could not
be found.
TABLE H.50 Seven Days
Work
1 13 11 26 18 20 88 31.77 6
2 2 7 13 8 9 39 14.08 4
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
4 1 0 2 1 0 4 1.44 1
5 5 3 3 11 2 24 8.66 3
Subtotal 155.96
Waiting
6 0 1 7 1 2 11 3.97 2
7 1 4 4 3 3 15 5.42 3
8 1 0 4 3 1 9 3.25 2
9 0 0 0 1 2 3 1.08 1
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
12 0 0 2 2 0 4 1.44 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Subtotal 15.16
Other
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
17 0 2 2 1 1 6 2.17 2
18 0 3 0 1 2 6 2.17 2
19 7 7 10 12 7 43 15.52 4
20 1 0 0 0 1 2 0.72 1
Subtotal 20.58
Unaccountable
23 2 7 4 9 1 23 8.30 3
Subtotal 8.30
Totals 33 45 77 71 51 277 100.00
NOTE: There were no observations in any categories not shown. Days included—Jan 20 & 29;
Feb 1, 9, 16, 17, & 25.
552 Appendix H
TABLE H.51 Classification of Observations by Hour for 7 Days
Hour Apprentices
8 25 21 4 12 3 4 2 2 2
9 28 21 7 5 9 4 3 3 4
10 31 22 9 15 2 3 2 4 5
11 32 25 7 14 4 3 4 3 4
12 30 23 7 12 5 5 1 3 4
13 27 21 6 13 3 3 2 4 2
14 30 23 7 14 2 1 6 4 3
15 22 18 4 11 2 4 1 2 2
16 22 19 3 12 0 5 2 2 1
17 30 21 9 11 4 3 3 3 6
Totals 277 214 63 119 34 35 26 30 33
process. There was a close match of current results to results of previous

studies except where changed maintenance practices had explainable
impacts. This match appears to suggest that the current study is useful
for comparison as well as valid. An example of changed practice is the
elimination of the morning check-in meeting and the resulting lower
Category 4, Work Assignment, time observed.
Attachment B, Work Sampling Calculations, presents the calcula-
tions and considerations involved to ensure that the results are mean-
ingful.
An analysis of only 7 days within the current study achieves 6% accu-
racy with less than 300 observations. The concern, of course, with a
limited observation period is that typical work situations might not be
observed. However, since the 7-day result of 31.77% is within the margin
of error of the full study, it is felt that a future wrench time study could
be conducted on such a limited basis and give meaningful measure-
ment feedback. One different day each week for a period of 1 to 2 months
might be used where the observer is careful to make equal observations
throughout each hour and each day.
Measurement acclimation. From Fig. H.9, Wrench Time per Week vs.
Number of Observations, it appears there was some improvement in
wrench time over the course of the study due to persons being observed.
However, as mentioned previously, the study did not attempt to levelize
observations to make each week valid for wrench time. The study does
not report the initial week of the study (week 0) in the final results to
minimize any start-up effects and conscious modifications of persons’
efforts. However, although most persons were good-natured about the
study, the observer felt that they were becoming a little tired of being
observed on a regular basis by the end of the study. Perhaps continual
occasional observations in the future might reduce this consciousness.
Conclusions
The study makes the following conclusions.
1. The current in-house wrench time study is valid and is represen-
tative of the workforce at this time.
2. Current wrench time is 35.08%, or 31/2 hours per day with all cate-
gories summarized in Table H.1. Wrench time (Category 1) is statistically
unchanged from earlier studies, but travel, work assignment, and inter-
ference time has improved. However, break and unaccountable (and to a
lesser degree, waiting for materials and instructions) have become worse.
Analysis of the comments and time of day for each observation suggests
that concerns might be of a work scheduling or motivational nature rather
than formal planning of job packages. (However, job planning might help
to set job durations and work hour requirements in regard to scheduling.)
3. There are work differences among the mechanical crafts. Table H.52
summarizes the differences with respect to wrench time. In addition, on
the whole, break time seems to be greater for technicians than appren-
tices and trainees combined (15.71 vs. 8.48%) and travel appears to be
less (13.42 vs. 21.82%).
4. Crews have somewhat comparable wrench times considering the
study accuracy, but it appears that additional observations would make
the differences statistically significant.
5. There is little difference in Monday and Friday work with only one
or two crews versus other days when all crews are present. There is also
little or no difference in the workforce wrench time when personnel are
loaned to another plant or the apprentices are sent to training.
Figure H.9 Wrench time and how many observations were made.
554 Appendix H
TABLE H.52 Conclusion of Wrench Time Differences

among Crafts
Wrench time,
Craft % Hours/10-hour day
Mechanics 34.24 31/2

Painters 25.69 21 / 2
Welders 33.75 31 / 2
Machinists 50.67 5
Apprentices 40.21 4
Trainees 30.80 3
6. The only unit status that appears to affect wrench time is when a
unit trips or is started. On these days, wrench time becomes worse as
persons are reassigned. The data suggests areas where this productiv-
ity could be improved, but it may not warrant the effort as these events
are not encountered every week.
7. Hour by hour, wrench time changes throughout the day. Overall,
there is moderate wrench time in the morning, peak wrench time (over
50%) for 2 consecutive hours after the lunch period, and then a less than
moderate wrench time thereafter. All of the morning hours have a higher
than average delay time waiting for tools and, to a lesser degree, parts
and instructions. The initial morning hour has low wrench time associ-
ated with high travel and unaccountable personnel. Break and lunch
associated periods have only somewhat higher than normal travel. The
two periods of peak wrench time also have substantial travel and delays
for instructions. The final hour experiences almost no wrench time with
high break, wrap-up, and unaccountable percentages.
8. Wrench time measured for only 7 individual days (approximately
one per week) during the study has time percentages for every single
category within the margin of error of the whole study. This result sug-
gests that a greatly reduced observation effort yields valid results
provided that the days selected are considered typical of the overall
period.
9. The process of continual observations nearly every day for 7 weeks
did not appear to acclimate the workforce to being measured, but did
suggest that a future continual study of occasional observation days
may be preferred in this respect.
Recommendations
The study recommends the following.
1. Emphasis should be given to scheduling and motivational areas
to improve wrench time.
2. A continuing in-house study of observations only 1 day each

week should be conducted to give ongoing feedback on wrench time
and to acclimate persons to being measured.
3. Future observation data should be structured to be additive as
well as separate from previous observations to allow reduced margins
of error to be developed in the analysis of specific groupings such as for
supervisors, crafts, and special events.
Attachment A: Procedure for measuring

workforce productivity by work sampling
This study utilized the following procedure.
1. The Job Planning Coordinator (JPC) and the appropriate man-
agers or supervisors select the workforce personnel and time period to
be studied. In addition, work type categories are reviewed.
2. The JPC assigns each person in the study a one- to three-digit, unique
number for the purposes of tracking. (The JPC attempts to utilize the
same number for persons included in previous studies.) The JPC provides
a number for personnel to affix to their hard-hats. (Note: The practice of
affixing numbers to hard-hats was discontinued for subsequent studies as
some persons considered it demeaning.) The JPC records each person’s
name, number, and craft with current skill level into Table H.53.
3. The JPC enters the names of the crew supervisors who have per-
sonnel being studied into Table H.54. The JPC assigns each person a
one- to three-digit, unique number for the purposes of tracking.
4. Each afternoon of the study period, each supervisor (or assistant)
provides the JPC a schedule or agenda of the next day’s work with the
names of assigned personnel.
5. Each day the JPC utilizes that day’s work schedule to select employ-
ees to observe and record their work category. The JPC generally selects
employees and exact times to observe so as to include as many observa-
tions of different employees and times as possible. (An informal check
sheet such as Fig. H.10 is kept to help make sure an even number of obser-
vations is made each hour of the overall study.) Typically three people are
selected in the same area of the plant to minimize the JPC’s time spent
locating the employees. The instant the JPC locates each selected
employee, the JPC records that employee’s activity in a work category on
the Wrench Time Observation Data Sheet (Fig. H.11). (The JPC may occa-
sionally question the employee if it is not certain which category is appro-
priate for the current activity observed.)
Two sampling methods would ensure representative data, random
and sequential. Either method provides nonbiased samples. The
observer uses a list of crew employees to create a “sequential” observa-
tion strategy. At the beginning of the study, the observer simply starts
at the top of the list to select the initial person for the first observation.
556 Appendix H
TABLE H.53 Persons in Study
Name Number Craft and level
Abbington 11 M
Abby 61 H
Andrews 73 W
Brandi 23 M
Brie 15 A
Brown 69 P
Carter, K. 19 A
Carter, S. 67 M
Colter 62 P
Comain 12 T
Cumar 2 W
Dabor 54 M
Douglas 25 M
Eckardt 16 A
Fountain 76 T
Hartness 13 H
Hernandez 4 M
Hobgood 75 A
Hollis 80 A
Jensen 24 T
Jobson, S. 45 P
Jobson, T. 27 T
Johns 63 M
Johnson 17 A
Kent 65 M
Kenny 3 M
Kim 71 A
Lauren 28 M
Marshall 1 H
Morten 10 H
Mott 64 M
Nathaniel 33 P
Noel 68 W
Peek 5 M
Powell 77 M
Roberson 20 A
Rust 70 H
Sanchez 14 A
Spencer 35 M
Strain 74 M
Sunday 7 M
Swanson, R. 9 M
Tien 78 M
Valhalla 79 T
Wall 18 A
William III 72 M
William IV 8 W
Young 46 W
TABLE H.54 Supervisors of Crews in Study
Supervisor number Supervisor
1 Atwiler
100 Atwiler crew when no supervisor present for the day
101 Anyone working up for Atwiler
2 Hunt
200 Hunt crew when no supervisor present for the day
201 Anyone working up for Hunt
3 Shinsky
300 Shinsky crew when no supervisor present for the day
301 Anyone working up for Shinsky
However, the study also takes advantage of the crew supervisor assign-
ing some employees together as teams and other jobs being in the same
area of the plant as the initially chosen person. Because the observer
must select three persons each 20 minute period, the observer selects
the initial person and the two supposedly closest persons to that person.
Then the observer checks all three names off the crew list. For the next
20 minutes, the observer goes down the list “sequentially” to select the
next unchecked person and then selects the two closest unchecked per-
sons to that person. The observer checks off these three names. When
there are not three names left on the list, the observer continues around
back to the top of the list. The observer keeps the place on the employee
list at the end of a day for the beginning of another day. In this manner,
the observer has an equal chance of observing every employee through-
out the study and keeps the sample statistically unbiased.
6. After collecting all the study observations, the JPC counts the
observations in each category by whichever criteria necessary to make
the desired comparisons and contrasts. This study reports this analy-
sis in tables and figures. The JPC calculates the margin of error for each
observation category using the formulas in Attachment B.
(Note: Manual counting and calculations are adequate for short stud-
ies. As the analysis begins to consider more types of comparisons, appro-
priately constructed databases or spreadsheets facilitate making the
tabulations and calculations. Also, a person performing a study might add
the employee craft designation to the observation record to allow the
accumulation and analysis of observation data over years of separate
studies allowing persons to change crafts and promote up to higher skill
levels. One would not have to change the forms, but could add the craft
after the observations are complete with a computer “replace” command.)
Attachment B: Work sampling calculations

The company specifications for the work measurement study state:
“The proposed study design will include the methodology for assuring
558 Appendix H
Figure H.10 Informal checks to ensure even observations.

Figure H.11 Form to record work sampling observations.
accuracy within ±10% with a 95% confidence level based on the direct
work category.”
Three study criteria are important to ensuring study accuracy. These
criteria are having the observation period span a sufficient portion of
the year, having the observations evenly spread out over the course of
the shift, and having a sufficient number of observations.
First, the study covered a period of 7 weeks which should be of suffi-
cient duration to classify as a representative period of typical working
conditions and cancel out the effect of most special, limited-duration
events that may impact wrench time. Although personnel were loaned
to another plant and personnel were in training at times during the
study, these periods were seen as typical circumstances under which the
workforce operates.
Second, keeping a check sheet ensured making an equal number of
observations during each 20-minute block of the entire 10-hour shift by
the end of the study. Then during the analysis of the results, a check was
made of the hourly distribution of observations to determine if any
skewing of data might be present. (For example, having a more than
average number of observations during the traditional morning break
period may cause an artificial decrease in reported wrench time.) In most
cases there appeared to be an even distribution of observations. In the
few instances where there was a slightly uneven distribution, the results
are noted as possibly skewed with the possible effect described.
560 Appendix H
Finally, the margin of error (absolute accuracy) for the direct work cat-
egory was 4%, well within the 10% required. There were 724 total obser-
vations, of which 254 are of direct work, Category 1. The percentage of
direct work is 254 divided by 724 which is 35.08%. The margin of error
is found by the following equation:
2 1/2
a = {[k (1 − p)p]/n}
where a = margin of error

k = number of standard deviations (k = 2 represents a 95%
confidence level)
p = percent occurrence of the activity or category
n = sample size (total observations)
Thus
2 1/2
a = {[2 (1 − 0.3508) 0.3508]/724} = 3.5% (rounded up to 4%)
This calculation means that 95% of the time, any duplicate study done
over the same 7-week period and making observations at the same
hourly points should have reported a direct work percentage within 4%
of the 35.08% reported in this study. Because the study is only repeat-
able and valid over duplicate conditions, it is clear to see the importance
of having a representative study period and an even hourly distribution
of observations.
Appendix
I
Special Factors Affecting
Productivity
This appendix discusses additional issues affecting productivity. These

issues include crafts already performing at high wrench times without
planning and scheduling, utilization of blanket work orders, differenti-
ation between empowerment and scheduling, and underlying causes of
low schedule compliance and misused priority systems. The appendix
conducts an extensive analysis of low schedule compliance and misused
priority systems using “cause maps.” The Maintenance Planning and
Scheduling Handbook addresses these topics in this appendix so as not
to distract from the main thrust of the book.
Wrench Time in Exceptional Crafts and Plants

Wrench time may be higher than the industry norm of 25 to 35% in some
maintenance organizations without highly developed planning func-
tions. The preceding two appendices showed two such examples. In App. G,
the I&C (instrument and controls) group had a 38% wrench time. This
I&C group did not have a planning function assisting it. The industry
norm more applies to an overall maintenance force than to a specific
craft. I&C and electrical crafts without planning typically should be at
the top or slightly over industry norm. These groups are typically not
at the desired 55% level, but their existing productivity may warrant
placing them behind the mechanical group in priority for implementa-
tion of planning. In addition, in plants where I&C and electrical groups
mostly support the mechanical groups, the improvement of the mechan-
ical group’s wrench time through planning improves these other crafts
as well. Appendix H shows a mechanical group with a marginal plan-
ning effort. With only planning, but no weekly scheduling, the craft is
at the top of the industry norm for wrench time. Certain crafts, most
561

562 Appendix I
Some crafts might

not need P&S yet.
Plants overwhelmed
with urgent work
need P&S now.
Figure I.1 Exceptional crafts and plants.
notably machinists, achieve 50% wrench time due to the nature of their
close-at-hand work assignments.
Another situation, not illustrated by the two included wrench time
studies, is that of the plant with extremely high amounts of urgent,
reactive work. The craftpersons in these plants have moderate to high
wrench times primarily because there is no need to schedule subsequent
work assignments. The urgency of the workplace easily directs the
resources to the next jobs. There is limited opportunity for idleness or
breaks. The plant possesses a productive workforce, but has terrible
reliability. Then, as management brings more maintenance personnel
to the suffering plant, the workforce is able to catch its breath.
The maintenance force grows to where it can keep up with the reactive
work and deliver a somewhat reasonable reliability. At this point,
wrench time drops as uncertainty sets in as to where to attack the next
job. The discussion and all the reasons set forth in Chap. 6, Advance
Scheduling, come into play to keep productivity low.
Blanket Work Orders

So-called blanket work orders greatly damage both productivity and record
keeping. Rather than accept the expense of writing work orders for every
little task, many plants have blankets to which personnel charge time for
certain tasks. For example, rather than write a work order, the supervi-
sor may direct a mechanic to hang a bulletin board in the front office and
“charge the time to Blanket 103” (miscellaneous mechanical work). The
productivity problem created is threefold. One, the supervisor and
mechanic have stepped outside of the planning and scheduling process. The
supervisor could give the mechanic a time estimate, but probably will not. Two,
the extraneous job was not scheduled into the week’s allocation of work. As the
Blankets
Smother
Productivity
Figure I.2 Limit blanket work orders.
Special Factors Affecting Productivity 563
practice of doing work on blankets expands, the week’s allocation becomes

meaningless without special attention to schedule compliance. The possi-
bility of doing side jobs on blankets encourages neglect of the weekly sched-
ule. The weekly schedule was based on the work prioritized in the best
interest of the plant. These jobs will be delayed by possibly less important
blanket work. Finally, the use of blankets invites giving less credibility to
the planned time estimates. Instead of assigning a 9-hour job and a 1-hour
job from the backlog to a technician on a 10-hour shift, the supervisor
may assign only the 9-hour job. The supervisor might direct the techni-
cian to do some miscellaneous cleaning up “on the blanket.” Likewise,
blankets allow the technician to report 5 hours on a planned 5-hour job
that took all day. The technician might rather claim the other 5 hours of
the day on blanket work rather than having to document all the reasons
the planned job took so long. There is a general loss of control, and many
plants begin to do an extremely large portion of their work on blankets.
One plant could account for less than half of their work hours being spent
on specific work orders. The rest was blanket work. Besides productivity,
blankets lose vital equipment history. Blanket work leaves no document
to store in the paper files or information to record in electronic files. If the
plant does some equipment work via work orders and some via blankets,
then planners do not have complete history from which to collect delay
information or base maintenance decisions going into their plans.
Empowering versus Scheduling

A number of obstacles hinder good scheduling practices in maintenance.
One of the most interesting is the notion of empowerment because supe-
rior maintenance requires both empowerment and scheduling. Empowering
maintenance crews and personnel means allowing them to make deci-
sions within their areas of responsibility. This greatly increases the qual-
ity of maintenance work. However, empowering does not mean turning
each of the specialized areas of maintenance loose on its own. The main-
tenance process takes a coordinated team effort to master and an explicit
scheduling process is necessary to advance productivity. Superior main-
tenance requires both empowerment and scheduling.
The following conversation returns to the discussion in Chap. 1
between an owner and technician, but instead this interchange occurs
between a maintenance manager and a front line, crew supervisor. Here,
the supervisor turns to the notion of empowerment, a common impedi-
ment to good scheduling when misunderstood.
MGR: “How did it go this week?”

SUPVR: “We kept the plant running!”
MGR: “Well, how much work did you get done?”
SUPVR: “We did a lot!”
564 Appendix I
MGR: “Well, how much was that?”

SUPVR: “We did 50 jobs which was more than we ever did before!”
MGR: “But how much was that compared to how much you could have
done?”
SUPVR: “You don’t understand, we really worked hard! I’m supposed to
be empowered!”
MGR: “Yes, empowered to do your job, but maintenance is still a team
effort.”
This conversation first brings out the issues of effectiveness and effi-
ciency. Note that the crew supervisor correctly understands his job is to
keep the plant running and not to exist as a speedy repair service fixing
whatever breaks. Note also that there is no argument that keeping the
plant running (effectiveness) is the first priority. In addition, whether or
not the plant was truly running is self-evident and not even in question.
On the other hand, efficiency is a more difficult notion to consider. The
supervisor is conscious of how many work orders the crew completed (effi-
ciency). Yet, the conversation implies there exists little or no concrete basis
for determining whether the 50 work orders completed was an adequate
rate of productivity. Was the week’s effort spent productively or not? How
would one know? After effectiveness, a plant must consider efficiency.
Secondly, at this point the supervisor raises the issue of empowerment.
Management gave the supervisor a crew with which to maintain the
plant. Shouldn’t he be authorized to do “what it takes” to accomplish this
mission? On the surface, this sounds appropriate. If anyone is given a
job, surely he should be empowered to carry out those duties.
The empowerment statement arose because the supervisor perceived
the manager was interested in some sort of standard or measure of how
much work the crew should have done. As it turns out, an advance
scheduling process provides such a measure. Crew supervisors gener-
ally perceive advance scheduling by an outside group as taking away
their control or empowerment.
This apparent conflict or trade-off between empowerment and sched-
uling vitally concerns maintenance managers because of the impact
scheduling makes on productivity.
Probing deeper into the controversy of empowerment and scheduling
makes it necessary not only to define the terms empowerment and
schedule, but also the precise details of the mission of the maintenance
crew and supervisor.
Definitions and details

The dictionary defines EMPOWER as investing with legal power, author-
izing or to enable or permit and SCHEDULE as a production plan allotting
work to be done and specifying deadlines. Obviously, these definitions do
Dictionary
♦ Empower
to invest with legal power; authorize
to enable or permit
NOT to turn loose on one's own to avoid
working with others
♦ Schedule
a production plan allotting work to be done
and specifying deadlines
NOT to specify each and every action of
someone else
Figure I.3 What empower and schedule really mean.
not make the concepts mutually exclusive, that you cannot do one if
doing the other. A maintenance crew clearly does not exist as an island
isolated from the rest of the organization. In addition, just because a crew
receives an advance schedule does not mean that it is hopelessly con-
stricted and hindered from doing its job. The problem is that maintenance
crew supervisors have traditionally exercised an extraordinary amount
of freedom in selecting work activities and dictating productivity.
Furthermore, while current management circles have rightly favored
the concept of empowerment, they have sometimes allowed the term to
carry a life of its own even to an unjustified extreme. Finally, advance
scheduling requires more coordination and accountability with crew
supervisors. Consequently, when management implements an advance
schedule program in a modern environment promoting empowerment,
crew supervisors usually perceive a loss of “control.”
Empowered to do what?
Listing a number of necessary components of the maintenance process
helps one define the proper area of responsibility of a maintenance crew
and supervisor and one deals with the concern of empowerment. First, the
maintenance process makes considerable use of the work order system. The
work order itself is the vehicle by which requesters of work identify needs;
maintenance planners predict parts, tools, skills, and hours; and the crew
executes work. Clearly, the crew supervisor does not “lose empowerment”
by various groups processing the work order. Next, the established plant
priority system aids communication on the importance of individual jobs.
In fact, this system really should drive to a large degree which job the
crew tackles next. Again, the crew supervisor sees this system helping, not
566 Appendix I
Empowered to Do What?
♦ Work order system?
♦ Plant priority system?
♦ Hiring, training?
♦ Equipment information, CMMS?
♦ Tools, tool room?
♦ Spare parts, Storeroom?
♦ Payroll?
Figure I.4 How much empowerment do crew
supervisors need?
hindering. Similarly, the crew supervisor does not see it necessary to have
complete control over hiring, training, tools, spare parts, and payroll (Fig. I.4).
Beginning with choosing exactly what job to execute, the crew super-
visor begins to feel a little more ownership in what lies more completely
within his control. Yet, did not the plant priority system help decide this?
In addition, the culture itself, if not management, should desire adequate
preventive maintenance (PM) to prevent failures. The plant itself should
also promote predictive maintenance (PdM) to head off problems and
project work to improve equipment. These are not just the concern of the
crew supervisor. Plus, coordination with production crews, even if just
to clear equipment for maintenance, naturally would take a crew super-
visor outside of any isolation. Yet, most crew supervisors would agree
that even these areas do not infringe on their “empowerment (Fig. I.5).”
Now consider actually assigning work to individuals. Certainly, the
crew supervisor is most knowledgeable about which individual persons
Empowered to Do What? (cont.)

♦ Choosing work?
♦ PM, PdM, projects?
♦ Coordination with production?
♦ Assigning work?
♦ Reacting to emergencies?
♦ Outages?
♦ Nonoutage times?
Figure I.5 How much empowerment do crew supervi-
sors need?
work best together and are best suited for specific assignments at spe-
cific times. In addition, he is in the best position to direct the sudden
reaction of even an entire crew to handle emergencies. These are areas
most within the area of responsibility of a crew supervisor.
Next, consider two times to apply the preceding concepts. First, think
about an outage period requiring a company to take an entire unit or
plant out of production for maintenance. Different groups come together
to ensure there are sufficient spare parts and labor for the anticipated
work. A schedule in the form of a work scope lists all this work.
Companies execute outages with great efficiency in part due to this
advance schedule. Few persons would insist on lessening the coordina-
tion involved for the sake of “empowerment.” Second, consider a main-
tenance period where no outages take place, just routine maintenance.
This is the time that suffers from low productivity. Why should a com-
pany have different applications of empowered responsibility between
these two times?
Proper empowered responsibility between

planning and crew supervision
Job planning provides work order time estimates needed for scheduling.
The crew supervisors could provide these individual job estimates, but
a separate planning group truly frees and helps empower crew super-
visors to function “in the present.” Without having to prepare for future
work, supervisors can give more attention to today’s work quality and
crew performance. The planning group functions “in the future” giving
attention to preparing job plans, not only with time estimates, but also
with details to avoid anticipated delays. See Fig. I.6.
The planning group works in the future. Planners develop job plans
with time estimates. They develop the weekly schedule looking at the
entire plant work backlog. The planning group uses crew forecasts of
overall labor without regard to individual names. The planning group
executes its portion of the maintenance process for the overall benefit
of the maintenance team and maintenance manager. This is the proper
area of responsibility for the planning group.
The crew and its supervisor work in the present. The crewmembers exe-
cute assigned work, empowered to concentrate on today’s work without
regard to organizing details for future work. The supervisor monitors
today’s work and assigns tomorrow’s work. The supervisor develops the
daily schedule using the weekly schedule allocation, but also consider-
ing any reactive work that cannot wait until next week. It is okay to
break the schedule for urgent reactive work. The supervisor works with
individual technicians. The crew and its supervisor execute their por-
tion of the maintenance process for the overall benefit of the mainte-
nance team and maintenance manager. This is the proper area of
responsibility for the crew and its supervisor.
568 Appendix I
The Maintenance System (Team)

Planning Department Crew Supervisors
Work in the future Work in the present
Develop job plans Assign jobs & monitor
with estimates jobs-in-progress
Develop weekly Develop daily
schedules schedules
Use whole backlog Use weekly + urgent
Look at overall labor Look at individuals
For manager & team For manager & team
Figure I.6 Maintenance is NOT separate teams, each doing everything.
The supervisor must be empowered to execute his part of the process.

The supervisor is in the best position to handle the current day’s work by
assigning names to tasks, coordinating resources and clearances, and
handling emergencies or other urgent work that cannot wait. See Fig. I.7.
Together with an advance schedule from the planning group, the
supervisor directs the daily execution of work toward an allocated goal
of work tailored to his crew’s abilities for the week.
The result of proper empowerment

The plant with advance scheduling and empowered crews results in
discussions between management and supervisors that lead to infor-
mation that can improve plant maintenance. Such information becomes
Crew supervisor must be

empowered to:
♦ Handle the current day's work
♦ Assign names to tasks
♦ Coordinate resources and
clearances
♦ Handle emergencies
Figure I.7 Proper areas to empower supervisors.
There is no trade-off between

empowering crews and
working toward a week
of scheduled work.
Do both.
Figure I.8 Schedule and empower together.
available because advance scheduling provides a standard that leads to

specific questions. See Fig. I.8.
MGR: “How did it go this week?”

SUPVR: “We did a lot!”
MGR: “Well, how much of the work scheduled for this week is done?”
SUPVR: “Most of it.”
MGR: “Let me see the jobs not yet started . . . I see we did not start about
100 hours of work. What happened?”
SUPVR: “Let’s see. On three jobs, we didn’t have parts in stock so we
had to place an order for next week. On one job we did complete, the esti-
mate was too short by half even though the job went smoothly. Another
job was delayed when we ran out of solvent and I authorized a field order
to buy some so we could finish.”
MGR: “That’s okay. On some weeks, we have things we just have to deal
with. I know you were working hard because I was on the shop floor sev-
eral times. I am concerned a bit about three planned jobs not having
parts available as well as running out of solvent. I’ll talk to the plan-
ners about the parts and the tool room about the solvent.”
Accomplishing productive maintenance takes a systematic approach,

not isolated groups of “empowered” crews working as best they can.
Many different elements make up the effective maintenance process. An
important element in the effective maintenance process is empowerment
at the crew level to promote effective maintenance. There is no trade-
off between empowering crew supervisors and working toward a week
of scheduled work. The maintenance force should do both.
Schedule Compliance
Figure I.9 shows a cause map for low schedule compliance following the
Mark Galley format of ThinkReliability.com. The cause map reads from
left to right with causes and effects in boxes. Each box states an effect with
causes of that effect stated in boxes connected by arrows from the right.
570 Appendix I
Work is Mgt directive/

scheduled/ productivity
schedule comp
Cause map for calculated
objective
low schedule High priority

WO schedule
compliance breakers?
Did other work?
Low priority
WO schedule
breakers?
Low schedule Scheduled work Did not do all

compliance not done scheduled work
Job problems?
Crew low Technician

productivity? problems?
Overall time
estimates too
low?
Scheduled Labor forecast

more work too high? Supervison
than done problems?
Planned
estimates not
matched to
labor forecast?
Figure I.9 Overall cause map for low schedule compliance.
Each arrow leads to an effect box from a cause box. Because each cause
can also be an effect, each cause can have proceeding cause box(es) lead-
ing to itself. One of the chief values of a cause map is that it clearly shows
the interconnecting relationships of all the issues leading to an ultimate
result or effect. The Fig. I.9 cause map identifies and discusses most of
the likely root causes of low schedule compliance and the following dis-
cussion reviews portions of the map and suggests likely solutions to the
lower level underlying or root causes. The readers can compare the map
with their own plants and experience to help resolve their own low sched-
ule compliance situations.
To further explain how a cause map works, example Fig. I.10 shows the
effect of a man tripping was caused both by a rake on the ground and by a
man walking. Furthermore, the rake on the ground is both a cause and an
effect. The rake on the ground is an effect caused by someone not putting
the rake away earlier. Note also that the final effect had two causes, both
of which were mandatory to cause the effect. One significance of knowing
that an effect had multiple mandatory causes is that if any one of these mul-
tiple causes had been eliminated, the final effect would have been avoided.
High priority Inadequate

was not maintenance?
scheduled?
True Inadequate
Emergencies? operation?
Inadequate
design/
construction
defects?
False (See priority

Emergencies? cause map)
Maint Management
supervisor does not Wrong
preference? enforce equipment?
Management
preference? Wrong craft or
Management skill?
does not
enforce?
Number of
Operator persons or
preference? time estimate
Maint supvr
allows too low?
Wrong parts or
tools?
Poor plan?
Wrong scope,
Persons not step, or
available? other info?
Wrong
Inadequate equipment
skills? clearance?
No plan?
Poor
motivation? Parts or tools
not available?
Assignment Inadequate
method? Poor support? plant
processes?
Inadequate
field Coordination
supervision? with
operations?
Weather?
Undocu-
mented follo
-up work?
Figure I.9 (Continued)
This logic aids the investigator in finding economical solutions to plant

problems mapped out in cause maps. The investigator seeks to identify all
the mandatory causes including their preceding causes. With the map
showing how all the causes fit together, the investigator can generate solu-
tions to the most easily avoided causes that would eliminate entire branches
leading to the final effect. Then the investigator can compare the different
possible solutions and implement the more economical or practical solutions
to avoid the final effect. In the example cause map, a solution to have per-
sons put away rakes after use might be more practical than attempting to
keep persons from ever walking in the general area.
A cause map usually deals with a specific occurrence such as a single week
having low schedule compliance. In such maps, the investigator maps all
the contributing causes in their mandatory relationships. In contrast,
Fig. I.9 shows an overall perspective of different reasons a week might
have low schedule compliance. Therefore, those possible causes that may or
may not exist for every instance have question marks after cause statements.
To find the actual causes for a specific plant or specific week, the plant
should gather data to support which questionable causes are significant.
572 Appendix I
Man
walking
Man
tripped
Rake on Rake not
ground put away
Figure I.10 Simple cause map showing a middle
box to be both an effect and a cause.
The following discussion examines the cause map for low schedule
compliance in Fig. I.9 by reviewing each portion of the map one at a time.
The review begins with the final effect (low schedule compliance) caused
by three mandatory causes, then follows each cause back through its pre-
ceding mandatory and possible causes. Solutions are often obvious to the
lowest level causes as discussed below. What the investigators need to
do is determine which possible causes apply to their particular plants.
Major causes
The first portion of the map shows the three major mandatory causes of
scheduled work not being done that lead finally to low schedule compliance.
The top box shows that for scheduled work not done, obviously there
must have been work scheduled. Management’s directive with produc-
tivity in mind caused this effect. The other two causes leading to sched-
uled work not done are more interesting. First, the crew did not do all
Work is
Mgt directive/
Major causes of low success scheduled/
productivity
schedule comp
objective
calculated
Did other work?
Low schedule Scheduled work Did not do all

compliance not done scheduled work
Crew low
productivity?
Scheduled
more work than
done
Figure I.11 Cause map portion for major causes.

the scheduled work and second, there was more work scheduled than
was done. These two causes might seem a duplication of each other, but
they are not. See how each leads from a different rationale of causes.
The effect of a crew not doing all the scheduled work must be the result
of either a cause of doing other work instead of the scheduled work or
a cause of having low productivity (or both). On the other hand, con-
sidering the effect of having more work scheduled than was done leads
from another set of possible causes altogether as pointed out by Fig. I.12.
Overloaded schedule
Figure 1.12 shows that scheduling more work than is being done could
result from a number of possible causes. The top box suggests that per-
haps time estimates on planned work have been too low in general. This
would cause a scheduler to schedule too much work because the sched-
uler matches planned hour estimates against the forecasted craft hours
available for the next week. The scheduler would put too many jobs in
the weekly schedule. This is a very real possibility because companies
should train planners to plan jobs for “good” technicians with “no unan-
ticipated” delays. Many, many jobs are not assigned to “good” technicians
or do experience unanticipated problems. Nonetheless, this is not a “prob-
lem.” The purpose of measuring schedule compliance is to help man-
agement find opportunities to improve productivity. Management wants
to know how many jobs did not run smoothly and why. The low sched-
ule compliance score should lead to management questions. The ques-
tions in this case might lead to identifying that too many technicians do
not have “good” skills and need training or that too many jobs run into
Scheduled more
Overall time
estimates too
low?
Scheduled
Labor forecast
more work than
too high?
done
Planned
estimates not
matched to
labor forecast?
Figure I.12 Cause map portion for scheduling more work than
is done.
574 Appendix I
unanticipated problems. These problems might involve a lack of parts,

tools, or other necessities to complete jobs in a timely manner. A low
schedule compliance score helps point managers in the proper direction
for resolving them. Continuing to measure schedule compliance gives
management an indicator of success in finding and dealing with such
problems. Please note that in such cases, a plant does not want planners
to add extra time for lesser-trained craftpersons or unanticipated delays
as these practices would defeat the purpose for having standards, sched-
uling work, and measuring compliance against a schedule.
Moving on in the cause map, the middle box suggests that the schedule
contained too much work because the labor forecast was too high to begin
with. If the crew supervisor did not account for vacations, training, meet-
ings, or other absences in the forecast, then the resulting schedule would
include too much work. The crew supervisor should carefully consider all
known instances when technicians would not be available for work the next
week on an hour-by-hour basis. If the crew normally has an hour-long crew
meeting each Wednesday after lunch, the forecast should reflect an hour
not available for each crewmember. Otherwise, the scheduler would try to
schedule an hour too much work for each crewmember resulting in a lower
schedule compliance score. The purpose of the schedule compliance score
is to lead management to find problem areas for productivity. Crews having
weekly meetings for valid reasons should not cause schedule compliance
to suffer. The forecast should have included the set apart time to begin
with. The forecast should account for all known unavailable time. On the
other hand, unexpected absences, short-notice training, or short-notice
meetings are not known in advance and thereby “appropriately” lower
schedule compliance. Management needs to know if there is a significant
problem with absenteeism, training sessions without notice, or excessive
last minute meetings. The schedule compliance score does its job in direct-
ing management to knowing what is going on with its workforce. The
bottom box in the cause map leading to more work scheduled than done
is that of the scheduler not matching planned estimates to labor forecasts
at all. Many plants use a standard or average forecast. Using such fore-
casts avoids having to work with the supervisors and speeds the schedul-
ing effort. However, the actual craft-hours available for individual crews
vary greatly from week to week as training and vacations arise. These
events must not exert undue influence on the schedule compliance score
and obstruct management’s view of actual maintenance problems.
Management should ensure that the crew supervisors always provide
valid forecasts to the schedulers. Indeed, a low schedule compliance score
might lead management to consider an abnormally high absenteeism rate.
Crew not making it

Figure 1.13 shows that a crew not doing all of its scheduled work could be
caused by either the crew doing other work instead of the scheduled work
High priority
WO schedule
breakers?
Did other
Worked less work?
Low priority
WO schedule
breakers?
Did not do
all scheduled
work Job
problems?
Crew low Technician

productivity? problems?
Supervision
problems?
Figure I.13 Cause map portion for a crew not doing all of its scheduled work.
or by the crew not working as productively as expected (or both). In turn,

the top box of doing other work is obviously caused by schedule breakers.
These schedule breakers could be high priority work or low priority work.
Figures I.14 and I.15 examine each of these possibilities. Figure I.13 also
shows that the secondary bottom box for crew low productivity could be
caused by problems with the job itself, or with the technicians or super-
visors. Figures I.16, I.17, and I.18 examine each of these possibilities.
Schedule breakers
Beginning with Fig. I.14, this figure evaluates the effect of a crew doing
other work than scheduled work due to high priority schedule breakers.
Considering the top box, while it is obvious these schedule breakers were
by definition not scheduled, management should see if the work was already
known at the time of schedule creation. Schedulers must include all known
higher priority work when they create schedules. Not including known
urgent work makes the schedule irrelevant. Schedulers must include
the highest priority work still in the backlog when creating schedules.
The other two causes of high priority schedule breakers are each only
possibilities. The schedule breakers might be true emergencies or false
emergencies.
The case of true emergencies or urgent work is the ultimate purpose of
tracking schedule compliance. Crews cannot comply with the schedule
576 Appendix I
High priority
Inadequate
was not
maintenance?
scheduled?
High priority
Schedule breakers True Inadequate
WO schedule
Emergencies? operation?
breakers
Inadequate
design/
construction
defects?
Did other
work? False (See priority
emergencies? cause map)
Figure I.14 Cause map portion for high priority schedule breakers.
when urgent work arises. As expressed in Chap. 4, the crew must break
the schedule to react to urgent work. The ultimate reason for having the
measure of schedule compliance is to gauge the degree of the reactive-
ness of the plant. The lower the schedule compliance, the more reactive
is the plant in the nature of its workload. This is management’s success
indicator for implementing proactive maintenance strategies. Is the main-
tenance force controlling the plant, or is the reactive nature of the plant
controlling the maintenance force? A high schedule compliance score
should indicate the former and a low score the latter. In the case of these
true emergencies, several possibilities exist. Obviously, true emergencies
are caused by inadequate maintenance, inadequate operation, or inade-
quate equipment (design or construction).
First, inadequate maintenance results in emergencies when PM does
not properly prevent equipment problems, PM inspections or PdM detec-
tion does not catch work in time, or previous maintenance work was
poorly executed. PM’s should be in place to lubricate and otherwise serv-
ice equipment to reduce failures. Some PM’s should also be in place to
catch problems before they cause high priority work orders. PdM should
also catch problems before they affect plant reliability. In addition, just
because a plant performs preventive and predictive maintenance, does not
mean that they are the right PM and PdM tasks. Having the proper PM’s
and PdM tasks in place is the purpose of reliability centered mainte-
nance (RCM). Poor execution of maintenance work leading to rework and
other premature failures also creates high priority schedule breakers.
Second, inadequate operation could also cause excessive amounts of
reactive maintenance. Does management adequately train or staff oper-
ators to operate the plant correctly? Do the operators catch and report
problems as soon as they notice them? Do the operators have the mind-
set to wait on reporting minor problems until they become emergencies?
Third, inadequate equipment in place could ultimately cause the low
schedule compliance through either design or construction. Investments
in better plant design frequently improve reliability and schedule com-
pliance by reducing emergency work.
Thus, the schedule compliance score gives management its ultimate
indicator of the health of the plant. The manager interprets the score
to gauge the reactiveness of the plant. Following up the precise causes
of the emergencies causing low schedule compliance allows the manager
to make changes in the plant proactive maintenance strategy through
better maintenance, operation, or equipment. The plant manager uses
the weekly schedule compliance scores to measure and track subse-
quent improvement.
The lowest box in Fig. I.14 considers the possible cause of false emer-
gencies causing high priority schedule breakers. In other words, crews
break the planned weekly schedule to attack new highly prioritized
work, when in fact the work could have waited and not caused the crew
to break its schedule. The work was not that important, but was given
a higher priority than it deserved. This is such a pervasive problem that
this appendix dedicates an entire separate cause map to investigate
abuse of the plant priority system (beginning with Fig. I.19). This appen-
dix presents and discusses the priority system cause map following the
completion of the discussion of this map for low schedule compliance.
Figure I.15 covers another circumstance altogether for breaking the
schedule with other work, that of low priority work orders breaking the
Schedule breakers
Did other (2)
work?
Maint Management
supervisor does not
preference? enforce
Low priority
Management
WO schedule
preference? Management
breakers?
does not
enforce?
Operator
preference?
Maint supvr
allows
Figure I.15 Cause map portion for low priority schedule breakers.
578 Appendix I
schedule. In other words, the crew abandoned its planned weekly sched-
ule for work that was not urgent. John E. Day, Jr. (1993) points out that
individuals naturally prefer to work on things they enjoy, things they are
good at, or things they think are important before they would work on
things that the plant considers important. This is one of the purposes of
having a published schedule of work, to align everyone to focus on agreed
work orders. This could happen on a technician basis, but the top box of this
portion of the cause map considers that the supervisor controls the crew’s
choice of work. In general, the underlying cause of supervisors breaking the
schedule for low priority work is inattention on the maintenance man-
ager’s part. Management must make the schedule important to the super-
visor. This is easier said than done, because plants should not tie schedule
compliance directly to supervisor pay. Supervisors must feel free to break
the schedule for urgent work. Nevertheless, managers should expect the
supervisor to account for schedules not completed and explain other work that
broke the schedule. A manager should recognize low priority schedule break-
ers and coach the errant supervisor. Some plants use a complementary
report to the schedule compliance indicator. This report lists all the sched-
uled jobs done, all the scheduled work not done, and all the nonscheduled
work done. The report lists all of the work priorities with the work orders
and managers look for low priority work orders showing up in the last por-
tion of the report when the scheduled work was not all completed.
In addition, management allowing the maintenance supervisors to
break the schedule for low priority work, management itself sometimes
orders that low priority work break the schedule. Management sets a bad
example in such cases and encourages others such as engineers not to
think ahead and request that special work be included in the next week’s
schedule. Hopefully, management would be leading the reliability and
productivity efforts in the plant. But if not, some of the best counters to
such a problem is including management in the weekly scheduling
process and publishing both the weekly schedule and the schedule com-
pliance scores. Publishing the schedule reminds management that work
wanted should be on the schedule. Publishing the schedule compliance
score reminds management that the success of the schedule is important.
Chapter 3 Schedule Principle 3 also gives a case for the supervisor pro-
tecting the schedule by requiring the interrupting party to prove its case
for why the work cannot wait. This cause of management interrupting
schedules is very dangerous because it cannot be easily avoided and sig-
nals that management may not be firmly behind true schedule success.
The bottom box in this portion, operator preference, is also a poten-
tial problem. Many plant operators feel that it is their job to tell the
maintenance force what to do each day. Fortunately, this can only be a
problem if the supervisor allows it. Nevertheless, many plants have
operators empowered by plant management to do exactly that.
Management orchestrates the operations led interruption of scheduled
work, usually through morning meetings. Management must first buy in

to the concept of higher productivity from working to a weekly schedule
and then management must not allow operations personnel to dictate
low priority jobs for immediate work. Of course, management and main-
tenance must assure operations that high priority work gets quick atten-
tion while insisting that low priority work must wait. Morning meeting
can be a real problem if not properly managed. This meeting should be
to assess proper priorities and assure recognition of urgent work, not
facilitate a routine time for operations to dictate which jobs mainte-
nance should do today. Operators might also dictate routine schedule
interruptions for lower priority work because they distrust the work
order system. Are jobs done “now, tomorrow, or never” in the minds of
the operators? Look for ways to allow operators to see the status of their
jobs in the computerized maintenance management system (CMMS).
Involving the operations group in the weekly schedule process also
allows them a proper time to push lower priority work in the context of
all the plant work. Publishing the weekly schedule batch of work also
reminds the operators of the process and success of maintenance com-
pleting lower priority work. Above all, keep in mind that pushing a
weekly schedule increases maintenance productivity and ultimately,
the completion of more low priority jobs. Again, Chap. 3 Schedule
Principle 3 presents a case for supervisors protecting the schedule.
Low producing crews

Figure I.16 addresses a familiar problem leading to low producing crews,
namely unanticipated job problems. They are unanticipated by definition
because planners should include time in their estimates to deal with
expected delays such as getting known parts out of the storeroom. Jobs
run into problems when the plans are wrong, the jobs do not have a plan,
the plant has poor support processes, or even when the crews experience
weather problems.
First, jobs can run into problems when the job plan is wrong. The job
might have had the wrong equipment indicated and so technicians took
longer than expected to straighten out the mistake. (They may have even
worked on the wrong equipment, but that would not have necessarily
delayed their productivity in working on scheduled work.) The planner
might also have specified the wrong craft. Sending out a mechanic for
a certified welder job naturally delays jobs and interrupts productivity.
The mechanic soon finds out that the job requires a welder and returns
to the supervisor. By then, the welder is already elsewhere and the
day’s schedule of work is disrupted. These matters of reassigning work
create even more severe problems when they involve extra coordination
with operations. Planners specifying too few persons also worsen pro-
ductivity. The supervisor assigning two persons to a job planned for
580 Appendix I
Job Wrong
Poor plan?
problems? equipment?
Wrong craft
or skill?
No plan? Number of
Crew low Parts or tools persons or time
productivity? not available? estimate too low?
Inadequate Wrong parts

Job problems or tools?
Poor support? plant
processes?
Wrong scope,
step, or other
Coordination info?
with
operations? Wrong
Weather? equipment
clearance?
Figure I.16 Cause map portion for job problems leading to low crew productivity.
one, cuts productivity by half. Similarly, a job planned for too few hours
impacts productivity by definition: the actual hours take longer than the
estimate. Planners might also specify incorrect parts or tools requiring
the technician to spend extra time finding the correct items. The over-
all thrust of the planned job might also be incorrect. The technician
after opening a pump casing might find the planned work of replacing
an impeller to be woefully inadequate. The pump might need new bear-
ings and a refurbishment of the casing itself. Even if the planner made
the right call on the scope of the work, individual steps of the procedure
might lead a technician astray and require extra time to correct. Finally,
a planned job might incorrectly assess the clearance requirements of a
job. Clearing a piece of equipment that did not need clearance for repair,
or vice-versa, might cause confusion and take extra time to remedy. All
of these problems with job plans are not catastrophic or even a problem
necessarily. Proper planning expects technicians to find and report prob-
lems with job plans. Planning Principle No. 2 explains that mainte-
nance forces work on the same equipment repeatedly over the course of
several years. Instead of expecting to provide perfect plans, proper plan-
ning expects to receive technician feedback and be a faithful library
service to avoid repeating the same mistakes on the same jobs.
Management should ensure the feedback loop is working and not get
overly concerned with mistakes on single jobs. On the other hand, repeated
poor plans might indicate a more serious problem with planner qualifica-
tion. Chapter 10 explains the seriousness of having qualified planners.
Thus, a number of wrong elements in job plans might lower productivity,
but management should primarily concern itself with insuring that

planners are improving plans as problems occur.
Second, plants experience lower productivity on unplanned work
than planned work. Because many schedule breakers are unplanned,
they worsen schedule compliance in two ways. As discussed above, they
take the place of scheduled work. Nevertheless, they also carry additional
productivity destroying activities of forcing the assigned technicians to
solve nearly all the problems that might have been headed off by prior
planning. The operator might have identified the wrong equipment. Now
instead of a planner having the chance to waste time straightening out
the discrepancy, an entire crew might sit idle (or even worse, a plant could
be idle) while assigned technicians scramble. Equally damaging to pro-
ductivity might be wrong guesses about the number of persons and skills
to assign or if the equipment requires clearance. The technicians also
have no planner head start from looking at history for parts, tools, scope,
or procedures. The worse the schedule compliance because of schedule
breakers, the more impact unplanned work might have on productivity
and schedule compliance in turn.
Third, planners plan for “smooth” jobs to set a standard for good per-
formance and so that technicians are more likely to recognize and report
delays in feedback for jobs that take too long. If the maintenance force
has genuinely poor support, then productivity suffers. The planners
might plan for such problems as anticipated delays and they may
increase many job time estimates, but poor support situations are so seri-
ous they significantly jeopardize overall productivity. The top box show-
ing a possible underlying cause for poor support is with obtaining parts
and tools, whether they are obtained from storerooms and tool rooms or
they are specially procured for tasks. Management inquiry into low
schedule compliance may quantify the effect of having an inadequate
storeroom or tools. Planning might help bypass some of these problems
by anticipating them before they are scheduled and assigned. However,
if planning must spend an extraordinary amount of time on too many
jobs to provide the most basic parts and tools, the planners either cannot
plan all the work or must severely restrict their efforts planning many
jobs. Some of the unplanned jobs end up leading to becoming unplanned
schedule breakers. Some of the jobs planned with less-than-desired
attention lead to problems when put into progress. Consequently, poor
plant support for parts and tools leads to low productivity and ulti-
mately low schedule compliance. The next box showing a possible under-
lying cause for poor support is that of other inadequate processes other
than for parts and tools. Perhaps tools and parts are available, but
processes to check tools in or out or processes to obtain the parts or
return unused parts are cumbersome. Perhaps the CMMS is unwieldy
and not everybody on each crew can find or use information in it. These
inadequate plant processes are candidates for continual improvement
582 Appendix I
efforts. The last box considered a possible underlying cause of poor sup-
port, that is coordination with operations. This is a significant concern
in many plants. Operations must act on advance notice to have equip-
ment ready for maintenance service. Needlessly having a group of tech-
nicians wait for operations to clear equipment wrecks productivity.
Management can often see problems in this area from wrench time
studies where operator delays form a category. On the other hand,
repeated technician and supervisor complaints should reach manage-
ment well ahead of any sophisticated studies.
Fourth and finally, in the underlying causes for job problems is the
environment, usually weather. A planner would not typically anticipate
an entire week of inclement weather that drastically slows work. Yet
weather does influence maintenance and sometimes it affects entire
weeks. This is a good opportunity to present the case that management
should not overly concern itself with a single week of low schedule com-
pliance. Management should principally concern itself with trends and
the identification and correction of system problems. This is true of any
data set and statistical analysis. If there is an outlier, see if a special
cause deserves special attention, otherwise go on.
After unexpected job problems slowing productivity, Fig. I.17 exam-
ines problems with technicians themselves. Persons might not be avail-
able for a number of reasons. The weekly forecast expected their
presence, but excessive absenteeism could cause continual problems.
Perhaps management subjects the crews to many unexpected meet-
ings. Does the plant suddenly assign technicians to unexpected train-
ing? Supervision and management should become aware if these issues
are influencing schedule compliance. Next, consider that even if persons
are available, they may not have the correct skills. The supervisor must
carefully fill out the weekly schedule forecast form so that the scheduler
is aware of what skills are available. Management should investigate
a frequent mismatching of skills with an eye toward the proper use of
Technician problems
Persons not
available?
Crew low Technician Inadequate

productivity? problems? skills?
Poor
motivation?
Cause map portion for personnel problems leading to low

Figure I.17
crew productivity.
the forecast and job matching routines within the weekly scheduling
process. Finally, poor motivation is a very real underlying cause for
technicians causing low crew productivity. Poor motivation could stem
from any number of reasons that management must uncover and
address. The scheduling process at least sets forth the expectation of how
much work is required allowing management to quantify productivity
problems to some degree. Without a set goal of work through a sched-
ule, management do not even know that productivity had suffered.
Figure I.18 examines the last portion of possible underlying causes of
low crew productivity, namely those due to supervisor problems.
Supervisors might cause low productivity through their assignment
methods, their field supervision, or their allowing undocumented follow-
up work. The top box in Fig. I.18 suggests that supervisors might cause
low productivity through their assignment methods. The entirety of the
scheduling process endeavors to help supervisors assign the proper
amount of work. Chapter 6 and 7 address assignment methods that may
cause low productivity. The middle box points at field supervision as a
possible cause for low productivity. Many plants tie up their supervisors
in endless administrative or clerical tasks. The primary tasks of super-
visors should revolve around being in the field with their technicians they
supervise. As obvious as this sounds, many supervisors cannot find the
time to be in the field with their crews helping them overcome obstacles.
Managers must facilitate crew supervisors being with their crews to
facilitate them in being productive. Finally, undocumented follow-up
work upsets productivity. This is similar to low priority work breaking
schedules. Many times technicians find additional work during their
assignments. If they can easily execute the additional work in the course
of their current assignments without greatly altering their schedules, all
is well. However, if the technicians proceed with follow-up work to the
Supervision problems
Crew low Assignment

productivity? method?
Inadequate
Supervision
field
problems?
supervision?
Undocumented
follow-up
work?
Figure I.18 Cause map portion for supervision problems leading
to low crew productivity.
584 Appendix I
neglect of the overall schedule, schedule compliance suffers. This prob-

lem occurs most noticeably on inspection oriented PM’s. As technicians
inspect equipment and uncover problems (as intended), technicians
should make minor adjustments and equipment corrections as they go
along. Nevertheless, if the problems uncovered would take more than a
specified moment to correct, the technicians should write work orders for
their correction later. The chief concern is that a technician becoming
overly concerned with correcting a problem here and there might not com-
plete the entire PM inspection and leave other problems unfound alto-
gether. This problem extends to routine maintenance beyond PM’s when
technicians find problems. There is a point where future work orders
should address the problems instead of corrections on the spot.
Priority Systems
Figure I.19 shows a cause map for setting false work order priorities. This
map examines why persons might abuse the plant priority system. Similar
to the cause map for low schedule compliance, readers can compare this map
Priority system Choice is

allows violation allowed
Cause map for setting

false work order priorities
Wrong priority Low priority Doesn't follow Desire to get

problem with High priority Intentional? low priority
on work order assigned estab priority
(WO) high priority system work done
assigned? faster
High priority
problem with low
priority assigned?
Not a significant Work orders Management

occurrence required for does not
everything enforce
Low priority
problem WO
written
Problem
noticed
Not aware of
priority
system?
Unintentional?
Doesn't
understand
priority
system?
Figure I.19 Overall cause map for incorrect priorities.

with their own plant experiences for a head start to resolve priority system
problems. Many different possibilities exist for valid priority systems.
Earlier, Fig. I.10 explained how a cause map works. The priority system
cause map in Fig. I.19 identifies the issues that any adopted system faces.
The following discussion reviews and discusses the priority system cause
map in portions offering solutions to specific causes as appropriate. The
basic causes are evident, but the in-depth review of the underlying causes
beyond these basics is necessary to find specific areas for management to
address to correct priority system abuse. Solutions are often obvious to the
lowest level causes as discussed below. What the investigators need to do
is determine which possible causes apply to their particular plants.
Major causes
The first portion of the map (Fig. 1.20) shows the basic causes of how
plants assign incorrect priorities to work. Cause maps run from left to
by Maint Originator in
strategy best position to
initially assess Too complex? No human
comfort focus?
by CMMS
configuration Priority system Perceives
not relevent? choices as
Too simplistic?
“Urgent or
maybe never”?
Doesn't agree Doesn't care

with priority about rest of Plant is
system? Priority system backlog? complex?
IS relevent, but
wants this work Not aware of
done faster? extent and
priorities of
backlog?
Unpredictable Maint work
completion selection
time for low method?
priority WO's?
Data:____
Maint low
productivity?
Too much
work?
Agrees, but Long
perceives slow completion time Maint low
response to for low priority staffing level?
lower priorities? WO's? Too few
persons?
Data:____ Maint work
selection
method?
Unknown
completion No data Data not
time for low published gathered?
Paper form has priority WO's?
no choices?
CMMS field not

required or by CMMS
defaults to high configuration
priority?
Priority
Priority system criteria not
too vague? well defined
Not trained?
(See above
Priority system map section
not relevent? on relevant)
Figure I.19 (Continued)

586 Appendix I
Priority system
A false priority is set allows violation
Wrong priority Low priority Doesn't follow

problem with High priority
on work order estab priority Intentional?
high priority assigned
(WO) system
assigned?
High priority
problem with low Work orders
priority required for Unintentional?
assigned? everything
Low priority
Not a significant
problem WO
occurrence
written
Problem
noticed
Figure I.20 Cause map portion for major causes.
right and this analysis starts by looking at the first box on the left. The
first box states the ultimate effect, namely a work order with the wrong
priority assigned. Two immediate causes lead to this ultimate effect.
Both high priorities assigned to low priority problems or low priorities
assigned to high priority problems can cause incorrect priorities on work
orders. The cause map immediately dismisses plants giving low prior-
ities to important problems. The format of a cause map places data sup-
porting the cause underneath the box. The statement underneath the
box of high priority problems being assigned low priorities simply states
that this is not a significant occurrence. The other box, low priority
problems with high priorities assigned, has two supporting causes. The
top cause box shows the originator assigned a high priority and the bottom
cause box shows the originator wrote a work order for a low priority work
order. The bottom effect box resulted from two mandatory causes. First,
management requires work orders for maintenance work and second,
the originator has (notices) a problem needing maintenance. The cause
map provides this line of logic for completeness. Certainly, a plant does
not solve the whole priority assignment problem by stopping the writ-
ing of work orders or stopping the noticing of problems.
The majority of the cause map follows the logic of the causes leading
to low priority problems being assigned high priorities. Obviously, the
incorrect priority did not follow the established priority system of the
plant. But three preceding causes lead to this nonadherence to the plant
priority system. First is the mandatory cause of the plant priority system
allowing violation. That is, it is possible to assign an incorrect priority.
Second is the possible cause that the violation may have been intentional
and third is the possibility that it was unintentional. The following sec-
tions discuss each of these portions of the cause map.
Choice
Figure I.21 shows the top box and the first major division of the basic
underlying causes of incorrect priorities. The system under evaluation
allows choice in priority. Some systems do not. Those systems might tie
priority solely to a predetermined criticality of equipment, a measure of
equipment that might affect plant or unit reliability. Those systems might
well place higher priorities on reliability issues, but many times an oper-
ator or other originator or work sees instances of true urgency regardless
of so-called equipment “criticality.” This is especially true of safety issues.
A walkway on the thirteenth floor of the boiler might not contribute
directly to plant availability, but it might sure contribute to death if
allowed to rust away. The plant for which Fig. I.20 is typical allows choice
by the first writer of the work order. The system also allows choice by
reviewers of the work order who may change the priority based on their
superior knowledge of the overall backlog or relative plant system require-
ments. In other words, other work orders in the backlog truly are more
important or the true functional requirements of the plant make the
work order more or less important than originally thought. Nevertheless,
the priority system allows the originator of the work, the person on the
scene who first identified the problem to choose a priority and the work
process system allows reviewers to modify the priority later. The CMMS
allows this choice making by persons rather than a predetermined equip-
ment criticality formula. The plant considers that the originator can make
the best initial assessment. If the plant considers this area to be the most
significant problem in setting correct priorities, management could
authorize changing the CMMS to set priorities automatically, but this is
not recommended. Some CMMS systems actually programmatically over-
ride the originator and review committee assignment of priority when the
planner attaches a job plan. It is considered unwise for a priority in saved
job plan from a databank to erase a priority set by an originator that was
Priority system allows choice

Originator in
By Maint
best position to
strategy
Priority system Choice is initially assess
allows violation allowed
By CMMS
configuration
Figure I.21 Cause map portion for priority system allowing violation.
588 Appendix I
aware of unique plant conditions at the time of writing the work order.
It is true that the CMMS may do a better job of remembering relative
importance of different equipment and systems set in advance by plant
engineering. Nonetheless, the CMMS should suggest, rather than dictate,
criticality into a priority selection. A better solution might be for the plant
to review its priority system choices rather than not allow choices. Several
of the following branches of the cause map discuss complexity and rele-
vancy of the priority system choices.
No priority system in reality

Skipping to the bottom box of Fig. I.20, Fig. I.22 shows another major
division of the basic underlying causes of incorrect priorities. This box’s
statement has “Unintentional?” with a question mark to mark it as a
possible cause of not following the priority system. An originator might
unintentionally not follow the established priority system. Looking at
the uppermost boxes in Fig. I.22, the originator might not be aware a
priority system exists. Perhaps the plant has a paper work order system
with a simple blank for the work order priority. The paper form might
not list the alternate choices and there may be limited or training or
advertisements around the plant that priorities exist. Presumed here
Mistake made
Paper form has
no choices?
Not aware of
priority system?
CMMS field not
required or by CMMS
defaults to high configuration
priority?
Unintentional?
Priority system Priority criteria
too vague? not well defined
Doesn't
understand Not trained?
priority system?
(See above
Priority system
map section on
not relevent?
relevent)
Figure I.22 Cause map portion for setting false priorities by accident.
is the originator placing a high priority on the work order. The CMMS
might not require a priority and somehow a high priority is assigned or
the priority field might default to a high priority. Some systems default
to a high priority depending on the system configuration. CMMS sys-
tems should not default to a high priority.
The lower boxes of Fig. I.22 show the causes associated with an orig-
inator being aware of, but not understanding the priority system. The
priority system might be too vague because the criteria are not well
defined. Solutions to this situation might be giving examples or reword-
ing individual priorities for better definition. Perhaps the plant has
never trained operators and maintenance personnel who write work
orders on the priority system. They may not need formal training but
discussion on the system. The plant might provide notices, reminders,
or even feedback on selections already made. On the other hand, origi-
nators might not understand the system because it simply is not rele-
vant. The following section for Fig. I.24 discusses relevancy further.
In all of these situations where the originator might set a false pri-
ority unintentionally too high, the supervisor must protect the sched-
ule against false emergencies.
Gaming the priority system

Figure I.23 is the beginning of the cause map section for “gaming” the
priority system, the heart of why persons put higher than appropriate
priorities on work orders. The priority system dictates a low priority, yet
they put a high priority on the work order. They have a desire to get the
work done faster than the priority system demands. Moreover, the plant
management does not enforce the priority system allowing the origina-
tor to place a higher priority than justified. Without proceeding further,
management could resolve this inappropriate prioritizing by enforcing
the priority system. One method could be through the much maligned
Gaming the priority system
Desire to get
Intentional? low priority
work done
faster
Management
does not
enforce
Figure I.23 Cause map portion for “gaming” the
system, setting false priorities on purpose.
590 Appendix I
“morning meeting.” Many companies discontinue the regular morning

meeting because it simply degenerates over time into an opportunity for
operations to direct the current day’s maintenance work. Instead, this
meeting could be an opportunity to ensure that work orders have the
proper priorities and that maintenance has already started work on
true emergencies. Nevertheless, rather than dictate a solution by man-
agement decree, the overall cause map further develops the underlying
causes of intentionally setting higher priorities, specifically the effect of
someone desiring to get low priority work done faster.
Figure I.24 examines the case of the work order originator not agree-
ing with the priority system before Fig. I.25 addresses the case of the
originator agreeing, but not following the priority system anyway. A
person might disagree with the priority system and set a falsely high
priority system for two reasons. One, the person thinks the system is
simply not relevant. The system might be too complex or too simplistic.
If the system is too complex, the originator simply errs on the side of get-
ting the work done. Writers of work orders might not want to wade
through endless cases and explanations for setting different priorities.
The complexity of the priority system is not helpful for the operator
simply saying how much of an emergency exists. Endless cases pre-
sented as examples in a priority system are sometimes hard to match
with the specifics of a current situation. On the other hand, some sys-
tems are too simplistic. These systems might have no allowance for
human comfort: the priority system only addresses machine reliability.
However, humans do have needs. Priority systems should allow origi-
nators to write work orders for some creature comfort tasks. The origi-
nator might also perceive the system as “urgent or maybe never.” The
system might not expressly say this, but in practice, many plants address
work orders either as work needed or work not needed. The maintenance
Too No human
complex? comfort focus?
Gaming the priority system (2)
Priority system Perceives
not relevent? Too choices as
simplistic? "Urgent or
maybe never"?
Doesn't agree Doesn't care

about rest of Plant is
with priority
Priority system backlog? complex?
system?
IS relevent, but
Desire to get wants this work Not aware of
low priority done faster? extent and
work done priorities of
faster backlog?
Figure I.24 Cause map portion for gaming the system “because” (of disagreement).
forces sit back on their heels waiting for those urgent work orders and
allow the other work to sit in the backlog. The obvious solution to such
situations is to establish scheduling so that the plant selects all the
work that it can do in order of priority, but not stopping after the urgent
work. The plant might be too complex for the plant’s simple priority
system. Does the system allow the originator to distinguish relative
priorities among work for the utility’s most important unit versus other
units? If the plant has several product lines, does the originator know
which is most important? Therefore, the plant’s priority system might
be too complex or too simple. The plant might have tried to prepare an
adequate system for a complex plant, but ended up making it too com-
plicated to be practical. Alternatively, the plant might not have made
the system sophisticated enough. With such trade-offs, the perception
of “now or never” becomes evident in practice. Management must pro-
vide a priority system that addresses concerns other than strict con-
sideration of plant reliability. Plants must operate safely with humans
within environmental and legal constraints. Priority systems must allow
for all of these aspects.
Make the priority system as simple as possible, but not too simple. Use
at least five choices, each containing a few key words to describe its rel-
ative importance. Examples of work for each choice should be readily
available, but not necessarily built into the choice description. Having as
many as ten choices could be helpful in encouraging originators to make
choices away from the most urgent priorities; the extra choices allow a
wider spread of priorities. Suppose that in a choice of ten priorities, no
one ever chooses less than a seven (with ten being the least important).
This might be a very successful system because in a system with only
seven choices, no one might ever choose less than a five. The extra three
choices in the system of ten allow a greater spread. The spread is what
schedulers value because they can determine the relative value of work.
Time based systems might also be more relevant. These systems
might assign maximum times for maintenance to respond or complete
work. Consider the following:
Priority 0 Emergency. Respond within 1 hour.

Priority 1 Urgent. Complete within 48 hours.
Priority 2 Serious. Complete within 14 days.
Priority 3 Routine. Complete within 28 days.
Priority 5 Routine. Requires special arrangements. Complete
within 6 months.
The above system dictates time requirements. The danger in such a

system is when maintenance suddenly has more work than it can com-
plete in 2 weeks. Does that automatically authorize overtime or the use
592 Appendix I
of contactors or does management allow the maintenance force to com-

plete them as best as it can? Does management merely track that the aver-
age completion time of priority-2 jobs is 20 days? If management routinely
allows taking longer than the priority-dictated target, does that damage
the credibility of the priority system? Does it encourage originators to
choose priority 1 even if they could wait 14 days (but not 20 days)?
Furthermore, how can an originator claim with certainty that mainte-
nance must complete the work within a certain timeframe? In truth, an
engineered economic analysis might establish a timeframe. Such an
analysis might say that the lost revenue of the equipment is worth hiring
outside labor for the repair in “10 days as a breakeven point.” This is not
very practical for day-to-day maintenance even though in theory it could
be set up in advance on a CMMS (back to the criticality approach).
Wouldn’t it be more prudent simply to allow the maintenance group to
work on the highest priorities first? This would let the amount of work
in each priority dictate how long it will take to complete any work. In
actual practice, operator knowledge of the relative importance of problem
is probably practical. Management could supplement this approach by
allowing operations or maintenance to intervene specially and identify cer-
tain work that maintenance must complete by certain deadlines.
The most relevant (“best”) priority systems probably take advantage of
multiple facets of the maintenance process rather than count on a single
listing of priority selections. Originators make a best guess at the over-
all priority of the work among 5 to 10 choices. A brief morning meeting
including key operations persons reviews priorities. Planners may ques-
tion priorities as they plan. Supervisors protect their schedules daily
against false emergencies. Management supports maintenance in not
letting supervisors abuse the priority system. Supervisors also review
the proposed weekly schedules for appropriate work orders. The oper-
ations group reviews the proposed weekly schedules for appropriate
work orders. Just as maintenance planning is not the “silver bullet” for
maintenance, a list of priority choices on its own cannot fully make a
system “relevant.”
Moving on, the originator might agree with the priority system, but
wants maintenance to do this work faster than the priority system
allows. The originator might not care about the rest of the backlog. This
selfish approach says, “Do my work now.” Then again, the originator
might not be aware of other work in the backlog and simply want the
work done. Making the backlog work more visible might help origina-
tors lower their priority selection.
Finally, Figure I.25 probably addresses more significant reasons why
originators favor “gaming” the priority system. The originator agrees
with the priority system, but thinks that maintenance simply might not
respond in time to low priority work. The originator might think there
is a very unpredictable time for maintenance completing low priority
Gaming the priority system (3)
Desire to get Unpredictable

Maint work
low priority completion
selection
work done time for low
method?
faster priority WO's?
Data:______
Maint low
productivity?
Too much
Agrees, but Long work?
perceives slow completion time Maint low
response to for low priority staffing level?
lower priorities? WO's? Too few
persons?
Data:______ Maint work
selection
method?
Unknown
completion No data Data not
time for low published gathered?
priority WO's?
Figure I.25 Cause map portion for gaming the system “anyway” (in spite of agreement).
work. Maintenance might complete it tomorrow, next week, next month,

or next year without any prediction of the actual time. Maintenance
might have a work selection method that is very unpredictable. It might
pick a low priority job or it might not. Under such a scenario, the origi-
nator would pick a higher priority than necessary for work that is not
urgent but does need attention before it is too late. Then again, the orig-
inator might not perceive an unpredictable completion time; the origi-
nator might know it will take a long time to complete any low priority
work. Maintenance might have a hard time getting to lower priority
work because it has a low productivity, it has too few persons, or it simply
never selects low priority work. In the case of too few persons, the
mandatory underlying causes are too much work for too few persons. In
these cases, management must recognize when sufficient productivity
is present, but maintenance resources are exhausted. Management
might not have replaced persons who retired and it has reached the
point where it does not have enough persons. Management cannot adjust
a priority system to compensate for not having enough persons.
Alternatively, instead of a “known unpredictability” or a known long time
for completion, the originator simply might not have any idea how long
it takes to complete low priority work. Originators never know if main-
tenance ever does nonemergency work because maintenance never pub-
lishes (or gathers any data to publish) any information about routine
repairs. Perhaps maintenance does not return a copy of completed work
orders to originators or there is no CMMS to query. Originators might
feel that maintenance might not ever complete any work not prioritized.
594 Appendix I
The modern CMMS allows more access to work completion data, but
management might go further and publish expected completion times for
each priority level of work. It might also report to originators notice of com-
pletion of individual work orders to overcome the perceptions of unpre-
dictable, long, or simply unknown completion times for routine work.
Figures I.19 through I.25 cover the most probable reasons for setting
false priorities on work orders. From allowing choice on priority selec-
tion to understanding unintentional and intentional violations, man-
agement has a number of options to manage the priority system.
Perhaps the most pervasive problem is operators “gaming” the priority
system. The Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook contends
that improving maintenance productivity to complete all work orders,
including those of low priority, helps make the issue of setting priorities
irrelevant. With a highly productive maintenance workforce, operators
need not game the work order system to have maintenance address low
priority work.
Summary
One sees that there are additional issues and situations affecting how
planning and scheduling affect productivity. One of these is higher
wrench time experienced under certain conditions without significant
planning and scheduling. Certain crafts have somewhat higher wrench
times than industry averages for overall maintenance. However, even
these craft are helped by maintenance planning. Plants experiencing
extreme trouble also often do not have poor wrench time. Yet as these
plants try to increase their reliability, they must employ planning and
scheduling to maintain a high productivity. They must maintain higher
productivity to allow completion of more proactive work. Another issue
is the interference that blanket work orders cause the planning and
scheduling effort. Management should eliminate or greatly restrict the
use of blankets. Finally, management should understand and address,
if necessary, empowerment and common failings of schedule success
and priority systems.
Appendix
J
Work Order System
and Codes
Starting a work order system is the most important improvement one

can make to a maintenance program. The work order system is the
process by which the maintenance manages all plant maintenance work.
The system assists the plant in keeping track of, prioritizing, planning,
scheduling, analyzing, and controlling maintenance work. The plant
must have a viable work order system as a foundation to planning.
This appendix illustrates a typical manual a company would use to doc-
ument its work order process. Notes have been inserted to call attention to
particular details. Example work orders throughout this book have used
the codes from this appendix. The manual should primarily illustrate the
work order form, the work order process, and identify the codes used in the
system. As a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)
becomes developed, it is not unreasonable to expect that the CMMS could
contain the essentials of the work order manual and replace it.
This example company uses a paper work order system for persons
that originate work orders. A clerk enters the work orders into the
CMMS system. The plant is currently considering creating a CMMS
screen to resemble its work order form and allowing persons to enter
their own work orders directly into the system.
It is a good idea to have a document that sets forth the rules of using
work orders. It is not necessary that the document be exceedingly thick.
COMPANY WORK ORDER SYSTEM MANUAL
Table of Contents
Introduction
Work Flow
595

596 Appendix J
Work Order Form and Required Fields

CMMS Instructions for Plant-Wide Use
Codes
Priority
Status
Department and Crew
Work Type
How Found
Plan Type
Outage
Plant and Unit
Equipment Group and System
Equipment Type
Action Taken
Reason, Cause, and Failure
Work Order Numbering System
Manual Distribution
Introduction
The work order system is the process which the Maintenance
Department uses to manage all plant maintenance work. The work
order system assists the plant in keeping track of, prioritizing, planning,
scheduling, analyzing, and controlling maintenance work. (The terms
WO and work order have the same meaning.) A major purpose of using
work orders for plant equipment is to be able to track its history. Using
blanket work orders or having several pieces of equipment on the same
work order destroys the process of keeping history.
The work flow diagram shows the steps of the cycle that occur from
initiating a work order to work completion.
The plant uses the work order form as the document to record infor-
mation associated with executing the work request.
After work completion, WO forms which have historical value are filed
to assist future work. Codes are used with each work order to allow var-
ious sorts and analysis of maintenance work. For example, the outage code
allows sorting out all work orders that must be done during a unit outage.
The CMMS (computerized maintenance management system)
allows computer tracking and analysis of work orders as well as plant
equipment data. The system is on the personal computer (PC) network
and may be accessed from any plant.
The WO numbering system provides for assigning each separate work
order a unique number to allow keeping the work done under that number
separate from other maintenance work.
Work Order System and Codes 597
A WO System Manual is distributed to each person on the manual dis-

tribution list who is responsible for keeping it up to date with all issued
revisions. The Job Planning Coordinator coordinates and distributes
all revisions to the WO System Manual.
Work Flow
Work flow diagrams show the steps of the cycle that occur from initiat-
ing a work order to work completion. Figure J.1 shows the normal steps
of the work process. Figure J.2 shows the steps taken during emergen-
cies. In emergencies, action begins with verbal instructions and the
paperwork follows later.
Work Order Form and Required Fields

The WO form is the document used to record information associated
with:
1. an identified problem, need, or work request

2. the work authorized to be done
3. the plans, details, and schedules necessary to perform the work
4. the results of that work
After work completion, the planning department files work order

forms which have historical value to assist future work.
Figure J.3 illustrates the work order form this company uses.
Figure J.4 identifies who is responsible for completing each section
of the form.
The following information is used by the Job Planning Coordinator
when ordering new work order forms from the printer. The JPC gives
this information to the company graphics department, printer, or forms
order company along with a reproducible original.
General information
All parts are printed in black.

Carbonless paper is used.
Note that the original is reduced in size!
Copy all four parts; enlarge them to have 1/4-inch left and right margin.
Numbering should be in red ink at the top of the form.
No additional numbers should appear anywhere on the form or tab.
598
Figure J.1 Company work flow diagram.

599
Figure J.2 Company emergency work flow diagram.

600 Appendix J
Figure J.3 Company work order form.

Figure J.4 Identification of information responsibility on work order form.

602 Appendix J
Numbering sequence should be as follows:

Lot 1: A000 through A999 Lot 2: B000 through B999
Lot 1: C000 through C999 Lot 2: D000 through D999
Lot 1: E000 through E999 Lot 2: F000 through F999
Lot 1: G000 through G999 Lot 2: H000 through H999
Lot 1: J000 through J999 Lot 2: K000 through K999
Lot 1: L000 through L999 Lot 2: M000 through M999
Lot 1: N000 through N999 Lot 2: P000 through P999
Lot 1: Q000 through Q999 Lot 2: R000 through R999
Lot 1: T000 through T999 Lot 2: W000 through W999
Lot 1: X000 through X999 Lot 2: Y000 through Y999
Note: Do not use letters i, o, s, u, v, or z. Package in nearly equal

amounts (between 50 and 200); no specific amount is required.
Part 1 information: White stock, 81/2 × 11 inch, print the front and
back (see sample).
Part 2 information: Pink stock, 81/2 × 11 inch, print the front only (see
sample).
Part 3 information: Blue stock, 81/2 inch × cut at bottom line, print the
front only (see sample).
Part 4 information: Goldenrod stock, 81/2 inch × cut at bottom line,
printing front only (see sample).
Contacts: (Job Planning Coordinator’s name and phone number.)
CMMS Instructions for Plant-Wide Use

(Note: This section should cut down the 1-inch-thick computer manual
that came with the CMMS to a few pages of key instructions for non-
planning group persons such as most plant supervisors, technicians,
operators, and managers.
Codes
Codes are used with each work order to allow various sorts and analysis
of maintenance work. For example, the outage code allows gathering all
work orders that must be done during a unit outage. Here is an example
set of codes for an oil and gas fired electric power station that has both
steam and gas turbine generating units. These codes illustrate what
codes are used for and look like.
Priority
(Note: Priority codes allow ranking work orders in order of importance to
know which to handle first. See Scheduling Principle 2 for more discussion
of their importance and how incorrect usage can hinder productivity.

Organizational discipline that comes through education, communication,
and management commitment helps ensure correct usage.)
Work order priority codes. First digit—priority type. (Note: The first
digit does not indicate priority preference; each type has equal weight.)
S Safety
H Heat rate
E Environmental or regulatory
R Reliability or availability
G General
Second digit—priority order. (Note: The second digit indicates prior-

ity preference.)
0 Emergency Conditions
Loss of unit
Immediate or imminent loss of unit capacity
In violation of environmental regulations
Loss of unit load control
Emergency safety hazard
1 Urgent Conditions
Significant potential for loss of unit or unit capacity
Major loss of heat rate
Significant potential for violation of environmental regulations
Urgent safety hazard
2 Serious Conditions
Condition that could cause serious damage to critical equipment
Serious loss of heat rate
Condition that could cause violation of environmental regulations
Serious safety hazard
PM’s
3 Noncritical Maintenance on Production Equipment
4 Noncritical Maintenance on Nonproduction Equipment
(Note: Therefore, work orders with “1” priorities should be handled

ahead of work orders with “2” priorities and so on regardless of the letter
priority type. Having the letters associated with the priorities helps per-
sons better understand the nature and reasons behind the work orders
and their numerical priorities. If one carefully examines the point crite-
ria examples, safety is indeed given more weight in that it is easier for a
safety (S) work order to receive a 1 score than it is for heat rate, a unit effi-
ciency measure. In a well functioning plant, 0 and 1 work orders should
604 Appendix J
be infrequently received. It is maintenance’s objective to have mostly 2

level preventive maintenanace (PM) work orders and 3 and 4 level work
orders as the maintenance organization goes about its task of main-
taining, not recovering. There is a valid argument that such a short
range between 0 and 4 tends to encourage persons to classify work orders
as 1 (urgent) and 2 (serious) unnecessarily. For that reason many plants
have an extended range, perhaps 0 to 10. They do not get many 10 work
orders, but they do get more 3’s and 4’s and less false 1’s and 2’s.)
Status
(Note: These codes are solely for the CMMS, the simple reason being that
the placement of paper work orders determines their status. For example,
paper work orders waiting for parts are kept by the purchaser, work
orders in progress are kept by the technicians, etc. The CMMS allows the
rest of the plant to ascertain where the work orders are in the work order
process.)
Work order status codes
WAPPR—Waiting for approval. This status is the initial status of a

WO before plant management has authorized the work request.
APPR—Approved. Management has authorized the work request and
it is ready for planning.
WSCH—Waiting to be scheduled. The work order has been planned
(if planning was necessary) and it is ready to be scheduled for work.
HOLD-MATL—Waiting for material or tools. Materials or tools are
unavailable to either start or continue work.
HOLD-OTHER—Waiting for other reason than materials or tools.
Work is waiting on engineering or management decision to either
start or continue work.
PROJ—Project. This work is being undertaken by the corporate proj-
ect group. Plant maintenance forces are not involved at this time.
SCHED—Scheduled. Work has been included on the weekly schedule.
ASSGN—Assigned. Work has been assigned or included on the next
day’s schedule.
INPRG—In progress. Work has already begun.
COMP—Completed. Work has been completed, but the finished work
and documentation have not yet been reviewed or analyzed. WO has
not yet been closed
COMP-DWGS—Completed, waiting on drawings. Work has been com-
pleted, but required drawings have not yet been revised. WO has not
yet been closed.
COMP-OTHER—Completed, waiting on other. Work has been com-

pleted, but some specific requirement has not yet been submitted.
WO has not yet been closed.
CLOSE—Closed. All work and documentation have been completed
satisfactorily. WO is closed.
CAN—Canceled. This WO is not considered necessary. WO’s may be
canceled for a variety of reasons such as the WO may be a duplicate
of another WO, the need for this work no longer exists, or plant man-
agement has decided not to approve the work order for economic,
budget, or other reasons.
Department and crew

(Note: These codes when assigned to work orders make it possible to
determine and track who originated the work and who is responsible for
executing the work. Backlogs and work already performed are easily
sorted into crafts such as mechanical and electrical as well as into crews
for responsibility.)
Department and crew codes
First digit—Department. Second digit—Crew.

DEPARTMENT 1. Mechanical (Cost Center 1004)
CREW 0: Overall craft superintendent
CREW 1
CREW 2
CREW 3
CREW 4
CREW 5
DEPARTMENT 2. Instrumentation & Controls (CC 1006)
CREW 1
CREW 2
DEPARTMENT 3. Electrical (CC 1005)
CREW 1
CREW 2
DEPARTMENT 4. Operations (CC 1002)
CREW 1: A shift
CREW 2: B shift
CREW 3: C shift
CREW 4: D shift
CREW 5: Relief crew
CREW 6: X crew
606 Appendix J
DEPARTMENT 5. Plant Administration (CC 1001)

CREW 1: Plant Manager
CREW 2: Plant Assistant Manager
CREW 3: Plant Engineers
CREW 4: Administrative Support
CREW 5: Training Department
CREW 6: Planning Department
DEPARTMENT 6. Chemistry and Water Support Division (CC 1012)
CREW 1: Administration
CREW 2: Results Laboratory
CREW 3: Central Laboratory
DEPARTMENT 7. Performance Engineering Division (CC 1032)
CREW 1: Administration
CREW 2: Predictive Maintenance
CREW 3: Diagnostic Engineering
CREW 4: Production Analysis
CREW 5: Equip Database, Tagging, and Schematics
DEPARTMENT 8. Support Outside
CREW 1: Outage Management & Contractors (CC 1021)
CREW 2: Project Group & Contractors (use craft CC)
(Note: Thus, a work order coded as written by Crew 4-1 and assigned to
Crew 1-3 would be a work order originated by the A shift crew in opera-
tions and it was for mechanical type work falling into the Crew 3 area of
responsibility in the mechanical maintenance department.)
Work type
(Note: The work type coding allows backlogs and work already performed
to be sorted to determine how the plant is performing. Is most of the work
trouble and breakdown type work or is most of it preventive mainte-
nance? Is there any corrective maintenance to correct situations from
turning into trouble and breakdown type problems? The company trying
to have a maintenance program and not just a repair service considers
this type of information.)
Work type codes
1. Spare equipment (noninstalled). Maintenance activity performed on

noninstalled (spare) plant equipment. Rebuilding rotating spares is included.
2. Structural. Maintenance activity performed to maintain general
plant structural integrity. This includes associated support work such
as surface preparation, painting, structural weld repair, and insulation
renewal. Insulation and lagging removal and replacement necessary to
perform an inspection or repair of a covered or protected component

would not be considered as structural.
3. Project. Maintenance activity performed on equipment or plant
involving a modification, upgrading, or improvement and performed on
a one-time basis, whether or not a unit outage is involved.
4. Buildings and grounds. Maintenance activity to maintain general
plant appearance such as trash hauling, janitorial work, gardening,
material handling, safety inspections, and general housekeeping efforts.
Exceptions: Additional effort required due to extensive plant structural
repairs is structural work.
5. Trouble and breakdown. Maintenance activity required to return a
unit or plant equipment to normal operating conditions due to an equip-
ment breakdown or failure to operate properly (well enough for its intended
function). Failed or improperly operating equipment discovered or worked
during a planned outage is this work type only if the particular item is pre-
venting the return to service of the unit at the time of discovery.
6. Overhaul. Maintenance activity performed for general overhaul
inspection or rebuild of one or more major equipment groups during a
scheduled outage shown on the 1-Year Outage Plan. An overhaul is
intended to keep equipment in proper operating condition or restore
capability that has gradually diminished over time. All work performed
in preparation of, during, in cleanup from, or otherwise due to the over-
haul is considered to be this work type. The work is not project work
because an improvement over the original design capability is not
intended. An overhaul is beyond the scope of normal preventive main-
tenance. The overhaul occurs before specific trouble or breakdown has
happened and before predictive maintenance is recommended.
7. Preventive maintenance. Maintenance activity performed which is
repeated at a predetermined frequency and is scheduled from a preven-
tive maintenance listing or program. The frequency established need not
be related to calendar time but can be required based on predetermined
service time or events such as the number of service hours or starts. Work
which is performed during an overhaul outage, but would be performed
anyway if the outage was postponed, is included in this work type.
8. Predictive maintenance. Maintenance activity performed based on
a prediction that future equipment breakdown or failure to operate
properly will occur. The prediction is based on trend analysis of diag-
nostic data collected by techniques such as vibration or lube oil analy-
sis. The need for maintenance would not normally have been apparent
without analysis of the diagnostic data.
9. Corrective maintenance. Proactive maintenance activity performed
based on a prediction that future equipment breakdown or failure to
operate properly will occur. The intent of corrective maintenance is to
maintain equipment optimum performance. The need for maintenance
is normally established by inspection. The prediction is not based on a
608 Appendix J
predictive maintenance type technology or trend analysis, nor is it based

on a preventive maintenance type predetermined frequency.
How found
(Note: These codes are very valuable for evaluating the ability of plant
programs for finding problems in time. The PM and predictive main-
tenance (PdM) programs should be finding problems before equipment
breaks. Although valuable, this code is considered too much for a paper
form. As the plant adds more and more codes, the ability of a paper work
order becomes cumbersome. This code can best be selected by the orig-
inator of the work. A paper work order would have to list the choices
for the originator to review. Thus, the examples in this handbook do
not use this code because the handbook illustrates a paper system for
the origination of work. The handbook purposely illustrates a paper system
to establish the fundamentals of planning before a company automates
or facilitates planning with any computer. Nevertheless, the system
in this book is only a step away from having its originators directly
enter their requests on a CMMS screen. One of the first additions a com-
pany should make with direct screen work requests is the addition
of a field with “drop-down” choices for how the originator discovered
the work.)
How found codes
OPN-OP—Opns found while operating. Operations personnel encoun-

tered need for work while operating equipment.
OPN-RND—Opns found while making rounds. Operations personnel
discovered need for work while making scheduled rounds.
OPN-PM—Opns found while performing PM. Operations personnel
discovered need for work while performing PM work.
OPN-OTH—Opns found otherwise. Operations personnel discovered
need for work, but not while operating, making rounds, or performing PM.
MAINT-PM—Maint found while performing PM. Maintenance per-
sonnel discovered need for work while performing PM work.
MAINT-WK—Maint found while performing non-PM work.
Maintenance personnel discovered need for work while performing
non-PM maintenance work.
MAINT-OTH—Maint found otherwise. Maintenance personnel dis-
covered need for work, but not while performing work.
PDM-RT—PdM found while performing route. PdM personnel dis-
covered need for work while performing a PdM route.
PDM-OTH—PdM found otherwise. PdM personnel discovered need for
work, but not while performing a PdM route.
ENGRG—Engrg found work. Engineering personnel discovered or

decided need for work.
OTH-FND—Other found work. Other personnel than listed above
found or requested the work.
OTH-SYST—Other system generated work. The work was not found or
requested. The system generated the work order work established by plant
programs such as PM (or operator rounds if performed by work order).
Plan type
(Note: The proactive and reactive part of the plan type code is similar to
work type but is a broader category. In general, all the work types except
number 5, trouble and breakdown, are proactive. The maintenance
department wants to be working on proactive work to avoid later trouble
that would inconvenience the plant operation and require excessive main-
tenance effort. By definition, proactive work is not urgent, so the planning
department wants to spend more time planning these jobs to be most
effective and efficient when executed. The planning department also wants
to recognize the reactive work orders so they can be quickly passed on to
the maintenance department for timely resolution. Minimum versus exten-
sive maintenance coding also helps the planning department recognize how
much effort to expend on planning the work. Small jobs are frequently not
worth much time spent on planning, though some time is still necessary.)
Plan type codes. First digit—Reactive or Proactive
R Reactive
Equipment has actually broken down or failed to operate properly.
Priority-1 jobs are defined as urgent and so they are reactive.
P Proactive. Proactive work heads off more serious work later. If the
damage is already done, the work is reactive.
Work done to prevent equipment from failing.
Any PM job.
Generally Predictive Maintenance initiated work that if done in
time will prevent equipment problems.
Project work.
Second Digit—Minimum Maintenance or Extensive Maintenance
M Minimum maintenance. Minimum maintenance work must meet

all of the following conditions:
Work has no historical value.
Work estimate is not more than 4 total work hours (e.g., two per-
sons for 2 hours each or one person for 4 hours).
610 Appendix J
While parts may be required, no ordering or even reserving of

parts is necessary.
E Extensive maintenance. All other work is considered “extensive.”
(Note: “RE” would be an example plan type code for a reactive job
that is also extensive.)
Outage
(Note: These codes are not the same as work order status codes. If the main-
tenance group can only perform a certain work order during a unit outage,
it is critical that this limitation be recognized as soon as possible. This is
regardless of whether the work order has yet been approved or planned.
The planning group must be able to recognize these work orders in order
to plan them more expeditiously than other work. There may or may not
be a sudden window of opportunity to execute the work. If there is an
unexpected outage for some other reason, it is wise to have planned these
work orders in time. Outage refers to the condition of the entire plant
unit, not the individual piece of equipment.)
Outage codes
1. Forced short outage. A component failure or other condition which

requires the unit to be removed from service immediately or at any
time prior to the end of the upcoming weekend.
2. Scheduled short outage. A component failure or other condition
which requires the unit to be removed from service, but not necessarily
before the end of the upcoming weekend. The work does not have to be
done during a major outage.
3. Major outage. Work which can only be done during a major outage
such as a major rebuild or overhaul inspection or work on one or more
major equipment groups. The outage is normally shown as a planned
outage on the 1-Year Outage Plan. Testing after a major outage at lim-
ited loads is included.
4. Not Used.
5. Forced derating. A component failure or other condition which
requires the maximum capability of the unit to be reduced immediately
or at any time prior to the end of the upcoming weekend.
6. Scheduled derating. A component failure or other condition which
requires the maximum capability of the unit to be reduced, but not nec-
essarily before the end of the upcoming weekend. The work does not have
to be done during a major outage.
7. Potential outage, redundant installed equipment. A trouble con-
dition which requires a piece of redundant equipment to be taken out
of service without affecting the unit capability; but if the backup equip-
ment failed an outage or derating would result.
8. Not used.
9. Potential outage, noninstalled spare equipment. Work performed on

noninstalled spare equipment (such as rebuilding rotating spares) where
if the unit suddenly needed the spare, the spare would not be available
and a more serious than normal unit outage or derating would occur.
U. Starting up. Work which requires the unit to be in a start-up
mode where the unit is being brought on-line. Equipment tests or adjust-
ments that can only be done during a start-up condition are included.
D. Shutting down. Work that can or should only be done when the
unit is on line, but Dispatch no longer needs the unit and the unit is
about to be shut down. Typically, equipment tests or adjustments that
may trip the unit are included.
(Note: Thus, a work order coded as a 2 could only be done when the unit
is down on outage for some reason. If a short notice outage work (SNOW)
outage occurs and the outage will take 48 hours, this SNOW work order
might be a candidate for including in the outage work scope. This work order
could only be included if it is already planned and ready for scheduling. One
might not know if the work order could be done if the job was not furnished
with an expected duration via planning, say 24 or 78 hours of duration.)
Plant and unit

(Note: The plant and unit coding begins the equipment coding system. The
company has an “intelligent” numbering system. The equipment number
identifies the plant, unit, and system of the equipment being discussed.)
Plant and unit codes. First digit—Plant. Second and third digits—Unit.
PLANT N—North Generating Station

UNIT 00—Steam Plant Common
UNIT 01—Steam Unit 1
UNIT 30—Gas Turbine Plant Common
UNIT 31—GT Unit 1
UNIT 32—GT Unit 2
UNIT 33—GT Unit 3
UNIT 34—GT Unit 4
PLANT S—South Generating Station
UNIT 00—Steam Plant Common
(Note: Thus, a code of N02 would indicate North Station Unit 2.)
612 Appendix J
Equipment group and system

(Note: Each equipment group is shown with its composing systems. For
example, Group A, Air, is followed by the systems within the Air Group,
System I, Instrument Air, and System S, Service Air. Following this
listing is a comprehensive definition of each system.)
Group and system codes. First digit—Group. Second digit—System.
A Air
I Instrument
S Service
B Boiler
A Air Flow for Combustion
B Boiler Tubes and Steam Generating Section
C Controls
E Air Preheater Heat Exchanger
F Burner Front
G Gas Flow from Combustion
I Aspirating Air
J Casing and Structure
P Convection Pass
S Sootblowers
T Seal Air
V Vents and Drains
W Wash Drains
C Condensate
D Feedwater Heater Drains
F Flow
P Polishers
R Recovery
S Supply
V Vacuum Supply
D Feedwater
A Auxiliary Feedwater
D BFP Fluid Drive
F Flow
O BFP Lube Oil
P Boiler Feedwater Pump
T BFP Steam Turbine
E Electrical
C Communication
D 120-250 Vdc
I Control Room Instrumentation
L Plant Lighting and Distribution
M Miscellaneous
S Switchgear, Load Center, and MCC
Y Switchyard
F Fuel
B Fuel Oil Burner Supply and Return
C Fuel Oil Service Pump
D Diesel Storage and Transfer
H Fuel Oil Heaters
I Ignitor Fuel Supply
N Natural Gas
O Fuel Oil Storage and Transfer
P Propane Gas
V Vehicle Fuel Storage
W Wharf Facility for Ship Unloading
G Generator
D Diesel Generator
E Exciter
H Hydrogen
I Isolated Phase
O Seal Oil
P Protection Circuit
R Rotating Field
S Stator
V Voltage Regulator
W Stator Oil and Cooling Water
H Water
A Treatment Plant Acid
C Treatment Plant Caustic
D Demineralizer
P Potable Water Supply
R Raw Water Supply
I Intake
C Canal
F Fish Protection Traveling Screens
R Intake Chemical Treatment
J Cooling Water
C Condenser Cleaning
I Circulating Water
L Closed Cooling
R River Water
T Cooling Tower
X Condenser
614 Appendix J
K Fire Protection
D Dry Chemical
P Portable
U Gas Turbine
W Water and Foam
N Environmental
A Air Quality
W Water Quality
R Reagent and Chemical
A Acid Cleaning for Boiler
C CO2 and H2 Supply
D Condenser Discharge Chemical Injection
M Miscellaneous
N Nitrogen Supply
O Fuel Oil Treatment
P Condensate pH Chemical Injection
W Boiler Wash
S Steam
A Auxiliary Piping
E Extraction Piping
M Main Steam Piping
P Primary Superheating Section
Q Secondary Superheating Section
R Reheat Piping
S Reheat Superheating Section
X Auxiliary Boiler
T Steam Turbine
A HP and IP Section
B IP Section
C LP Section
F Front Standard
H HP and IP Turbine Control
I Monitor Supervisory Instrumentation
J Turbine Controls
L Steam Seals
O Lubricating Oil
P Pedestal
S Structure
V Vents and Drains
X Crossover Pipe
U Gas Turbine
A Accessory Station
B Bearing and Coupling
C Compressor Section
D DEH Control
E Exhaust
G Generator
H Housing
I Combustor Section
J Cooling Water
O Lubricating Oil
P Protection and Control
R Starting
S Supports
T Turbine Section
U Turning Gear
W Water Wash
Z Atomizing Air
V Ventilation
A Air Conditioning
D Equipment Dry Layup
M Miscellaneous Vents and Exhausts
S Steam Heating
W Waste
F Waste Fuel Collection
H Water and Boiler Wash Collection
I Water Instrumentation
L Liquid Waste
S Solid Waste Disposal
W Sewage Treatment
Y Blanket Accounts
A Operations
B Maintenance
C Administration
D Engineering
E Structural
F Production Equipment
G Facilities
H Computer
Z Miscellaneous
B Buildings and Grounds
C Turbine Deck Bridge Crane
E Electric Tools and Equipment
F Freeze Protection
H Hydraulic Tools and Equipment
L Laboratory
616 Appendix J
M Machine Shop Equipment

O Other Tools and Equipment
P Pneumatic Tools and Equipment
S Security
V Plant Vehicles
Group and system definitions. Except as noted in the individual system

definitions, several general definitions apply. Each system includes its
related gauge work, instrumentation and controls, power and control
wiring, and breakers. Piping means the complete piping system, includ-
ing the pipe itself, insulation, lagging, hangers and supports, steam
tracing lines, valves, safety relief valves, orifices, strainers, drains, and
traps associated with that pipe. All electrical, instrumentation, and
mechanical devices which exclusively serve a major component are
accounted for in the same system as that component.
A AIR
AI Air Instrument
Provides compressed air to pneumatic controls and instrumenta-
tion. Includes compressors, dryers, coolers, separators, air tanks,
and piping. Instrument Air can also be described as piping coming
from the service air compressors when the compressors serve both
systems.
AS Air Service
Provides compressed air for general plant service (house air) such
as air motors and air hose connections. Includes compressors,
dryers, coolers, separators, air tanks, and piping.
B BOILER
BA Boiler–Air Flow for Combustion
All combustion air ducting from the air intake ports to the windbox.
Includes all related hangers and supports, dampers, damper controls,
expansion joints, orifices, and the windbox. Includes FD fans, fan cas-
ings, inlet vanes, motors, and foundation. Includes the overfire air
system. Does not include preheaters (BE) or seal air system (BT).
BB Boiler–Boiler Tubes and Steam Generating Section
Steam drum and its internals, mud drum, furnace tubes (all passes),
downcomers, risers, tube headers, boiler circulation pump, and drum
safety valves. The blowdown lines, drain lines, and flash tank are
part of system BV. The convective pass tubes are found in system
BP. The economizer is part of the feedwater flow in system DF.
BC Boiler–Controls
Controls for the fuel and air supply to the burners. Includes boiler
master controls and associated signal transmitters and analyzers.
Includes electronic control systems, transmitters, and terminals.
BE Boiler–Air Preheater Heat Exchanger

Regenerative or tube type air preheater. Bearings, baskets, casing,
seals, lube oil system, drive motors (air and electric), and gears.
Includes wash lances. Also includes the steam coil air preheater.
Includes coils, inlet and outlet valves, piping from the steam source,
condensate hotwell, and any condensate drain piping to conden-
sate recovery. Does not include sootblowers which are in BS.
BF Boiler–Burner Front
Oil and gas burners, ignitors, air register, and flame controls. Steam
used to purge and clean the burners and fuel oil headers at the burner
decks. Includes piping downstream of the auxiliary steam header.
BG Boiler–Gas Flow for Combustion
All combustion gas ducting from the economizer plenum to and
including the exhaust stack and the gas recirculation ducting.
Related hangers and supports, dampers, damper controls, expan-
sion joints, and the exhaust stack. Includes ID and GR fans, fan cas-
ings, ID fluid drives, motors, fluid drive oil coolers, the lube oil
piping system, and foundation. Includes any turning gear drive
systems associated with the fans. Stack gas monitoring equipment
are in NA. Does not include the air preheaters (BE) or the seal air
system (BT).
BI Boiler–Aspirating Air
Blowers and piping that provide aspirating air to the burner front
flame scanners. The same system may also provide combustion air
to the propane ignitors. Does not include seal air (BT).
BJ Boiler–Casing and Structure
Outer casing, insulation, inner casing, structural steel, access
doors, gas seals, expansion joints, deck plates and grating, hand
rails, stairs and ladders, access doors, and furnace buckstays.
Includes any penthouse and header enclosure structures. Includes
ash hoppers. Includes any penthouse blowers. Includes any boiler
seal skirt which wraps around the bottom hopper of the boiler fur-
nace. Does not include steam piping or headers (Group S).
BP Boiler–Convection Pass. Includes convective pass wall
tubes and inlet and outlet headers.
BS Boiler–Sootblowers
Sootblowers, drive motors, steam supply, and air supply piping.
Includes control panel interlocks and wiring. Does not include
the boiler caustic wash piping (BW).
BT Boiler–Seal Air
Piping that provides seal air from the combustion air system to
the induced draft and gas recirculation fan seals. Piping that pro-
vides cooling air to the gas recirculation fan. For positive pressure
618 Appendix J
boilers such as South Unit 3, this system also provides seal air to
sootblower and view port openings.
BV Boiler–Vents and Drains
Waterside drain lines and all vent lines necessary for boiler fill-
ing and draining. All boiler blowdown and drain piping and valv-
ing. Blowdown (flash) tank, blowdown tank drain pump. Does not
include the headers being serviced by the vents and drains. Does
not include the nitrogen supply which is in system RN.
BW Boiler–Wash Drains
Wash drain piping and collection troughs which serve the fur-
nace, air preheater, and economizer sections of the boiler and
includes piping prior to the sumps and trenches in system WH.
C CONDENSATE
CD Condensate–Feedwater Heater Drains
Drain piping from all feedwater heaters. Includes heater drain
pumps, high- and low-pressure flash tanks, and piping up to the
condensate flow system (CF). Includes turbine water induction
protection system. Also includes manual vent and drain piping.
CF Condensate–Flow
Condensate piping beginning at the condensate pump outlet
through to the deaerator, condensate booster pumps, low- and inter-
mediate-pressure feedwater heaters (high-pressure feedwater
heaters are in system DF), the deaerator, and the deaerator stor-
age tank. Does not include the condensate (hotwell) pump which
is part of the condenser system (JX).
CP Condensate–Polishers
Serving vessels, regenerator tanks, resin, backwash pump, sluice
pump, and piping.
CR Condensate–Recovery
Collects high temperature condensate from various parts of the
system. May collect boiler water for transfer to storage tank.
Includes condensate recovery flash tank, cooling condenser, con-
densate recovery transfer pump, hotwell drain pump, and piping.
CS Condensate–Supply
Includes condensate storage tanks whether the water is polished
and treated water tanks or only demineralized. Includes pumps
and piping to and from the demineralizer system. Also includes
the boiler fill pump.
CV Condensate–Vacuum Supply
Vacuum pumps, exhaust silencers, hogging jet, primary and sec-
ondary steam air ejectors, moisture collection tanks, oil drain
tanks, vacuum breaker, and piping.
D FEEDWATER
DA Feedwater–Auxiliary Feedwater
Auxiliary feedwater pump, feedwater heaters, and piping which
supply the reboilers (SA). Does not include the auxiliary boiler
feedwater system which is included with the auxiliary boiler
(SX).
DD Feedwater–BFP Fluid Drive
Fluid drive unit to the boiler feedwater pump and fluid cooling
system. Includes oil supply and return piping to BFP bearings.
DF Feedwater–Flow
Feedwater booster pumps, high-pressure feedwater heaters, econ-
omizer. Piping, including piping after the economizer up to the steam
drum and piping after the deaerator storage tank. Does not include
the feedwater pumps which are in system DP. For North Unit 1, this
includes the piping from the economizer outlet header up to but not
including the furnace first pass inlet headers, which is in system BB.
DO Feedwater–Lube Oil for BFP and BFP Steam Turbine
Lube oil storage tank, lube oil pumps, oil coolers, and piping.
DP Feedwater–Boiler Feedwater Pump
Boiler feedwater pump, motor, feedwater piping up to and includ-
ing suction and discharge valves. Includes seal water piping. Does
not include the fluid drive (DD) and lube oil piping (DO). Does not
include a drive turbine (DT), if present.
DT Feedwater–BFP Steam Turbine
Turbine, inlet and outlet steam piping, including the steam gov-
erning valves, condensate drains. Lube oil is covered under system
DO. Steam seals are included in system TL.
E ELECTRICAL
EC Electrical–Communication
All in-house and outside telephone systems. Public address system.
ED Electrical–120–250 Vdc
DC inverters and motor-generator sets used for charging the relay
batteries and any other dc applications. Includes the batteries.
EI Electrical–Control Room Instrumentation
Controls and instrumentation for specific devices are part of the
system in which the device resides. For example, the boiler feed
pump controls belong in the boiler feed pump system. Otherwise,
this system contains all other panel controls, recorders, gauges,
displays, etc., located in the boiler or turbine-generator control
rooms. Nonelectric controls are usually specific enough to place
them in their respective systems.
620 Appendix J
EL Electrical–Plant Lighting and Distribution

All general illumination fixtures, including their wiring and
switches. Includes aviation lighting and portable lighting.
EM Electrical–Miscellaneous
Reserved for any equipment that would not be in any of the other
designated systems. Examples are cable trays, portable power
centers, and grounding grid. Also includes electrical freeze pro-
tection circuitry if not specific to a system.
ES Electrical–Switchgear, Load Center, and Motor Control Center
Includes main buses and housing. Tie breakers, feeder breakers,
and related transformers. Does not include individual breakers
which belong to the motors of another system.
EY Electrical–Switchyard
Switchyard breakers, power lines, and gantry work. Main trans-
former, startup transformer, auxiliary transformer, etc.
F FUEL
FB Fuel–Fuel Oil Burner Supply and Return
Oil supply piping downstream of fuel oil heaters, high-pressure
strainers, constant differential pumps, piping serving individual
burners, burners in and out controls, and oil piping upstream of
the return line to the valve farm. Includes oil purge system. Does
not include oil burners which are in system BF.
FC Fuel–Fuel Oil Service Pump
Fuel oil service pumps, strainers, piping up to but not including
the fuel oil heaters.
FD Fuel–Diesel Storage and Transfer
No. 2 oil storage tanks, retaining dikes, transfer pumps, and
piping to and from the gas turbines. Does not include the unload-
ing dock (FW).
FH Fuel–Fuel Oil Heaters
Fuel oil heaters and related piping. Steam supply piping from
auxiliary steam (SA). Not included are the condensate drains,
which are part of the heater drain system (HK).
FI Fuel–Ignitor Supply
Equipment and piping leading from the natural gas (FN) and
propane (FP) systems which uniquely supply the ignitors of the
main burners of the boiler. Includes the natural gas trip valves,
burner ignition valves, and vent piping.
FN Fuel–Natural Gas
Metering station, scrubbers, vaporizers, and piping (including vents
and drains) to the burners. Does not include gas burners which are
in system BF. Does not include ignitor supply as defined in system FI.
FO Fuel–Fuel Oil Storage and Transfer

Fuel oil tanks, steam coil heaters and transfer pumps including their
reduction gearing and piping, including the valve farm, retaining
dikes, and oil sumps. This would also include any fixed oil and water
separating equipment. Also includes the supply piping between the
valve farm and unit fuel oil strainers (FC) and the return piping (FB).
Includes steam supply and condensate return for steam tracing.
FP Fuel–Propane Gas
Propane storage tank, vaporizer, common piping up to but not
including the gas ignitor fuel supply FI. Does not include propane
to the auxiliary boiler, which is part of system SX.
FV Vehicle Fuel Storage
Separate diesel or gasoline storage tank for vehicle supply. Propane
for the forklifts is tapped off the main storage tank in system FP.
FW Fuel–Wharf Facility for Ship Unloading
Marine arms, unloading pumps, stripping pumps, piping, and
dock structure, including the tanker-man house. The oil piping is
included up to the fuel storage tanks.
G GENERATOR
GD Diesel–Engine and Generator
Includes any reserve generator driven by a piston engine (diesel
or gasoline). The rest of the systems in G group are for turbine-
driven generators.
GE Generator–Exciter
Generator exciter. Includes the casing, rotating and static ele-
ments, and field breaker. Includes any exciter cooler and closed
cooling piping exclusive to the exciter.
GH Generator–Hydrogen
Hydrogen coolers, hydrogen control panel, hydrogen and carbon
dioxide manifolds, liquid detector, purity meter, gas dryer, and
hydrogen and carbon dioxide piping. Does not include the hydro-
gen or carbon dioxide bulk storage which are in system RC.
GI Generator–Isolated Phase
Bus assembly from the generator lead box to the main trans-
former, ducting, heater and cooler, and generator disconnect
switch. Main generator breaker in the switchyard is in system
EY.
GO Generator–Seal Oil
Main seal oil pump, emergency seal oil pump, recirculation pump,
vacuum pump, vacuum tank, detraining tank, shaft seals, seal
drain header, and piping. For a unit that shares a common system
for generator seal oil and turbine lube oil, use system TO.
622 Appendix J
GP Generator–Protection Circuit
Various relays, transmitters, recorders, panel gauges, switches,
and interlocks used to protect the generator from damage.
GR Generator–Rotating Field
Generator rotor and coils, collector ring and brushes, rotor cou-
plings, any rotating blades, and field rheostat.
GS Generator–Stator
Main stator assembly, generator casing, support assemblies, end
bells, generator bearing assemblies, fan shrouds, hydrogen dif-
fuser baffle, bus bar enclosure, and main lead connection box and
bushings.
GV Generator–Voltage Regulator
Voltage regulator assembly, excitation transformer, control panel.
GW Generator–Stator Oil and Cooling Water
Stator cooling oil tank, stator cooling pumps, coolers, vacuum
pumps, and piping. Includes any stator cooling water deionizer,
heat exchanger, pumps, and piping.
H Water
HA General Water–Treatment Plant Acid
Acid tank, feed pump, and related piping.
HC General Water–Treatment Plant Caustic
Caustic transfer pump, caustic mixing tank, and related piping.
HD General Water–Demineralizer
Cation, anion, and mixed bed tanks, resins, carbon purifier, degasi-
fier or aerator, silica analyzer, transfer pump, and related piping.
HP General Water–Potable Water Supply
Plant water piping downstream of the chlorination source. This
could be a city water tie-in or an on-site chlorinator. Includes the
chlorinator. Includes general use fixtures such as domestic water
heaters, sinks, commodes, etc. Includes any storage tanks and
service pumps. Does not include piping exclusively dedicated to
fire protection or fire hydrants (system KW).
HR General Water–Raw Water Supply
Well pumps, raw water booster pumps, aerator tank, and related
piping which is used strictly for raw water. Does not include
plant chlorination equipment, which is the beginning of system
HP.
I INTAKE
IC Intake–Canal
Intake canal, log screens, bubble buster, trash rakes, cathodic
protection, tide gate, and intake well. Includes stationary cranes.
Mobile cranes would be in ZV. Does not include the circulating

pumps, which are in system JI.
IF Intake–Fish Protection Traveling Screens
Used for filtering of debris, fish, etc., from the intake canal water
before it enters the circulating pumps. Includes the traveling screen
assemblies, fish return troughs, and screen wash pumps. South
Stations has a screen wash pump with each screen assembly. North
has a screen wash pump that supplies all screen assemblies.
IR Intake–Intake Chemical Treatment
Sodium hypochlorite or chlorine tank and piping, including the
injector pump and piping to each intake well.
J COOLING WATER
JC Cooling Water–Condenser Cleaning
Condenser cleaning system.
JI Cooling Water–Circulating Water
Circulating water pumps and intake piping leading to the con-
denser water boxes and condenser discharge piping.
JL Cooling Water–Closed Cooling
Closed cooling provides a heat sink for various bearings, lube oil
systems, and other processes throughout the plant. The system is
isolated from other water systems in the plant, hence its name. The
closed cooling heat exchanger discharges this heat into the river
water system. Includes closed cooling heat exchangers (river water
heat exchangers), closed cooling pumps and booster pumps.
Includes supply and return piping. Does not include the supplied
heat exchangers, each of which belongs to its respective system.
JR Cooling Water–River Water
River water is taken from the condenser inlet headers and sent
to the closed cooling heat exchanger to provide a cool source for
the accumulated heat of the closed cooling water system. The
warmed river water is then sent to the condenser outlet header
to be sent to the discharge flume or cooling towers via the circu-
lating water piping. River water booster pumps, strainers, and
piping used for providing river water between the condenser (JX)
and closed cooling heat exchangers (JL).
JT Cooling Water–Cooling Tower
Cooling tower structures and components receive water from and
return water to the circulating system (JI). Does not include air
conditioning cooling towers.
JX Cooling Water–Condenser
Condenser shell, tubing, water boxes, condensate drain nozzles
into condenser, and condensate pumps. Includes exhaust shroud
624 Appendix J
between LP turbine and condenser. Includes the water box

vacuum pumps used to assist the filling of the circulating water
system. Does not include the vacuum pumps in system CV.
K FIRE PROTECTION
KD Fire Protection–Dry Chemical
Fixed dry chemical systems exclusively dedicated to fire protec-
tion. Includes associated alarms and controls.
KP Fire Protection–Portable
All types of portable extinguishers. Water, CO2, Halon, potassium
nitrate (Purple K), etc.
KU Fire Protection–Gas Turbine
Fixed systems self-contained in the gas turbine unit. Includes
carbon dioxide and Halon systems.
KW Fire Protection–Water and Foam
Fixed dry and wet water piping systems exclusively dedicated to
fire protection. Includes fire hydrants feeding from potable water
supply. Includes protected areas such as burner fronts, trans-
formers, lube oil reservoirs, and offices. Includes associated alarms
and controls. Includes any exclusively dedicated fire pumps.
Potable water itself is listed as system HP.
N ENVIRONMENTAL
NA Environmental–Air Quality
Atmospheric discharge monitoring equipment. Weather monitor-
ing equipment. Opacity monitor, NOx monitor, SO2 monitor, CO
monitor, ambient temperature and humidity probe, transmitters,
analyzers, and other computer equipment.
NW Environmental–Water Quality
Groundwater monitoring wells and instrumentation. Cooling
water and liquid waste discharge monitoring are included in JI
and WI, respectively.
R REAGENT AND CHEMICAL
RA Chemical–Acid Cleaning for Boiler
Piping (temporary or permanent) and piping connections for acid
cleaning of the boiler waterside surfaces. See system RW for caus-
tic washing of the fireside surfaces. For the boiler wash drains, see
system BW.
RC Chemical–CO2 and H2 Supply
This system provides bulk gas storage for the generator. Hydrogen
is used in the generator as a heat removal medium. Carbon diox-
ide is used to purge the generator of hydrogen for fire prevention
purposes. This is not considered a fixed system to be included in
KD. Includes tanks, manifolds, regulators, and piping. Does not

include the hydrogen panel in system GH. Does not include CO2
supply for gas turbines or chemical waste treatment systems.
RD Condenser Discharge Chemical Injection
Chemicals such as sodium bisulfate which are used to dechlori-
nate the condenser discharge water.
RM Chemical–Miscellaneous
Chemical storage not specified in other systems.
RN Chemical–Nitrogen Supply
Nitrogen is used primarily for blanketing the waterside of the
boiler and sometimes feedwater heaters during reserve shutdown.
It is usually tied into the equipment vents. Includes tanks, man-
ifolds, regulators, and piping.
RO Chemical–Fuel Oil Treatment
Chemicals which are added to fuel oil in order to induce an effect.
Includes magnesium oxide day tanks, feed pumps, and piping
into fuel oil supply.
RP Chemical–Condensate pH Chemical Injection
Chemicals which are used to neutralize the pH condition of con-
densate and feedwater. Includes tanks, pumps, and piping for
ammonia and hydrazine injection into the condensate flow system.
Also includes phosphate injection system into the steam drum.
Does not include sodium hypochlorite or chlorine which are in
system IR.
RW Chemical–Boiler Wash
Caustic solution used to clean the firesides of the boiler and other
equipment subjected to flue gases. Includes soda ash storage tank,
mixing and service tanks, related pumps, piping up to the soot-
blower piping (BS), and boiler wash hose connections. Includes any
piping that is subjected to the boiler wash caustic solution, even
if it can also be used to supply raw water. See system RA for
waterside acid cleaning. The air preheater wash lances are
included in system BE.
S STEAM
SA Steam–Auxiliary Piping
All auxiliary steam piping not specified in other systems. Includes
desuperheater supply.
SE Steam–Extraction Piping
Steam extracted from various stages of the superheated steam flow
used primarily as a heat source for feedwater heating. Extraction
steam piping begins at the first field weld at the extraction nozzle
626 Appendix J
(either in the turbine or steam piping) up to the final field weld

at the feedwater heaters. Includes extraction drain lines up to
the condenser. Does not include feedwater heaters (CF and DF)
or condenser (JE).
SM Steam–Main Steam Piping
Main steam piping from the first field weld of the secondary super-
heater outlet header to the final field weld before the main steam
stop valve at the high pressure turbine. Includes drain piping.
SP Steam–Primary Superheating Section
Primary superheater, including inlet and outlet headers, and
piping to the secondary superheater section (SQ). Includes any
flow control valves, hangers, and tube supports. Includes attem-
perator and attemperator supply piping.
SQ Steam–Secondary Superheating Section
Secondary superheater, including inlet and outlet headers.
Includes flow control valves, hangers, and tube supports.
SR Steam–Reheat Piping
Hot and cold reheat piping between turbine and reheat super-
heater. Includes attemperator and attemperator supply piping.
SH Steam–Reheat Superheating Section
Reheat superheater, including inlet and outlet headers, hangers,
and tube supports.
SX Steam–Auxiliary Boiler
Auxiliary boiler(s), fuel supply, water supply, air supply, exhaust
ducting, and common steam headers.
T STEAM TURBINE
TA Steam Turbine–HP and IP Section
Outer and inner casings, all internal components including HP and
IP rotor, blade rings (diaphragms), stationary impulse diaphragm,
balance piston, reheat seal, and nozzle block and chest. Does not
include steam seals (TL). For units with separate HP and IP sec-
tions, use system TA for HP section and system TB for IP section.
TB Steam Turbine–Intermediate Pressure (IP) Section
Outer and inner casings, all internal components including IP
rotor, blade rings (diaphragms), stationary impulse diaphragm,
balance piston, reheat seal, and nozzle block and chest. Does not
include steam seals (TL). For units with combined HP and IP sec-
tions, use system TA.
TC Steam Turbine–LP Section
Inner and outer casings and all internal components including LP
rotor and blade rings (diaphragms). Includes multiple LP sections
on same unit. Includes any low-pressure exhaust hood sprays and

supply piping. Does not include steam seals (TL). Does not include
the crossover pipe(s) which is listed in system TX.
TF Steam Turbine–Front Standard
Casing, pedestal, thrust bearing and adjuster, main speed gover-
nor and overspeed governor, and instrumentation board assembly.
The shaft driven lube oil pump is part of system TO.
TH Steam Turbine–HP and IP Turbine Control
The steam side of the turbine controls. Main steam stop valves and
actuators, governor valves, main steam bypass valves, warm-up
valves, steam chest, piping to nozzle block, and intercept and
reheat valves. Includes any drain lines from these devices.
TI Steam Turbine–Supervisory Instrumentation
Vibration monitors and controls, bearing temperature monitors
and controls, cylinder expansion monitors, rotor position monitor,
eccentricity monitor, speed monitor, various control valve posi-
tion indicators, steam pressure and temperature indicators and
transmitters, and no-load trip devices.
TJ Steam Turbine–Turbine Controls
Includes electric-hydraulic, digital-electric-hydraulic, and mechanical-
hydraulic controls. Any related hydraulic pumps, piping, coolers,
etc.
TL Steam Turbine–Steam Seals
Steam packing exhauster, shaft seals and casings, supply and
drain piping up to the turbine casing, associated desuperheaters,
regulator, and controls. Includes steam seals to any BFP tur-
bines.
TO Steam Turbine–Lubricating Oil
Main and auxiliary pumps, lube oil reservoir, filter tank (bowser),
storage tanks, coolers, and piping. For a unit that shares a
common system for generator seal oil and turbine lube oil, the
system is in TO.
TP Steam Turbine–Pedestal
Concrete pedestal, sole plates or pedestal cover, bearings, oil wipers
and baffles, and the couplings. For all HP, IP, and LP sections.
Includes the turning gear assembly which includes the bull, pinion,
and reduction gears, turning gear motor, clutch, lube oil supply, and
return piping.
TS Steam Turbine–Structure
Decking, stairs, handrails, enclosures, foundation, and pedestals
not otherwise listed. The turbine building itself would be
accounted for in buildings and grounds (ZB).
628 Appendix J
TV Steam Turbine–Vents and Drains

Drain piping and valves from the various stages of primary steam
turbines to their drain destinations.
TX Steam Turbine–Crossover Pipe
Includes crossover piping leading into the LP turbine. Includes
bolting and thrust protection.
U GAS TURBINE
UA Gas Turbine–Accessory Station
Motor control center, fuel oil pump. Does not include starting
motor, which is in system UR.
UB Gas Turbine–Bearing and Coupling
Thrust bearing loader and unloader, labyrinth seals, bearings and
casings, oil wiper seal ring, and coupling.
UC Gas Turbine–Compressor Section
Provides compressed air for fuel atomization and combustion as
well as combustion gas cooling. Includes compressor rotor, blade
rings, and casings.
UD Gas Turbine–Digital-Electric-Hydraulic Control
Hydraulic pumps, tubing, and DEH controls.
UE Gas Turbine–Exhaust
Exhaust hood, air cone, bearing heat shield, and expansion joint.
UG Gas Turbine–Generator
Generator section of gas turbine.
UH Gas Turbine–Housing
Air inlet and exhaust housing, control, accessory, excitation, and
gas turbine compartment housings.
UI Gas Turbine–Combustor Section
Combines no. 2 oil with combustion air and ignites the mixture.
Includes combustion chamber assemblies, transition ducting,
cross-fire tube, fuel manifold and fuel nozzles, chamber casing, and
diffuser case.
UO Gas Turbine–Lubricating Oil
Provides lubricating oil to all bearings, gears, and control system.
Includes oil reservoir, lube oil pumps, pressure regulators, oil cool-
ers, oil filters, and piping.
UP Gas Turbine–Protection and Control
Temperature control circuit, fuel control and monitoring, gover-
nor and speed control, sequencer, vibration monitors and trips,
overspeed trips, combustible gas detector, flame detector, relays,
relay batteries, etc. Includes “false start” drain sumps, used for
protection to allow fuel drainage in case of an aborted start. Does

not include the DEH controls which are in system JD.
UR Gas Turbine–Starting
Starting motor, accessory gearbox, and torque converter.
US Gas Turbine–Supports
Alignment devices and pedestal foundation.
UT Gas Turbine–Turbine Section
Combustion gases expand through the turbine to provide shaft
power to turn the generator and compressor sections. Includes the
turbine rotor, nozzle guide vanes (blade rings), and casings.
UU Gas Turbine–Turning Gear
Prevents warping of the turbine rotor by turning it at slow speed
while the unit is cooling down from operation. Includes drive
assembly, jaw-type clutch, and turning gear motor.
UZ Gas Turbine–Atomizing
Air Starting air compressor, cooler, separator, tank, and piping
required to provide atomizing air to the gas turbine fuel nozzles.
V VENTILATION
VA Ventilation–Air Conditioning
Includes central systems and window units.
VD Ventilation–Equipment Dry Layup
Includes dehumidification equipment and piping for short- and
long-term “cold” storage.
VM Ventilation–Miscellaneous Vents and Exhausts
Includes any exhaust fans, hoods, etc., not associated with other
systems.
VS Ventilation–Steam Heating
Steam or hot water heating systems used for personnel space
heating needs.
W WASTE
WF Waste–Waste Fuel Collection
Waste oil tank and piping to the fuel oil service pump strainers.
Piping from the various burner front collection funnels.
WH Waste–Water and Boiler Wash Collection
Sumps, sump pumps, drain trenches, including storm drains, and
drain piping to chemical waste treatment system or percolation
ponds (WL).
WI Waste–Water Instrumentation
Water quality monitoring equipment at the chemical waste treat-
ment system (WL).
630 Appendix J
WL Waste–Liquid Waste
Chemical waste treatment system or percolation ponds. Includes the
grit bed pumping station as it receives influent from system WH,
surge tanks, sludge settling ponds, and percolation ponds. Includes
any associated clarifiers. Includes the lime storage bin, rotary lime
feeder and slaker, work tank, slurry pump, rapid and slow mix
tanks, piping, and controls. Includes the CO2 storage tank, refrig-
eration and vaporization equipment, piping, and controls. The mon-
itoring wells surrounding a basin are included in system NW.
WS Waste–Solid Waste Disposal
Fixed systems such as a landfill.
WW Waste–Sewage Treatment
For on-site treatment, includes the sewage collection piping, lift
stations, discharge piping, barscreen, aeration tank, blower, set-
tling tank, digester, clarifier tank, and chlorine and aluminate feed
systems. For discharge to the city sewage system, includes the
sewage collection piping and any pumping stations.
Y BLANKET ACCOUNTS
Used for plant expense accounting for work that is not equipment
specific or otherwise accounted for in another of the equipment
systems. These systems are to be used sparingly and are not to be
used as an easy substitute for more detailed work order coding.
YA Blanket Accounts–Operations
Operations-related expenses.
YB Blanket Accounts–Maintenance
Maintenance-related expenses.
YC Blanket Accounts–Administration
Miscellaneous administrative expenses as clerical, guarding, and
grounds keeping.
YD Blanket Accounts–Engineering
Engineering expenses.
YE Blanket Accounts–Structural
Maintenance of steam structures expenses.
YF Blanket Accounts–Production Equipment
Maintenance of power production equipment.
YG Blanket Accounts–Facilities
Miscellaneous buildings expenses.
YH Blanket Accounts–Computer
This would include maintenance of mainframe and PC computer
networks. Use this code for time and monies expended on a
CMMS.
Z MISCELLANEOUS
ZB Miscellaneous–Buildings and Grounds
Building structures not otherwise listed in other systems. Also
includes items as roads, parking lots, elevators, lawns, and picnic
areas.
ZC Miscellaneous–Turbine Deck Bridge Crane
Entire crane assembly, including the brakes and gears, power
wires, track, controls, and supports. Does not include portable
hoists (ME), shop hoists (ZE), or mobile cranes (MV).
ZE Miscellaneous–Electric Tools and Equipment
Various fixed and portable electric driven tools and equipment. Arc
welders, metallizing machines, bolt heaters, portable fans and
space heaters, hand drills, electric chainfall hoists, etc.
ZF Miscellaneous–Freeze Protection
Various systems, not otherwise specified, used to protect plant
equipment from freeze damage.
ZH Miscellaneous–Hydraulic Tools and Equipment
Various fixed and portable hydraulic tools. Includes presses, bend-
ing brakes, lifts, porta-power devices, and wrenches.
ZL Miscellaneous–Laboratory
Laboratory analysis equipment for fuel oil, water, and steam sam-
pling analysis. Sample points would be listed in the involved system.
ZM Miscellaneous–Machine Shop Equipment
Drill presses, lathes, milling machines, grinders, etc.
ZO Miscellaneous–Other Tools and Equipment
Other tools, usually unpowered, not covered by the other tool sys-
tems. Includes specialized tools for turbines, oil spillage control,
and safety. Includes nonproduction equipment such as ice makers.
Measurement tools such as micrometers are also included.
ZP Miscellaneous–Pneumatic Tools and Equipment
Various fixed and portable pneumatic driven tools. Includes sand-
blasters, spray paint equipment, impact wrenches, and portable
air compressors.
ZS Miscellaneous–Security
Perimeter fences and gates, guard houses, surveillance cameras,
intruder alarm systems, etc.
ZV Miscellaneous–Plant Vehicles
Forklifts, mobile cranes, bulldozers and other heavy equipment,
plant assigned cars, trucks and boats, etc.
(Note: An example of using the plant, unit, group, and system codes would
be N02-CP to indicate North Station Unit 2’s condensate polishing system.)
632 Appendix J
Equipment type
(Note: These codes are useful for analyzing problem areas in the plant.
For example, the plant could segregate work orders and determine how
much plant work was being expended on pumps, equipment type code 01.
Planners place these codes on the work orders during the coding process,
but the codes are not part of the equipment component tag number.
Equipment type codes could be included in the equipment number itself, but
the numbering system would be stretched to the limit. Adding the equip-
ment type codes to the equipment number itself may be beyond the point
of diminishing returns. It can become confusing and frustrating to require
a tremendous string of numbers to be manipulated. Certainly, additional
intelligent equipment coding beyond these numbers would be difficult.)
These codes are to be used consistently throughout the various equip-
ment systems. For any system described, these code numbers will be
unique to the equipment described. For example, 01 means pump
regardless of in what system the equipment lies. A pump in the con-
densate polishing system would be coded as 01 and a pump in the intake
basin would be coded as 01 for the equipment type code. Certain major
pieces of equipment such as the boiler feed pumps and the steam tur-
bine generators are complex enough to merit their own Group and
System designations. In these cases, major pieces may be given their
own major code numbers, e.g., high-pressure steam turbine inner casing.
(A later section discusses using these codes as “problem classes.”)
Equipment type codes
00. General: Intended to represent the system in general. When a

specific piece of equipment is involved, this code is not to be used.
01. Pump: Device intended for the movement of liquids. Does not
include vacuum pumps.
02. Compressor and Vacuum Pump: Device intended to change the
pressure of the gas involved. Device should provide a pressure dif-
ferential greater than 35 psi.
03. Fan and Blower: Device intended to increase the flow volume of
the gas involved. Device should provide a pressure differential less
than or equal to 35 psi.
04. Hydraulic Coupling: Fluid drive unit located between a driven
object and its driver. (Simple couplings are considered a part of the
driven object.)
05. Gear Set: Separately cased gear set, reduction gear, or turning
gear located between a driven object and its driver. (Gear sets inte-
gral to an object are considered a part of that object. Simple cou-
plings are considered a part of the driven object.)
06. Pressure Vessel: A container designed to continuously hold a pres-

surized fluid.
07. Vented Vessel: A container which is vented so that it does not hold
more than static pressure head of the substance contained. The
vent need not necessarily go to the atmosphere.
08. Heat Exchanger: Includes open and closed types such as tube-and-
shell and plate-type heat exchangers, condensers, and deaerators.
09. Piping or Ducts: Piping which is used for transferring fluid from one
point to another. Includes flexible piping and hose. Insulation, simple
hangers, supports, flange work, expansion joints, etc., are considered
part of the piping or duct to which it is attached. No distinction is made
on operating pressure. Does not include open troughs (see item 50).
10. Hanger Assembly: Includes large hanger mechanisms as found on
the major steam piping. (Simple hangers are considered a part of
the piping under item 09—Piping.)
12. Control Valve and Actuator: Includes all valves with remote actu-
ation (except solenoid valves). The valve and its actuator are consid-
ered as one item, regardless of how attached they are to each other.
13. Solenoid Valve: Any valve which is solenoid actuated. Includes
the solenoid.
14. Manual Valve: A valve which must be manually operated. Includes
check valves. Includes backflow preventer assemblies. Does not
include safety valves.
15. Safety Valve and Others: Includes safety valves, relief valves, rup-
ture disks, vacuum breakers. Can also include trip valves.
16. Flow and Restriction Orifices: Includes the orifice plate (Venturi
or other), and upstream and downstream pressure taps.
17. Steam Trap Assembly, Moisture Trap Assembly, Float Trap
Assembly: Includes trap, strainer, isolation valves, bypass valve,
drain valve, and any test valve. Continuous drains are listed here.
18. Filter and Strainer.
19. Regulator.
21. Switchgear: Circuit breakers, including the primary disconnects
and operator with auxiliary equipment such as the switch, trip
device, solenoid and arc chute assembly. For voltages of 460 and
higher. Smaller voltages are typically considered a part of the equip-
ment being served, or are listed as part of a distribution panel in
systems such as EB. Breakers such as metal-clad, oil-filled, air blast
and air magnetic types are included.
22. Electric Motor, Single-Phase.
634 Appendix J
23. Electric Motor, Three-Phase, under 500 V.

24. Electric Motor, Three-Phase, 500 V+.
25. Electric Motor, dc.
26. Power and Control: Cables, control devices, etc., between the
switchgear and electrically driven device, typically a motor.
28. Motor Starter and Contactor: Includes the toggle switch, solenoids,
relays, and timers.
29. Transformer.
30. Structure: Girderwork, stairs, floors, walls, ceilings, containment
walls, etc.
31. Air Dryer: Includes both refrigerant and desiccant type dryers.
Includes the dehumidifiers.
33. Motor Control Center: A grouping or combination of motor starters
in a single cabinet or enclosure. Consists of lead-in cables, molded
case circuit breaker, starter contactor, control transformer, and fuses.
34. Instrumentation: All types of instruments including devices used
to record information automatically on paper and flow meters. Does
not include flow orifices, which are listed as major code 16. Includes
rotometers and level indicator vessels.
35. Auxiliary Driver: Diesel engine and its accessories such as air starter,
fuel pump, heat exchanger, etc., that drives the emergency fire pump.
Also included is the steam engine that drives the fuel oil transfer pump.
41. Sootblower Assembly: Device used to remove accumulated soot
and debris from a heat transfer surface. Typically found in boilers
and air preheaters. Can include permanent wash lances.
43. Attemperator: Includes the spray head, thermal liner, inlet nozzle, and
casing. Does not include the control valve, which would be coded as 12.
44. Lubricating Assembly.
45. Burner Assembly: Includes oil and natural gas burners—the
nozzle, gun, diffuser, canes, etc. Does not include the air register,
which would be coded as 47.
46. Generator: Small generators, ac or dc, such as motor-generator
sets. Does not include prime mover generators, which are covered
in Group G.
47. Damper or Register Assembly: Device for regulating gas flow,
including its driver and actuator (if applicable).
48. Exhaust Stack, Exhaust Silencers.
49. Traveling Screen Assembly: Does not include the screen wash
pump or troughs.
50. Trough, Trench, Ditch, Sump Pit.

51. Air Motor: A rotating pneumatic device used to provide power to
a driven device such as a pump or generator.
52. Gas Ignitor: Natural gas and propane ignitors.
99. Other: Equipment not listed above.
(Note: Notice that code 12 includes both actuators and their valves and
that there is no code 11. It became impractical to classify valves as 11
separate from actuators. It was frequently difficult to tell which was the
problem area, the valve or its actuator. Early planning strategy at this
plant was to have the planner be alert to change the code after the job
was completed to have the exact equipment identified. In actual prac-
tice, however, it became apparent that the first equipment number
placed on the work order would stick and not be changed. It made life
much easier to combine these devices. Later as the planning system
matured and computer “help” was brought in, the computer required
that everything be separate to list the manufacturer with the equipment
on a one-to-one basis. Now it was easy with a paper file to list two man-
ufacturers and scores of suppliers for any particular valve and actua-
tor combination. At this plant, the computer was modified to allow
continuation of the existing practice.)
Problem class, problem mode, problem

cause, action taken
Using problem class, problem mode, problem cause, and action taken
codes helps future reliability analysis by reliability groups. By analyzing
work orders with these codes, reliability groups determine the most
common types of equipment problems with their most common modes
and causes. With this knowledge, reliability groups can dictate changes
to PM or PdM programs to prevent or to provide early detection for
common plant problems.
The purpose of the codes is not to reduce written feedback received
from technicians. The purpose of the codes is not to specify ahead of time
the actions for the technician to take. Operators and planners make their
best estimates of the proper class and mode and perhaps the cause code,
rarely the action code. Technicians have the final word on what actu-
ally happened to what, why it happened, and what the technicians did
about it. Planners verify that technicians selected the proper codes for
what the technicians finally decided and did.
Problem class codes should be the same as equipment type previously
shown. Each different type of equipment class has only a limited number
of principal problem modes. The mode is how (not why) the problem
occurred. For example, a problem class of VALVE might have ten princi-
pal ways a valve could have a problem. These might include WILL NOT
636 Appendix J
OPERATE OR SLOW MOVEMENT, LEAKING EXTERNALLY, and

LEAKING THROUGH INTERNALLY. It is important to always list PM
and OTHER as choices for problem modes. The choice of PM is necessary
because the work might not be a “problem,” but scheduled PM work.
Listing OTHER allows the list to be limited to 10 or fewer choices for easy
use without damaging the credibility of the choices. Persons complain if
management insists they must select a code and no appropriate code
exists. OTHER allows selection of an appropriate code. Persons occa-
sionally find other modes than the principal ones, but the list becomes too
cumbersome if listing every conceivable possibility. Engineering might
occasionally include more modes in the list if persons frequently select
OTHER for certain problem classes. Listing PM and OTHER for every
problem mode allows management to require using the codes.
Similarly, each problem mode for a specific equipment class (problem
class) has only a limited number of principal causes. The cause is the why
of the mode. Why did the valve (problem class) leak externally (problem
mode)? The cause might be looseness of fasteners or corrosion and the
listing of principal causes would list LOOSENESS and CORROSION
among principal causes for the mode of LEAKING EXTERNALLY. Again,
OTHER should always be a choice. SCHEDULED is also listed to allow
selecting a cause for a mode of PM.
Finally, each cause has limited number of actions a technician could
take to remedy the specific cause. For a cause of LOOSENESS, the
technician might select TIGHTENED or REPLACED. OTHER is always
listed as an option. PERFORMED is listed to allow selecting codes for
preventive maintenance.
Planning manages the collection of these codes. In a paper system, the
planner enters the correct problem class and failure mode based on the
originator’s description. With CMMS, the computer would automatically
populate the problem class field upon the originator’s selection of equip-
ment. The originator could change the class from a drop-down list if
needed. The originator could then select from a drop-down list that only
shows the short list of problem mode choices specific to that problem
class. In a paper system, the planning or engineering department would
issue small booklets listing all the plant’s problem classes to technicians
they could keep in their toolboxes. Then under each separate class, the
booklet lists principal problem modes. Each problem mode, in turn, lists
principal problem causes. Finally, each problem cause lists principal
choices for action taken. The technicians look in their booklets for the
problem class and mode already listed on the work order. Under the
mode area, the technicians select appropriate codes for problem cause and
then action taken. In a CMMS where technicians enter feedback on the
computer, they could have specific drop-down lists for each choice.
However, even with a CMMS, the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling
Handbook prefers technicians use paper work orders in the field. It is still
preferred that they use their booklets to select codes and the planners
or planning clerk updates these on the CMMS during job closing.
(Note: Plants using these codes experience several significant problems.

The principal problem is the choices frequently overwhelm persons. Some
plants abandon the use of the codes because they have straight lists of
all possible modes, all possible causes, and all possible actions. With each
list numbering well over 100 items, persons typically favor using about
10 to 20 codes for any job. In addition, each person usually favors a dif-
ferent set of 10 to 20 codes. Management can alleviate some of this prob-
lem by providing a very structured breakdown list or tree structure and
limiting the choices to principal ones using “other” and “PM.” Yet, even
with a tree structure, if an equipment class has subcomponents such as
a valve may have an actuator, distinguishing between modes and causes
becomes difficult. Another significant problem with these codes is that as
management refines the tree structure, especially with a CMMS, usually
only one choice is allowed at each step. In other words, a valve might have
a problem with looseness and corrosion. The resulting work order might
clean the corrosion and tighten the fasteners. Another example might be
technicians executing a PM route as scheduled and they tighten a number
of loose fasteners. Coding system usually address this issue by requiring
that persons select the “most correct” code or the code that “pertains to
the majority of the work.” CMMS systems that allow multiple selections
are preferred, but uncommon. A paper system might be the best collection
method for multiple selections. On the other hand, reliability groups typi-
cally need this information entered into some sort of database or spread-
sheet to allow analysis. Even if a paper system allowed multiple choices,
the plant would need to exercise some foresight to accommodate data
entry for analysis. Another significant problem is that plants are rarely
advanced enough to have a reliability group that looks at the result of
such codes. There then arises the problem of the “chicken and the egg.”
Should the plant go through the trouble of collecting the data in the
expectation of possible future use or should the plant wait to begin col-
lecting the data until a reliability group wants it? Many plants abandon
collecting the data after determining that “No one wants it, anyway.” This
handbook advocates collecting the data for future use, but would prefer
an engineering group establish the codes in a tree structure and book-
lets. The planning department could establish the codes in the tree struc-
ture and make the booklets, but this would be a lower priority for the
planning department.)
The following example illustrates a tree structure for a single prob-

lem class. Imagine the immenseness of this structure if completed for
all equipment classes at a plant. A booklet can become daunting and a
computer becomes preferred to limit the irrelevant codes for each class.
638 Appendix J
Problem class, problem mode, problem cause, and action taken codes example
Problem class: VALVE
Problem mode Cause Action taken
Will not operate Actuator problem Cleaned

or slow movement Adjusted
Lubricated
Repaired or replaced
broken part
Replaced actuator
Other (See remarks)
Power loss Replaced fuse
Reset or replaced breaker
Repaired ground
Repaired relay
Repair wiring
Repaired transformer
Other (See remarks)
Controls Adjusted
Replaced card
Other (See remarks)
Valve body problem Cleared debris
Cleaned corrosion
Repaired parts
Replaced parts
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Other (See remarks) Other (See remarks)
Leaking externally Looseness Tightened fasteners
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Packing, o-ring, gasket Tightened
Replaced packing,
o-ring, gasket
Other (See remarks)
Worn Repaired part
Replaced part
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Corrosion Cleaned
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Leaking through internally Debris Cleaned
Other (See remarks)
Looseness Tightened fasteners
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Corrosion Cleaned corrosion
Replaced parts
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
(Continued)
Problem mode Cause Action taken
Worn Repaired parts

Replaced parts
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Other (See remarks) Replaced parts
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Noisy Looseness Tightened fasteners
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Corrosion Cleaned corrosion
Repaired parts
Replaced parts
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Worn Repaired parts
Replaced parts
Replaced valve
Other (See remarks)
Other (See remarks) Repaired parts
Replaced parts
Other (See remarks)
Appearance Corrosion Cleaned corrosion
Cleaned and painted
Replaced
Other (See remarks)
PM Scheduled Performed
Other (See remarks)
Other (See remarks) Other (See remarks) Other (See remarks)
Work Order Numbering System

(Note: The WO numbering system provides for assigning each separate
work order a unique number to allow keeping the work done under that
number separate from other maintenance work. The work order number
arrangement at many plants evolves in form such as its length and inclu-
sion of alphabet characters. Having a record of how the numbering
system works and has worked is very useful. Keeping this record pays
dividends in the future if there is commitment to keeping it current.)
Current numbering system

Each WO is numbered with a separate, unique seven-digit code.
The first digit is the plant code (as defined in the Plant and Unit
Codes). The second and third digits are the last two digits in the calen-
dar year when the WO is originated (e.g., “93”). The originator writes
640 Appendix J
in the first three digits (plant and year) when initiating a WO. The last
four digits are made up of one letter followed by three numbers. Each
separate WO is given a unique combination of last four digits, which may
be from A001 to Z999. The last four digits (unique) of the WO are already
preprinted on the blank WO forms.
For example, WO number N93G457 is a unique WO number for a
work order at North Station written in 1993.
The WO number is also used for the CMMS system as well as the
mainframe system.
Blanket work orders are kept in the mainframe system exclusively.
A WO form is not required for a blanket work order. The Maintenance
Department Mainframe System Administrator assigns blanket work
order numbers using the same seven-digit numbering sequence as for
regular WOs except that the second and third digits are the unit codes
(as defined in the Plant and Unit Codes) and the last four digits are all
numbers from 8000 to 9999. The Mainframe System Administrator keeps
a log to maintain consistent blanket numbers among plants and to avoid
assigning duplicate blanket numbers for different activities.
For example, blanket WO numbers N009132, S009132, and K009132
are for maintenance planning activities for each plant.
The use of blanket work orders is not encouraged for equipment main-
tenance. The creation of a new blanket WO must be authorized by the
Assistant Plant Manager.
Previous numbering systems

Prior to mid-December, 1993, the first digit (plant) was preprinted on
the form and the second and third digits were the unit codes (as defined
in the Plant and Unit Codes). The originator wrote in the Unit Code
when initiating a WO. (This system was changed to the current system
to allow using the same form at all plants and because there were still
too few available WO numbers.)
Example: WO number N01G257 would be a unique WO number for
a work order on North Unit 1.
Prior to 1991, the last four digits of regular WOs were 0001 to 7999
and blanket WOs were 8000 to 9999. (This system was eventually
changed because there were too few available WO numbers.)
Prior to about 1990, each plant had separate WO numbering systems
and conventions such as using NS at the beginning to designate North
Station.
Notes
These are general notes for numbering work orders. Using years instead
of unit for the second two digits will cause a potential conflict with old
WOs and blankets in the year 2000 that will need to be addressed even-
tually. The conflict arises because the year 2000 and unit common both
would use 00.
Manual Distribution
(Note: The plant should keep a list of who has the manuals so that it can
update their documents. It is also valuable to list actual names along
with titles so that all crew supervisors, managers, engineers, planners,
and even computer support persons can be included in having the work
order system documentation. Normally this listing is published along
with the manual in this back section. A plant with general access to an
internal intranet Web site should consider discontinuing the mainte-
nance of a hard copy work order system manual in favor of the more
plant-wide access to a Web document. Alternately, a plant with a CMMS
with plant-wide access may have the computer system contain the bulk
of the documentation of the work order system and codes. In either
case, this paper document would be discontinued because of its more lim-
ited access and the trouble of keeping it current.)
Appendix
K
Equipment Schematics
and Tagging
This appendix sets forth guidelines for equipment identification and

tagging which are essential for setting up the filing system used by
planning. Planning uses the equipment tag numbers in its filing system.
Nearly every piece of equipment should be tagged with a number if
maintenance work is ever performed on it. The repetitious nature of
maintenance work demands that records be kept identifying the cir-
cumstances of past work. The past work cannot be improved upon if
records are not kept. Records cannot be kept if there is no numbering
system to allow arrangement of the files or computer records. It is also
not enough to have an equipment number for each item. That number
must be clearly visible on the piece of equipment. With this arrange-
ment, it is possible to utilize equipment numbers practically to assist
finding equipment and keeping records. A plant might set guidelines if
not all equipment is to have an equipment number or tag. All lines and
devices critical to processes should have numbers and tags. It may be
permissible to exclude certain drain lines smaller than 2 inches.
Appendix J equipment type codes recommended giving control valves
and their actuators a single number. Similarly, a plant should seriously
consider giving a single number to an entire drive-train such as a pump,
its fluid drive, and its motor. Components internal to other equipment
such as boiler tube section inside a furnace may be impractical to tag,
but numbers can be established for files to track different sections of
tubes. Valves contained within the protective structure of a steam tur-
bine might be numbered, but not tagged directly. A placard may be set
near the turbine identifying such concealed valves and their designated
numbers. The numbers might be placed on labels in the control room
near appropriate controls or switches.
643

644 Appendix K
The following sections establish practical guidelines that may be used

to establish equipment numbers and place appropriate tags on the
equipment.
Equipment Tag Numbers

There are several issues necessary to mention when discussing equipment
numbers. Included among these issues are the uniqueness of the num-
bers, the use of intelligent numbers, and the use of equipment schematics.
First, equipment numbers must be unique. A number used by one
piece of equipment cannot be used for any other equipment. Because the
planners will keep individual records for each piece of equipment, each
number must indicate a single repository for information. If the plant
utilizes existing numbering systems supplied by vendors, it must avoid
accidental duplication.
Second, intelligent numbers aid maintenance work because they help
identify involved equipment and facilitate filing or computer classifica-
tion. For example, an equipment number that begins with B for all boiler
equipment would allow all boiler files to be kept together. Figure K.1
shows an example of an intelligent equipment number for the valve
used in the work order example given in Chap. 5. Although intelligence
in equipment numbers is helpful, one must take care not to put so many
digits into the equipment number so that the number becomes awkward.
Excessively long strings of digits make it more difficult to record the cor-
rect number when writing work orders or otherwise using the number.
The length and arrangement of the example shown in Fig. K.1 seem to
present a sufficient amount of information without being too lengthy. It
also helps if the characters have some recognizable aspect in themselves.
Figure K.1 Intelligent equipment number for North Station Unit no. 2 Fuel
Oil Service Pump Control Valve Strainer B.
Equipment Schematics and Tagging 645
For example, the plant character of the example is N for North, the
unit characters are 02 for Unit 2, and the group number is F for Fuel.
All of these characters make sense and avoid the problem of having a
long string of characters making little obvious sense to most plant per-
sonnel. Another consideration with an intelligent number is whether to
use process location or physical location (or both) within the equipment
number. For example, should a number for a process line valve desig-
nate that it is in the XYZ process or that it is in the ABC building on
the first floor? This issue is whether one should use function or location
within the intelligent coding. Either arrangement might be satisfac-
tory. Additional codes can always be placed elsewhere in the work orders
or computer record to retain the information not given by the equipment
number. The coding structure in App. J and Fig. K.1 uses a process
function intelligence for the equipment numbers. A third choice is using
the specific equipment without regard to either its function or location.
For example, a motor might be numbered as MOT-53. Regardless of
where the plant utilizes or moves this motor, it will always retain its
same number. Moving a motor from one process or building in the pre-
vious arrangements would cause problems trying to keep perfect equip-
ment records. The problems would occur because the motor would
change equipment numbers to fit in a new process or location. On the
other hand, both maintenance work and plant operation are usually
focused around plant processes or systems. Therefore the most helpful
equipment numbering arrangements appear to be those utilizing
process, not location or type of equipment. This touches on the last issue
dealing with intelligent numbers. What then should be done to track
rotating spares or other equipment that moves from place to place? In
actual practice, many plants have few pieces of equipment that move from
place to place. Maintenance supervisors or planners can track the loca-
tion of rotating spares or particular motors by serial numbers or other
easily developed spreadsheets. The intelligence of the equipment number
is probably not the place to track migrating equipment.
Third, if schematics exist, they can greatly assist the plant develop an
equipment numbering system. If the schematics exist with a previously
developed numbering system on some systems, but not a plant-wide
numbering system, the previous numbers can be incorporated into the
new numbering system. For example, if there had been existing schemat-
ics with a previous numbering system with numbers such as CVS1,
CVS2, etc., then Fig. K.1 might have been given the number N02-FC-
CVS2. The plant uses the previous vendor number for the unique part
of the equipment number. If the plant is creating the schematics and the
equipment numbers at the same time, it is a good opportunity to utilize
both efforts together to develop a logical numbering arrangement.
Figures K.2 and K.3 show how a plant can use an existing schematic with
no existing number system to develop equipment numbers. The planner or
646
Figure K.2 Example of an equipment schematic for North Station Unit no. 2 Fuel Oil Service Pump System.
Figure K.3 Example of use of a schematic to give unique equipment designations for the last digits of equipment tag
numbers.
647
648 Appendix K
other person responsible for choosing the numbers simply goes around
the process flow diagram adding sequential unique numbers for the
end of the equipment code. Only the unique last numbers might be
shown for each equipment to avoid cluttering the drawing. The plant
would use the schematic with the balloon numbers to create a list of com-
plete equipment numbers with equipment names for the FC system. The
plant could send this list to someone who makes the tags. The tags
could be made all at once, then hung as maintenance is performed, or
a more extensive initial effort could be made to hang all the tags. The
problem with this latter approach is having to locate the equipment
when it is not already identified in the field for maintenance work with
a deficiency tag. The schematics with the balloons help finding the
equipment as well.
If the plant uses schematics, there should be a designated responsibil-
ity with resources to create and maintain them. This effort is normally
beyond the scope of the planners and possibly beyond the scope of the
planning department itself. The planning department could acquire an
engineer, designer, or drafter to lead the effort. This effort is most appro-
priately placed in either the plant or corporate engineering support groups.
Without any schematics, the planners might easily mount an effort
to hang tags that do not contain equipment names. The planners would
have perhaps 100 sequential tags made for each system, such as N02-
FC-001 through N02-FC-100. Then, as the planners scope work orders for
each system, they would take the next available tag for each system being
scoped and hang it on the equipment. For example, a planner is about to
scope a job within the Unit 2 fuel oil service system. The planner takes a
tag off the top of the N02-FC stack and hangs it on the equipment during
the initial visit to the equipment. An appropriate job for a college, tech-
nical major intern or summer student might be the hanging of all tags
within systems. Preferable, however, is the hanging of tags with numbers
and names by a first rate effort of the plant engineering staff.
Equipment Tag Creation and Placement

This section addresses two issues with the tags themselves. What should
the materials and other physical arrangements of the tags be and how
should they be placed on the equipment?
First of all, there are an extraordinary diversity of tag materials and
companies specializing in equipment tags. Each plant should evaluate
its own circumstances to select the tags that make sense. Many com-
panies purchase thousands of small metallic tags with sequential num-
bers for asset accounting by the financial department. These numbers
may be satisfactory for maintenance use as well but they lack the advan-
tages of an intelligent numbering system. Many plants have found
engraved plastic laminate tags to be satisfactory and this section gives
Equipment Schematics and Tagging 649
guidelines with their usage in mind. Many of these guidelines are gen-
eral in nature, applicable to other types of tags.
Typically, plastic tags use two-color, laminate material. The first color
is the top or overlay material and the second color is the underlying color
that will show through as the letters after the engraving. “Black and white”
designates a black tag that will have white letters. “White and black”
designates a white tag that will have black letters after the engraving.
1
/6-inch thickness is adequate for most applications. One should normally
specify standard stock materials. Special colors may dictate special
orders for office areas. Normal material is usually adequate, but there
is material that is ultraviolet safe and continual sunlight in the outdoors
might require this material. There is also sturdier material for higher
ambient temperature, but usually hanging tags by wire will keep a
normal tag safe enough.
A tag that is easy to see is desired. A plant person looks for the tag
rather than the letters. In a low light situation one might want to look
for a white tag that has black letters than try to find a black tag.
2 × 3-inch makes a good size tag for most applications. Most equip-
ment should have a tag that is readable at arm’s length. Letters should
be proportionally in height and width to the tag. This means that after
the equipment number, there might be only two lines for equipment
name on a 2 × 3-inch tag. The engraving machine might make only a
single pass with the engraver point. Letters cannot be made too bold or
they will run together and become illegible.
Certain tags such as for large tanks may have to be read far away.
Tags can be made in any size. For a 6 × 8-inch tag, the engraver point
would make several passes to create wide individual letters. In any
case, one wants the letters visible, but not running together.
Rounded corners are possible. These may be practical in a high traf-
fic area where a person’s clothing may catch on the tags. The engraver
company would take the extra step and individually stamp each corner
of each tag to provide rounded corners.
A local trophy shop should be able to make most plastic tags. Appendix C
gives suggested specifications and names one possible supplier. The cre-
ation of the tags requires someone competent to place complete thoughts
on each line. For example, below the tag number one would want this:
CONDENSER PRE-BOILER
CLEAN UP RUPTURE DISC
and not this:
CONDENSER PRE-BOILER CLEAN
UP RUPTURE DISC
What does “UP RUPTURE DISC” mean? In addition, the engraver may
have to make abbreviations such as shown in the sample tag for Fig. K.4
to avoid having letters too small.
650 Appendix K
Figure K.4Example of 2 3 3-inch equipment tag

for North Station Unit no. 2 Fuel Oil Service
Pump Control Valve Strainer B.
Second, several comments regarding the placement of the tags are

appropriate and, while obvious, should not go without mention. Tags
should be hung vertically, not face up. Even if the equipment is lower than
eye level, hanging the tag tilting upward only invites dust accumulation
and illegibility. For neatness, tags should be of a uniform size and color.
It also looks neat if they are facing in the same direction. On the other
hand, using wire to hang the tags allows reattachment by the technicians
after maintenance. This is better than the neatness of precise tags all
glued and facing in the same direction. Tags should also be consistently
placed if possible. For example, tags might be attached with silicone
caulk on tanks under nameplates or on the same sides. Obviously, tags
should be hung where visible, not obstructed by pipes or conduit. Tags
might be normally wired to valve handles. Wiring tags might use two tag
holes to allow facing the tag toward an aisle to make it readable with-
out handling. Appendix C identifies wire that has great ability to be
twisted repeatedly without becoming brittle and breaking.
Summary
In summary, the identification of equipment with unique numbers is of
vital importance to the planning operation. It is to be hoped that the
planners can make use of existing numbers to create unique equipment
files. If equipment numbers must be created, intelligent numbers should
be employed since they help facilitate the filing and other maintenance
operations. Several considerations must be made when establishing
intelligent numbers. The plant must also go beyond assigning equipment
numbers and actually attach tags with assigned numbers to the equip-
ment in the field. The tags themselves offer a variety of choices. Simple
plastic tags may be successfully used and customized. Tags allowing easy
reattachment by technicians are preferred.
Appendix
L
Computerized Maintenance
Management Systems
This appendix gives additional information on implementing and using

a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) to assist
planning, as referenced in Chap. 9. The main chapters did not include
this information to avoid detracting from the book’s main purpose of
explaining how to do planning. This appendix mentions some common
features and aspects a planner would like to have in a CMMS and then
discusses different types of CMMS software projects such installing a
new system or simply upgrading an existing system. While not provid-
ing a project management guidebook, the appendix also covers major
problems of software projects and how to try to avoid them. Furthermore,
take any discussion points below that seem derogatory toward the
Information Technology (IT) group primarily as a caution.
Planning Principles versus Using a CMMS

It is appropriate to begin this appendix by distinguishing plainly
between planning and using a CMMS. They are not the same. Planning
is a tool to increase productivity. A CMMS is a tool to apply information.
They are overlapping tools.
Examine the six planning principles of Chap. 2 against this informa-
tion tool. The CMMS does not dictate that planners should be separate
from crews. It does not dictate that planners should concentrate on
future work. The CMMS does require component-level equipment des-
ignations for recording information. The CMMS does not emphasize
the technical skill of the planner in setting scopes and estimates. The
CMMS also may not count on craft skills. The CMMS certainly cannot
measure wrench time as only statistical work sampling is adequate.
651

652 Appendix L
On the other hand, one intent of the CMMS is the same as the planning
system, to help reduce delays.
Examine the six scheduling principles of Chap. 3 against the CMMS.
The CMMS does not dictate that plans should be made for the lowest
possible skill level. The CMMS may presume that priorities and sched-
ules are important, but may not dictate that schedules should not be
interrupted nor enforce organizational discipline against setting false
priorities. The CMMS does become involved in forecasting availability
of personnel. The CMMS may allow sensitivity to examine scheduling
work hours for 80%, 100%, or 120% of a crew’s available hours. On the
other hand, the CMMS would not dictate the principle of 100% as a
weekly goal. Neither would it normally dictate the principle of working
persons below their skill levels to match job hours to crafts available.
Instead, the CMMS may blend the weekly and daily scheduling routines
into setting weekly schedules on a daily basis by the computer opera-
tor who may be a planner, scheduler, or crew supervisor. The CMMS may
help measure schedule compliance, but it could not on its own define
what activity would constitute compliance.
In addition, regarding reactive work explained in Chap. 4, the CMMS
may not differentiate planning’s different responses to different degrees
of job reactiveness. One sees the principles that embody a successful
planning program do not come from the CMMS. Largely, a CMMS is a
database manager where planning may seek information. The CMMS
contains information; it should not dictate planning strategy.
With this distinction made, the following section lists helpful computer
characteristics for maintenance, in particular, the planning group.
Helpful Features for Planning and Scheduling

The following features are more common for a CMMS to include
(whereas, Chap. 9 mentioned other more advanced features that a
CMMS might not commonly support). The following may be common-
sense, but having a list and discussing them to some degree is worth-
while. The list includes aspects such as system performance that readers
should never take for granted. The list also includes simple fields easy
to add to make the system more useful.
User friendly
If the CMMS is not helpful, it will not help maintenance. If it is not
useful, users will not use it. One would think that all CMMS software
is useful and helpful, but many systems are not. Many systems are
painful to use and cause resentment in maintenance toward manage-
ment that inflicted the system upon them to collect information. Many
times management is not even aware of the pain because the IT group
Computerized Maintenance Management Systems 653
managed the project. Rick Baldridge (2005) of Cargill advocates that a

CMMS “should be fast and painless.”
What are some aspects of so-called “user-friendliness?” Perhaps most
important to the maintenance person is using single screens mimicking
the printed work order form. Users should be able to fill in different
aspects of the work order form on the computer. However, the computer
can provide help such as drop down choices and tab orders that take
users to the next field they would normally use. If a single screen would
be too cluttered, the main screen might have limited tabs to bring up
new subscreens with additional information. Above all, the mainte-
nance persons should know where they are in the overall CMMS with-
out becoming confused as to which screen to choose to go where they
want. David Berger and Bruce Tognazzini have also each described
excellent points about user-friendliness.
David Berger (2003) who writes well-respected articles on CMMS
usage for Plant Services magazine pins down several points on soft-
ware being simple and easy to learn or use. As mentioned above, the soft-
ware should follow how the user would fill out a work order rather than
simply provide data fields. Bubble help would provide inexperienced
users information on fields. The software should group menus logically,
consistently, and with a minimum of nesting. Clear, action words help
(such as Chap. 5 recommends for job plans). The CMMS should allow
the company to configure the screen for how the company wants to use
it, not just how the CMMS vendor thinks it ought to be. Error messages
should be clear and suggest a solution. Finally, dangerous actions should
contain warnings along the lines of “Are you sure you want to do this?
All changes will be lost if you continue!”
In addition, Bruce “Tog” Tognazzini (2005) of the Nielsen Norman
Group (www.nngroup.com) writes web software articles including the
referenced article on First Principles of Design. This article wonder-
fully specifies terms of user-friendliness in IT language. He confirms
many of David Berger’s points. Among additional specifics he proposes
are the following. The system continuously saves the users work with
the “option for the user to undo any activity at any time.” Status mech-
anisms should keep the user informed (such as tiny schedule icons fill-
ing up with planned jobs). Use colors carefully and with other visual
clues as many persons have some color deficiency. Defaults should help
users not have to fill in every field, but the user should be able to use
something other than the default. The user should have well-marked
roads to follow with landmarks to do their job, but they ought to be able
to go off-road if they know what they are doing. “Use larger objects for
more important functions.” Make objects look like their function. For
example, many CMMS packages use an oilcan icon to direct users to pre-
ventive maintenance (PM). Users should never lose their work because
of something they did by accident. Use large-enough font sizes. Finally,
654 Appendix L
users should be able to take up where they stopped. This is similar to

adding a bookmark to a book. It should not be a chore to take up where
one leaves off. Tog also says that the only way to know what the users
expect is to do user testing. There is no substitute.
Be sensitive that some CMMS packages are not user friendly. Do not
accept programs that cause a hardship. Do not accept that IT under-
stands the maintenance need for ease of use.
Speed is everything
Along the lines of user-friendliness is speed. Speed is everything.
Consider the following:
You arrive home, flip the light switch and wait 30 seconds for the light to
come on (log onto the CMMS). You go to the living room, flip the light
switch, and wait 20 seconds for the light to come on (open work order
module). You flip the TV switch and wait 20 seconds for the TV to start
(submit query to find certain work orders). You push the channel button
and wait 5 seconds for each channel to change (view each work order).
After 45 seconds, you have been able to page through nine channels (work
orders). You ask the electric and cable TV companies to speed their serv-
ice (ask them to speed up the CMMS), but both ask you to present a “busi-
ness case” why you cannot wait a measly 20 seconds for any one task. You
change electric and cable TV providers (change CMMS vendors and out-
source IT to someone who cares).
Paper work orders never slow down the user. As soon as the user
writes down certain information, the user can proceed to the next blank
or give the completed work order to whoever needs it. A computer can
exasperate the user with endless processing delays. Many computers are
slow and frustrate users past the point of reasonableness. Maintenance
must demand a speed standard if the IT group will not recognize what
is reasonable. David Berger specifies that any function should have a
response time of 2 seconds or less. Tog Tognazzini further specifies that
the computer should acknowledge all commands within 50 milliseconds.
An hourglass should appear for anything taking longer than 1/2 seconds.
A message should estimate the time remaining for anything that takes
longer than 2 seconds. An animated progress indicator (such as a scroll
bar) should communicate how long the task might take. If anything
takes longer than 10 seconds, a beep or something should indicate
the finish. As a minimum, the computer should allow the user to do
something else while it finishes a long task. Tog says, “Make it faster...Be
ruthless.”
Anything in seconds sounds fast, but for a user making repeated key
strokes and operations on each work order, waiting for even a few sec-
onds every time is a productivity killer.
Reliability is second
Next is reliability. If a company commits itself to a CMMS, will the
CMMS crash unexpectedly, continually? Some vendors have offered
near-beta versions of their products in an attempt to stay ahead of the
market with “bleeding edge” technology. Because they have not thor-
oughly tested what real users might do, common mistakes of users lead
to server crashes and system freezes. Do not be quick to use a new
CMMS or CMMS major new release.
In addition, as mentioned in Chap. 9, if the system does crash, will
the crash corrupt data? Will the system lose collected information? Pay
attention to system parameters such as continual backup or duplication
of information.
Inventory help
Moving from overall characteristics of a good system to more specific
ideas, consider the inventory module. Many storerooms are not under the
control of maintenance and their portion of the CMMS usually offers lim-
ited rights to maintenance personnel. Nevertheless, some CMMS pack-
ages allow adding a single field in the inventory module to which any
planner or technician can add free text comments. For example, if the
standard inventory name of something were not very helpful, technicians
could add a comment that the item is “used on unit 3 boiler feed pump.”
More obvious and already discussed in Chap. 9 is automatically col-
lecting a record of everything ever used on a piece of equipment. The
CMMS might also print this list at the end of any printed work order
as a helpful reference for the technician. This is not a waste of paper.
Is this a modification? Rework? Call out?

Three helpful fields help assessment of the maintenance program. These
can each be a simple check off or yes/no field.
A field asking, “Is this a modification?” can tip off engineering to look
for design changes. It might also alter the planning process to seek
engineering approval on certain tasks. A modification is not replacing
a defective valve, repairing a leaking flange, or overhauling a pump. A
modification is changing the design basis of the plant such as adding a
new strainer in a piping system, changing a motor that increases the
horsepower, or changing a piping system from cast iron to stainless
steel. The originator can check the box, but planning can later verify the
choice. Technicians working on a job can also check the box and the
planner can finalize the choice during closeout of the work order.
A similar field asking, “Rework?” allows operators to voice their assess-
ment of a particular task. Perhaps the operators feel that the equipment
656 Appendix L
repaired only a week ago should not have a new problem so soon.
Perhaps the work completed by maintenance last time did not fix the
problem. The operators write a new work order and designate it as
rework. In addition, a single work order where maintenance incorrectly
repairs something might stay open until the problem is resolved.
Although rework is involved, there is never a subsequent work order.
In this case, the technicians, supervisor, or planner can check the rework
box. Anyone that feels a task involved any rework can check the box. An
issue arises that perhaps someone might “uncheck” the box for one of
two reasons. First, a person might disagree with the original assessment.
In this case, the rework choice generates healthy communication. The
plant might have a policy that once the box is checked, no one can
uncheck it. Alternately, the plant might have an audit field capability
that allows following changes to the field. It might be the plant’s choice
to let the planning department have rights to uncheck the box. Many
plants also favor allowing the operators to claim rework that stays with
the record even if the work later turns out not to be so. The plant wishes
to use the rework field to gauge the opinions of the operators. Allowing the
operators the final say on rework gives this customer of maintenance
the right to voices its opinion for the record. Second, the supervisor or
technician might fear penalties for having rework. In this case, Chap. 9
insists the plant should never use the results of the CMMS for discipline
or else data will never be entered accurately.
Finally, a field asking, “Call out?” allows the operator or technician
to record whether the work involved calling anyone out to the plant
outside of normal work hours. This is different from simply recording
overtime. Later reliability analysis might use the rate of call outs. If nei-
ther the operator nor technician checked this box when appropriate, the
planner might check it during project close out.
Deficiency tag
Chapter 8, Resources, and App. J, Work Order System, discuss the use-
fulness of a deficiency tag. The CMMS should allow the originator to
enter the deficiency tag number for cross-referencing.
Outage and clearance versus status

An outage is taking an entire unit such as a steam plant or entire assem-
bly line out of production for maintenance work. A clearance is making
a single piece of equipment available for maintenance that may not pre-
vent product production (due to redundancies or excess capacity built
into overall units). Work order status refers to whether the work is
approved, planned, or completed; not whether it takes an outage of a unit
or clearance of equipment to execute the work.
Work orders must identify work that maintenance can complete only
during outages as soon as possible and this identification must remain
visible on the computer regardless of the work order status. Identifying
outage requirement separately from status allows planners to see how
many work orders requiring an outage have not yet been planned or
schedulers to see how many work orders requiring an outage are ready
to work for the upcoming weekend outage. Some CMMS packages only
designate outage as a status such as “Waiting for Outage.” This keeps
management from reviewing outage work before the work is planned
and ready to work. Keep a separate field in the CMMS to denote whether
work is outage work. Similarly, use an extra field to denote whether work
needs equipment clearance from operations whenever it is worked. Both
outage and clearance need to be independent of work order status.
Priority
Appendix I on scheduling dynamics sets forth the extensive case that
originators set valid priorities that equipment criticality should not
easily over-write. Ensure originators have a field to select priority. Do
not let the CMMS dictate priorities solely based on equipment or exist-
ing job plans. A CMMS suggestion might be acceptable.
How found
Appendix J on work orders and codes suggests some helpful codes on
“how found.” Knowing whether an operator found the problem on a
round or a maintenance technician found the problem helps engineers
evaluate the reliability program of the plant. How are most problems
discovered? Is predictive maintenance (PdM) doing its job? Are main-
tenance PMs effective? Add a field with a drop-down list to capture this
origination information.
Attachment or link
If a CMMS allows attaching or linking electronic documents, their exis-
tence should be obvious to the person accessing the work order. A person
with a paper work order sees that a staple attaches an alignment check-
list. The person on the CMMS should also notice any attached forms.
This is a common failing of CMMS packages where the user must hunt
for suspected attachments.
Equipment module
For the equipment module, imagine a paper file and being able to see
all the drawings and original purchase information including warran-
tees. Planners and technicians should be easily able to access drawings
658 Appendix L
and schematics from the CMMS or at least see their numbers so they
can go fetch them from paper drawing systems. The CMMS should dis-
play model numbers, serial numbers, and other specification informa-
tion. CMMSs should have most of this information automatically print
at the end of printed work orders for reference.
Types of Projects
Software projects take several forms. CMMS vendors often release
patches to existing systems to help companies correct “bugs” found by
the user community. Less frequently, vendors release new versions of the
software requiring users to upgrade. These new versions often take
advantage of new technology and processes. Sometimes, plants change
their existing CMMS vendor altogether. Commonly, this is due to a
large company trying to standardize the different CMMS systems used
across various plants or units. Finally, there is the company without a
formal CMMS that underlies the supposed basis for this handbook,
doing planning and scheduling without a CMMS. This company seeks
its first system.
Patches
Vendors try to minimize the release of patches and honestly try to test
systems before release. Yet there is no substitute for actual user test-
ing. CMMS vendors test alpha versions of new software in-house and
usually partner with several companies to test beta versions.
Nevertheless, hundreds of final users across different platforms and
final configuration discover new problems. Some problems affect only
individual companies while others are obvious defects for every user. The
vendor attempts to help individual companies find easy work-a-rounds,
but sometimes must issue patches to the user community.
The receipt of a patch usually allows a company to evaluate whether
it wants to go ahead and install the patch. If the patch does not appear
to include any problems pertinent to the specific company or if the com-
pany IT group is too busy, the company might wait to install any indi-
vidual patch. However, at some point, a company usually installs several
patches through the IT group (presuming a normally networked CMMS
requiring IT involvement). The preferred method of patch installment
involves the IT group implementing the patch on a QA or test server and
allows the system administrators in the maintenance group to test the
overall functioning of the system before going into production.
Upgrades
Upgrades to new versions of the CMMS software are much more seri-
ous and risky. Standard industry wisdom is to wait for others to upgrade
first and obtain experience. Maintenance is about reliability, not about

being the first. One incentive to move to a new version is that the CMMS
vendor cannot “support” the old version forever. This means that while
the vendor will answer the help line and explain how the system works;
the vendor will soon stop developing patches to fix common bugs dis-
covered in the old software. Nevertheless, this is not enough incentive
to make a company move too rapidly to an unproven new technology
with more bugs.
Companies should approach major upgrades as formal projects heed-
ing the cautions identified in the remainder of this appendix.
Changing systems
Changing systems because of company mandates or simple exasperation
with an old system is not uncommon. However, beware that “the grass
is always greener on the other side of the fence.” You are aware of your
software problems and only see the salesperson promotion of the new soft-
ware, if you are not careful. Again, treat these as formal projects.
New systems
New systems often cause the least frustration for CMMS users. The
CMMS user does not have a baseline for judging what is worse about
the new system. The users often have a better idea of what they want
out of the system in terms of automating the paper process. Users con-
verting from other systems often lose this sense of automating the main-
tenance process and focus on the processing problems of the new system
versus the old system.
Nevertheless, these companies are most at risk for underestimating the
risk of software problems interrupting their processes. Any substantially-
sized company not installing a simple patch should approach a CMMS as
a formal project. Formal projects should implement the best CMMS pro-
grams where they leverage the proper balance of maintenance and IT
expertise.
Big Glitches in Real Systems

The following listed examples supplement the few presented in Chap. 9
to illustrate the seriousness of IT problems. All of these “glitches” are
true problems in actually released software in wide usage by major
CMMS vendors. While it might be mentioned that none of these prob-
lems would occur in a paper system, there is another more serious point
to make. Even when found, these problems were not easily resolved.
These problems do not go away soon after they are encountered and
reported. In addition, frequently fixing one problem introduces another
problem. Many major upgrades planned for 12 months continue past the
660 Appendix L
24-month mark still testing and fixing without going live. If projects go
live anyway with significant problems, they damage the CMMS and
IT’s credibility even they do not cripple planning.
■ You cannot order more of an item from the storeroom unless ordering
more than ordered the first time. In other words, if you ordered eight
widgets the first time, you must at least order nine this time.
■ The entire server crashes when selecting the “move equipment” com-
mand accessed through the work order module.
■ The entire server crashes if you try to create a new work order after
changing the status of several other work orders.
■ The server crashes at least once per day for no apparent reason.
■ Although technicians can enter their hours on timesheets, these hours
do not come back to the referenced work orders correctly.
■ You cannot print more than one work order at a time if any of them
has an attachment.
■ The PM “next due date” never updates in certain instances, which
effectively cancels the PM forever.
■ The new upgrade version is slower than the old version.
■ You can only see six steps of a 100-step job plan at a time and you have
no indication that any of the step fields have long descriptions. Some
might, some might not. You would not know unless you click on each
individually.
■ You can put as much information as you want into a long description
field without warning, but the final work order report will only print
out a limited amount.
■ Spell check locks up the computer.
■ You cannot restrict inventory searches to items where the balance is
greater than zero.
■ If an equipment number has more than 16 characters, you cannot drill
down to see or select any of its children.
■ If an equipment has more than 1000 children or grandchildren, you
cannot assign it to a new parent itself.
■ It takes 4 minutes to save a work order with any changes.
■ Error message simply says, “Boolean field is blank.”
■ Selecting the “cancel” button from a drop-down list locks up the com-
puter.
■ After selecting a piece of equipment from a hyperlink, it takes 20 seconds
to return it to the work order.
■ The upgrade conversion mapped all the jobs in the old CMMS with a
clearance requirement of “Yes” to the new CMMS with a clearance
requirement of “No.”
■ Occasionally, the order process will print out 10 pick tickets in the
storeroom for an item when only one was requested.
Death March Projects

Edward Yourdon (2004) wrote a wonderful book about large software
projects, Death March, Second Edition. This sounds extreme, discussing
a “death march” when a company is simply trying to use a computer to
facilitate maintenance. Is maintenance that complicated? Are comput-
ers that complicated? For whatever reason, this discussion is not
extreme because many software projects do go awry and recovery is not
so simple. As the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook
presents planning in Chaps. 2, 3, and 4, it is much easier to start out
with proper planning than to recover from a poor planning program.
Maintenance planning seems easy in theory, yet most planning organ-
izations are frustrated with planning. Using a CMMS presents the same
scenario. Seemingly simple computer software causes a lot of frustra-
tion in industry. A word to the wise beforehand is appropriate. Knowing
the extreme of what can go wrong is invaluable for anticipating possi-
ble problems. Being familiar with warning signs might allow problem
avoidance or timely recovery action. Therefore, it is entirely appropri-
ate to consider extreme “death march” software projects, what they are,
why they happen, and key points to survival. The following points all
come from Edward Yourdon (with page references). The selected points
are only the tip of the iceberg of primary interest to maintenance per-
sons. Yourdon’s book offers a much more detailed analysis of these
issues, especially from an IT standpoint.
What they are

Death march projects are defined by likelihood of failure in greater or
equal to 50% or by having one or more of the following (pp1-3):
■ 1 2
/ schedule needed
■ 1/2 staff needed
■ 1/2 budget needed
■ 2 times features as normally required
Death march projects are the norm, not the exception (pxvi).
662 Appendix L
Why they happen

The following points help explain why death march projects occur.
■ Naïve promises made by marketing, executives, or others (p6).
■ Claims such as “Unless it is available in the next six months. The com-
petition will grab the entire market” (pxvii).
■ Naive optimism of youth: “We can do it over the weekend” (p6).
■ Attempt to use “bleeding edge” technology (p6). Thought processes
such as “If the new technology does work, it will be worth it” (pxvii).
■ Management ignoring new situations until it is almost too late (p6).
■ “Methodology gives those with no ideas something to do.” Mason
Cooley, City Aphorisms, Eleventh Selection (p115). (This suggests a
company might implement a CMMS simply because it is supposed to
be a good idea.)
■ Death march projects magnify politics (p46).
■ One of the problems with a death march project is the owner is higher
in the organization than for a normal IT project and the project man-
ager does not have much contact (p45).
■ Upper management dictates tight deadlines and budgets on large
software projects because it is tired of numerous past software proj-
ects where IT made its own schedule and budget, then delivered noth-
ing, ever (p68).
■ Software project managers tend to underestimate the importance of
“soft” factors in a project such as morale and perceived quality (p152).
■ Persons joining and leaving the project team during the course of its
work have a huge impact on the project (p160).
■ Brooks’ Law: Adding more persons to a late software project just
makes it later. The addition of new persons requires extra time for
existing persons to train them (p159).
■ The persons who quit due to frustration in the middle of a software
project are frequently the most productive. The average productivity
of the group drops and frustration increases (p154).
■ Project dysfunctionality. Grading individual project members on indi-
vidual tasks during the project harms the overall project. Most com-
panies reward team members for individual accomplishments because
of a sense of unfairness to tie their rewards significantly to the proj-
ect success. While the schedule go-live date is easily measured, the suc-
cess in terms of quality such as user usefulness is not. In addition, both
overall schedule and quality are interdependent among project team
members. Management may feel that not rewarding individuals for
independent performance is unfair. Nonetheless, human nature makes

rewarding small tasks unwise. Punishing a person who is late on an
individual task even though the overall project succeeds, may seem like
a method to ensure team members finish individual tasks for the good
of the overall project. This is unsound theory. In reality, teams mem-
bers rewarded thusly make every effort to complete individual tasks
regardless of the overall project. In addition, sometimes the identifi-
cation of proper individual tasks is subject to uncertainty. If the organ-
ization rewards a team member for the completion of Task X and the
team member finds that Task X is unnecessary, the culture might
cause the team member to complete the task anyway. In addition, the
success of individual tasks does not ordain overall success because the
interfaces among the multitude of individual tasks are often as impor-
tant as the tasks themselves. Team members are smart enough to
choose their success above the project success. Projects fail if team
members know that project success does not reward them (p167).
■ Time slippage from key stakeholders not making timely decisions (p183).
■ No one will say the emperor is wearing no clothes (p178).
Key points to survival

Yourdon includes the following recommendations for surviving a death
march project.
■ Death march projects must have a sponsor that can stop the non-
sense (p51).
■ The difference between success and failure on a death march project
often lies in the project team’s ability to identify the critical features
of the system (pxviii).
■ Quality is also a project outcome and a team may have to decide what
“good-enough” software is (p76).
■ Do not design for anticipated future needs (p136).
■ Keep the owner happy (p45).
■ Realize that the IT managers are the problem, not the developers
(p33).
■ Do not put in a safety factor. Putting a safety factor in a project simply
delays the project as work expands to fill the available time,
“Parkinson’s Law” (p154).
■ The project manager must document and publish key decisions being
delayed and the slippage of the project schedule. As soon as the project
manager is ordered to stop publishing such information, the project
manager must at least identify each delay as a project risk (p183).
664 Appendix L
■ Be aware of the 90% done illusion. (It is not done until it is done)
(p189).
■ The project manager must insist on an absolute right to veto anyone
adding an unacceptable person to the project team (p91).
■ Do not allow transfers off the project until it is complete. End-time
problems need the experts on the team for proper resolution. End-time
problems may delay the project and make its end not so near (p159).
■ Realize the term “man-month” is a myth. Adding twice as many per-
sons to a project will not cut the time in half. Slight exchanges may
be linear; management insisting on a 10% decrease in schedule might
compensate with a 10% increase in staff. If more than 10%, square the
tradeoff: if management wants to cut the schedule in half, instead
quadruple the staff or quadruple the budget (p71-76).
■ Provide reasonable office conditions. Persons that are able to close
doors and avoid interruptions are over twice as productive (p107).
■ Avoid project dysfunctionality. Make the overall success of the proj-
ect the basis of individual evaluations as much as possible. Team
members are smart enough to choose their success above the project
success. Projects fail if team members know that project success does
not reward them (p167).
Planning a CMMS Project

This section creates a general “plan” for a CMMS project that could be
applicable to implementing a major upgrade for an existing CMMS or
changing over from another existing CMMS. The plan could also be
applicable installing a new CMMS from scratch, but with special mod-
ification to add a system selection phase. Chapter 9 addresses a typical
strategy for selecting a system. The plan below presumes the company
knows which CMMS it is going to use. This presumption addresses the
common plight of many companies already having CMMS systems but
facing major upgrades or being directed by a parent company to change
to another system for company-wide standardization. In the case of
multiplant efforts, the company would have a larger team involved with
the project, but apply the same concepts. In addition, anytime a CMMS
faces a major upgrade could be a time to consider other systems.
Therefore, just as the maintenance planner plans a work order for main-
tenance, this handbook plans a work order for a CMMS. This plan uses
the feedback loop concept to identify special areas of concern based on
previous industry experience with similar industry software projects.
This information should help a team on its current project. (The plan
does not consider minor patches. The discussion earlier in this appen-
dix primarily recommends testing for functionality.) Just as in a Chap. 5
job plan, this is not a complete project management guide and presumes
that the project team has some skill in managing projects.
Work Request for a CMMS

Senior management has agreed with maintenance to authorize a new
CMMS. Management expects a project team to identify the proposed
benefits and cost with a project plan.
Planning for a CMMS

The CMMS plan will cover the project team, a scope, a project plan, hard-
ware besides the software needed, a general procedure, and the esti-
mated cost.
Requirements must be established for the project. (This presumes a
need for the entire project can be established.) However, because main-
tenance is only now evolving as a science, the maintenance group and
higher management often find it difficult to express requirements in
terms useful to the IT group. Even worse is that IT persons have less
of an understanding of what maintenance is, but they think they do.
They say, “Maintenance means fixing things when they break.” If the
IT group does happen to realize it does not know the proper require-
ments and has trouble understanding the maintenance group’s inter-
pretation of what it needs, it often turns to consultants. While they
might understand modern maintenance, many consultants may not
understand the valid practices of the current maintenance group.
Instead, they might introduce too many alternate practices (“to bring the
maintenance group into the 21st Century”). Alternately, the consultants
or IT itself may simply deem that the proposed CMMS has all the “right”
practices. In either case, they are not automating the current mainte-
nance program.
This matter of the difficulty of translating maintenance requirements
leads to two remarkable project needs. These requirements involve the
selection of the project manager and the finalization of the project scope.
First, the manager of the project must come from the maintenance side
of the house. Maintenance professionals commonly acknowledge that
most IT-led CMMS projects are grossly inadequate. Day-in and day-
out, a maintenance professional as project manager can properly resolve
the seemingly minute details that are critical to software usefulness. The
IT group becomes overly concerned with schedule and budget at the end
(and frequently throughout) the project. The IT group does not under-
stand that if the CMMS is not useful to the users, it is useless. Only a
maintenance professional can make proper judgment calls along the
way to make the project successful.
666 Appendix L
Second, while most projects seek to eliminate scope creep and lock proj-
ect requirements, the difficulty of expressing maintenance requirements
together with the uncertainty of the capabilities of the new CMMS
makes it prudent to allow the project to clarify its requirements through-
out the project. This is a truly unique, but understandable condition.
Scope creep destroys many projects and companies frequently mandate
“design freezes” after the initial project charter or as soon as the proj-
ect runs into any kind of technical, schedule, or budget difficulty. “No
changes” IT project management declares. Yet, this undermines the
very reason for undertaking the project. The purpose of the project
according to IT is “to finish it.” Yet, the true purpose of the project is to
improve plant reliability through better maintenance. Only a mainte-
nance professional can make proper judgments to make this happen. The
project can freeze requirements at the functional level, but not at the
lower level that IT desires. For example, consider a project requirement
that maintenance be able to plan jobs and keep master plans for con-
tinual improvement. During development and testing, the maintenance
user leads find that a planner can only see six steps of a job plan at a
time and cannot easily scroll down the screen to see the rest of a job plan.
The IT group might claim that there was no requirement to see a cer-
tain amount of the job plan at a single time and resist any change. Yet,
only when planners review the trial job plans on the CMMS can they
even tell if the CMMS plan capability is practical. Certainly, IT persons
cannot tell what is practical from a planner viewpoint.
Some CMMS programs do not adequately meet many common mainte-
nance expectations and needs because the vendors are primarily software
companies at heart. They hire expert programmers to integrate many fast
changing technologies of computer hardware and software. On the other
hand, these companies see maintenance as much less sophisticated. They
may not even have a true maintenance professional on staff, feeling they
can interview potential clients for maintenance needs. Even if they do
have a maintenance professional on staff, the company may not let this
person make the critical decisions that would make the product most
useful. When they do let the maintenance professional participate, they
may bring various department heads together and vote. In a vote among
five computer group leaders and a single maintenance person, decisions
swing toward computer solutions over maintenance preferences.
General disrespect in the IT group for maintenance knowing what it
wants and the expectation that a large CMMS provider or consultant
does know leads toward the maintenance department not receiving a
good product.
Keep project requirements at the “performance specification” level
and insist on professional determination of what meets proper per-
formance. Support from the project sponsor may be necessary to stop
nonsense about specific requirements.
Staffing
Typically, a work order plan develops a scope before establishing the
labor requirements, but in this case, a project team will help develop the
scope and the rest of the plan.
Member: Project manager assigned from the maintenance work-

force, typically an engineer or other professional with
project management experience and familiarity with the
planning group.
Member: Planning supervisor.
Member: Plant system administrator.
Member: IT programmers and support persons involved with the
CMMS.
Resource: IT programmers and support persons involved with other
company software.
Resource: Maintenance manager.
Resource: Maintenance planners.
Resource: Consultants typically from the vendor CMMS or ones cer-
tified by the CMMS vendor. These persons will do the
more intricate configuration that requires more famil-
iarity with the system.
The time commitment for the project manager is near half time for
most of a year. The other members also will have a heavy time com-
mitment that will affect their other responsibilities.
Scope
The scope of the project identifies specific overall areas of benefit for the
CMMS and identifies the expected value. The project team should also
capture some of this information in a formal project charter recom-
mended in the special tools section of this project plan.
Areas of benefit. The scope of the project should identify the major ben-
efits expected from the project. Chapter 9 discusses the key benefits that
should help maintenance planning including standardizing work
processes, inventory control, information for metrics and reports, find-
ing work orders, linking information to equipment, having a common
database, helping with scheduling, and helping with PM generation.
(The reader should not include any of these areas that are not signifi-
cant drivers for the reader’s situation.) A project charter should capture
the scope as described below in the special tools section.
It would be helpful to include the word “additional” when discussing
features of the CMMS project. The existing maintenance process and
668 Appendix L
existing CMMS have certain features that genuinely help maintenance.

Users often take many of these features for granted. For example, the
overall speed of the existing CMMS may be adequate, but the project
team might not realize that the proposed newer system might be config-
ured to slow down some processes to an unsatisfactory speed. The old
system allowed scrolling through work order screens each in a fraction
of a second. The new system might take over 4 seconds for each record,
making it almost impractical to scan through a large amount of work. The
maintenance group never insisted on a “speed specification” because it did
not imagine that a new system would be worse in this critical regard.
Specifying that the new CMMS would provide the “additional” benefits
over the old system helps the maintenance group discuss details with the
IT group. It is not acceptable for the new CMMS to cripple existing sat-
isfactory capabilities. On the other hand, new systems might well com-
promise certain old features in some respects, but maintenance would be
overall better off going forward to the new system. (Careful CMMS selec-
tion up front can help reduce the likelihood of selecting altogether unsat-
isfactory systems.) A final note on specific features such as speed, system
stability, and user-friendliness: If any desired features are specific reasons
a plant is upgrading or changing a CMMS, the project should explicitly
list them among the overall benefits expected. The existing system might
simply be too slow. It might lose data consistently or be unavailable too
many times. It might simply require too much computer expertise to use.
The specified benefits of the project should certainly include these areas.
Value of benefits. COPQ stands for Cost of Poor Quality. Management

wants the CMMS project to deliver an overall benefit. This means there
exists a present opportunity to improve. The gap between the most
improvement possible and the current situation represents waste and
inefficiency known as “poor quality.” COPQ represents this poor quality,
usually in monetary terms. COPQ does not represent the benefit value
of the CMMS project, but the total wasted dollars in pertinent areas
that are not perfect.
The project team should determine COPQ for each area and the poten-
tial value for the CMMS to help. Benefits include effectiveness such as
plant availability and efficiency such as workforce productivity. Plant
availability usually carries far more value than productivity, though
each is significant and interdependent.
For example, a power station might have an 85% equivalent avail-
ability factor. The 15% wasted availability might be worth $4.5 million/
year to a 1000 MW power station in power transaction capability and
$270 million in capital construction cost for the 150 MW “lost” by the
low availability. The CMMS will not save all of this amount for the util-
ity, but it does establish a basis for how much waste is available for
improvement. The project team must decide how much of this COPQ the
CMMS might help. It might be reasonable to expect that a new CMMS
that improves plant areas with evident problems (listed as benefit areas
above) could expect to take credit for a certain percentage increase in
availability with a specific value.
The project team might decide how much process standardization
and better planning information would contribute to maintenance pro-
ductivity. For a 90-person workforce with average wages of $25/hour
and 35% wrench time, the COPQ is 90 × 25 × 2080 (hr/yr) × (100% −
35%)/35% = $8.7 million. Nothing will improve a workforce wrench time
from 35 to 100%, but it would be reasonable that having a good CMMS
over a poor CMMS or no CMMS might be responsible for 5% of an
improved wrench time for a company with a good planning program. The
planning program can be expected to help improve wrench time from 35
to 55%, but 5% of this could be due to other system factors including a
good CMMS. It would be reasonable to attribute 5% to the CMMS as
90 × 25 × 2080 (hr/yr) × 5%/35% = $668,000 per year.
If better inventory control is an expected benefit, the project team
might enlist the maintenance supervisors, purchasing agents, and store-
room personnel to consider the COPQ of the current process and how
much improvement the CMMS might yield.
Similarly, the project team should consider each area of expected ben-
efit to develop a COPQ and estimate how much the proposed CMMS
might help reduce COPQ. Reports, metrics, PM generation, and simi-
lar benefits might claim a portion of the overall availability COPQ.
Finding work orders, scheduling, and similar benefits might claim a por-
tion of the productivity COPQ.
Obviously, the potential value of a CMMS depends on the current
COPQ of a particular plant and how a CMMS might help specific areas.
Knowledge is power and the better a project team knows its individual
situation, the better it can estimate the impact of the CMMS. Following
a structured approach that breaks down each potential benefit into
COPQ’s can help sort through information and build a more credible
business case for the value of the CMMS.
Project plan
The project plan includes the schedule and communication elements of
the overall plan.
Schedule. Develop a high-level schedule for major parts of the project

such as develop scope, design, construct, test, train, go live, and follow-up.
Major software projects such as upgrades easily can be expected to
take 12 months if a team thoroughly participates in reviewing the new
670 Appendix L
CMMS and creating a helpful design document to guide configuration.

Testing and practice implementations on quality assuranace and test-
ing (QA) servers take time. Scheduling training before going live can also
take weeks or more.
Do not expect to consume testing or training time as contingency if
the project runs into trouble. Problems might have to extend testing time
to ensure product usefulness.
Communication. Plan a communication strategy for all stakeholders

including approval authorities, team members, resources, and inter-
ested parties including:
■ Have weekly meetings with team members.
■ Email reports to sponsor.
■ Plan updates for approval authorities and resources.
■ Plan information updates other stakeholders especially in their areas
of interest.
Parts
In a normal job plan, this section would list parts from the storeroom
or specially purchased from vendors. For the CMMS project, this sec-
tion mainly includes the software itself and computer hardware.
The software itself is only a portion of the CMMS cost. Typically,
CMMS vendors have standard prices for the system itself, but these
prices are also negotiable depending on the size of the company.
Especially negotiable are the licensing fees per user. Cost for vendor help
to install and configure the system is included in the labor or special tools
section. Plan for the longer-term vendor licenses and support of the
system where appropriate.
All computers in the work locations must be capable of handling the
new software. Depending on the maintenance plan, consider whether
all maintenance persons need computers. The planners need the fastest
computers possible.
Printers should also be considered. Each work area should have print-
ers fast enough to print numerous work orders and reports. In addition,
servers to handle modern CMMS software can be very expensive. Not
only does the company need a “production” server to handle the appli-
cation, the company should also consider having separate servers for
“development, “QA”, and “training.” Some companies use the QA server
for training to save expense, but this takes a little more coordination
when soon going live with a system. The testing environment needs to
become stable with limited changes so trainers can predictably set up
test work orders and other scenarios for students. During this time, the
system testers can use the development server, if needed, to check out
final adjustments by the programmers.
Special tools
In a normal job plan, this section would list special tools not normally
found in a technician toolbox. For the CMMS project, this section
includes consultants as a cost, special documents that will help the proj-
ect team manage certain items, test labs, and programmer facilities.
Consultants. Consultants help implement the software, especially con-

figuration where the in-house IT persons need special programming assis-
tance. On the other hand, it might be entirely practical for the in-house
IT persons to handle all of this for less complex commercial systems.
The CMMS vendors or other consultants certified by the CMMS vendor
can give price quotes for different arrangements of providing assistance.
Be aware that as in the case of a major pump overhaul, jobs sometimes
do not run smooth and additional work is required to maintain the equip-
ment properly. Do not expect that the CMMS project will run completely
smooth and the CMMS consultant would never need additional funding.
The team should plan for additional help for problems. Also, ensure any
arrangements include post-going-live support to resolve startup issues.
Although the testing group thoroughly reviews the system ahead of time,
there is no substitute for actual usage in finding problems and issues.
Documents. Several special documents will be special tools to help the

CMMS implementation team manage the project. These special tools
include a project charter, a design document, an issues log, a test script,
and a conversion script.
The project charter briefly describes the project as developed in the
scope of this plan. It should list primary reasons management author-
ized the project including the overall benefits expected with some spe-
cific measures of improvement expected. The charter should also
specifically mention what is included and what is excluded as brief lists
or statements. For example, “the project will include the software, hard-
ware, initial training, inputting equipment nameplate information,”
etc. “It will not include purchasing hand tools, evaluating the inventory
current stocking levels,” etc. The idea of included/excluded lists is to
help everyone focus and not get distracted. List obvious items the proj-
ect includes. List items that might not be obvious that the project
includes. List items that might not be obvious that the project does not
include. The charter should also list principal team members, sponsor,
approval authorities, and resources by name with their roles. The char-
ter should also show a general schedule for major parts of the project
such as develop scope, design, construct, test, train, go live, and follow-up.
672 Appendix L
This charter will provide an overall focus for the project team. Having
the overall benefits and schedule helps remind the team not only does it
have a schedule, but why. The schedule is not to implement just anything;
the schedule is to implement a desired product. The charter constitutes
an agreement among the team members and sponsor. The charter might
be two or three pages of text.
The design document is more of a living document to keep track of
important detail decisions. The document should cover each of the
CMMS modules or major areas listing particular important features in
each. It should list fields expected in each area. Developing the design
document requires the team have an in-depth knowledge of the new
CMMS capabilities, the existing CMMS (if any) capabilities, and the
existing maintenance process. The team develops the design document
through a series of meetings. The meetings should compare how the new
CMMS expects the maintenance process to work versus its existing
CMMS and maintenance process. Hopefully, the CMMS can accommo-
date the existing process wherever possible. If not, the team has to
make and document how the design will work.
The design document must include a section entitled “Operating
Definitions.” Operating definitions explicitly capture agreements where
terminology is critical, customization versus configuration for example.
Companies should resist customizing systems that affects the source
code and hinders later upgrades or service. On the other hand, virtu-
ally no CMMS can be used “out of the box.” (Think of eating pancake
mix “out of the box.”) The company must make some tailoring or con-
figuring to add fields or change screen layouts where necessary and
allowed by the software. Capture operating definition agreements in this
section as they come up during the process. Later, when the schedule is
tighter, the IT group has a tendency to declare any change is a cus-
tomization and not allowed.
The project team also employs an issues log. This is an action items
list for unresolved issues. During the design phase, the team might
not be able to come to an agreement about the use of specific job sta-
tuses. There may be more fundamental issues such as using the inven-
tory module of the CMMS versus interfacing with other company
software. Not every unresolved issue goes on the issues log. Early
during the design phase, the team might simply leave blanks for
space holders in the design document for areas needing information.
However, later as problems arise and potential disagreements need
resolution, the project must record these issues to keep track of them.
The primary use of the issues log is usually in conjunction with the
testing.
The test script allows a testing group to proceed through the CMMS
in a logical manner to check functionality and performance. The project
team needs to develop a list for each module of the CMMS. The test
script would be a list of items to check in each module. The following
list illustrates a good generic starting point for a work order module.
The checklist looks at the overall module and screens and then attempts
routine operations. Then the checklist attempt unusual operations.
Finally, the checklist notes overall speed and reliability.
Work order module test script
■ Check the overall screen for adequate layout and inclusion of all the
fields. (Specifically list certain fields if they are new fields or might
easily be overlooked.)
■ Check that all fields are sized correctly to display enough data with-
out scrolling.
■ Check that all fields can hold the proper amount of database charac-
ters even with scrolling.
■ Check that all fields have been mapped properly from the existing
CMMS such as physical location in the old CMMS populating the
physical location in the new CMMS.
■ Check that all fields have correct dropdown lists.
■ Check all field drill-downs work correctly.
■ Check all field hyperlinks work correctly.
■ Create a work order.
■ Check that proper field auto-populate.
■ Do required fields work?
■ Change status on the work order to allow planning.
■ Attach a job plan.
■ Attach documents.
■ Link documents.
■ Print the work order with and without attachments.
■ Put the work order in progress.
■ Charge time to the work order.
■ Charge parts to the work order.
■ Charge tools to the work order.
■ Add feedback comments to the work order.
■ Complete the work order.
■ Close the work order.
674 Appendix L
■ For any operation that involves interfaces to other company software,

check those functions in the other software as well.
■ Run and check reports for single and multiple work orders.
■ Approve multiple work orders.
■ Run queries to find work orders.
■ Create another work order using invalid accounts.
■ Attempt to add invalid data to fields.
■ Try to approve a work order with insufficient computer rights.
■ Try to remove a job plan.
■ Judge overall speed and performance
■ Judge overall system reliability.
The test script would have a separate column to enter whether each
item passed, partially passed, or failed. The script would also have a
column for comments. The script might also have another comments
column to include expectations. The team uses test scripts to allow the
programmers to correct problems. The issues log seems a bit redun-
dant to the test script, but using both can keep minor test script com-
ments off the issues log. In addition, some issues are too broad to fit on
the test script document. It is okay if an item is on both documents.
Note that just because something is not on the test script does not
mean the CMMS does not have to accommodate it. The test script is a
tool, not a specification. Even if the specification does not explicitly
exist, that does not mean the CMMS is adequate. In the world of main-
tenance, a job plan does not have to specify “good workmanship” for a
supervisor to reject a repair job because of “poor workmanship.” This is
why the project team should be as much as possible under the direction
of maintenance to ensure a satisfactory product.
On the other hand, the test script should be as helpful as possible. The
intent is to help find problems. Finally, for completeness, conversion
scripts should be mentioned. These scripts are simply the detailed process
steps that the programmers follow when making a cutover (practice or
final). Of interest to maintenance is that the scripts contain agreed data
mapping and configurations. For example, the old CMMS had an “extra”
field used for crew number. The new CMMS has a specific field for crew
number and the conversion should map all the data in the old extra field
over to the new specific field. The programming members of the team
maintain these scripts rather than the project manager.
Test labs. The project team should come together to test the new soft-
ware together in a common lab, if possible. In this manner, the testers
can consult each other and leverage their collective experience to make
testing more thorough and faster. The programmers and consultants
can also be on hand to assist the learning curve. The project might
arrange to have a number of computers available in a common room for
this purpose for an extended period. If the CMMS involves network
issues, the testing will eventually have to test out access and perform-
ance at remote sites.
Programmer facilities. As recommended by Yourdon above, having spe-

cial facilities for programmers where they can avoid needless interrup-
tions helps them become more productive.
Procedure
This section identifies and reviews critical project steps including system
selection, design, construction, testing, signoff, going live, and training.
Select. Chapter 9 generally covers system selection. If the plant has to

include this task, the project must include this in the project schedule
and charter. The team should still assemble and complete the job plan
to this point assessing benefits and value before selecting the system.
In addition, the following section on design should be started (espe-
cially tasks involved with selecting critical desired features) before start-
ing to select a system. Add at least 6 months to the project schedule for
selecting a potential system.
Seriously consider using the maintenance portion of an existing enter-
prise major software already used in the company for financials.
Although the system might not specialize in maintenance, the risk in
interfacing with systems is great enough to consider a decrease in sup-
posed CMMS expertise for an easier interface.
Design. The design phase of the project consists of defining the current
process, determining critical factors, defining exact solutions, and doc-
umenting agreements and clarifications.
The project team should first define the overall flow of the maintenance
process if there is not already an adequate flowchart. The process map
should be at an overall high level, such as in Chap. 5 Fig 5.1, and can be
refined for more detail if necessary. This map should encompass all of the
areas affected by the expected benefits identified in the project scope. In
other words, if inventory was an expected benefit, the map should include
the storeroom. Using more than a single map is acceptable.
Next, using this map, examine each step and list all the factors
required for that step. For example, for a process step for a technician
to receive a storeroom item, factors might include:
■ Job needs a part
■ Planning knows what part
676 Appendix L
■ Technician knows what part

■ Part is in stock
■ Storeroom is open
■ Storeroom person available
■ Storeroom person can find part
■ Storeroom safely stored part
■ Technician has authority to request part
■ Maintenance funds available to buy part
■ Work order is approved
The project team repeats this for every step to obtain a large list of
factors that affect maintenance around the areas where benefits are
expected. The team should also conduct focus groups among key stake-
holders including planners, accountants, technicians, and managers to
identify potential factors and their relative importance on the ultimate
expected benefits. The team then must review each of these factors to
determine which have a critical affect where the CMMS is involved. In
the above example, the team might decide that “planning knowing what
part” and “part is in stock” are critical to better performance for inven-
tory where the CMMS is involved.
The list of these critical items gathered from all the process steps are
known as “critical factors.” Critical factors determine the success of
projects. A project team cannot by decree “make inventory more effec-
tive.” However, a project team can decree solutions to underlying causes
of specific critical factors.
The team next takes this list of critical factors and analyzes them to
determine probable problems and probable underlying causes of each.
For example, the team through investigation and interviews deter-
mines that planners can generally find parts in the current CMMS, but
they are limited to searching by keywords and then can only attach a
single item to a work order at a time. The team specifies that the plan-
ners should be able to must be able to query inventories by key words,
manufacturer part numbers, and past equipment usage. In addition,
planners should be able to select multiple items in the inventory screens
and return them easily to a job plan. The team also investigates and
determines that purchasing is not very quick at replenishing exhausted
stores. The team decides that the CMMS should provide reports on
how many items are below reorder points and how many of these items
do not have purchase orders to replenish them.
In this manner, the team identifies critical factors, probable under-
lying causes of probable problems, and incorporates appropriate solu-
tions into the design document.
In addition, the project team should take a step back and ensure the
critical factors include items such as hardware and interfaces with other
company software such as timesheets, financials, and inventory.
Potential solutions to interfaces should use the vendor standard inter-
face packages whenever possible.
This is the preferred method for the project team: the team should
identify the critical 20% of the CMMS project that will lead to ultimate
project success for a CMMS to provide a benefit. The design document
should be a compilation of critical factors and selected design solutions.
This general list should be the starting point of preparing the detailed
design document for the proposed CMMS. This list should also be start-
ing point for selecting a new CMMS.
The project team should also change the design document with spe-
cific clarifications as the project progresses. The team must record items
in the design document as it encounters them and make them visible
so that everyone associated with the project can see the current best
description of project requirements. Items that cannot be easily resolved
should be listed in the issues log. The project manager needs to review
items on this list to ensure they are necessary clarifications and not
superfluous distractions. The project manager from the maintenance
side of the house must continually decide what constitutes “good enough”
software. The project team can never deliver “perfect software” by any
deadline.
Construct. The construction phase of the project consists of the proj-

ect team and consultants installing and configuring the agreed design
in a development environment. There is limited maintenance involve-
ment except to resolve issues that arise where the programmers feel
that the design might not be adequate for user satisfaction. At some
point, the programmers will want the users to test the product as
installed and configured and will move the development product into
the QA environment. Here the project team will run through the test
script.
Test. In the test phase, the project team begins using the test script to
evaluate the CMMS installation. The team runs through the test script
noting problems and may enter issues in the issues log. After going
through the QA system as much as possible, the programmers react to
issues and problems to correct the development environment and update
conversion scripts.
After the programmers feel they have successfully addressed all the
concerns and the testers have evaluated the changes, the programmers
perform a practice cutover (also known as a mock cutover) converting
678 Appendix L
the existing CMMS into the development environment. This conver-

sion must also address “in-flight” transactions. For example, if the new
CMMS uses new statuses, work orders coming over from the existing
CMMS must be converted. If the new CMMS uses a different process
for purchase order approval, the conversion must deal with purchase
requisitions awaiting approval in the existing system. If successful,
they convert the development environment into the QA environment for
testing. Again, the testers run through the scripts noting concerns and
issues. This iterations of testing, correcting, and testing may repeat
until the programmers can deliver a practiced cutover without significant
problems or concerns. It is not enough for programmers to declare “the
last cutover had problems, but at least we know what to do about it.”
There must be a near-perfect practice mock cutover.
As a special note, the team must test the function of the data backup or
security system that would safeguard data in the event of system problems.
Finally, in the case of a new CMMS, the team has an entirely dif-
ferent approach available. It does not have to count on a conversion
or practice cutover from an existing CMMS. The program has the
option of going live for the exclusive use of data input persons for
equipment data or PM’s. It can later allow planners to start making
job plans. It could even wait longer for originators to enter work
requests directly.
Signoff. The signoff moment occurs when maintenance formally accepts

the product from the IT group. However, even after a successful practice
cutover, the project team should be allowed to experiment and use the
QA system for a brief period, perhaps a week or so. In this period, the team
practices to ensure usefulness and begins to demonstrate the CMMS to
users such as technicians and managers. These persons should have had
some earlier involvement to validate requirements, but chiefly the proj-
ect team handled most issues up to this time. At this time, these users
may uncover fundamental problems that might cause another iteration
of programming and testing. The project team may call for another prac-
tice cutover if the team suspects the changes are severe enough to affect
system performance. The team might sign its acceptance of the project
anytime during this period. Nevertheless, this signoff does not author-
ize the IT group to abandon the project. The signoff essentially indicates
an agreement to go live.
Train. Training takes place before going live, but also continues into the
future. Training is a method of control for ensuring the users can use
the software well enough for the company to benefit. This idea of con-
trol permeates the entire project, not just this stage at the end. The proj-
ect team should think of training in this context. Plants train users for
a reason, to ensure correct results. There are other methods to ensure
correct results. Control means comparing and keeping an activity on

track to a desired standard. Control measures range from awareness to
full automation.
Awareness is the least effective and full automation is the most. For
example, consider charging work orders to a correct general ledger
account. As a minimum, the plant could send out emails to tell origi-
nators how the account system works and distribute charts of correct
accounts for different crews and activities. The plant could also have the
CMMS provide pop-up menus with helpful information.
More effective than awareness in terms of reducing errors for incor-
rect accounts would be training where persons receive specific instruc-
tion and practice selecting correct account codes. Beyond training would
be statistical process control (SPC) where some analyst reviews the
selection of proper accounts and reports problems to appropriate man-
agers. The manager would use this information to correct problems
with individuals or groups that do not select proper codes. The plant
could employ awareness, training, and SPC methods together to help
ensure proper account selection.
Nevertheless, there are more effective methods for ensuring proper
code selection. The first is simplification where the CMMS simply
removes the decision from work order originators and allows a small
group of specifically trained planners to make proper account selections
as part of their coding duties. This simplifies having to make hundreds
of users aware, trained, or controlled to select correct codes.
Error proofing is the next most effective of the control strategies. In
the case of the general account codes, a company might decide to use a
single general ledger account for all maintenance at a single plant so
that the CMMS does not even allow selection.
At the top of the control hierarchy is full automation where the
account code fills in automatically and no choice is necessary. Many
plants use a strategy for account codes where selection of the equipment
brings over a predefined account code making the account code specific
and useful, but also reducing errors from persons. In actual practice, the
planners can also change these codes as necessary.
Thus, training is merely one aspect of control. Throughout the proj-
ect, the project team should be implementing ways to control the final
use of the CMMS. The team might publish process maps for awareness.
They might hold classes for crews for training. The project team should
develop include fields and develop reports to allow SPC. Some CMMS
packages automatically generate graphs or other KPI’s. The project
team should develop appropriate indicators. From the first, when devel-
oping process maps, the project team should simplify processes to avoid
problem areas altogether. The team should also put hard barriers in
place to prevent errors. Finally, the CMMS is a perfect tool to automate
choices. Instead of allowing infinite paper entries, the CMMS can fill in
680 Appendix L
fields such as physical location and general ledger account simply upon
the selection of a piece of equipment.
The following is a sample of a control device. Making learning aids

such as laminated wallet cards can greatly increase awareness and help
users with a CMMS. Conduct training classes and hand out “How to
Cards.” The following is a sample of a “How to Card.”
How to order a storeroom part
1. After accessing the work order in the work order module, click on the
material order tab.
2. Enter the part # you need in the item field.
3. To find a part #, right click in the next empty item box and hyperlink
to Inventory. Search by key words and return to work order with
your selection.
4. Enter the number of items you need in the quantity requested field.
5. For each part, tab over to the allocate/pick column, click the dropdown
menu, and select PICK.
6. Repeat steps 2 to 5 for each different type of part needed.
7. Save the work order to activate the picks.
8. The pick ticket will print in the storeroom for you to pick up your part.
Cutover and going live. After initial training of the users, the project
team converts the old CMMS into the new CMMS. The project team
should all be available as much as possible to resolve sudden urgent
problems at this point.
For the next week or so, the project team must be available to address
issues and concerns as the maintenance workforce uses the new CMMS.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the project team including any con-
sultants or other key programmers should be available for near-instant
support.
Estimated job cost

A plan always ends with the estimated cost. For a normal work order, this
allows engineering to conduct reliability studies and replace equipment
that is too expensive to maintain. In the case of this CMMS plan, man-
agement needs a realistic idea of what the project will cost. CMMS proj-
ects can become very expensive. Management must balance this cost
against the calculated project value developed in the project scope.
Maintenance is expensive. Nevertheless, poor maintenance is more
expensive. An enlightened maintenance management can employ a

CMMS to great advantage. Nevertheless, all project team members, main-
tenance managers, IT managers, and above all, the project sponsor should
understand the concept of a sunk cost. It does not matter how much a
company has already spent on a project. If the project looks like it will not
turn out a helpful CMMS, it should abandon the project. If the software
ends up upon closer inspection looking like it will not deliver the bene-
fits expected, management should evaluate the revised expected benefits
against the revised remaining costs. This allows the project team or man-
agement to make a simple investment decision whether to continue the
project or not. A team should not complete a project simply because it
started it. The project effort to date might have become a learning expe-
rience and not completing the project makes the best financial sense.
Ongoing Support
The implementation of a CMMS does not end after a successful startup.
Ongoing license fees and patches involve the CMMS vendor throughout the
life of the software. In addition, user leads (usually the system adminis-
trators) at each plant should continually coordinate with each other to
share best practices and police consistency of coding practices. Many user
leads at different plants within a company meet regularly once each month.
These user leads also attend user group meeting conducted by the vendor
each year. Management should encourage user leads and IT programmers
to stay up-to-date with the software in terms of conferences and training
just as any industry professionals should stay up-to-date with their crafts.
Perspective
Finally, above all, keep your sense of perspective when working with the
IT group. Do not lose your sanity. The following contribution from Bob
Anderson, outage manager extraordinaire, kept our team from taking
it personal in our last CMMS upgrade.
Meeting to Review Screen Design

Attendees: Doc, Bob, (and Fred: He showed up very late and did not con-
tribute any to the meeting, although he did complain a lot about something.)
The meeting attendees agreed that the following information and
only this information will be included on the work order request:
■ Description (limited to 12 characters): This will avoid specifics and
allow the person who does this job to do anything they want.
■ Work Type: We added a work type to our current list with the desig-
nation of UW—Unnecessary Work.
682 Appendix L
■ Crew: This will automatically fill in with “NONE” and cannot be

changed. Nobody wants to be responsible anyways.
■ Deficiency Tag: Will have a drop down list with three choices: There
was a tag but I removed it. I wrote a tag, but don’t know where I
hung it. I pulled a tag from another location and used it for this job.
■ Equipment description: This way you might get some idea what might
need to be fixed. We don’t know how you will fill this in since it is a
“read only” field.
■ Target start: the computer will automatically fill this field with a ran-
domly generated date. The only condition we stipulated was that the
date could not be earlier than 3 months from the report date.
■ Reported by: We have to blame somebody so it might as well be you.
■ Action taken: We always know how to fix something even though we
don’t know what the problem is.
■ General ledger account: You cannot choose your own; otherwise, your
managers will have a heart attack because they are running out of
money.
■ Permit #: We added a drop down list: Hunting. Fishing. Burning.
■ Area and functional system have been combined into one field called
dysfunctional area. This will automatically be filled in with “every-
thing.”
■ Fields not included on the new screen that were on the old screen:
Equipment number was not included so there is no possible way to
identify the specific piece of equipment. The description was removed
because as I mentioned before, we don’t really need to know what
should be fixed. We just fix whatever we feel like. Status was not
included because nobody agrees with them. Problem was not included
because it is usually just a figment of someone’s imagination.
■ We added additional functionality to the screen: Upon saving the new
work order, a little trash can will display on the screen, the lid will
open, and your work request will be tossed into the can. No matter how
many mistakes you make, you will not get any error messages.
If you wish to add or remove something from these requirements,

leave us a message or send us an e-mail. Both of us have had extensive
training on how to use the delete key.
Appendix
M
Setting Up and Supporting
a Planning Group
This appendix covers how to go about establishing a planning group in

actual practice. It follows the mechanics of establishing the organiza-
tion with a minimum amount of philosophical discussion. The appen-
dix begins by making a straight run through starting planning in an
existing industrial plant that previously has not had planning. Following
sections explore more precisely the location of planning within the over-
all organization, the selection of persons to be planners, the physical
workspace layout for planners, and the management of the initial and
ongoing process. The appendix then adapts this basic approach for plants
that need to modify an existing planning operation and for plants that
are under construction or have nontraditional maintenance structures.
The appendix concludes by presenting an aids and barriers analysis for
each of the major areas of planning and key issues involving planning.
Setting Up a Planning Group in a Traditional

Maintenance Organization for the First Time
Consider a traditional maintenance organization in an industrial
wastewater plant. Figure M.1 shows the existing organization with sep-
arate crews for each main craft. Under the maintenance superintend-
ent, there are 23 maintenance technicians under the control of crew
supervisors. The maintenance manager believes planning is essential
to having high maintenance productivity on a routine basis. The main-
tenance manager decides to implement maintenance planning.
The manager first discusses the concept with the maintenance super-
intendent and reaches an understanding that planning is desired.
Together, they learn about the concepts of planning and gain the support
683

684 Appendix M
Figure M.1 A typical industrial maintenance organization contemplating planning.
of the plant manager. They decide to select a single mechanical planner

because the bulk of the maintenance work is mechanical.
The manager and superintendent have two or three meetings with the
crew supervisors to explain the vision of planning. They invite the oper-
ations manager and superintendents as well as the superintendent of
the pump stations to attend these meetings. They express the ability of
planning to use file information to help technicians move up the learn-
ing curve from past jobs. They express that planning gives supervisors
job time estimates and skill requirements to help them assign work
more intelligently. They express the management desire to measure
the success of the maintenance crews being able to schedule their time
on equipment rather than equipment failures directing the efforts of the
crews. They explain the high cost of delays in plants without planning,
and how planning reduces delays and improves time spent on the equip-
ment. They assure the supervisors that planning will not delay the start
of urgent, reactive work. They lead the discussion of starting planning
for the mechanical crew, the machine shop crew, and the painter and
helpers of the building and grounds crew. The electrical and instrument
supervisors also desire to have the planner process their work orders to
gain the benefit of file information. These two supervisors want to try
the overall scheduling concept and agree to help the planner set time
estimates on the plans. The superintendent of the remote pump stations
plans to discuss including that area and whether an additional planner
would be needed at a later date.
The maintenance manager and superintendent then help each super-
visor explain the changes to their crews along with the importance of
Setting Up and Supporting a Planning Group 685
giving adequate feedback on jobs to help future work. They explain that
the planner is committed to being their personal file clerk as well as
helping their supervisor establish estimated times and skill levels. They
insist that quality remains more important than meeting any time esti-
mate the planner may assign. The planner is merely giving the crew a
head start, and the recognition of the skill of the crew is vital to the suc-
cess of the planning operation. How could the crews or the supervisors
complain about management wanting a system that should help reduce
delays so that technicians can spend 55% of their day on their jobs?
The maintenance manager and superintendent then advertise among
the existing technicians for the new planner. They had been able to
arrange with Human Resources to place the position at the supervisor
pay level and they had only to interview for the position. They had sev-
eral candidates who were good technicians in their own right and had
good communication skills. Some were surprised to hear about the
amount of filing that a planner would do. Two candidates not only under-
stood the filing requirements, but endorsed the idea for the right rea-
sons. Both had the respect of their peer craftpersons and would have
made good planners. The manager and superintendent selected one of
these persons to become the next planner based largely on their per-
ception that this person was the better “self-starter” of the two.
The maintenance manager and maintenance superintendent per-
sonally spend time with the new planner planning a number of work
orders in the backlog. These initial work orders are not difficult to plan
because there is no file history to research. The technicians will be doing
most of the materials information hunting from scratch. On the other
hand, the planner must create a new component level file for each job.
One of the superintendent’s primary concerns is that the planner plans
the preventive maintenance (PM) work orders that the clerk issues.
The maintenance clerk will continue to enter work orders into the com-
puterized maintenance management system (CMMS). One of the plant
engineers will continue to direct the implementation of the CMMS under
the guidance of the maintenance manager and maintenance superin-
tendent. The superintendent helps the planner set up a new office or
cubicle and obtain files and other office supplies. The superintendent’s
foresight has already established a suitable, convenient filing area.
Fortunately, an equipment numbering system already exists at the
plant with every piece of equipment bearing a six-digit, sequentially
numbered tag. Otherwise, a major task of the maintenance manager and
maintenance superintendent would have been to work with the plant
engineering group to develop a numbering system and place tags on all
the equipment.
The maintenance manager and maintenance superintendent also
agree on indicators of the program’s success. The maintenance manager
wants to see an indication of the percentage of crew work spent on
686 Appendix M
planned jobs. The plant manager and maintenance manager have been
tracking work orders completed per month and expect this number to
rise. They do not necessarily expect the backlog to drop because they are
emphasizing the writing of more proactive work orders from the PM pro-
gram which keys on inspections. The managers expect the extra work
orders completed to consist of more proactive work and activities to
head off failures. The manager also wants to see a schedule success
score.
One month after selecting the planner, the manager and superin-
tendent agree to start the scheduling effort on a specific Thursday
2 weeks from the present date by which the planner should have the
entire backlog planned. The group reviews the scheduling process. The
planner will obtain a weekly schedule forecast of work hours from each
crew supervisor on Thursday morning. The maintenance superintend-
ent working with the operations superintendent will give the planner
an overall idea of any urgent plant needs that may not be addressed by
the work order codes. Then the planner will allocate work for each crew
from the entire plant backlog. The crews will use this work as their
backlog from which to select work during the week unless other urgent
work arises. As always, the crew supervisor assigns and directs all daily
work.
Before the first schedule Thursday arrives, the maintenance manager
checks with the planner regarding planning the entire backlog and
reminds the supervisors that the planner will be requesting their fore-
casts soon. On the morning of the first schedule Thursday, the manager
keeps tabs on the forecasts and schedule process. The manager leaves
the success of the planning operation more and more up to the mainte-
nance superintendent as time passes.
Organization and interfaces

Without formal ties, planning interfaces with nearly every other plant
department. The planner resolves work scope questions with opera-
tions, engineering, technicians, supervisors, superintendents, and man-
agers. The plant may also have the planners work with a corporate
project group.
Figure M.2 shows that the example organization placed the planner
parallel to the first line supervisors. This plant kept the planner in the
union, but made the pay grade and reporting line equal to the first line
supervisors. This is the minimum acceptable organization position. The
goal should be a choice of promoting a technician to a first line compa-
rable position or promoting a supervisor to a level equal to or slightly less
than the superintendent. The planner must deal with supervisors on a
peer level or from a higher planner position. Planning brings a structure
to the maintenance department that active management support must
Plant manager
Opns manager Maint manager
Plant engrs Maint supt Supt pump stations
Planning (operate and maint)

Maint clerk
1 Planner
East West
Mech Electrical
grounds shop shop 1 Supv 1 Supv
1 Supv 1 Supv 1 Supv 1 Supv 1 Supv 3 Techs 3 Techs
1 Painter 5 Mech 1 Mach 3 Elec 4 Techs
1 Janitor 3 Mech 1 Helper
1 Landscaper
3 Helpers
Figure M.2 The minimum placement of the planning group within the mainte-
nance hierarchy.
maintain. The first step in holding this structure together is to make

planning a highly sought after position. Planning does not receive the
“buy in” and loses value when planners are lower than crew supervisors.
Management cannot straddle the fence and plan to promote technicians
serving as planners after planning proves itself. Without the support,
planning will not succeed.
Depending on the size of the maintenance staff, the planning group may
have an organization of its own. Two or three planners may work with a
clerk for the superintendent. Beginning with the third planner, man-
agement may designate one of the planners to be a lead planner. More
planners may encourage management to have a planning supervisor. If
there is a planning supervisor, the plant may have a problem making the
planners equal to the crew supervisors. The planning supervisor must be
high enough in the organization to avoid this problem. The plant may
make the planning supervisor equal to the superintendent for this large
a maintenance organization. The planners must be kept together in a
group and not separated to report to each crew supervisor. Besides the
abandonment of planning duties this encourages, separating the planners
leads to inconsistent planning. It is acceptable and even desirable to
assign planners specific crews to plan for, but they must report to the plan-
ning organization. It is acceptable and even desirable that planners attend
crew meetings, but they must have cubicles or offices so as to work out of
the planning office. Other assignments make sense when having multi-
ple planners. A specific planner may work on long-term outage plans. A
specific planner may interface with the corporate project group.
688 Appendix M
Maintenance must not overextend the responsibilities of the plan-

ners. A well-defined experienced planner may be able to plan for 30
technicians, but management is wise to limit a new or struggling plan-
ner group to have closer to 20 technicians for each planner. In many
cases, 15 technicians is the desirable number of technicians per plan-
ner depending on the amount of plant bureaucracy and purchasing the
planner encounters. For example, does the planner have to fight the
bureaucracy to buy parts? Will the planners have to attend technician
training classes? The ability of a maintenance clerk to assist the plan-
ner dealing with the logistics of handling work orders also makes a dif-
ference. If there is a considerable amount of equipment tagging or
CMMS development requiring planner input, management should keep
the ratio of technicians to planners low. Having at least two planners
in the above example organization would greatly help the plant during
vacation periods and with sick days. Because the potential number of
technicians to benefit from planning is almost 30 with the pump stations
included, the ratio would be close to 15 technicians to each planner.
Because management understands the magnitude of the savings from
a single planner, a second planner may be a possibility.
Finally, what type of hours should the planners work? The answer to
this question implies an adequate understanding of the planners’ mis-
sion to focus on future work. The planners do not have to work the same
hours as the crews for which they plan. As long as some overlap exists
in the work hours among crews and planners, planners may work hours
convenient to themselves. The most preferred shifts would have the
planners present for some time each weekday to handle new work
orders, but the specific hours are not that important.
It may sound quite easy to establish the planning department.
However, be aware of the tendency for too many plants to give it much
less attention than it deserves. An engineer responsible for leading the
planning effort may feel that the program is not technical enough to give
it the development it deserves. The plant manager may feel the plan-
ning effort is too low in the organization to give it personal attention.
The subtleties of the planning system require resolution of all the issues
identified by the planning and scheduling principles to implement an
effective program. The maintenance manager may lack the knowledge,
skills, or willingness to introduce such a program to alter the current
modes of responsibility and control. These reasons have left planning
as an undeveloped opportunity of tremendous importance.
Planners
Having the right person as planner is the single most critical factor
governing the success of the planning program. Almost the entirety of
Chap. 11, Control, points to the selection and development of the planner
as the primary control of the planning program. Management must pay

careful attention to all of the issues surrounding the planner position
including selection, wages, training, and evaluation of the person’s per-
formance. The planner is not the technician who did not work out and
so is shifted to a less important job. The planner is the person having a
direct bearing on nearly every job that maintenance executes. Each
experienced planner should increase the effectiveness of 30 persons to
the level of 47. The planner must possess people skills as well as tech-
nical craft knowledge and skill in handling files and data. At the same
time, the planner must continually deal with a myriad of different equip-
ment situations in rapid succession. The planner is a major component
of the organization.
Selecting. Planners must be skilled in dealing with people, machines,

and data. They must be highly motivated and self-starters. They must
have a solid understanding and belief in the purpose of planning and
why and how planning helps.
Planners should have good machine skills. Planners should have a
good understanding of the plant systems and equipment. Planners must
have a background of technician level, practical experience. They should
have a thorough knowledge and appreciation of safety rules. Planners
must be able to assess equipment problems correctly and develop appro-
priate solutions quickly. Planners must be able to anticipate job prob-
lems and delays and plan appropriate measures to avoid them. They
must be able to determine appropriate skill levels of crafts to assign.
Planners must be able to estimate reasonable time requirements for the
execution of job plans. Planners must be top craftpersons to command
the respect of technicians who receive their plans.
Planners should also have good analytical skills in handling data and
information. They must be able to read schematics, drawings, and man-
uals. They should be able to operate computers. Planners must be able
to file information and retrieve information from files to improve job
plans. Planners must be able to put together the elements of planned
work including work scopes, materials, tools, time and craft estimates,
and other requirements together into a coherent job plan. Planners must
be able to put together work orders into proper schedule allocations.
Planners should easily be able to handle the math involved in adding
estimates and ordering materials.
Planners should also have good communication and people skills.
Planners help coordinate work involving more than one craft. They
should be able to order materials and supplies. Planners should be able
to communicate and maintain extremely effective working relationships
with all levels of plant personnel. Planners should be humble while
maintaining a strong self-esteem. Planners need to accept being in a file
clerk role if they are being paid enough.
690 Appendix M
Planners should be able to lead and follow at the same time. Planners
should be self-motivated. They should have a low tolerance for the
status quo and bureaucracy. The planners must be able to question
supervisor authority. The planners should not be afraid of authority, and
not be prone to shirking responsibility. The planners must be able to
follow their supervisor’s directions, but not let other supervisors frus-
trate their efforts. The planners must follow the planning mission and
be able to lead the other personnel out of the traditions of the past.
Planners should be diplomatic, hard workers, who do not care about
what other persons think about them departing from tradition.
After hearing this personality requirement, one superintendent
remarked that he had an idea who might make a great planner. It was
the person who had tested the superintendent’s new shoes with a
hammer to determine if they had steel toes!
Appendix N gives an example of a formal job description. However,
the industry wisdom is to handpick the proper person from the workforce
who would make a good planner and then arrange the job to make that
person want it. Many times the existing persons who meet these crite-
ria are in line for promotion to supervisor or are already supervisors.
Frequently, a company’s existing supervisor promotion criteria help
determine the proper person. The company could add “planning and
scheduling duties as assigned” to the existing supervisor job specifica-
tion and promote the right person to be a planner. The company could
also reassign a good supervisor to become the planner. Using a super-
visor also allows rotation if needed to obtain the best planner. One
cannot rotate technicians in and out the planner position because the
position must be above the technician level. One should also be wary of
using a supervisor that has “retired” into the supervisor position. One
should also avoid allowing the planner selection to be made solely by sen-
iority among technicians desiring the position. More than a single com-
pany has selected planners from among technicians by seniority and
then later abandoned planning. Do pick someone that wants the job, but
do not pick someone just because that someone wants the job.
Managers should take their time and select the right persons as plan-
ners. They should not quickly select a planner and then expect to
manage the wrong person into the right planning behavior. The major-
ity of the managing with respect to planning is to select the right person.
When interviewing persons that have been planners before in other
companies, ask if they feel technicians could somehow get more work
done. Determine if they know the purpose of planning is to improve
productivity. If they do know that, it would be an advantage. If they do
not, that is okay because they will soon.
Wages. Making the pay grade if not the position equivalent to the first
line supervisor is only part of the equation. What if different first line
supervisors make different wages? If so, pay the planner at least at the
level of the lowest first line supervisor, but definitely ahead of the high-
est field technician. A mechanical planner should make above the high-
est paid instrument technician, for example. If the planner position
remains in the union, it should also definitely be a stepping stone to a
supervisor’s position.
The market issue also comes into play. The planner is valuable to
other companies as well. If one had 20 electricians, one could risk losing
one or two before realizing that the market commands a higher pay
rate for the most capable technicians. Reacting in time to prevent the
loss of the only electrical planner one has would not have the benefit of
such advance warning.
Consider also that if the plant moves technicians straight to planner
positions, those persons will start drawing less wages. This is because
in many plants, technicians do make a significant amount of overtime
money each year. The planner position makes it difficult to allow the
planner to work most overtime jobs. Much overtime comes from work-
ing jobs that run over and cannot be stopped simply because the shift
ends. Keeping the same technicians on the job for overtime allows the
job to continue without interruption. The planners do not work jobs and
so are not considered for this work. Overnight emergencies are also not
practical for planners to work as technicians or supervisors because the
plant cannot afford planners to miss the following day of planning future
work for entire crews. Making a technician into a planner without any
wage adjustment would punish the one person management felt was
qualified enough for the job and who wanted to do it. In actual experi-
ence, this situation does not attract the top technicians who do not mind
getting dirty in the field. The situation practically shuns the very per-
sons desired. The top technicians who volunteer for overtime and do not
mind getting dirty and working long hours to make additional money
for their families will not apply. The persons who have a healthy self-
esteem and do not care too much for authority do not need an office job
that pays less. These are the persons who frequently work through
break to finish a job. Conversely, the situation attracts the less compe-
tent technicians who want a clean job at a desk. The situation attracts
persons who are willing to make less money to do less.
The plant must make the planner wages sufficient enough to attract
and retain the right personnel who can properly execute the planner’s
duties. Because a planner is worth 17 persons, the company has the
funds to make the planner pay adequate. Management also wants to
send the signal that it values the importance of planning. This gives the
planners the respect and support to make things happen.
Training. Two issues arise with respect to the training of maintenance

planners; namely, learning planning techniques and retaining craft skills.
692 Appendix M
Retaining craft skills is usually not a problem. The planner’s close

involvement with the jobs keeps the knowledge and usually the actual
skills fresh enough. This is the similar case for the crew supervisor. On
the other hand, the planning techniques are all new and must be
acquired.
The selection of the right persons as planners makes these persons
capable of acquiring the planning skills. The first task at hand is to
share the vision of planning with these persons and then help them pick
up the necessary techniques of planning. Several companies offer excel-
lent classes to acquaint new planners with the purpose and techniques
of planning that can be directly applied at home. Caution must be exer-
cised because many training companies also have differing visions and
related techniques about what planning should be. Management should
determine if the course objectives match close enough with the vision
adopted by management. The management or other specific person
driving the adoption of planning may be the best source to instill the
vision of planning to the planners. This person may be the best person
to attend different outside training classes and bring home the neces-
sary “profound” knowledge. The best training on techniques comes
from OJT or on the job training. An existing planning operation can
easily train a new planner, but a new planning organization does not
have the luxury of letting a new planner tag along with an experienced
planner. Again, the person driving planning must spend time coaching
and advising a new planner doing actual planning and scheduling
work. For example, the coach may help the planner gather the appro-
priate unplanned jobs to begin a field inspection tour. The coach may
advise that the planner is taking too much time to add unnecessary job
details to a particular plan. The coach may help the planner gain con-
fidence in being able to assign a time estimate to a job. The coach may
help the planner realize that a short 1- or 2-hour job need not take into
account time for breaks, but a longer job should. The coach may remind
the planner to make new files or remember to check existing file infor-
mation. The coach can later look in on or check back with the planner
to see how it is going. This one-on-one interaction in actual planning
situations has been proven to be among the most effective for training.
This is an appropriate investment of time for a manager, superintend-
ent, or other person. Proper control of planning comes from selection
and training of planners, not continual meetings, not direct supervision,
not rules, and not indicators.
Evaluating. On an overall basis, management evaluates the perform-

ance of the planning and scheduling operation with the amount of
increased productivity it perceives, possibly with a wrench time meas-
ure. On an individual basis, management may wish to evaluate indi-
vidual planners.
A person must show evidence of certain traits to qualify as a living

human being. Among other things, a person must breathe and eat at var-
ious times. Similarly, a planner simply must perform certain actions to
qualify as a planner. This is not an attempt to second guess the extreme
care with which management selected the persons with the right poten-
tial. These traits are not the subjective criteria that went into selecting
the planner. These traits are the simple, objective actions of planning.
Principal among these are the following. A planner must be able to code
new work orders accurately. A planner must create a component level
file for nearly every new job where a file does not yet exist. A planner
must use the equipment number to create the file. A planner must place
planned jobs in the correct waiting-to-be-scheduled files or properly
change the CMMS status depending on the degree of plant computeri-
zation. A planner involved in purchasing must place the associated work
orders and documents in the correct files and change any computer as
appropriate. A planner must understand to plan jobs for the lowest
craftperson classification that could execute the work without regard for
who the planner thinks the supervisor probably will assign. A planner
must understand to plan for a good technician without any unantici-
pated delays. A planner must make a copy when necessary and not send
the only copy of an equipment manual out into the field. A planner must
file job feedback. A planner must check file history for all but the most
obvious reactive, minimum maintenance tasks. A planner involved in
scheduling must gather work hour forecasts from each crew supervisor.
A planner involved in scheduling must be able to create the weekly allo-
cation. A planner involved in scheduling must be able to calculate the
schedule compliance measure.
These evaluation criteria demonstrate that after the planners were
selected, the situation became “are they planning or not” rather than one
of “how well are they planning.” Management should avoid the problem
of the “crack battalion” when evaluating individual planners. The prob-
lem of the crack battalion is this. On regular maintenance crews, there
are always one or two vastly superior maintenance technicians. These
technicians normally always receive the higher evaluations and raises.
In military terms, these persons might be the best shooters or “crack
shots.” If management decided to create a crack battalion, it might take
all of the top technicians to make a super crew for extremely difficult
work. The military might take all the best shooters and make a sharp
shooter division. The evaluation problem occurs when suddenly the tech-
nicians who always received above-satisfactory marks are now entirely
among their peers of ability and skill. Should management rate them rel-
atively as average or from below to above satisfactory? Management
should be willing to rate everyone in the crack battalion above satisfac-
tory that does not evince an absolute dereliction of duty. That is the
purpose of the above planner actions being offered for evaluation.
694 Appendix M
Management should ensure that the right persons are in planning and
continue to reward them for being this type of person. The manage-
ment does better by evaluating planners on a supervisor basis than a
technician basis if any subjectivity is to be included. A person is a plan-
ner or is not a planner. If a person is not a capable planner, management
must see if another position is more suitable for this person and bring
in another planner.
Workspace layout
The maintenance manager or superintendent should personally see to
helping the new planner establish an office or cubicle. The issues involved
with this topic include the size and location of the planner office, the
arrangement of the files, and miscellaneous office equipment and supplies.
The issue of office size is one of the few areas where the planners might
not rank as high in privilege as the crew supervisors. Crew supervisors
frequently need private offices to hear private personnel issues with mem-
bers of their crews. There are no hard and fast rules on specific size or
dimensions, but the planners should not have large offices. Small offices
or cubicles encourage the planners not to keep files within their offices. A
cubicle arrangement frequently gives the planners sufficient privacy, but
brings them close to shared files. The primary advantage of the cubicles
is that they may be kept small enough to discourage keeping equipment
files. On the other hand, management may decide that in order to demon-
strate its support of planning, the planner should have an actual office.
Files must be kept out and accessible to technicians working jobs in
progress or to other planners who would otherwise interrupt the plan-
ner continuously. Chapter 8 discusses the various types of files and
resources the planners utilize. Open files whose folders can be seen at a
glance are preferred to encourage persons to use file history information.
This also helps planners and clerks file information. Appendix C identi-
fies the style of file folders preferred to use with open files. Shelves set
up along walls near the planners’ cubicles are satisfactory. One of the best
arrangements the author has observed has been the use of rolling files
where several planner cubicles occupied one side of a large room and the
rolling files occupied the other side. File security was a concern addressed
earlier in this book and might be best handled by having the files where
persons would at least have to walk past the planner, maintenance clerk,
or maintenance superintendent. A sign mandating that “files are not to
be taken from the room, but left on the table for the planners to return
to the shelves” is helpful. A table near the files helps encourage persons
to use materials there rather than take original materials from the area.
A copier should be close at hand for similar reasons.
There should be a small desk or table near the files set up as a File
Creation Station with all the files necessary to create component level files.
The location of the planning operation including the equipment files

should be close to the work. It is to be hoped that this is also close to the
other crew supervisor offices. The intent is to have the files accessible
to technicians so they can research jobs in progress as needed. File secu-
rity may dictate a specific office location, perhaps in a main maintenance
building with the superintendent.
The planners require standard office equipment such as a copier, fax
machine, and personal computer with email and Internet access. The copier
should preferably have two-sided copying and 11 × 17-inch capabilities.
Its speed should be at least 20 copies per minute. Within each planner’s
cubicle besides a desk, the planner should have a file cabinet and book
shelf. A telephone with two extensions and voice mail on the primary line
is helpful. Beyond identifying the preferred type of file folders and tag
material, App. C contains suggestions for miscellaneous office supplies
such as a desktop calculator. The maintenance superintendent or man-
ager should take care to outfit the planning office as a first class opera-
tion with a comfortable chair, desk, and other furniture and supplies.
The planner is an important member to welcome aboard the team!
Management and control

After the selection of planners and the assurance that everyone under-
stands the vision and basic process, management’s role reverts to more
of an insistence on overall performance from maintenance. Specifically,
management should expect that the maintenance crews spend an increas-
ing amount of work hours on planned work. There should also be an
increase in the number of work orders completed as well as the amount
of hours spent on proactive work. Management should expect the report-
ing of schedule compliance. Management might want to measure wrench
time if it does not have a feel that there is less standing around or other
delay time. Management has a right to expect improvement in plant
availability or reliability as the maintenance force completes more work.
On a longer-term basis, as with most programs after successful imple-
mentation, someone must sponsor planning and remember why it is suc-
cessful. This continued attention ensures the creation of a culture that will
reinforce the program. It also hinders gradual changes that unwittingly
undermine the success of maintenance planning. For example, will some-
one remember why the planners are organized apart from the crews in
5 years and not try to place a planner on each crew? Will someone remem-
ber why planners do not place too much detail into job plans and not task
planners with a new requirement to add more detail? Management has
five basic jobs: to plan, organize, staff, direct, and control. Management
planned to improve productivity and organized a planning department.
Management staffed it well. Management directed the initial imple-
mentation, and not only productivity improved, but reliability improved
696 Appendix M
as well. Management must remember why planning works to control the

future success of the maintenance planning program. Appendix P offers
helpful probing questions for management.
Redirecting or Fine-Tuning an Existing

Planning Group
Think of an existing plant with a maintenance planning operation that
is not contributing to the effectiveness of maintenance. From the start,
technicians are promised that they should never have to look for parts.
The planners have never been able to fulfill this promise, and this is part
of the reason for an atmosphere of distrust. Not helping this situation is
the presence of at least one planner that no one ever respected as a com-
petent craftperson. None of the planners consult past jobs when planning
new ones. The old jobs are copied onto microfilm and conveniently stored
away by work order number by the document control group. The planners
could access the work orders, but see no need even if they have the time
to request the records. There is not much time anyway because of the time
it takes to thoroughly write out a decent job plan. The planners profess
to research history if they know maintenance has performed a lot of work
on the equipment. Each planner plans differently. One planner says that
there is no need to write even known inventory item numbers on the
work order because “any technicians worth their salt can find the num-
bers themselves.” There is a lack of clarity in the planner purpose. No one
understands the concept of improving the amount of time technicians
spend on the equipment. There is a mass of guidelines and rules written
over the past years to cover isolated incidents and situations. Equipment
tagging is a concern. Tagging should have proceeded on higher mainte-
nance items first. There is no scheduling other than a daily schedule pre-
pared by each supervisor. Management has taken a wait-and-see attitude
to decide if planning is really necessary before supporting it. None of the
managers wants to risk supporting a losing cause.
Finally, one manager directly supervises a difficult pump refurbish-
ment and insists that the technicians record the information developed
on the job, such as the exact clearances and steps involved in the rebuild.
Some months later the manager encounters another crew in the middle
of an almost identical job. It comes as a surprise that the crew has none
of the information from the previous job. After reviewing the situation,
the manager discovers that the old information had never even made it
back to the files where the planner could have found it. In fact, this kind
of thing appeared to be pretty much of a normal mode of operation. The
manager undertakes to learn what planning should be about and then
wishes they could start over again without preconceived ideas. The man-
ager resolves that planning must improve, but discovers a widespread
emotional attachment to the existing system. The persons involved
appear to be capable of executing the planning system needed, but

actively resist change. The planners have long fought the maintenance
crews to defend their concept of planning. Asking them to change now
involves losing face by everyone involved.
As one can see, it is very difficult to back up and start anew with main-
tenance planning. It is much easier to implement a new planning oper-
ation than to revise an existing one in many cases. Incorrect concepts
about planning can greatly hinder the acceptance of the correct concepts.
Unlearning improper planning is difficult.
To redirect a planning operation with significant problems requires
that managers work closely with supervisors to ensure adherence to a
planning mission statement and set of principles. Managers themselves
must follow up specific problems in areas of concern. For example, list-
ing parts on a planned package is a carrot to make persons want planned
jobs. However, the initial implementation of planning may have involved
telling the troops that they would never have to hunt for parts again.
Management must now explain to everyone that this is not a valid con-
cept, but rather that planners should promise to be faithful file clerks
to help retrieve any parts that are discovered on past jobs. Management
must obtain commitments that the plant wants 55% wrench time and
that the planning and scheduling tool is essential to take the plant
there. Management must obtain commitments that the plant wants
weekly scheduling and that it wants certain indicators to drive it, such
as schedule compliance and planned coverage. Management must
ensure there are qualified personnel in planning and give them the nec-
essary support. Management must insist on creating files and utilizing
them for every job. The plant culture largely derives from the first line
supervisors. Management must take extraordinary measures to enlist
their commitment to make the changes to make planning work.
On the other hand, many maintenance planning functions are not
achieving success due to only a few misunderstandings of critical points.
One or more of the planning and scheduling principles may address
these areas entirely. Perhaps the organization is planning without
scheduling. Perhaps planners place too much detail into the plans and
cannot plan all the work. Perhaps the filing system is not component spe-
cific. Perhaps the planners are not kept separate and are taken for extra
help on crews. It is hoped that the principles expressed in this book have
focused on specific issues that the maintenance practitioner can grasp
and apply to fine-tune a maintenance planning operation.
Considerations
There are other considerations with regard to establishing a planning
operation. The thrust of this book so far has been implementing a plan-
ning function in an existing plant with a traditional maintenance group
698 Appendix M
organized along craft lines. Mention should be made of newer plants,

even plants under construction. Mention should also be made of less tra-
ditional organizations such as those with area responsibilities or self-
directed work teams.
Older facilities versus newer facilities

Newer facilities have several advantages favoring the implementation
of maintenance planning. For one thing, there is less momentum in the
current culture to oppose major changes to the work process. For another
thing, maintenance manuals from the construction of the plants are
more available for collection into a proper file system. In addition, the
plant may not yet have begun to experience the occurrence of many
reactive events. A maintenance group has now a better opportunity to
establish a first class PM program to keep the plant from such deterio-
ration. The plant can establish a culture of proactive maintenance with-
out having to turn around a reactive maintenance mentality. All of these
factors work toward the success of a maintenance planning group. On
the other hand, one of the few disadvantages of a newer plant is that
an unseasoned management staff may make unwise decisions regard-
ing maintenance staffing. It may not see the need to maintain an ade-
quate maintenance staff or to implement a process as planning to
maintain a high productivity.
In a newer plant, the planning staff should be quick to establish a
proper work process including planning and scheduling. It should
include a comprehensive PM program. The staff should be alert to the
need to collect manuals. In addition, because the plant is new, there
should be more opportunities for the planners to propose projects both
large and small as design problems become evident. In an older plant,
projects come about more from replacing worn out equipment with
equipment based on newer technology.
Facilities under construction

Plants so new as to be still under construction should establish a plan-
ning organization without waiting for first operation. Planners should
be involved in establishing equipment numbers, tagging equipment,
and collecting manuals and design documents for files.
Centralized versus area maintenance

considerations
In large, spread out facilities, companies might have centralized or area
maintenance functions. Centralized groups would dispatch technicians
from a central location. Perhaps a school board would have a central yard
and dispatch maintenance personnel to various schools. An area
arrangement might have each school with a small maintenance staff of

its own. The advantage of the centralized staff is the ease of imple-
menting a planning system and controlling productivity. The advan-
tage of the area arrangement is that it fosters ownership and quicker
reaction time to urgencies. Some companies have a combined system of
a small resident staff at various locations even if not outlying and a
larger centralized maintenance staff.
The planning operation would certainly function for the centralized
staff. It is usually not a problem for planners to be wide ranging in their
travel to scope and plan jobs. Depending on the size of the area groups,
planning may or may not be appropriate, especially if the areas have
only a single person or two. Many more persons allow the planners to
organize covering several close areas with a single planner even if the
technician-to-planner ratio is low. Remember that a theoretical break-even
point exists so that out of every three technicians, one could be made a
planner. Ratios of six technicians to one planner might be appropriate to
justify adding a planning and scheduling boost to productivity. Without
much question, large area groups would merit planning. The planners
may be geographically spread out, but would still maintain a separate
function accountable only to the overall superintendent or manager.
Another variation of area teams would be the plant that has divided
its craft among the various crews. There might be a single crew complete
with mechanics, electricians, and instrument personnel to handle all
boiler work. There might be another crew complete with all three crafts
to handle all river water work. There would be other crews for various
process areas of the plant. This type of organization does not much affect
the planning organization. An electrical planner would probably still
plan all the electrical work for all the crews. The mechanical planners
would each have various crews for which to plan the mechanical work.
Traditional versus self-directed work teams

Self-directed work teams are a special case. The organization of these
teams and their responsibilities vary widely from company to company.
The individual plant must decide whether there is an opportunity for
planning assistance. In their truest sense, some of these groups both
operate and maintain their equipment. It would be difficult to schedule
work for any crew that both operates and maintains its equipment. For
one thing, it is difficult to establish a meaningful forecast for work hours
available to maintain apart from operate. The self-directed team not only
operates and maintains, but by definition does not utilize much outside
support. The sense of ownership and pride drives such a team to keep
its equipment available and efficient. In such organizations management
may wish to offer the services of a planner to help the team keep useful
records for future reference on tasks. The diplomatic planner could
700 Appendix M
explain the repetitious nature of equipment maintenance and the advan-

tages of using work orders. The team may develop a member with an
interest in filing. The planner can also suggest work order selection for
repair periods.
On the other hand, many organizations with such teams do have a
separate maintenance organization that does much of the maintenance
work after all. The teams actually function more as operators with a
highly developed sense of preventive maintenance. The teams perform
many of the minor maintenance operations and adjustments to keep the
machines operating well. The teams write work orders to the main main-
tenance group to handle repairs or other procedures. In these cases, plan-
ning can proceed as traditionally envisioned. The planners develop work
scopes, estimates, and other job requirements to allow improvement on
past jobs and scheduling of current work by the main maintenance group.
Aids and Barriers Overview

This section of this appendix, Setting up a Planning Group, identifies
and analyzes aids and barriers for the planning and scheduling program.
As shown in Fig. M.3, the overall planning and scheduling program can
be divided into five broad areas with major objectives. These areas are
organizing a planning group or system in the first place, then planning
enough work for a crew for a week, then scheduling the right amount of
work for a crew for a week, then executing that scheduled work and
giving feedback, and finally keeping the program ongoing and successful.
Major areas of planning management
Organize
Establish a
planning group
Plan Schedule Execute

Plan enough Schedule enough Execute scheduled
jobs for 1 week jobs for 1 week jobs & give feedback
Ongoing
Keep P&S ongoing
Figure M.3 The overall areas to analyze.

The successful management of the planning and scheduling program

meets each of these objectives in turn.
This appendix section first considers the major objectives of the over-
all program and develops an aids and barriers analysis for each. Then
the section selects key aids and barriers from among these analyses and
defines them as separate objectives for which to analyze, deriving both
aids and barriers for achieving those objectives. Finally, the section con-
siders and analyzes aids and barriers for several special circumstances
for planning and scheduling.
Aids are resources and include what is needed or what might help the
particular objective being considered. Many of the aids should exist as
mandatory prerequisites before this objective can be met. An example is
the requirement that planners should have an adequate filing or records
system before they begin planning jobs. Another example is that plan-
ners need a backlog of planned jobs before they can work toward the
objective of establishing a weekly schedule. On the other hand, many aids
are not necessarily mandatory, but simply helpful. This includes the aid
of having helpful forms to assist the scheduling process. While not essen-
tial, this item is listed as an aid because it might help.
Barriers are constraints or impediments; things that might hinder
the objective being considered. A barrier critical to the objective to keep
planning and scheduling ongoing is not scheduling. A barrier that would
certainly hinder, but not destroy, the ongoing success of planning and
scheduling would be getting inadequate feedback on executed work. An
overwhelmingly large portion of the success of planning and scheduling
comes from the scheduling process and its effect on maintenance pro-
ductivity. On the other hand, the scheduling process can take place with-
out the individual improvements feedback can make to individual jobs.
Why should a program consider aids and barriers? Recognition of
these areas can lead the supporters of the program to take action. Such
action can ensure the success of planning and scheduling. This action
may be to establish or reinforce aids or to head off or overcome barri-
ers. Recognition of potential aids and barriers are crucial to taking
action steps to deal with them. Planning and scheduling problems may
be caused by aids that do not exist or are inadequately in place. Other
problems may be caused by barriers that do exist or may come into exis-
tence. In each analysis, certain aids and barriers may not be a problem
in the reader’s particular plant. For example, supervisor support, crit-
ical to several objectives, may already be in place. However, early recog-
nition of the problems that do exist can lead to the establishment of plans
and action items to overcome them. The readers should consider which
of these may be issues in their facility and establish action items and
plans for them where possible.
The appendix uses the format illustrated by Fig. M.4 to perform the
aids and barriers analyses. The rectangle in the middle identifies the
702 Appendix M
Aids
Objective
Barriers
Figure M.4 The basic aids and barriers analysis

map.
specific objective to be met in the specific analysis. The analysis attaches

aids to either side of vertical line ascending from the top of the rectangle.
The analysis attaches barriers to either side of vertical line descending
from the bottom of the rectangle. The analysis is essentially a discus-
sion session to identify likely aids and barriers. For each analysis the
figure contains only key words or phrases for each potential aid or bar-
rier while the text following the figure not only expounds on certain aids
and barriers, but also identifies where the issues are discussed through-
out the handbook.
A number of observations should be mentioned about the identification
of aids and barriers in these analyses. These include using this analysis
method versus root cause mapping, duplicating some aids and barriers
for different objectives, stating the negative of an aid as a barrier, listing
the same item as an aid as well as a barrier, listing questionable aids and
barriers, and finally, the brainstorming nature of the analyses.
Ultimately, every aid could be traced back and laid at the feet of man-
agement understanding and support and every barrier could be blamed
on the lack of the same. However, this appendix conducts an aids and
barriers analysis and not a cause map or similar technique asking
“why?” five times for each issue. This appendix does not attempt to
trace each aid and barrier back to its systemic root, but simply lists and
briefly explains (where warranted) significant areas for the key driver
of the planning program to be aware.
Considering duplication, sometimes, a particular aid or barrier might
be important to consider for different objectives. The person trying to
assist the planning and scheduling program must address each objec-
tive within the overall program separately. Therefore, for the most part, the
analysis for each objective lists the aids and barriers for that objective
regardless of other objectives.
In most cases, an area of concern could be stated positively for the aid
(or barrier) and negatively for the barrier (or aid). For instance, man-
agement support might be listed as an aid while the lack of management
support might be listed as a barrier. Rather than do this for most items,
the aids and barriers analysis for a single objective usually lists the con-
cern only in the area it is most likely to be addressed. The most critical
items are more often listed twice. Sometimes the same item might be
listed as both and aid and a barrier to the same objective such as having
a CMMS to the objective of planning jobs. In many of these cases where
different aspects of the same item could be considered as a potential aid
or barrier, a question mark (?) follows the item in both sections. The text
section addresses the finer details and distinctions of meaning. Other
items might be followed with a question mark (?) such as labor agree-
ments listed as a possible hindrance to selecting a planner. This does not
mean that it is always a hindrance, but could be a hindrance for some
plants in some instances. The idea of listing the item is not to identify
it as a hindrance, but to identify it as a potential hindrance. Indeed, a
labor agreement might be an aid to the effective communication neces-
sary for a management to show its support of planning. The thought
behind listing labor agreements as a barrier is the typical potential to
slow the process of creating a planning position. By anticipating this bar-
rier, the supporter of planning can address this concern in a timely
manner to the satisfaction of all parties.
Some items such as the aid hide like an elephant and the barrier lack
of support up and down for the objective selecting the right planner
reflect the real world nature of the development of most of these analy-
ses. They were derived in brainstorming and discussion workshops con-
ducted by the author around the world and are many times presented
as they were received, especially when they reflect the sentiment
intended.
Major Areas of Planning Management

The five aids and barriers analyses in this section address the man-
agement of the planning and scheduling program. Management is trying
to establish and maintain a successful ongoing program.
Organize—establish a planning group

The principal objective of this area is beginning a new planning program.
Aids or barriers meriting their own analysis later as issues with sub-
ordinate aids and barriers include management support, having the
right planner, and planner training as shown in Fig. M.5.
Aids
Which plant. Company-wide efforts must decide where to start. Planning
requires a dedicated person at the plant site (App. A) to make it happen as well
as management commitment at the top. Which plants have a person that is
“bought in” to planning? Also, companies may consider a limited area to prove
704 Appendix M
Resources: What is needed or might help.

Which plant
Mgt support
Key drivers
Knowledge P&S
Knowledge of own plant & preferences
Mgt communication
Which crafts
Budget
Placement in organization
Creation of planner positions & planner selection
Creation of other positions
Before and after metrics
CMMS?
Organize
Establish a
planning group
Constraints and impediments:
WIIFM unclear
Lack of mgt support
What might hinder.
Lack of supvr support

Lack of others’ support
Poor culture - not ready for this
Change, inertia
Budget
Unclear planning vision
Wrench time study?
CMMS?
Figure M.5 Aids and barriers for organizing the whole
program.
the concept. On the other hand, a greater number of plants could help each other
as they learn and improve. In any case, this is a decision that must be made.
Management appreciation of WIIFM and support of planning (Chap 1, Chap 4, Chap 12,
App. A, App. P). Planning cannot exist without the active support of manage-
ment. This handbook exists for the management as much as for the planning
department. What should management expect from planning if they support it?
Chapter 12 covers WIIFM, What's in it for me.
Driver or key supporters (App. A, App. F). Should a project manager be respon-
sible for implementing a planning organization? The person responsible must
believe in the concepts of planning, be intimately involved with maintenance,
and have the authority from management to complement the responsibility.
Knowledge of planning and scheduling (Handbook). Training
Knowledge of own plant and preferences. The planning program may approach
resolving the issues presented by the principles differently based on personal-
ities or particular characteristics of the plant. For instance, some supervisors
may be more adaptable to change and should be the focus of early efforts to gain
support. Or budgeting may be more critical in some plants than others.
Communication (Chap. 1, App. A). With and among management, supervisors,
all personnel.
Supervisor support (Chap. 1, Chap. 3, Chap. 4, Chap. 12, App. A). Other than
budgeting and position allocation, management support is primarily needed in
order to garner supervisor support and willingness to follow a planning and
scheduling system.
Which crafts. Mechanical crafts lend themselves most to maintenance plan-
ning, but planning can boost other crafts as well. The plant may wish to pro-
ceed with mechanical crafts first.
Budget. Not only personnel (technician promotion to planner), but also facili-
ties such as file system and office equipment. A CMMS, if employed, might be
overwhelming. The IT support personnel aspect of a CMMS may require future
budgeting.
Placement of planning within the organization. (Chap. 1-Principle 1, App. M).
Creation of planner position(s) and planner selection (Chap. 11, App. M). The
“wrong” planners simply cannot be left alone, “worked with”, governed by rules,
or measured with indicators enough to “make them make planning work.” The
art of planning demands a qualified planner. The supporter of planning must
have the right planners in place to achieve successful planning and scheduling.
Creation of other positions? (Chap. 5, App. F, App. M). Clerk? Purchaser? Parts
expediter? Designated operations coordinator or contacts?
Performance indicators. A “before” snapshot –. Wrench time study? (Chap. 2-
Principle 6, Chap. 11, App. A, App. G, App. H). The plant needs indicators to
manage change. A wrench time study is very intrusive, but may illustrate the
low productivity of the current workforce.
CMMS? (Chap. 9, App. L)
Barriers
WIIFM. What in it for me? Unclear (Chap. 12).
Lack of management support (Chap. 1).
Lack of supervisor support. The supervisors have a lot of concerns and not much
readily apparent benefit to embrace planning.
Lack of others’ support (Chap. 12). If the supervisors do not support planning,
the technicians probably will not either.
Poor culture – not ready for this (App. A, App. M). The supervisors are the keep-
ers of the culture of the plant and their attitude is driven by their relationship
with plant management
Change, Inertia. (App. M).
Budget. (Chap. 1).
Unclear vision. (Chap. 1).
706 Appendix M
Wrench time study? (Chap. 2-Principle 6). Wrench time will improve after the
plant begins weekly scheduling. The productivity will be evident by an increased
number of work orders competed each month. The plant may not want to embark
on a formal wrench time study which some technicians may resent.
CMMS lack of IT support (Chap. 9, App. L). Once planning has committed to a
CMMS, IT support is critical. Reductions in IT maintaining the CMMS itself will
greatly hamper planning.
CMMS – limitations (Chap. 9, App. L). Many CMMS systems simply cannot repro-
duce the easy steps of manually planning jobs. For instance, whereas before the
planner attached documents with a stapler, the new system may have a less than
clear method of linking files and only for electronic documents.
Plan—plan enough jobs for one week

The principal objective of this area is to plan enough work for crews to
be able to work planned jobs and to enable the schedule program in the
next objective. Aids or barriers meriting their own analysis later as
issues with subordinate aids and barriers include management sup-
port, equipment tags, files, purchasing, work order system, CMMS,
urgent breakdowns, and technician interruptions as shown in Fig. M.6.
Aids
Management support of planning and appreciation of WIIFM (Chap. 1, Chap. 4, Chap. 12,
App. A, App. P).
Work order system (Chap. 5, App. J). Obviously a prerequisite for having a plan-
ning system.
Backlog of prioritized work orders (Chap. 5). The planners do not generally write
work orders, but take previous written work orders to plan in order of plant pri-
ority (but also considering reactiveness).
Priority system (Chap. 5, App. I, App. J). Appendix I considers “gaming the pri-
ority system.”
Enough planners (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 1, Chap. 5). The typical planner
to technician ratio is 1:20-30.
Equipment tags hung on equipment (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 3). An almost
mandatory prerequisite.
File system. Records, past work orders, files with equipment history (Chap. 2-Planning
Principle 3, Chap. 5, Chap. 8). A mandatory prerequisite.
CMMS (Chap. 9, App. L). A CMMS might greatly assist planners store and
retrieve information for job plans.
Planner with craft experience (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 4, App. M). Plant
knowledge, craft skills, communication skills, data skills. Knowledge of super-
visor preferences.
Knowledge of skills of craft-persons (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 5). Planners
plan for skilled craft-persons, but they should be cognizant of what the crafts
are capable.
Storeroom Management support

Parts catalog Work order system
Processes for stock. Backlog of prioritized work orders
Processes for nonstock. Priority system
Vendor information for nonstock. Enough planners
Processes for special tools Equipment tags
Planner facilities File system
Already created standard jobs CMMS?
or booklets of key information Planner with craft experience
Knowledge of skills of craft-persons
Knowledge of crew available hours per week
Field inspections of jobs
Knowledge of when operations can typically make equipment available
Plan
Plan enough jobs
for one week
Planners taken away or given other work Reluctance to write work orders
Dumping of odd jobs on planners Lack of planning facilities and tools
Poor or no work order system Technician interruptions
What might hinder.
Lack of information on new work orders Operations unavailability

Lack of information and feedback on history work orders Inadequate storeroom
Inadequate authority or processes to get parts or make decisions Overwhelming backlog
Lack of equipment information, O&M manuals Wrong or untrained planners
Plant reliance on blanket work orders No driver of system
Lack of processes for stores, purchasing, tools File security
Lack of training on processes Library hassle
Lack of planner training and understanding of planning fundamentals CMMS?
Highly reactive plant maintenance conditions
“Back door” jobs being done instead of routing through planning
Extensive duplication of work orders
Figure M.6 Aids and barriers for planning enough work.
Knowledge of crew available hours per week. This would simply give the planner
an idea of how much to plan to stay ahead.
Field inspections of jobs (Chap. 5). Planners should almost always go inspect
jobs if practical before planning them. This may not be possibly geographically
for spread out operations.
Knowledge of when operations can typically make equipment available.
Organized and stocked storeroom (App. A). The more parts available, the better
from a planning standpoint. However, planning may be able to optimize use of
plant funds by being able to order nonstock parts more efficiently and ahead of
time than a plant with no planning function. This could lead to more intelligent
reductions in what to carry for stock.
Accurate parts catalog or system (Chap. 5). The planner would use this infor-
mation on job plans.
Adequate processes for identifying and reserving storeroom stock (Chap. 5).
The
plant needs a defined process for how to identify parts and plans and how to
reserve them.
708 Appendix M
Adequate processes for purchasing nonstock (Chap. 5). The plant needs a defined
process for the planner to obtain parts the storeroom doesn’t carry.
Vendor information for nonstock (Chap. 5, Chap. 8). – who, where, when, how.
Adequate processes for identifying and reserving special tools (Chap. 5, App. A).
This might consist of a tool room or area where tools not normally carried in tool
boxes can be acquired by technicians. The plant needs a process for how to iden-
tify tools on plans and possibly how to reserve them. These would be tools not
normally carried in technician tool boxes.
Planner facilities (Chap. 8, App. M, App. C). This would include all the neces-
sary conveniences planners need in an office environment including a filing
system, copiers, printers, and computers.
Already created standard jobs or booklets of key information (Chap. 2-Principle 5,
Chap. 5, Chap. 7). Although planning strives to create a cycle where it can
accumulate and develop better plans and information over time, many plants
have recent or soon-to-be retirees (or others) establish initial plans with quite
a bit of detail for critical equipment or commonly performed maintenance oper-
ations. This gives the planning department more of a head start.
Barriers
Planners taken away or given other work (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 1). There
must be planners to plan.
Dumping of odd jobs on planners (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 1). Planners must
be allowed to plan. The planning department becomes an easy area to assign odd
jobs such as taking surveys, responding to engineering requests, or other tasks
that management does not have the will to abandon or hire other staff to handle.
Poor or no work order system (App. J). Not having work orders to attach plans
to would really cripple planning.
Lack of information on new work orders (Chap. 5). Planning slows when planners
have to collect basic information. Work order forms with sections, information
fields, and check boxes can help encourage originators to provide information.
Be careful with having too many “required” fields in a CMMS or a process for
“rejecting” incomplete work orders that may discourage persons from writing
work orders.
Lack of information and feedback on history work orders (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 3,
Chap. 5). The more information coming back from the field on what the tech-
nicians actually did, the better. Chapter 5 covers a number of useful ways to
increase getting good feedback.
Technician interruptions (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 2).Not all jobs will go as
smooth as planned, but technicians should not ask the planner to resolve prob-
lems for jobs already in-progress.
File security (Chap. 8). The files should be accessible to persons other than
planners so that planners do not have the only means of solving problems for
jobs-in-progress. However, more accessibility means more likelihood of files dis-
appearing.
Library hassle (Chap. 8). If the planners do not control the plant files, there is
likely to be hassle in quickly accessing and storing information. Sometimes the
engineering department has control of all the O&M manuals as well as the
plant drawings and schematics.
Operations unavailability (App. F).The planners must have quick access to ask
questions when necessary of the operations or production group. Many times the
operator who wrote the work order is not on shift when the planner is planning it.
Inadequate storeroom (App. A).
Planners may
Inadequate authority or processes to get parts or make decisions.
need authority or the ability to get approvals when planning jobs.
Lack of equipment information, O&M manuals (Chap. 8). This will slow planning,
but the planning department will accumulate file information through the cycle
of planning maintenance actions for the same equipment over time.
Plant reliance on blanket work orders (App. I). This is as bad as not having a
work order system. Planners base their plans on discrete work orders.
No driver of system (App. A). Planning needs someone in authority and some-
one intimately involved in maintenance both keenly interested in making plan-
ning work.
Lack of processes for stores, purchasing, tools (Chap. 5). How do planners des-
ignate and reserve items for plans?
Lack of training on processes. Many times these processes are not clearly under-
stood. Planners need to understand.
Lack of planner training and understanding of planning fundamentals (Chap. 2, Chap. 3,
Chap. 4, Chap. 5). Planning has a lot of room for serious error in overall direction.
Highly reactive plant maintenance conditions (Chap. 4).
The plant is in a poor
condition with a high amount of urgent or emergency work.
“Back door” jobs being done instead of routing through planning (Chap. 3, Chap. 4,
Chap. 6). Many plants plan a lot of work, but it’s not the work being done. The
planned work sits on the shelf.
Extensive duplication of work orders (Chap. 5).A potential source of confusion.
Deficiency tags generally head off duplicate work orders.
Reluctance to write work orders. This leads ultimately to only emergency work
being verbally reported directly to crew supervisors and takes planning out of
the loop.
Lack of planning facilities and tools (Chap. 8).
This might cause planning to slow.
Planning benefits from a somewhat modern office environment.
Overwhelmingly large backlog. This may make the planning challenge seem impos-
sible. However, only enough work needs to be planned for crew to complete in 1 week.
If the backlog is creditably prioritized, the planners can start with the highest pri-
ority jobs not yet worked and plan them. They could also plan the entire backlog
in a fairly short time if they give identification of craft and hours on each job on a
first pass and make a second pass to add details and better scope definition. The
first pass alone can be used when it is time to make the weekly schedule.
Wrong or untrained planners (Chap. 11, App. M). Planners who are not self-
starters and cannot quickly plan in accordance with the general principles of
planning. Planners with inadequate craft skills, inadequate communication
skills, or inadequate ability to work with data, files, and computers.
CMMS? (Chap. 9, App. L). A CMMS might overly restrict and frustrate the task
of planning jobs. An example of this frustration is if planners come to rely on
the system and then the IT department allows the network to become overloaded
710 Appendix M
and the CMMS speed dramatically slows to a crawl. Another example of a CMMS
hindrance might be a problem with linking documents or printing attachments
to work orders if planners have a number of standard forms and reference docu-
ments that were formerly easily attached to work orders in a pure paper system.
Schedule—schedule enough jobs

for one week
The principal objective of this area is to set the goal of work by creating
a weekly schedule. This schedule is a simple list of work orders that
matches the crew’s labor hours and skills available for the next week. The
list takes relative work order priorities into consideration. Figure M.7
shows aids or barriers meriting their own analysis later as issues with
subordinate aids and barriers include management support, supervisor
support, and urgent breakdowns.
Aids
App. A, App. P).
Supervisor support of planning and appreciation of WIIFM (Chap. 12). Supervisor
going along with the scheduling is mandatory even if it must be insisted upon
by plant management. However, as keepers of the plant culture, supervisors
open acceptance goes a long way toward helping planning.
Planned work orders identifying labor hours and skills needed (Chap. 3-Scheduling
Principle 1, Chap. 6). This is a mandatory prerequisite because the process of
scheduling requires knowing how many hours and for what craft skill for each
work order.
Management support Knowledge of when operations can make equipment available

Supervisor support Identification of clearance requirement on job plans
Planned work orders Planner or scheduler available to make the schedule
Prioritized backlog Established schedule process
Forecast of labor hours by skill Formal schedule coordination
Priority system Meeting leader
Forms
CMMS?
Training
Schedule
Constraints and impediments :
Schedule enough jobs

for one week
Plant reliance on blanket work orders

What might hinder.
Not enough planned jobs

Lack of supervisor support
Trying to use a standard forecast
Lack of training or awareness for nonplanners
Lack of training for planners knowing how to make a weekly schedule
CMMS?
Not enough supervisor time
Figure M.7 Aids and barriers for scheduling enough work.

Prioritized backlog of work orders (Chap. 3-Scheduling Principle 2, Chap. 6). This
is a mandatory prerequisite because the scheduling process considers priorities.
Priority system (Chap. 5, App. I, App. J). Appendix I considers “gaming the pri-
ority system.”
Forecast of labor hours that need work for the next week identifying skill levels available
(Chap. 3-Scheduling Principle 3, Chap. 6). This is a prerequisite because the
scheduling process allocates backlog hours according to the forecast. Scheduling
without the forecast is possible, but not recommended.
Knowledge of when operations can make equipment available. Not necessarily
required, but it helps if planners have a general feel for what equipment can be
cleared for work during a week even though the originator of the work should
note if an entire system outage or merely equipment clearance is required.
Identification of clearance requirement on job plans. This is a help. This is not
necessarily the details of how to clear equipment, but a yes or no identification
of if the equipment will need clearance.
Planner or scheduler available to make the schedule (Chap. 3, Chap. 6). Someone
has to make the schedule. The actual process of making an advance schedule
(a simple list of jobs to do) can be made needlessly complex.
Established process or procedure on how to develop the weekly schedule (Chap. 6).
It is required that planners create the schedule according to a set process, one
that most everyone understands.
Formal schedule coordination or meetings to give input or accept schedule (Chap. 6).
It is helpful to incorporate specific opportunities for others to give schedule input.
A meeting leader. Charging a specific individual with the responsibility to lead
any of the scheduling meetings helps to ensure that they do take place and are
more effective.
Forms to help the forecast and scheduling processes (Chap. 6). This helps stan-
dardize the process.
CMMS? (Chap. 9). It would seem that a CMMS could easily create the required
weekly allocation of work, but in practice many CMMS systems over-complicate
the process.
Training for the planner, supervisors, and key operators on the scheduling process.
The driver of the system needs to spend time walking each of the participants
of scheduling through the process and then monitoring its usage because sched-
uling is so important to productivity.
Barriers
Plant reliance on blanket work orders (App. I). Blankets rob the plant of an abil-
ity to schedule sufficient work.
Not enough planned jobs (Chap. 4). If planners cannot plan enough work, this
will seriously hamper the scheduling process.
Lack of supervisor support and supervisors won’t give adequate crew forecast (Chap. 12,
Chap. 6). A communication effort from plant management must convince
supervisors why the plant and the supervisors need planning. The planner may
have to go to the supervisor to help collect the forecast information.
Trying to use a standard forecast (Chap. 6).
Crew labor hours vary tremendously
from week to week and the schedule must reflect expected labor to have enough
712 Appendix M
credibility. Reasons for not meeting the schedule would otherwise concentrate
too heavily on why the standard forecast was inadequate for that week.
Lack of training or awareness for nonplanners. Supervisors mostly need to under-
stand the concepts of the scheduling process and approach.
Lack of training for planners knowing how to make a weekly schedule (Chap. 6). The
planners making nonsense schedules would hinder the productivity gain pos-
sible and damage planning’s credibility.
CMMS? (Chap. 9, App. L). A CMMS might needlessly over-complicate the sched-
uling process.
This is symptomatic of
Not enough supervisor time to help develop labor forecast.
the plant supervisors and possibly plant management not being serious about
planning. The planners should track down the supervisors and help them work
out the forecast.
Execute—execute scheduled jobs and give

feedback
The principal objective of this area is to work on the goal list of jobs
established by the weekly schedule. This schedule guides the crews
toward the appropriate list of jobs out of the backlog considering the
relative job priorities and the available craft skill hours. The crew does
not have to choose jobs from the entire backlog and should only deviate
from the culled backlog list for new urgent work that cannot wait until
the following week. Figure M.8 shows the aids or barriers meriting their
own analysis later as issues with subordinate aids and barriers include
supervisor support, technician support, and urgent breakdowns.
Aids
App. A, App. P). Supervisor support of planning and appreciation of WIIFM
(Chap. 12). Necessary because the supervisors must assign from the allocated
schedule goal.
Technician support of planning and appreciation of WIIFM (Chap. 12). Preferred to
get good feedback on job plans.
Manpower available as forecasted. During the week, the supervisor uses the
labor resources forecasted.
Effective daily schedule (Chap. 7). This is outside planning and weekly sched-
uling, but supervisors greatly benefit from creating a daily schedule. Planners
can help support this daily effort by supplying forms and training.
Daily schedule form (Chap. 7). Chapter 8 shows this helpful form.
Coordination with operations for equipment availability to service (Chap. 7).
This
coordination occurs daily as the supervisors line up work for the next day.
Staging? (Chap. 6). Staging or kitting is not required for effective planning or
productivity increase by maintenance. However, staging could help productiv-
ity even more for certain items and jobs.
Training on the planning and scheduling process.
Management support
Supervisor support
Technician support
Manpower available
Effective daily schedule
Daily schedule form
Coordination with operations
Staging ?
Training
Easy input process for feedback
Execute
Execute scheduled jobs

and give feedback
Constraints and impediments :
Lack of support
Insufficient parts available
Emergency or high priority work orders
Insufficient tools available
“Back door” jobs
Inadequately skilled technicians
What might hinder.
Higher priority jobs not being scheduled

Lack of manpower
Unrealistic jobs
Overly complex schedule system
Work on blankets
Lack of coordination among crafts
Undocumented follow-up work
Poor work assignment process
Equipment unavailability to service
Staging?
Uncertain coordination with operations
Unrealistic job plans
Weather
Figure M.8 Aids and barriers for executing enough work.
Easy input process for feedback (Chap. 5).

The easier it is for technicians to pro-
vide feedback, the better. Easiest methods involve simply marking and hand-
ing in a paper work order.
Barriers
Lack of support from management, supervisors, or technicians. Planning will not
survive as a grassroots effort.
Emergency or high priority work orders (Chap. 4).
This could be used as an excuse
to derail planning, but is probably a reason the plant should utilize planning.
“Back door” jobs being done instead of scheduled work (Chap. 4). Supervisors
ignore the planning and scheduling process and accept work requested without
work orders.
Higher priority jobs not being scheduled. The schedule did not include the impor-
tant jobs.
Unrealistic jobs being scheduled. The schedule included jobs that could not be
cleared, had dramatically wrong estimates or anticipated parts, or were all
lower priority jobs.
714 Appendix M
Work on blankets (App. I). There is so much work on blankets that the sched-
ule becomes meaningless.
Undocumented follow-up work. The technicians do more work than required and
ignore the rest of the schedule. For example, the technicians find extensive
damage during the course of a PM inspection and instead of writing work orders
for the work, they abandon doing the rest of the scheduled work.
Equipment unavailability to service. This could be due to operators not clearing and
tagging out equipment when needed for two reasons. One, the equipment cannot
be taken out of service and two, there is not an adequate process for obtaining
timely clearance and tagging from operations (or it is not being followed). The plan-
ners must obtain information with new work orders or clarify with operations
whether equipment can be cleared with adequate notice or cannot be cleared with-
out a plant outage. This information must be noted clearly on the work orders.
Uncertain coordination with operations. It is difficult to coordinate when opera-
tions will clear equipment for technicians to service.
Weather. Weather conditions prevent planned work.
Insufficient parts available (App. A).The parts planned on jobs were not available
after all or the storeroom is inadequate for any parts not planned ahead of time.
Insufficient tools available (App. A). Special tools planned on jobs were not avail-
able after all or the tool room is inadequate for any tools not planned ahead of time.
Inadequately skilled technicians (Chap. 2-Principle 5, App. A). Planning should
not be expected to take the place of technician skill. Planning should plan for
skilled technicians and the lack of technician skills would lower the workforce’s
ability to completely execute the work on the schedule.
Lack of manpower. If enough persons call in ill or were not correctly forecasted
to be on vacation or in training, the schedule would contain more work than could
be executed.
Overly complex schedule system (Chap. 3, Chap. 6). Some schedule systems are
too complicated to assist the supervisor in efficiently assigning work.
Lack of coordination among crafts (Chap. 3). Some jobs require inter-craft assis-
tance and not using the advance weekly schedule to communicate might delay jobs.
Poor work assignment process. Work not given to technicians each day.
Technicians expected to find own work.
Staging? (Chap. 6). Staging might be a hindrance if it requires more work
overall to stage the parts in advance than is saved obtaining the parts only when
they are needed.
Unrealistic job plans. Job plans might not be possible if the planner incorrectly
scopes the work.
Ongoing—keep planning and scheduling

ongoing
The principal objective of this area is to maintain the successful plan-
ning and scheduling program itself. This management effort controls
planning by keeping the aids and barriers necessary for long term suc-
cess under control. Figure M.9 shows the aids or barriers meriting their
own analysis later as issues with subordinate aids and barriers include

Interested management
Publicize success Management support
Audits Supervisor support
Schedule success indicator Technician support
KPI's Management by walking around
Right planners Persistence
Continuous improvement Ongoing training
Rewards CMMS support
High morale from current success Coordination and communication among crafts
Planners left in place and not given nonplanning work
Enough planners
Ongoing
Keep planning and
scheduling ongoing
Not scheduling

Nonplanning duties
Management inability to stick with a program
Change of personnel
What might hinder.

Tradition
Inadequate IT support
Inadequate purchasing
Manpower
Short term corporate initiatives
Lack of feedback on job plans
Lack of feedback to management
Lack of organizational discipline
CMMS distraction
Figure M.9 Aids and barriers for keeping the whole program working.
management support, supervisor support, technician support, having

the right planners, and having trained planners.
Aids
Management support of planning and appreciation of
Interested management.
WIIFM (Chap. 12, Chap. 4, Chap. 1, App. M, App. P).
Supervisor support of planning and appreciation of WIIFM (Chap. 12).
Technician support of planning and appreciation of WIIFM (Chap. 12).
Management by walking around. Management needs feedback from the field.
Persistence (App. M). Planning “goes against the grain” and would soon drift
into disarray without active control.
Ongoing training for planning and scheduling including CMMS if used. Refresher
training is a good aid.
716 Appendix M
CMMS support. If the company uses a CMMS, active support from the IT
department is mandatory.
Coordination and communication among crafts. The coordination available
from knowing each other's weekly schedule can help crafts work together and
aid the viability of planning.
Publicize success. Prove and keep the benefit of planning in view.
Audits by management (App. P). Management can help its control of planning
by establishing regular audits of practicing the principles.
Schedule success indicator (Chap. 3, Chap. 11).
This indicator drives a lot of good
behavior. Schedule success cannot be measured if the crews are not using a
schedule. A schedule cannot be created if enough jobs are not being planned.
Management's insistence of seeing Schedule Success scores help keep the other
practices active.
Key performance indicators (KPI’s). Measurement systems (Chap. 11). Ongoing,
before and after snapshots. relevant and visible. Schedule success, planned cov-
erage, backlog, work orders completed, wrench time?
Right planners (Chap. 11). Keeping the right planners is a mandatory aid to keep
planning working.
Planners left in place and not given more and more nonplanning work.
Management must guard against planning gradually taking on so many non-
planning duties that reduces actual planning.
Continuous improvement in P&S performance. Active management working
with planning to improve would reduce falling into bad habits.
Rewards for achievement. Pay structures, wages, incentive awards should all
continue past the initial implementation of the planning program.
High morale from current success.
Barriers
Not scheduling (Chap. 3). Drifting into not scheduling drops productivity gains.
Nonplanning duties given to planners. These gradually add up.
Management inability to stick with a program, short term memory. Forgetting
vision and WIIFM.
Change of personnel. Change of management. Loss of key drivers and sup-
porters. Lack of succession planning. Loss of key planners.
Tradition. Tendency to revert to the good old days. A very powerful barrier.
Inadequate IT support (Chap. 8, App L). The IT department considers the CMMS
as a program to implement and not have to maintain. IT runs out of budget to
support CMMS. IT will not make continuous improvements or any changes
maintenance wants.
Inadequate purchasing processes or support. The processes do not exist or are
too difficult to use by planners or technicians.
Manpower availability. Planners are not replaced or the key supporters are no
longer in place.
Short term corporate initiatives. Cost cutting. Personnel cutbacks.
Lack of feedback on job plans (Chap. 5). This is a significant hindrance, but not vital.
Lack of feedback to management on P&S success. Management loses focus and

does not allocate resources to ongoing planning.
Lack of organizational discipline. Noncompliance allowed.
CMMS distraction (Chap. 9). The ability of a CMMS project to distract the real
focus of planning is significant.
Key Aids and Barriers

Some of the aids are so important for meeting the analyzed objective and
some of the barriers are such a problem that a separate barriers and aids
analysis is shown for each of those aids and barriers. For example, the obvi-
ous aid of supervisor support is such a critical aid (and lack thereof, a crit-
ical barrier) to several objectives that supervisor support as an objective
in itself is analyzed. Figure M.10 shows the aids and barriers that for
which the following section analyzes subordinate aids and barriers.
Management support—sponsor
a P&S system
This aid appears in most of the major areas of planning management.
The handbook addresses management support and communication in a
number of areas including Chap. 1, Chap. 4, Chap. 12, App. A, and App.
P, as shown in Fig. M.11. Chapter 1 gives management the overall vision.
Chapter 4 provides guidance through the controversies of reactive main-
tenance. Chapter 12 clearly defines WIIFM, What’s in it for me, for man-
agement. Appendix A discusses the leadership and communication aspects
of management support as a necessary prerequisite of planning. Finally,
App. P sets forth honest questions for management to pursue to gauge
the plant’s interest and effectiveness in pursuing effective planning.
Aids
Current poor maintenance performance. Not effective or not efficient. Plant des-
peration. Willingness to try something new.
Cost benefit analysis (Chap. 1). Management needs to see the bottom line.
Key Aids and Barriers

♦ Management Support ♦ Equipment Tags
♦ Supervisor Support ♦ Files
♦ Technician Support ♦ Purchasing
♦ Right Planner ♦ Work Order System
♦ Planner Training ♦ CMMS
♦ Urgent Breakdowns
♦ Technician Interruptions
Figure M.10 Supporting areas for the overall program objectives.
718 Appendix M

Current poor maintenance performance
Cost benefit analysis
Business case
Clear vision
Implementation plan
Success of others
Wrench time study?
Advice from peers or superiors
Corporate directives
Interest of subordinates
MGT support
Sponsor a P&S system
Budget Constraints and impediments:

Budget cycle
Perceived rigidity of P&S
What might hinder.
Inertia
Lack of interest
Other things going on
Current good maintenance performance
Not understanding proper maintenance
Corporate position limitations
Bureaucracy
Advice from peers or superiors
Resistance from subordinates
Figure M.11 Aids and barriers for management support.
Business case (Chap. 1). Management needs to see the bottom line.
Clear vision of planning. Close to mandatory is management really under-
standing the purpose of planning.
Implementation plan.This would be helpful for management to see the steps
involved in implementing planning. Preferably one with least disruption,
Success of others. Other plants with planning success stories would be helpful.
Wrench time study? (Chap. 2-Principle 6) Actually seeing the existing wrench time
as a measure usually convinces management to do something about it.
Advice from peers or superiors.
Corporate directives.
Interest of subordinates.Planning is such a change of maintenance practice
that interest by the persons affected may soften management reluctance to
implement the changes.
Barriers
Budget. Planning facilities are biggest expense unless a CMMS is involved. The
cost of the planner salary should not be a large item because existing positions
can be converted.
Budget cycle. Implementation may have to wait.
Perceived rigidity of P&S not being able to react to plant needs. Management may
wrongly perceive emergencies as having to wait on planning.
Inertia. Changing means having to do something.
Lack of interest. Management may not be convinced.
Other things going on. Management must allocate scarce resources among com-
peting programs.
Current good maintenance performance. Plants are often “victims of their own
success.”
Not understanding proper maintenance. Maintenance should be preventing plant
disruptions, not merely reacting to them quickly. Management may be satisfied with
the fast reaction to emergencies approach of maintenance and not want planning.
Corporate position limitations. Management might have restrictions on creating
new positions.
Bureaucracy. It takes a monumental effort to change anything.
Advice from peers or superiors.These may be against the concept of planning
because of industry-wide frustration with planning.
Resistance from subordinates. Management may give in to subordinate objections.
Supervisor support—follow a P&S system

Supervisor support critically affects the success of planning as it enters the
scheduling and work execution phases. The handbook addresses supervi-
sor support in a number of areas including Chap. 3, Chap. 4, Chap. 12, and
App. A, as shown in Fig. M.12. Chapter 1 gives management the overall
vision. Chapter 3 covers culling the backlog for the supervisors and not
holding schedule compliance as a weapon against them. Chapter 4 provides
assurance that planning will not hold up crews from attacking urgent
work. Chapter 12 clearly defines WIIFM, What’s in it for me, for supervi-
sors. Appendix A discusses the supervisors as keepers of the plant culture.
Aids
Management support. Usually required.
Clear vision (Chap. 1). Supervisors need to understand why.
Better control of individual jobs (Chap. 5, Chap. 12).
Crew supervisor now has
hour and craft skill estimates before assigning work.
Service of getting a culled backlog (Chap. 6).
Scheduler goes through entire back-
log for the supervisor selecting jobs that make sense.
Peer relationship between supervisors and planners (App. M). Supervisors are
more likely to support persons “on their level.”
720 Appendix M

Management support
Clear vision
Better control of individual jobs
Service of getting a culled backlog
Peer relationship between supervisors and planners
Planner respected
Simple schedule system
SUPV support
Follow a
P&S system
Perceived loss of control
Not being able to select “any” job
What might hinder.
Wrongly being held accountable for schedule success

Time
Overly complex schedule
Planner not respected
Having to wait for job plans
Figure M.12 Aids and barriers for supervisor support.
Planner respected among the crafts (Chap. 11, App. M). Supervisors are more
likely to support persons that their crews respect.
Simple schedule system (Chap. 6). The schedule should be a simple list or pack-
age of work to start the week with. Forms can help. Not having a schedule that must
be adjusted each day helps. Don’t correct the weekly schedule once issued. Simply
use it as a starting point and work in urgent jobs that can't wait until the next week.
Barriers
Perceived loss of control. The supervisors are accountable to a schedule.
Not being able to select “any” job. The supervisors are restricted in selecting
work to execute.
Wrongly being held accountable for schedule success. Schedule success tied to pay.
Supervisors do not affect schedule success as much as does the overall condition
of the plant. Reactive work will interrupt the schedule and supervisors must react
to that work instead of meeting a set schedule. In fact, schedule success is more
of an indicator of the overall plant condition than it is the supervisor’s willing-

ness to work towards a set schedule. In addition, if plant management allows
operations to declare false emergencies, schedule success suffers. Managers
should hold supervisors accountable for starting each day with a daily schedule
and supporting the planning department in developing the weekly schedule.
Time to develop labor forecasts. The supervisor already has a lot to do and the
system is adding another task.
Overly complex schedule (Chap. 6). Having to spend too much time working with
the schedule.
Planner not respected among the crafts (App. M). Supervisors are reluctant to
support such an intrusive program if they do not respect the planners chosen.
Having to wait for job plans (Chap. 4).
The proper planning system should not
make supervisors ever wait for planned work. The supervisor should be free to
start an urgent job anytime. However, the planners can quickly plan reactive
work under Chapter 4 guidelines.
Technician support—follow a P&S system

Technician support affects the success of planning mostly as it enters
the work execution phase. The handbook addresses technician support
mostly in Chap. 2 which sets forth planning as a library service and
which holds that technicians are not wholly accountable for wrench
time apart from the maintenance system, as shown in Fig. M.13.
Chapter 12 also defines WIIFM, What’s in it for me, for technicians. This
appendix, App. M, discussed the needing respect of planners among the
technicians in an earlier section for selecting the right planners.
Aids
Supervisor support of planning. The technician usually support planners
heartily endorsed by the supervisors.
Planners at peer level with supervisors (App. M).
Planner respected among the crafts (App. M).
Planners attending crew meetings (Chap. 5). Planners can reinforce support of
planning with interaction.
Not having to select the next job. Technicians should not have to select their own
work. This leads to peer pressure to slow down productivity.
Not having to determine how many jobs. Technicians appreciate being assigned
specific quantities of work.
Having a measure of daily success in terms of jobs finished versus jobs assigned.
Everyone should go home at the end of the day knowing they've won or lost.
Getting a head start on jobs from a respected planner.
Technicians don't like rein-
venting the wheel and get a heads up from an experienced planner.
Library service of past job knowledge (Chap. 5). File information history, parts,
tools, special problems.
Job time estimate (Chap. 5). Technicians get a standard against which to work.
722 Appendix M

Supervisor support
Planner respected
Better information for job clearance Not having to select the next job
Better location description Not having to determine how many jobs
Communication about expectations Having a measure of daily success
Planner respected Getting a head start
Planners peer level with supervisors Library service
Job time estimate
Anticipated parts
Reserved parts
Anticipated tools
Anticipated scope
Tech support
Follow a

P&S system
Wrongly being held accountable for time estimates
What might hinder.

Wrongly being held accountable for wrench time
Misconceptions
Planner that is not respected
Having to wait for job plans
Not understanding that planners should focus on future work
Inadequate processes for dealing with problems of jobs-in-progress
Limits on job selection
Accountability
Figure M.13 Aids and barriers for technician support.
Anticipated parts (Chap. 5). Technicians get an advance estimate of parts needed.
Reserved parts (Chap. 5). Technicians get more parts help.
Anticipated tools (Chap. 5). Technicians get an advance estimate of tools needed.
Anticipated scope (Chap. 5). Technicians get an idea of the job from an experi-
enced craft-person.
Better information for job clearance (Chap. 5). The planner may provide a heads
up to avoid time wasted in the past.
Better location description. The planner finds the job and can reduce hunting by
the technician.
Communication about expectations. Craft persons should be expecting a head start
based on a respected planner looking over the job and guessing what is needed based
on his experience and file information. The craft-persons must expect to add to this
file information over time. The planner cannot do perfect research and perfectly plan
any job. The planner and craft-person are part of a system for perfecting a job plan
for that equipment over time and repeated maintenance cycles.
Barriers
Wrongly being held accountable for time estimates (Chap. 5). The uncertain nature
of any maintenance makes time estimates on individual jobs too uncertain
against which to hold technicians accountable. Holding them accountable intro-
duces fear into maintenance and ill will toward planners.
Wrongly being held accountable for wrench time (Chap. 2). Craft-persons do not
affect wrench time as much as the overall system does. If the system does not
assign enough work, wrench time suffers. If false emergencies interrupt jobs-
in-progress, wrench time suffers. If craft-persons have inadequate information,
parts, and tools, wrench time suffers. If craft-persons have not been adequately
trained, they have to delay work seeking information, and wrench time suffers.
Misconceptions. Expecting perfect plans (scope, parts, tools, times) instead of
expecting a head start.
Planner who is not respected among the crafts.
Having to wait for job plans. Crews should not have to wait on planning to begin jobs.
Not understanding that planners should focus on future work. Planners should not
be in the business of helping jobs already in-progress or they cannot plan future
work. Then a vicious cycle starts where all jobs-in-progress need extensive help
because planners never had time to plan them.
Craft-persons
Inadequate processes for dealing with problems of jobs-in-progress.
must have ready access to peers, O&M manuals, supervisors, purchasing assis-
tance, and other resources for resolving problems without having to interrupt
planners focusing on future work.
Limits on job selection. Not being able to select any job. A planning and sched-
uling system makes the job selection process more structured and limits the abil-
ity of technicians and supervisors somewhat from selecting pet projects or other
inappropriate jobs.
A sense of accountability over the long run for jobs finished versus assigned.
Lack of supervisor support.
Right planner—create positions and select

the right planners
This aid so critically affects planning success that Chap. 11 and App. M
(in an earlier section) cover selecting the right planner extensively, as
shown in Fig. M.14.
Aids
Respect from craft-persons. Mandatory.
Planners at peer level with supervisors (App. M). Very helpful. This makes the
planner position much more sought after by technicians.
Good craft experience and skills. Mandatory.
Good communication skills. Mandatory.
Good data skills. Mandatory.
Self starter. Mandatory.
724 Appendix M

Respect from craft-persons
Salary Planners peer level with supervisors
Vision Good craft experience and skills
Budget Good communication skills
Testing? Good data skills
Self starter
Hide like an elephant
Skilled person available
Job specifications
Right planner
Create positions &
select right planners
Salary Constraints and impediments:

Loss of OT What might hinder.
Labor agreements?
Civil service?
Testing?
Seniority?
“Fad” image
Lack of support up and down
Figure M.14 Aids and barriers for selecting the right
planner.
Hide like an elephant. Thick skinned, but diplomatic. The successful planners
need enough self-esteem where they feel good about what they are doing in spite
of resistance from some supervisors, some craft-persons, and even some managers.
On the other hand, they may need to “lay low” occasionally and exert their obvi-
ous presence diplomatically.
Skilled person available. It helps if the supervisory ranks or craft ranks already
contain persons that meet the mandatory requirements.
Job specifications (App. N).
Salary (App. M). Must be competitive to make the job desirable for qualified
persons.
Vision (Chap. 1). Planners need to be instructed in the purpose of planning.
Budget. Budget changes may be necessary to establish the planner position.
Testing? Companies such as civil service may have to arrange testing for new
positions. Tests should be structured toward measuring communication and
data skills as well as machine skills. Interviews may be necessary to assess com-
munication skills and self initiative.
Barriers
Salary (App. M). If planner take home pay is too low, the skilled technicians in
the crafts will not be interested.
Loss of OT (App. M). Making technicians into planners for a modest salary
increase and then not allowing them overtime may give them a net pay reduc-
tion and cut interest among top technicians. The plant should make the salary
rate more than compensate for lost overtime.
Labor agreements? This could be a potential to slow the creation of a planner
position and should be addressed in a timely manner.
Civil service? (App. M). There might be a large bureaucracy in place that needs
timely action to address.
Testing? (App. M). Testing might not be accurate for professional positions
such as planning.
Seniority? (App. M). Not all mechanics make good planners.
“Fad” image. Who would want to take a new position that management might
do away with any day? Who would want to take a new position that no one really
understands is a key role that should endure?
Who would want to take a position requiring peer
Lack of supervisor support.
communication with supervisors that the supervisors do not support?
Lack of support up and down.
Planner training—have trained planners

This entire handbook sets out in one of its objectives to train the main-
tenance planner in the vision and principles of effective planning. This
handbook sets forth that body of knowledge. On a more specific level,
this appendix, App. M, contains a section on planner training in an ear-
lier section, and is shown in Fig. M.15. Finally, Chap. 11 cautions that
the wrong person cannot be trained to become an effective planner just
as “just anybody could not become a good mechanic, good lawyer, or
good doctor if they just had enough of the right training.”
Aids
OJT. On the job training. Planners learn best from planning with someone
who understands planning.
Having an already experienced planner on board (App. M).
Overwhelmingly the
best way to bring new planners up to speed. Unusual to have a top planner
already for a new planning organization.
Vision and general planning principles (Chap. 1, Chap. 2, Chap. 3, Chap. 4).
Classes. The driver of the program can lead classes. Consultants also offer
some training workshops and OJT follow-up.
Close supervision early in the program. Close attention to the program is neces-
sary to keep planners from drifting into bad habits.
Refresher training.
Weekly meetings to discuss issues and maintain consistency. This would help
keep everyone on the same page and allow a regular forum for concerns.
726 Appendix M

OJT
Having an already experienced planner on board
Vision and general planning principles
Classes
Close supervision early in the program
Refresher training
Weekly meetings
Keep planners together
Tests?
Sample planned jobs
P&S handbook
Budget
Planner
training
Have trained planners
Complicated planning systems

Wrong planners chosen
What might hinder.
Part time planners

Transition duties
Too many non-planning duties
Cost of training
Budget
Budget cycle
Figure M.15 Aids and barriers for training planners.
Keep planners together. This allows reinforcing each other with good practices.
Tests? (App. O). Appendix O offers a sample of what every planner should
know. Do they know this material?
Sample planned jobs (App. D). Appendix D has sample planned jobs so planners
can get a feel for the level of detail and other plan criteria desired.
P&S Handbook.
Budget. Outside training might need budgeting.
Barriers
Complicated planning systems. Most planning organizations have overly com-
plicated systems of estimating hours, setting forth job steps, and defining
advance schedules.
Wrong planners chosen (Chap. 11, App. M). The wrong planners cannot be
trained to become good planners.
Part time planners. Planners don’t have enough time to properly plan.
Transition duties. Planners don’t have enough time to properly plan.

Too many nonplanning duties. Planners don’t have enough time to properly plan.
Cost of training.
Budget.
Budget cycle.
Urgent breakdowns—utilizing P&S in a

reactive environment
Urgent breakdowns are the source of most planning system frustra-
tions, which is shown in Fig. M.16. Chapter 4 resolves this issue.
Aids
Management support (Chap. 4). Management must support planning by insist-
ing on scheduling and protecting planners from helping on jobs-in-progress to
a great degree.
Management support
Planners not getting involved in jobs-in-progress
Schedule success indicator
Empower supervisors to break the schedule
Planners are together in a central area
Planners are on a peer level with supervisors
Urgent
breakdowns
Using P&S in Rxtv plants
Not recognizing reactive jobs

Taking too long to plan reactive jobs
Files are not readily accessible to technicians
What might hinder.
CMMS is not user friendly

Planners are under crew supervisor control
Complex processes for purchasing, inventory, and tools
Figure M.16 Aids and barriers for handling urgent breakdowns.

728 Appendix M
Planners not getting involved in jobs-in-progress (Chap. 2-Principle 2).

Schedule success indicator pushed as a gauge of plant reactiveness. Schedule
success is not a measure of supervisor’s blind obedience. Don’t tie supervisor pay
to schedule success. Concentrate on starting each week with a schedule and each
day with a schedule.
It’s okay to break the daily schedule
Empower supervisors to break the schedule.
for emergencies and the weekly schedule for urgent work.
Planners are together in a central area. Keeping the planners together helps keep
them on task (future work).
Planners are on a peer level with supervisors. This keeps them from being redi-
rected to help jobs-in-progress.
Barriers
Not recognizing reactive jobs. Not planning them first.
Taking too long to plan reactive jobs. Making crews wait. Putting too much detail
in plans.
Files are not readily accessible to technicians for on-the-job research (Chap. 8). If
technicians are not to interrupt planners for help on jobs-in-progress, they must
be able to access and use plant processes without planner help.
CMMS is not user friendly (Chap. 9, App. L). If technicians are not to interrupt
planners for help on jobs-in-progress, they must be able to access and use plant
processes without planner help.
Planners are under crew supervisor control. (Chap. 2-Planning Principle 1).
Planners become involved in jobs-in-progress and do not have time to plan.
Complex processes for purchasing, inventory, and tools. Only planners can ade-
quately use processes for purchasing, inventory, tools, etc. They are too difficult
for technicians or supervisors to use for jobs-in-progress. If technicians are not
to interrupt planners for help on jobs-in-progress, they must be able to access
and use plant processes without planner help.
Technician interruptions—deal with planner

distractions
Technician interruptions go hand-in-hand with urgent breakdowns as
a significant barrier to effective planning. Basically, management needs
to set a clear policy protecting the planners as much as possible from
interruptions concerning jobs-in-progress, as shown in Fig. M.17. The
policy should explain the feedback loop nature of planning and that it’s
“okay” if the current job plan is not perfect; the technician should give
effective feedback to help “the next job.” Chapter 2-Principle 2 explains
that planners should work on future work and Chap. 5 gives guidelines
for effective technician feedback.
Aids
Communication (Chap. 4). Planning that allows imperfect jobs to be improved
through a feedback system is not “natural” and must be thoroughly explained
to technicians.

Communication
Clear policy
Craft-persons that understand what planning is
Planners that understand
Technician friendly files
Technician friendly CMMS
Technician
interruptions
Deal w/ Planner distractions

Not understanding that planners should focus on future work
Inadequate processes for dealing with problems of jobs-in-progress
Planners who don’t understand
What might hinder.
Figure M.17 Aids and barriers for handling technician interruptions.
Clear policy.
Craft-persons that understand what planning is.
Planners that understand.
Technician friendly files (Chap. 8). If technicians are not to interrupt planners
for help on jobs-in-progress, they must be able to access and use plant processes
without planner help.
Technician friendly CMMS. If technicians are not to interrupt planners for help
on jobs-in-progress, they must be able to access and use plant processes with-
out planner help.
Barriers
Not understanding that planners should focus on future work. Planners should not
be in the business of helping jobs already in-progress or they cannot plan future
work. Then a vicious cycle starts where all jobs-in-progress need extensive help
because planners never had time to plan them.
730 Appendix M
Craft-persons
Inadequate processes for dealing with problems of jobs-in-progress.
must have ready access to peers, O&M manuals, supervisors, purchasing assis-
tance, and other resources for resolving problems without having to interrupt
planners focusing on future work.
Planners who don’t understand.
Equipment tags—have tags on equipment

Having tags on equipment is an almost mandatory prerequisite for
effective planning because it defines the filing system, and is shown in
Fig. M.18. Chapter 2-Principle 3 addresses component level files using
the tag numbers, Chap. 8 addresses filing systems, and App. K covers
equipment tagging exclusively.
Knowledge of plant systems and equipment

Numbering system
Buy off, agreement on numbering system
Equipment list
Plant schematics
Method to make tags
Persons to make tags
Method to install tags
Persons to install tags
Tag spec
Amount of information on tag
Equipment
tags
Have tags on equipment
Resources for schematics

Time
Cost Replacing tags
What might hinder.
Below component level Access for tagging

Above component level Access for reading
Too complex numbering system Readability
Environment of equipment Too much information
Budget Too little information
Budget cycle
Coordination
Figure M.18 Aids and barriers for utilizing equipment tags.
Aids
Knowledge of plant systems and equipment.
Numbering system.
Buy off, agreement on numbering system.
Equipment list.
Plant schematics.
Method to make tags.
Persons to make tags.
Method to install tags.
Persons to install tags.
Tag spec. Sizes, materials.
Amount of information on tag.In addition to the number, it is helpful to opera-
tions and maintenance to see the equipment name or function.
Barriers
Resources for schematics. This could be a large undertaking.
Time.
Cost.
Below component level. Each bearing on a pump is too low a level to be helpful
for filing.
Above component level. An entire gas system might be too high a level to be help-
ful for filing.
Too complex numbering system (App. K). Ten to fifteen characters might be the
limit of tag numbering sensibility.
Environment of equipment. This affects how tags might be hung or if they might
be readable later.
Budget.
Budget cycle.
Coordination of different department responsibilities.
Replacing tags after equipment changed in maintenance. Experience shows
that wiring the tags onto equipment rather that gluing them has advantages
in craft-persons being willing to make sure they get onto the correct equipment.
Access for tagging.
Access for reading.
Readability.
Too much information on tags. The tag number and equipment name is usually
sufficient. Much more information might slow or complicate the tagging process.
Too little information on tags. The tag number and equipment name is usually
sufficient.
732 Appendix M
Files—have effective files

Having a filing system is a mandatory prerequisite for effective plan-
ning, which is shown in Fig. M.19. Chapter 2-Principle 3 addresses com-
ponent level files and Chap. 8 addresses filing systems
Aids
Work order system (App. J). Mandatory.
Work order forms (App. J). Mandatory (unless CMMS is paperless).
Job feedback (Chap. 5). Obtaining feedback from the field improves future work.
Component level files (Chap. 2-Principle 3). Mandatory. Only files for individ-
ual pieces of equipment allow efficient retrieval of information for job planners.
Equipment numbers. Mandatory. These must match tags hung in the field on
equipment and what is in any CMMS.
O&M manuals
Vendor cut sheets Work order system
Original specifications Work order forms
CMMS ? Job feedback
Accessibility Component level files
MSDS's Equipment numbers
Drawing systems File folder system
Handy office equipment File area
Shelves
Budget
Files
Have effective files
Budget cycle
Poor security
Lack of time
What might hinder.
Not getting shipping information

File complexity
Not getting feedback
Having separate file systems around plant
A push to go paperless in spite of an inadequate CMMS
Figure M.19 Aids and barriers for utilizing files.

File folder system. Folders, forms. Needed and helpful.

File area. Needed.
Shelves. Needed.
Budget.
O&M manuals (Chap. 8). Items that would be kept in the filing system, not nec-
essarily in the component level files.
Vendor cut sheets (Chap. 8).Items that would be kept in the filing system, not
necessarily in the component level files.
Original specifications (Chap. 8).
Items that would be kept in the filing system,
not necessarily in the component level files.
CMMS? (Chap. 9, App. L) This could supplement or replace the need for a file
system.
Accessibility. Close proximity for planners and for technicians.
MSDS’s (Chap. 8). Items that would be kept in the filing system, not necessarily
in the component level files.
Drawing systems. Helpful, although planners typically deal with individual
pieces of equipment. Drawings are more typically managed or kept by an engi-
neering group.
Handy office equipment to use with file information. Necessary items such as
copiers, staplers, fax machines, labels, tables.
Barriers
Budget cycle.
Technicians should be able to access files, but not feel free to take
Poor security.
them without authorization.
Lack of time to file information. Planners do not realize importance of filing feed-
back or have too many other nonplanning duties. The plant may also not have
enough planners. (Chap. 2-Principle 1).
Not getting shipping information. Often the data included with the shipped equip-
ment is the most specific and important.
File complexity. Simple open files are the best for easily viewing files. The num-
bering system might also be a problem.
Not getting feedback (Chap. 5). Technicians might not provide very good feed-
back to aid future jobs.
Having separate file systems around plant. Different groups not using the planning
file system could cause data inconsistency or planner information being out of date.
CMMS? (Chap. 9, App. L). If the CMMS cannot satisfy all of the planning needs, it
may be confusing to decide which items to file and which items to store electronically.
A push to go paperless in spite of an inadequate CMMS.
Purchasing—buy timely nonstock parts

Chapter 5 addresses the need of planning to purchase nonstock parts
and App. A addresses parts in general, and this is shown in Fig. M.20.
734 Appendix M

Adequate procedures
Authority for purchasing
Purchasing credit cards
Blanket purchase orders
Internet
Dedicated person
Proper parts in stock
Timely inventory restocking
Vendor lists
Input from planners, technicians, supervisors, engrg
Purchasing
Buy timely
nonstock parts
Unclear responsibilities
Unclear interfaces
Bureaucracy
What might hinder.
Authority levels too low

Lack of specifications
Lead times
Lack of standards
Getting approvals
Processes for jobs-in-progress
Figure M.20 Aids and barriers for purchasing activities.
Aids
Adequate procedures for nonstock purchases.
Authority for purchasing. Arrange for planners to have adequate authority or
easy access to approvals to buy most parts.
Blanket purchase orders. Vendors that have standing purchase orders can deliver
supplies rapidly.
Purchasing credit cards. These can speed purchasing.
Internet. Planners should have ready internet access. More and more items
can be found easily through this medium.
Dedicated person for parts expediting? This would be helpful for larger organizations.
Proper parts in stock. This makes nonstock purchasing focus on the fewer excep-
tion items.
Timely inventory restocking procedures. Fewer stock-outs limit extra purchas-
ing activities.
Vendor lists. Planners need a reference of available purchasing outlets.
Input from planners, technicians, supervisors and engineering. Planners need

avenues to ask for specification criteria.
Barriers
Unclear responsibilities. This can delay purchasing.
Unclear interfaces. Such as who makes the particular decisions about what
types of motors are standard.
Bureaucracy.
Authority levels too low.
Lack of specifications on what to buy.
Lead times. Lead times are the time it takes a vendor to deliver a product after
it receives a purchase order. The internal purchasing process itself can extend
the time in which the plant receives an item.
Lack of standards.
Getting approvals.
Processes for jobs-in-progress. Technicians and supervisors might not be able
to purchase or not have access to purchasing help without unduly interrupting
planners.
Work order system—have an effective

foundation
A work order system serves as the foundation of the planning system
as explained in App. A and is shown in Fig. M.21. Chapter 5 addresses
how planners use work orders and App. J presents an entire example
work order manual.
Aids
Management support. Management has to insist on its use. Sometimes a “no
work order means no work will be done” policy is necessary.
Prescribed process. The work order routing processes need to be defined for
normal and emergency work.
Forms. Principally a work order form or format itself.
Tagged equipment (App. K). Having tagged equipment greatly helps define
which equipment is involved. This is much preferred over requiring originators
to drill down in a CMMS hierarchy.
Deficiency tags (Chap. 5). This is a helpful device for marking equipment and
providing the operator with a field data collection paper device.
CMMS? (Chap. 9, App. L). This has great potential for helping all parts of the
work order process. It is most helpful as a work order origination point, but is less
helpful for technicians in the field where paper forms may be more appropriate.
Barriers
Loss of ability to call maintenance without a work order. Adherence to a work order
system limits the ability to call in work as a special request.
736 Appendix M
Resources: What is needed or might help. Management support

Prescribed process
Forms
Tagged equipment
Deficiency tags
CMMS?
WO system
Have an effective
foundation

Loss of ability to call maintenance without a work order
Back door jobs
Pet projects What might hinder.
Tradition
Lack of reporting on status of work order jobs
CMMS?
Figure M.21 Aids and barriers for utilizing a work order system.
Back door jobs. Casual verbal work may reduce use of the formal work order
system.
Pet projects. Supervisors may ignore the work order system to do what they
think is important.
Tradition. It may be hard to convert the plant culture to using formal work orders.
Lack of reporting on status of work order jobs. Persons become frustrated when
they do use the work order system, but they see no progress on these jobs.
CMMS? The CMMS may be inadequate or set up inadequately to provide the
technicians, supervisors, or planners what they need.
CMMS—have a helpful computer system

A computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) is not a
mandatory prerequisite for effective planning. However, it can provide a
significant aid to planning, as shown in Fig. M.22. It can also be barrier

IT skills and training
IT resources
Project manager from maintenance side
Relationship with IT
IT (information technologies department) interested
Plant resources
Knowledge of available CMMS systems
Capable user lead in maintenance
Knowledge of current CMMS systems
Vision of benefits
Relationships with other companies using CMMS
Budget
CMMS user groups
Time
Travel for user groups and other companies
Consulting companies
CMMS
Have a computer
system that helps

Project manager from IT side
Project manager from engineering
Illusion of real improvement
Project manager from outside maintenance
What might hinder.

Distraction
Inadequate IT support for initial and ongoing
Expense
Loss of capabilities available with simple paper system
Resources
Consulting companies
Time to implement
Overly optimistic
Overuse of templates
Risks of leading edge technology
Current technology becoming obsolete
Difficulty in identifying needs
Figure M.22 Aids and barriers for utilizing a CMMs.
that can cripple a planning effort. Chapter 2-Principle 3 mentions cau-

tions about computerization. The entirety of Chap. 9 is devoted to pos-
sible benefits and potential problems with a CMMS. Appendix L
thoroughly examines the use and implementation of a CMMS.
Aids
Project manager from maintenance side. Most of these projects have a chance. It
is more important to deliver what maintenance needs rather than just deliver
something.
IT (Information Technologies Department) interested. The IT group has a lot going
on and their participation in any CMMS system is vital.
IT persons need overall computer expertise and specific
IT skills and training.
training on the CMMS.
CMMS projects and maintenance requires significant IT labor and
IT resources.
hardware beyond the software itself.
Relationship with IT. The maintenance department is hard pressed to define all
of its requirements for the specific CMMS (such as “what field length should this
be?”) and requires a willingness of the IT group to participate in continuous
improvement at maintenance’s direction. T the same time, the IT group needs
to be able to explain limitations of the software.
Plant resources. Significant user time must be invested.
738 Appendix M
Capable user lead in maintenance. A maintenance person must be familiar enough

with the intricacies of the software and with planning practices to advise and
lead the IT effort.
Vision of benefits. Better ability to find and manage inventory. Better report-
ing ability. Better ability to find work orders. Better ability to link information
to equipment. Common database. Ability to generate and manipulate schedules.
Better ability to manage PM generation.
Budget. CMMS systems are very expensive.
Time. CMMS projects take a long time to implement.
Knowledge of available CMMS systems. What systems are available? What fea-
tures do they have?
Knowledge of current CMMS systems. What systems does the company currently
use? What are its features?
Relationships with other companies using CMMS. Sharing information with other
users accelerates the learning curve.
CMMS user groups. In addition to learning, these forums offer opportunities to
influence the CMMS development and future features.
Travel for user groups and other companies. Takes time and money, but well worth
it.
Consulting companies. May have specific expertise with specific CMMS system.
Barriers
Project manager from IT side.Industry wisdom holds that the majority of the
resultant systems are not satisfactory to maintenance. IT soon loses patience
with maintenance “tinkering.”
Project manager from engineering. Could be undesirable if engineering is not
within the maintenance organization.
Project manager from outside maintenance. Too much emphasis with getting it
done.
Illusion of real improvement. The CMMS itself even when fully implemented
and functioning may not satisfy the maintenance requirement.
Distraction.Too much emphasis on getting the computer working instead of
planning and scheduling properly.
Expense. CMMS systems are very expensive.
Resources. Time taken away from other duties. Expecting user leads to severely
curtail or even abandon their other job responsibilities.
Time to implement. CMMS systems take a long time to implement.
Overuse of templates. CMMS systems may discourage development of cus-
tomized plans for individual pieces of equipment.
Inadequate IT support for initial and ongoing. IT may simply walk away after a
half-hearted installation effort.
Loss of capabilities available with simple paper system. CMMS may not adequately
allow attaching documents or other functions.
Consulting companies. Consultants may not understand maintenance processes

as well as computers (or vice-versa).
Overly optimistic about what is possible. The CMMS may not be capable even
when fully functional.
Risks of leading edge technology. The technology may fail to become fully func-
tional. It may not be compatible with current hardware or software. It may be
unstable and not reliable.
Current technology becoming obsolete. Once a CMMS is in place, the underly-
ing technology may change to the point where the software or hardware
providers may no longer support their systems and their new versions may rad-
ically change in functioning and related benefit.
This factor affects the project not only in the
Difficulty in identifying needs.
design phase (“What would you like it to do?”), but in the testing phase when
the budget is exhausted (“What is good enough?”).
Special Circumstances
Figure M.23 selects several of the special circumstances discussed ear-
lier in this appendix, App. M, on which to develop an aids and barriers
analysis.
Improve existing planning—turn around

an existing group
Figure M.24 shows that this is an area similar to the first aids and bar-
riers analysis done for first organizing a planning group. However, it is
much more difficult to turn around an existing group because so many
poor practices (bad habits) must be changed. It is very hard to back out
of these practices. Not only do the past practices not deliver results, but
in most cases, planning has a bad name and may not be given a second
chance. Management must change a negative perception of planning in
addition to the practices.
All of the subject matter and principles of planning and scheduling
in this handbook address critical issues for proper behavior.
Aids
Someone in charge of the transition.
Two white knights. Someone in management with the authority and someone
in a position to direct the changes.
Special circumstances
♦ Improve existing planning
♦ New plants or units
♦ Self-directed teams
Figure M.23 Special situations to analyze.
740 Appendix M

Someone in charge
Two white knights
Management understanding, support, and communication
Planning and scheduling principles
Right planners
Planner training
Keep planners together
Focus on scheduling
Focus on schedule success
Allow some help for jobs-in-progress
Wrench time study?
Existing planning
Change existing group
Change, inertia
Losing face
Past baggage
What might hinder.
Unclear vision
Right persons don't want to become planners
Expecting perfect plans
Complex processes for purchasing, inventory, and tools
Budget
Wrench time study?
CMMS—Lack of IT support
CMMS—Trying to do it all with the CMMS
Figure M.24 Aids and barriers for redirecting an existing planning group.
Management understanding, support, and communication. Management needs to

explain the new planning strategy and principles to entire workforce.
Planning and scheduling principles (Chap. 1, Chap. 2, Chap. 3, Chap. 4).
Understanding is mandatory.
Right planners (Chap. 11, App. M). Mandatory.
Planner training. Very helpful.
Keep planners together. Helps ensure consistency.
Focus on scheduling (Chap. 3, Chap. 6). This is the area that directly improves
productivity.
Focus on Schedule Success (Chap. 3). This measure drives good behavior in
scheduling and planning.
Allow some help for jobs-in-progress. Allowing some planner interruption by

technicians softens the turn-around.
Wrench time study? (Chap. 2-Principle 6).
The results of a study may convince
management, supervisors, and technicians to support a planning effort.
Barriers
Change, Inertia. It is hard to change existing practices.
Losing face. Planners and others may have considerable emotional investment
in protesting a planning system that was set up incorrectly.
Past baggage. Previous planning system was sold as perfect jobs with all parts
rather than feedback loop. Unclear vision (Chap. 1).
Right persons don’t want to become planners (App. M).
Expecting perfect plans.Technicians were sold on the original planning pro-
gram in that they would never have to hunt for parts or information.
Complex processes for purchasing, inventory, and tools. Only planners can ade-
quately use processes for purchasing, inventory, tools, etc. They are too difficult
for technicians or supervisors to use for jobs-in-progress.
Budget.
Wrench time study? This can be very unwelcome and intrusive.
CMMS – lack of IT support. IT is unwilling to invest the time to make any nec-
essary changes.
CMMS – Trying to do it all with the CMMS. If the CMMS will not support a needed
aspect of planning and scheduling, do that aspect manually or with other sys-
tems such as spreadsheets or email.
New plants or units—establish effective

planning
Figure M.25 shows that new construction provides a good opportunity
to begin operation with effective planning.
Aids
Having the planners in place before maintenance
Establish planning group early.
work is begun allows them to concentrate on collecting manuals and other basic
file information and on equipment tagging.
Develop contractor relationships to enable collection of proper items.
Processes to receive information. These need to be established.
Contract details need to address planning needs. Coordination with the contracts
group is necessary.
Tag equipment early. This takes resources.
Transfer knowledge from startup group. It would be helpful to include the startup
group in initializing databases and files because of their knowledge.
Set up files (Chap. 8). Have these ready to receive information and as a guide
on what to collect.
742 Appendix M

Establish planning group early
Processes to receive information
Contract details
Tag equipment early
Transfer knowledge from startup group
Set up files
Set up some PM's
Resources to initialize CMMS
New plants
Establish
effective planning

Contract details not adequate
Contract details adequate, but not enforced
Contractors resist involvement What might hinder.
Timely receipt of O&M manuals
Start up group not given time or resources to participate
Generic as-builts
CMMS not in place
Figure M.25 Aids and barriers for planning in new plants.
Set up some PM's. This would also be a good time for formal RCM analysis (not
normally a planning function).
Resources to initialize CMMS.
Barriers
Contract details not adequate.
Contract details adequate, but not enforced.
Contractors resist involvement.
Timely receipt of O&M manuals. Many times these manuals are not received
until well after startup and initial operation and troubleshooting.
Start up group not given time or resources to participate. Management may be
planning to disband this group without realizing their ability to help planning.
Generic as-builts. The as-builts may not include adjustments made during startup.
CMMS not in place.
Self-directed teams—use planning and

scheduling
A discussed earlier in this appendix, self-directed teams offer some
unusual challenges to effective planning, but are worth considering
because of the advent of TPM and other arrangements leading to more
maintenance by operations personnel. Figure M.26 shows that the
objective is not so much to use planning and scheduling as it is to achieve
a higher productivity and maintenance effectiveness through the use of
planning and scheduling.
Aids
Focus on schedule (Chap. 3). Teams should still develop goals of work to accom-
plish.
Track Schedule Success (Chap. 3). This measure drives good behavior in sched-
uling and planning.
Focus on schedule
Track schedule success
Offer planning as file service
Use a planning group mostly for central maintenance forces
Self-directed
teams
Use P&S
What might hinder.
Equipment specific teams tend to wait for reactive work
Figure M.26 Aids and barriers for planning with self-directed teams.
744 Appendix M
Offer planning as a file service (Chap. 2).

Use a planning group mostly for central maintenance forces that handle tasks that
are beyond scope of teams.
Barriers
Equipment specific teams tend to wait for reactive work.
Summary
In summary, establishing a planning program along the lines of the
purpose and principles of this book is not difficult to conceptualize.
Management must spend time sharing the vision of planning and select-
ing the right persons for the planning positions. Attention must be given
to the execution of the initial planning effort with careful communica-
tion and working together. Above all, management must want planning
to work and give it support.
An existing planning program with minor misunderstandings might
be helped by reviewing the issues addressed by the planning and sched-
uling principles. Organizations with more fundamental planning prob-
lems may be more difficult to reprogram. Certainly, active management
involvement is key.
Planning may also help plants with other than traditional mainte-
nance organizations within existing or new plants. Persons must consider
their unique situations to adapt the planning principles as appropriate.
Formally analyzing a planning program helps one to recognize aids
and barriers to allow taking appropriate action to insure success.
Finally, above all, someone must sponsor planning and remember
why it is successful. Management must remember why the mainte-
nance planning program works to guarantee its future success.
Appendix
N
Example Formal Job
Description for Planners
This appendix contains an example of a formal job description for main-

tenance planners. A company that develops a job description might find
this example a useful starting point.
Maintenance Planner
The maintenance planner supports the function of the plant mainte-
nance group by developing job plans and advance work schedules. Work
requires good technical, analytical, and communication skills.
The planner reports to the Plant Maintenance Superintendent or
higher level manager.
Duties
Assign codes to work orders.

Make field inspections and determine appropriate job work scopes.
Develop work plans for maintenance jobs with necessary information
to allow efficient scheduling, assignment, and execution of mainte-
nance work.
Create, use, and maintain plant history and other technical files to
include information in current job plans to anticipate and avoid job
delays.
Perform purchasing duties as required.
Stage materials and special tools as required.
Evaluate job feedback to improve future work.
745

746 Appendix N
Keep familiar with current safety rules and regulations.

Utilize CMMS computer software and other computer applications to
support the maintenance function.
Provide technical assistance as required for maintenance personnel.
Prepare reports as required.
Perform related duties as required.
Minimum qualifications
Journeyman level or higher experience in designated craft.

Knowledge of methods, materials, tools, and equipment in the main-
tenance of a modern power station.
Knowledge of large industrial equipment such as fans, pumps, and boil-
ers and their associated components such as bearings and actuators.
Knowledge of safety hazards and appropriate precautions applicable
to work assignments.
Ability to apply technical knowledge to determine equipment problems
and appropriate solutions in swiftly developing job plans.
Ability to perform basic mathematical computations involved in esti-
mating and purchasing.
Ability to communicate clearly and concisely in written and verbal form.
Ability to maintain effective working relationships with other per-
sonnel including operators, vendors, contractors, subordinates, peers,
and superiors.
Ability to utilize common office equipment such as copier, fax machine,
telephone, and personal computer.
Ability to read, interpret, and apply information from files, drawings,
catalogs, reports, and manuals.
Ability to maneuver continuously throughout plant to observe equip-
ment. Ability to walk, sit, stoop, squat, climb ladders and stairs, and
lift and carry objects up to 50 pounds in weight. Ability to perform
simple grasping and fine finger manipulation of small objects. Ability
to crawl on hands and knees to access and observe equipment.
Ability to work comfortably in confined spaces or exposed heights up
to 250 feet with adequate protection.
Ability to wear respiratory protection devices for dust and solvents.
Must possess a valid state driver’s license.
Appendix
O
Example Training Tests
This appendix illustrates the type of knowledge a planner should be

gaining when becoming familiar and adept with planning techniques.
The review of answers to these tests helps clarify the planning princi-
ples. Planners should also review and practice the scheduling examples
of Chap. 7, Advance Scheduling, for work hour forecasts, backlog work
order sorting, and weekly allocation of work orders.
Maintenance Planning Test Number 1

Name: Date:
(Closed Book, except for App. J: Work Order System Manual.)
1. 35% productivity means that for a 10-hour shift, how many hours
are “nonproductive” on the average?
a. 21/2 hours
b. 51/2 hours
c. 61/2 hours
d. 10 hours
2. Productive time includes which of the following?
a. Walking to the job site.
b. Carrying a gasket to the job site.
c. Getting instructions from crew supervisor.
d. Unbolting the casing on a pump.
3. The majority of a typical maintenance budget is:
a. Wages and benefits
b. Parts and supplies
c. Special tools
4. Proactive maintenance is:
a. Fixing equipment as soon as possible.
b. Doing work to prevent equipment from developing serious problems.
c. Being committed to quality work.
747

748 Appendix O
5. Maintenance planning improves ______ of the maintenance force

work.
a. Only efficiency
b. Only quality
c. Both productivity and effectiveness
6. Maintenance planning should be able to raise crew productivity
from 35 up to 55%. This improvement is a ______ increase in pro-
ductivity.
a. 20%
b. 35%
c. 57%
d. 100%
7. The purpose of planning is:
8. Which of the following is not a principle of planning?

a. File system based on tag numbers.
b. Quickly finding part numbers for jobs-in-progress.
c. Planners use personal experience.
d. Technicians are skilled in how to perform maintenance.
9. A planner should be able to plan for how many persons? ______
10. The outage code for a short duration outage is . (It helps file
SNOW work.)
11. The work type code for trouble and breakdown is .
12. The department and crew code for operations crew A is .
13. The work type code for work to upgrade a piece of equipment is .
14. The group and system code for the condensate polisher is .
15. The group and system code for the demineralizer is .
16. The equipment type code for a control valve is .
17. The equipment type code for a pump is .
18. What should a planner do about making a minifile if there are not
any tag numbers on the work order or the equipment?
19. Why is it important to file at the component level instead of the

system level?
20. What is the primary supervisory effort over the planning depart-
ment?
a. Continual coordination meetings
b. Direct supervision
c. Procedures
d. Selection and training of planners
e. Indicators
Example Training Tests 749

Name: Date:
(Closed Book)
1. Name one distinguishing characteristic of a reactive-type work
order.
2. Name one distinguishing characteristic of a proactive-type work
order.
3. Name one distinguishing characteristic of a minimum maintenance
work order.
4. Which of the following is not always part of the planned package?
a. Who (which craft)
b. What (what needs to be done)
c. Where (where is equipment)
d. How (how job needs to be done)
5. Which jobs would be planned first (both R-2 priority)?
a. Reactive
b. Proactive
6. What is the first thing a planner would do after selecting a reactive,
extensive work order to plan?
a. Go to the minifile.
b. Make a field inspection.
c. Plan the job.
d. Check material availability.
7. What craftperson entry would the planner make for a job requiring
an extra set of hands?
a. Apprentice
b. Trainee
c. Helper
d. Anyone
e. Technician
8. What craftperson entry would the planner make for a job requiring
pressure vessel welding?
a. Technician
b. Welder
c. Helper
9. What craftperson entry would the planner make for a mechanical
job merely requiring a responsible person?
a. Mechanic
b. Certified mechanic
c. Technician
d. Helper
10. The primary source of time estimates for jobs is:
a. Planner judgment and experience
b. Past work orders
750 Appendix O
c. CMMS
d. Time standards
e. Supervisor estimate
11. What parts should the planner list on the work order form itself for
a proactive work order?
a. Only parts anticipated to be used
b. All parts in the warehouse for that equipment
c. All parts used on past jobs for that equipment
d. All parts mentioned in the minifile
12. Must a planner find part information (such as the inventory
number) even for an anticipated part if it is not already in the
minifile for a reactive, extensive work order?
a. Yes
b. No
13. For a proactive, minimum maintenance work order, should a plan-
ner find the inventory number for an anticipated part if the infor-
mation is not already in the minifile?
a. Yes
b. No
14. Using $25 for each work hour, what is the estimated labor cost for
a job requiring two persons for 10 hours each?
15. What is the total job cost estimate for a job requiring two persons
for 4 hours each, two gaskets, and insulation work? (Use $25 per
work hour, $100 per gasket, and $900 for insulation cost.)
16. How does a planner get job assistance from engineering?
a. Call one of the plant engineers.
b. Send request to morning meeting.
c. Through the Job Planning Coordinator.
d. Through the Planning Supervisor.
17. How does a planner develop an estimate for insulation work?
a. Through the planning supervisor.
b. By rule of thumb.
c. From planner experience.
d. Through the purchaser.
18. Which is most correct for a job requiring special safety equipment?
a. Include any special safety requirements with the job plan.
b. Presume the technician is skilled and knows what to do for safety.
19. During the course of a job, what information would a planner not
necessarily put in a new minifile?
a. All past work orders kept in other files before planning was
started.
b. Worthwhile information that comes up during the job.
c. The original of the work order form, if historically significant.
d. All that concerns delays for that job.
20. Who fills out the actual cost sections of the work order form?
a. Lead technician
b. Crew supervisor
c. Planner

Name: Date:
(Open Book)
1. Where would a planner look for pump impeller material informa-
tion first?
a. Technical files
b. Minifile
c. Vendor files
2. Use the sample Standard Plans in Chap. 8. For the “B” Fuel Oil
Service Pump, what is the manufacturer’s part number for the
Casing Rings? _______________________________________________
3. Use the sample Standard Plans in Chap. 8. What size chainfall is
required for the Fuel Oil Pressure Temperature Control Valve
Replacement? ________________________________________________
4. What is the complete component tag number for the “A” Fuel Oil
Service Pump on Fig. 8.9?
a. 02-FC-028
b. N02-FC-034
c. 028
d. 034
5. Which of the following files are in a proper shelf order?
a. N02-FC-028, N02-FC-030, N02-FC-003
b. N02-FC-002, N02-JX-021, S05-FC-002
6. What is the complete component tag number for the equipment des-
ignated by bubble 016 on Fig. 8.9? _____________________________
7. Which pump is associated with relief valve N02-FC-029 on Fig. 8.9?
a. “A” Pump
b. “B” Pump
c. “C” Pump
8. The use of Critical or Rotating Spares reduces service equipment
downtime.
a. True
b. False
9. The planner uses which of the following to code whether the work
is a failure or breakdown.
a. Outage code
b. Work type code
752 Appendix O
c. Plan type code

d. Crew code
10. When coding a work order, where does a planner determine which
blanks are required to be filled out by the originator?
a. Work Order System Manual
b. Minifile
c. Planning supervisor
11. Who creates the daily schedule?
a. Crew supervisor
b. Planning supervisor
c. Planner
d. Maintenance scheduler
12. What is the most important indicator of planning and scheduling
performance?
a. Planner productivity
b. Planned coverage
c. Type of work
d. Minifiles made
e. Wrench time
f. Schedule compliance
13. A weekly schedule contained 1000 planned work hours for a crew to
complete. The crew completed 750 of the planned work hours that
were scheduled. The crew also started (but did not finish) jobs with
50 more of the scheduled work hours that will carry over into the next
week. In addition, the crew completed 150 hours of high priority work
orders not on the weekly schedule. The schedule compliance is %
for this crew.
14. Complying with the weekly schedule is always within the control of
the crew supervisor.
a. True
b. False
(Note: Questions 15 through 20 use the general coding structure of
Appendices J and K and use ∗ as a wild cord. However, exact answers
may depend on the specific CMMS the company uses.)
15. To find all the work orders in the computer for the Unit 2 conden-
sate polishers, put in the “Eq number:” field.
a. N02-C
b. N2-CP
c. N02-CP∗
d. ∗CP∗
16. When just approved by the morning meeting, is in the work
order “status” field.
a. APPR
b. WSCH
c. INPRG
d. CLOSE
e. HOLD-MATL
17. To determine exactly what computer fields for which to enter data
when finding a work order, consult the .
a. Planning supervisor
b. Work Order System Manual computer section
18. Persons can use the computer system to find all the work orders they
have written.
a. True
b. False
19. Fill in the following fields to find all work orders that are planned
and ready to be started on the Unit 2 B boiler feed pump (Equipment
tag is N02-QB-002):
Eq number:
Status:
20. Fill in the following fields to find all Unit 2, waiting-to-be-scheduled
work orders that can be done on a short notice outage in less than
24 hours:
Eq number:
Status:
Outage code:
Estimated duration:
Appendix
P
Questions for Managers
to Ask to Improve
Maintenance Planning
Someone once asked, “What is the plant manager responsible for?” The
answer is “Everything.”
To conclude the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook,
this appendix illustrates the type of knowledge and information a
maintenance manager uses when evaluating or implementing a
planned maintenance process and culture. These are some of the key
questions that managers must ask themselves and others and the
concerns behind the questions.
1. Do we consider planning as essential?
2. Do we have a feel for what our wrench time probably is? (Do we
know why maintenance planning helps instead just doing it because
we have always done it or just wanting to do it because others do it? Do we
think our wrench time without effective planning and scheduling is
probably at or below 35%? Do we want at least 50% wrench time? Do
the craftpersons have an idea of the concept of wrench time? Do we
have a desire to keep technicians on job sites? Do we want planning
because we want to free up the work force to do more work? Do we think
that we need to schedule more work? Do we want planning and sched-
uling to help take us there? Do we want weekly schedules? Do we real-
ize how much planning and scheduling will help?)
3. Is the planning system accountable to someone? (Do we accept
indicators helping to drive us, such as planned coverage, wrench time,
schedule compliance, days of planned backlog, and percentage of reac-
tive work? Is 80% of our labor hours spent on planned jobs? Is schedule
compliance being measured?)
755

756 Appendix P
4. How do we select a planner? (Do we spend enough effort to obtain

the best person for a planner? Is the planner a highly respected and
sought after position? Do we understand why a single planner is worth
17 persons? Do we think a person planning is as important as a person
supervising? Does upper management understand why we need a plan-
ner position? Have the planners or the key persons directing planning
been sufficiently empowered to make it happen?)
5. Where are the planners? (Do we avoid using planners as fill-in
help for short-handed crews? Does the crew supervisor understand that
for each person given over to planning, the crew receives 17 technicians
in return? Are maintenance planners spending most of their time plan-
ning future work? Do planners avoid spending much time helping tech-
nicians with jobs that have already started? How do we know?)
6. How are the files arranged and used? (Are files established at the
component level or are we trying to file by systems or some other means?
Are we creating many minifiles? Do we insist on job feedback? Can
planners easily show examples of some technician feedback that was put
into the files? Would a technician in the middle of the night be able to
find equipment information? Do we assure technicians that planning is
not intending to use their feedback to develop plans so that contractors
can replace the technicians?)
7. Do the pieces of equipment in the field have labels in place showing
their equipment numbers? (Do the files use the same number? Does the
equipment numbering system make sense? Is the equipment tagging
group supporting the planners needs? Are equipment tags being placed in
order of higher maintenance systems first? Do equipment tags look neat?
Is the tagging group responsive to the planning group’s suggestions?)
8. Are the planners planning all the work? (Are we trying to avoid
overly detailed job procedures on initial plans? Do we realize that a
scope from an accomplished technician that gives craft skill and hour
estimates is an advantage over the original work request? Do we know
we do not need O&M manuals on every job? Do the planners ultimately
trust their instincts for determining time estimates? Do planners avoid
estimating most jobs by the shift arrangement such as estimating 4 or
8 hours just because the work shift is 8 hours? Do we know that plan-
ning should not slow down the start of work on reactive jobs?)
9. Do we schedule for an entire week for each crew? (Are we willing
to have the crews follow an advance allocation of work for a week? Does
the 1-week schedule account for every available crew hour? Do we insist
on proper use of the priority system? Do we support weekly and daily
scheduling by not holding special meetings or events with less than a
week’s notice? Do supervisors assign work orders using the hours esti-
mated by the planners? Is the percentage of labor hours spent on reac-
tive work becoming less? Are we completing more proactive work orders
than previously?)
Questions for Managers to Ask to Improve Maintenance Planning 757
10. Are we doing any staging of parts or tools? (Should we consider

staging parts? Are there no parts currently staged for jobs that have
already been completed? Does the right person stage the parts?)
11. How do we utilize the computer system? (Do we know that a com-
puter system is not necessarily planning? Do we understand the proper
role of a CMMS and how much it should help? Do we know a computer
will not compensate for a poor maintenance process? Does the computer
system do a daily backup of its records?)
12. Are we avoiding trying to obtain more out of planning than is there
by itself? (Do we have a good work order system? Are technicians doing
all work through work orders? Are we avoiding blanket work orders? Do
we have clear guidelines on how to write work orders? Is there a stan-
dard work order form at each location? Does the work order form col-
lect cost? Do the supervisors spend more time in the field coaching than
in the office doing desk work? Are shops and tools useful for completing
work? Is the storeroom service satisfactory for both having parts and
allowing quick retrieval? Are unused items easily returned to the store-
room? Is the percentage of our work on PM measured? Is a majority of
all work orders initiated during PMs? Are PMs oriented toward inspec-
tions? Do technicians write up work orders to correct other deficiencies
when performing preventive maintenance? Are preventive maintenance
jobs planned and scheduled? Is the feedback from preventive mainte-
nance jobs reviewed? Does the computer cancel PMs if the crew does not
complete them before the next ones are issued? Does PdM use the same
equipment numbers as the planners? Is any PdM information going
into the planning files? Is the percentage of our work on project work
to improve equipment measured? Do we look for root causes after any
failures? Has the maintenance group set up any equipment standards
for the corporate project group to follow?)
13. Is planning “working”?
Appendix
Q
Contracting Out Work
This appendix provides a comprehensive analysis of contracting out

work issues. This analysis is necessary because of the major trend of out-
sourcing, the fear technicians have that planning facilitates contractors,
and the controversial nature of contracting disputes.
Bruce Hutchins of Lean SCM LLC (2005) says “For most companies,
today’s business model is simple: Core processes are retained, and non-
core processes are outsourced.” Whether or not maintenance is a core
process, the fact that many companies do not consider it one is evident
from the number of maintenance services they outsource. Just as com-
panies compete to stay in business, maintenance organizations com-
pete as well. They compete for the right to maintain company assets.
They compete on the basis of being the best choice for company main-
tenance services. Contractors who would take over some or even all of
the services offer considerable competition. Huge contractors continu-
ally approach senior management in large companies offering to per-
form their entire maintenance functions “better and at a lower cost.”
Furthermore, if the maintenance organization is competing, its individ-
ual employees are competing as well. Therefore, the issues involved in
contracting out work are vital to maintenance personnel. Consequently,
because maintenance planning plays an integral part in the strategy to
make maintenance more effective and efficient (“better and at a lower
cost”), this appendix serves an important role to address the interrela-
tionships among maintenance, planning, and contracting out work. The
message is clear; a company can make its own maintenance force better
or have someone else do its maintenance.
In addition, as expressed by App. B Rule 1, technicians have a healthy
fear of planning facilitating contractors. They resist management setting
up a planning department and hesitate to provide good feedback on jobs
they think planners would use to help future contractors. However,
759

760 Appendix Q
proper planning by its design does not facilitate extensive contracting.

Planning strives to give technicians a head start, not give contractors a
complete job plan. There are too many jobs for the planner to give suffi-
cient details on every plan for contractors less familiar with plant equip-
ment and processes. Planning hopes to be a technician library service and
must have the feedback. Because of the genuine fear and need for tech-
nician support, it is appropriate to examine contracting thoroughly.
Finally, contracting out work is not a simple matter of the company
deciding to hire another company to perform certain work that their own
employees might have been able to accomplish. Arbitrator M. Fox, Jr.,
(1985) claims that “Subcontracting is one of the most fundamental and
controversial issues in labor relations.” Management and labor have
interests that conflict and generate controversy. On one hand, a company
wants to run its business as efficiently and economically as possible. On
the other hand, employees desire job security. These interests some-
times conflict when management wants to contract out work. Labor
groups routinely bring disputes over contracting out work to arbitration.
Many companies cannot simply do as they please when it comes to con-
tracting just as employees cannot simply perform work any way they
want. Labor contracts direct company actions when it comes to con-
tracting out work. Because of contractual requirements, it is helpful to
examine arbitration cases to determine what work a company may or
may not properly contract out to others.
This appendix addresses several aspects of contracting out work. Why
would a company contract out work? What are some problems with con-
tracting out work? What are some alternatives on how a company might
contract out work? And finally, what are guidelines for contracting out
work from the viewpoint of modern arbitration decisions?
Why Contract Out Work?

To answer the question “Why contract out maintenance?” one must first
ask, “Why does a company do maintenance?” A company does mainte-
nance to achieve a company objective. In very broad terms, that company
objective is to make money. The company makes money with assets.
Those assets must operate. Maintenance keeps assets operating. Thus,
as Fig. Q.1 illustrates, a company does maintenance to keep assets oper-
ating so that it can make money with them, its objective. Furthermore,
the general business wisdom that it is better to be effective than to be
efficient, or that effectiveness comes before efficiency, applies in mainte-
nance. Companies make much more money by keeping equipment oper-
ating at a high availability and efficiency than they make from skimping
on maintenance expenditures. Ron Moore of The RM Group, Inc. (March
1998) who identifies many of the listed items below, notes that DuPont
claims “Maintenance’s contribution to uptime is worth 10 times the
Achieve a company objective:
Make a profit
With assets
Assets must run
Need maintenance
Figure Q.1 Where maintenance itself fits into the
big picture.
potential for cost reduction.” In other words, a company must foremost

be concerned with effective maintenance and only secondarily concerned
with efficient maintenance. Another way to put this would be to say, if
a company is not keeping its assets operating, then it does not matter
how much it saves on maintenance costs. Therefore, the reason a com-
pany would subcontract maintenance would be to procure a more effec-
tive maintenance effort and better asset performance.
A company may wish to contract out maintenance a number of reasons.
The foremost reason is to achieve a company objective, primarily the best
performance of assets. The following list shows this and other reasons.
Why Contract out Maintenance?
■ Achieve Better Asset Performance
■ Outsource Noncore Process
■ Lower Cost
■ Obtain Better Overall Expertise
■ Reduce Risk and Variability of Maintenance Cost
■ Obtain Unusual Skills for Unusual Work
■ Obtain Distinct Expertise or Services
■ Obtain Unusual Tools or Equipment
■ Allow Easier Adding or Reducing of Staffing
■ Lower Bureaucracy for Staffing
■ Reduce Personnel Problems
■ Outsource Lower Skilled Tasks
■ Supplement Staffing for Special Events
■ Obtain Help for Emergencies
762 Appendix Q
The first reason above, to achieve better asset performance, may or may
not be possible through contracting out maintenance work. However, the
reasoning is proper. A company must carefully consider if contracting out
all of maintenance or a portion of it would lead to better asset performance.
Management may feel that maintenance is simply not a core process
and wish to outsource it. Many companies have successfully outsourced
integral processes such as accounting, payroll, and even human resources.
Unfortunately, many companies look primarily at the third reason,
cost savings, thinking that maintenance is not only a noncore process,
but that it is a commodity as well. They think that anyone can provide
the same effectiveness in maintenance. They think that their current
maintenance effectiveness will continue if simply contracted to another
agency. These companies do not even invest in their own maintenance
organizations in terms of training, management attention, tooling, and
processes and are surprised that asset performance is not in the top
quartile. In reality, industry wisdom suggests that if a company focuses
on lowering costs, reliability goes down. Yet, if a company focuses on
increasing reliability, costs go down as stated in Fig. Q.2.
The company may realize that maintenance is not a commodity and
the next reason, obtain better overall expertise, may be valid. Perhaps
a company simply does not consider maintenance an area sufficient to
justify management attention and professional staffing. Hiring a com-
pany that has devoted itself to modern maintenance practices and
expertise to perform maintenance may raise the overall effectiveness of
maintenance. In addition, hiring the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM), may provide better expertise overall for maintaining a large
system obtained from that OEM.
Brian Schimmoller, Associate Editor of Power Engineering (1998), points
out the dramatic variability in maintenance yearly cost. Several major
breakdowns may significantly increase the cost of 1 year’s maintenance
above another. A plant might lower its risk by outsourcing maintenance
to a large maintenance contractor for a yearly fixed fee in which the con-
tractor absorbs the risk by having contracts at many different plants.
Companies most commonly contract out maintenance work to obtain
unusual skills for unusual work. This circumstance usually involves
Industry wisdom
♦ If focus on cost, then
reliability goes down.
♦ If focus on reliability, then
cost goes down.
Figure Q.2 The reliability-cost relationship.
only contracting out a portion of the plant’s maintenance work, not all
of it. A plant finds many situations in which an unusual maintenance
challenge presents itself. The plant might normally only need welding
services once or twice each year. Rather than keep a welder on staff, the
company hires the services of another company to make a few welds each
year. The concept of “pay as you go” definitely saves money over paying
for largely unnecessary skills on staff continually. Chapter 5 includes a
section on Contracting out Work describing how the maintenance and
planning departments would interface with such needs for special skills.
Similarly, the plant may need other distinct expertise or services where
it may not make sense for it to hire full time positions. This distinct expert-
ise or other service may be professional or semiprofessional in nature such
as predictive maintenance or cathodic protection servicing. A company
may not have enough predictive maintenance work to justify full-time
positions and might also wish to avail itself of professional companies
that do the predictive maintenance work full-time working with many
companies. Such cost sharing among companies might lower overall cost
and increase the expertise of what might be possible to have in-house.
Along these same lines, a company might best contract for special tools
or equipment used in maintenance only when needed. These might
involve large cranes including their operators. While the occasional
rental cost of a large crane would be expensive, it might be lower than
the yearly cost of owning a crane.
Next, using a contractor might allow easier ramping up or down of
staffing. The company may find it easier to ramp up for maintenance
intensive times with contractors than to keep persons on staff. While
hiring may not be a problem, companies may find it difficult to termi-
nate satisfactory employees. On the other hand, a contractor with sev-
eral contracts at several plants can keep good employees and shift
resources among different plants as needed. George Connaughton of
Augusta Service Company, Inc. (1993) notes that his experience shows
that the occasional adding or reducing staff actually increases the over-
all competency level of the craft persons utilized. The less competent
craft persons are not asked back.
A company’s own bureaucracy may prevent it from responding ade-
quately to hiring the necessary quantities and skills of maintenance per-
sonnel when needed.
Some companies may prefer to have a third party deal directly with
maintenance persons to reduce its own personnel problems. A smaller
plant may have limited human resource personnel while a larger con-
tractor may be more capable of handling such issues.
The company may outsource less skilled maintenance work. While
skilled positions and overall maintenance strategy might be core
processes, certain tasks are not. Ron Moore suggests these lower skill
tasks might include janitorial work and landscaping.
764 Appendix Q
A company may benefit from having a contractor supplement its staff

for special events and circumstances. Many plants use contractors to
supplement forces for major outages. The plant needs more persons
than it could normally keep on staff. In addition, a plant might suddenly
find itself needing extra labor or expertise for an unexpected emergency.
Plants may hire contractor help or expertise when the scope of an emer-
gency goes beyond the capability of the plant. (Incidentally, this illus-
trates the true trade-off between reliability and cost. Plants readily pay
handsomely for restoring critical assets back to service. Obviously, atten-
tion to reliability comes before cost. One wonders why some plants will
not pay enough for ongoing maintenance, adequate to keep the assets
from failing in the first place.)
All of these real and perceived benefits encourage plants to consider
contracting. Additional circumstances exist as blends of these aspects.
For example, some plants contract out scaffolding work because the
work is not everyday, the work is labor intensive, the work can be done
with lesser skilled labor under the supervision of other persons with spe-
cial expertise in scaffolding safety regulations, and the work requires
special equipment.
Problems with Contracting Out Work

Nonetheless, a company that makes its profits with assets, especially
heavy or sophisticated equipment, may find that the expertise needed
to keep that equipment operating, namely maintenance, is difficult to
give away. Ron Moore (February 1998) has also identified many of the
following potential problems with contracting.
Problems with Contracting out Maintenance
■ May Lessen Asset Performance and Raise Cost
■ May Outsource a Core Process
■ Disclose Trade Secrets
■ Cost to Coordinate and Manage Contractor
■ More Interfaces
■ Morale
■ Not Sharing Knowledge
■ Contractor Less Familiarity
■ May Lose Best In-House Persons
■ May Lose Best Contractor Persons
■ Liability of Contractor On-Site
■ In-House Contract May Prohibit
The greatest problem with contracting out work applies to anything

purchased. A company may not get what it expected. Maintenance is an
intricate combination of art and science requiring proper professional
and management attention for best results. Many companies go from
mediocre to terrible when trying to improve through relinquishing con-
trol of maintaining their vital assets.
The company may find that maintaining these assets was a core
process after all. A core process gives a company its competitive edge in
the market and certainly, the health of the assets plays a role. The more
capital intensive is an industry, the more important it is for its assets
to deliver.
Along the lines of a core process, Jim Humphries of Flour Corp. (2004)
notes that close alliance with a contractor to maintain company assets
may necessitate the disclosure of intellectual property or proprietary
knowledge. The contractor should understand a company’s process in
order to maintain it. Moreover, if a company hires a large contractor for
its effect, should the company turn over operations to the contractor as
well as maintenance? The old adage that an operator can wreck a piece
of equipment faster than maintenance can repair it is true. In addition,
modern maintenance is moving toward more operator involvement in
maintenance with programs such as, Total Productive Maintenance
(TPM). Can a company and contractor have an agreement to create a
maintenance effect without considering operations? Including opera-
tions as contracted work makes consideration of trade secrets and core
processes even more relevant.
Adding a contractor requires coordination cost and effort. This
includes management and follow-up work. As discussed in Chap. 5,
planners and supervisors can coordinate single contracts for small spe-
cific tasks. However, massive contractor involvement requires more
management attention. Turning over all maintenance responsibility
requires extensive time setting up difficult contracts. Ron Moore
(February 1998) stresses that “...the contractor must deliver an effect,
not simply supply a service for a fee.” Contracts agreeing on perform-
ance measures are much more difficult to establish than simple time and
material contracts. Time and material based agreements have natural
conflicts. The company wants the best maintenance for a reasonable cost.
The contractor wants as much work as possible. In the case of time and
material, the company must carefully monitor contractor performance,
as if the company was the maintenance expert. In the case of perform-
ance agreements, the company must spend considerable time designing
the agreements. In addition, many plants find that contractors do not
deliver the quality as expected as discussed in the first problem listed
above. Thus, in-house maintenance persons follow behind contractors
checking quality and fixing problems.
766 Appendix Q
Interfaces become more of a problem as more contractors enter the

workforce. Will contractors enter their time on work orders specific to
equipment so the plant can track asset maintenance? Will contractors
keep this information themselves on their own systems? Will that move
the knowledge base of the plant away from the owners? Will contractors
deal directly with operations to request equipment clearances?
George Connaughton (1993) notes that morale of in-house persons
becomes one of the main concerns for plants that mix in-house and contract
labor. A difference in pay and benefits between in-house and contractors
doing essentially the same work causes significant morale problems. In
addition, in-house labor cannot help but be concerned over “outsiders
doing their work,” the subject of the arbitration section at the end of this
appendix.
If in-house craft persons resent having contractors on site, they will
certainly resist helping them. Sharing of knowledge makes mainte-
nance much more effective. The experience of the workforce overall
helps individuals on various tasks. Frequent communication among
technicians increases productivity by overcoming trivial obstacles that
stop jobs. Mixed forces of in-house and contract labor lose this benefit.
Outside contractors, by definition, would normally be less familiar
with the plant. This is devastating to planning which depends on tech-
nicians being familiar with basic plant processes such as storerooms,
purchasing, locations, and operation resources. While contractors can
become familiar with the plant after a time, many contracting compa-
nies do not keep employees as long as a company might keep someone
in-house, so a contract person might generally always be more on a
learning curve.
Because of the morale issues and in-house persons seeing “their work”
go away, technicians who are more competent may choose to leave.
These “best” technicians can more easily obtain other jobs leaving the
company with an overall less competent workforce. Similarly, company
programs to downsize a portion of their workforce with rewards or com-
pensation packages tend to see their best technicians leave first. A more
aggressive program to terminate technicians who are less competent in
favor of hiring more contractors further aggravates the morale issues
of in-house persons remaining. Similarly, the contractor may have a
harder time keeping competent technicians who can find other jobs with
more security.
Jim Humphries (2004) also asks, “Can the service provider cause an
environmental or safety incident for which you retain accountability or
that will risk your company’s reputation?” As a company gives over con-
trol to a contractor, it must consider accountability and liability issues.
Does the contractor actually have a better safety record and environ-
mental expertise than that of in-house? On the other hand, does the com-
pany lose some ability to train and control persons working at its site?
Finally, the company’s labor contract may prohibit contracting out cer-
tain work. A contract is an agreement with the labor force that speci-
fies each party’s conduct. Contracts should reduce problems by setting
forth agreements in advance. Unfortunately, many times companies
and unions misunderstand these agreements. Companies might inad-
vertently contract out prohibited work and unions might raise concerns
over perceived violations causing labor problems.
Alternative Forms of Contracting Out Work

This section considers several modes of contracting out maintenance
making application of the above discussions. These modes include con-
tracting out all of maintenance and operations, all of maintenance, all
of the labor within maintenance, only lower skills, unusual tasks or
other tasks requiring special expertise, and supplemental labor. It con-
cludes with an appeal to upgrade or supplement in-house maintenance
management expertise.
Contracting out all of maintenance

and operations
For a company considering contracting out all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities, the great issue is not how to structure a
performance based contact. The great issue is whether it truly would be
better for a plant to give over control of its assets to someone else. The
company takes a huge risk turning over control of its assets.
Nevertheless, the above sections discuss the potential advantages and
problems of contracting. The following paragraphs apply these consid-
erations for such extreme contracting.
Companies that contract all of their maintenance and operations
place the responsibility for asset performance on the contractors. The
contracts should be based on achieving certain plant performance goals,
not on time and material type thinking. Furthermore, as Jim Humphries
(2004) suggests, the measure of achieving these goals should have a
direct effect on company financial performance and the contractor should
have significant control over the plant function to control or influence
the performance. He also recommends the contractor be included in the
design of the plan. Just as important, Humphries points out that the
company must want the contractor to make the goals and recommends
adding incentive awards that the company also wants the contractor to
earn. The plant wants the high performance and is willing to pay for it.
The plant does not want to save any money on maintenance if it means
ending proper plant maintenance. In addition, if the contractor is respon-
sible for total maintenance, certain areas (again such as janitorial and
landscaping) should be subject to measures such as customer satisfaction.
768 Appendix Q
The company must be truly willing to partner with the contractor shar-
ing information, goals, and risks.
Doug Jones of Doug Jones and Associates (2005) presents an excel-
lent consideration of partnering. Among other things, he advocates both
parties must have trust, not being afraid to share information. They
must be in the partnership for the long term, not getting caught up in
short term prices. He also recommends short agreements with believ-
able commitments.
Short-term agreements with overall maintenance organization have
the problem of the contractor not being able to invest in equipment
upgrades that would not pay back within the contract timeframe. If the
contractor does not have the control over buying new equipment, the
contractor must then convince plant management to spend company
funds to reduce contractor cost, a conflict.
Planning fits into this scenario of contracted maintenance in the same
place it does for company maintenance. The contractor should imple-
ment a planning function to increase contractor maintenance efficiency.
The planning would function as in any maintenance environment, plan-
ning and scheduling work orders for craft technicians.
Contracting out all of maintenance

The scenario of contracting all of maintenance (but not operations) is
more common for certain large maintenance contractors and OEM’s. All
of the preceding section recommendations and admonitions apply with
the understanding that the contractor has less control over the plant
achieving its goals without operations ownership. The separate opera-
tions group requires more interfaces and less control on the part of the
contractor. The company has somewhat less risk because it maintains
control over operations, but this extra interface may interfere with the
contractor’s efforts and success.
Contracting out all the labor within

maintenance
Augusta Service Company (1993) contracts only the craft positions and
keeps the supervisors and managers under company employment. This
arrangement keeps the overall maintenance strategy under the control
of the company, but allows the easier adding or reducing of craft posi-
tions to meet the workload. Not having any technicians work for the com-
pany avoids previous morale problems it had experienced in the past
when it mixed in-house and contractor technicians. The company and
contractor are careful to establish some job security and set competitive
wages to keep competent technicians from leaving. This reduces the
potential of not having skilled technicians familiar with the plant. Being
significantly connected to a large contractor should also provide a com-

pany with easy access to extra forces to supplement the workforce during
special circumstances.
Contracts are set on a time and material basis with the expectations
that the contractor maintain certain numbers of persons and skill levels
on-site. The time and material basis are appropriate because the com-
pany managers and supervisors direct the maintenance and are respon-
sible for resulting asset performance.
Again, planning should fit directly into the maintenance organization.
The company would employee the planners at the supervisor level,
working for the company, not the contractor. The planners would plan
work for competent technicians, schedule their work for the supervisors,
and expect good feedback to improve future plans. This is basic plan-
ning without any modifications.
Contracting out lower skills

Management may decide to subcontract out lesser skilled work such as
landscaping or plant cleaning. This might avoid the problems of mixing
contractor and in-house persons of the same skill level. The company
should take careful note of even this lesser skilled work currently per-
formed by in-house personnel leading to labor problems. Will the in-
house persons be dismissed? Will they be reclassified? Is it truly
economical to contract it out or would it make appropriate “fill-in” work
for existing persons? Perhaps the in-house persons would welcome man-
agement arranging for an outside contractor to do this work.
Planning’s role does not change much with the addition of lesser
“maintenance” work. Planners do not plan custodial work or landscap-
ing whether in-house or not. Planning might be involved to obtain a
quote and execute a purchase order for some of this type work, but it
does not materially affect a planning department.
Contracting out unusual tasks or other tasks

requiring special expertise
Maintenance organizations commonly conduct outsourcing for unusual
tasks or other tasks requiring special expertise. Some labor conflicts
occur when in-house persons disagree with the unavailability of prop-
erly skilled in-house resources. Nevertheless, the company saves
money by contracting on an as-needed basis when there is not enough
work to justify keeping such skills employed full-time. The plant should
have contacts and processes for obtaining anticipated skilled expertise.
This area is the most connected to a planning department. Chapter 5
discusses specifics on arranging, coordinating, and supervising such
contractors.
770 Appendix Q
Contracting out to supplement labor

Contracting out for supplemental labor may be the most controversial
area for subcontracting. Companies do need access to more labor at
times and cannot always wait for the existing workforce to “catch up.”
Outages of limited duration cannot be economically extended.
Emergencies cannot wait. The company may be understaffed for the cur-
rent workload and management may be unwilling to hire enough per-
sons if it perceives not needing them for more than a few years.
Management may be more willing to contract out work than to overwork
its own workforce with extensive overtime. Management may desire to
implement projects and equipment upgrades more quickly than the
existing workforce can manage. Management may have access to con-
tractors that can perform the desired work at a better price than its own
employees can manage. The contractor might interest also the company
in contracting work even if it is not necessarily less expensive than
doing it in-house.
All of these circumstances cause labor great concern, but perhaps
none more so than the last two. Contractors can sometime perform work
more economically than can in-house labor. Isn’t the in-house labor a
“sunk cost” a company pays whether it uses it or not? Wouldn’t it always
be less expensive to use such “free” labor? Not necessarily. If the com-
pany does not have idle persons, it has economic choices. One choice is
to delay current work to do the new work. Supposedly, the current work
has an economic impact to the company if not done. Another choice is
delaying the new work until the in-house force can get to it. However,
the new work also has an economic impact to the company if not done.
The company compares the value of delaying the new work versus
delaying other work. The company may decide it wants all the work
done because it wants to keep assets in-service so it can make a profit.
An extension to this concern on the part of labor is that the company
may realize it is paying more than the market rate for in-house labor
and downsize through layoffs, terminations, or attrition in favor of using
contractors.
In these situations, planning has difficulty. It is very difficult to plan
for a mixed maintenance group. Planning typically cannot plan enough
jobs in the level of detail necessary for craft-persons unfamiliar with the
plant processes and equipment. Furthermore, technicians resist giving
needed feedback to help planners under such circumstances. Planners
have two directives in such situations. One, they should plan for the
existing workforce to make it as productive as possible so that the exist-
ing workforce can complete all of management’s projects and limit the
lure of contracting out routine work. Second, they should continue to put
the same level of detail in plans even going to contractors. The plans that
do go to contractors should not be bid documents, but general scopes of
work where the field supervisors over the respective areas may have to
help the contractor personnel with plant familiarity. The supervisor
might fill out the work orders giving the planners proper feedback for
contractors and in-house technician work.
Increasing in-house maintenance

management expertise
A management perception that it either does not have the expertise to
manage effective maintenance or that a contractor could reduce cost
leads to the wholesale contracting of maintenance. The possible reduc-
tion of cost has already been shown as a distraction, but companies
seeking more expertise could easily consider upgrading their own in-
house maintenance management. In light of the above, a company
should strongly consider using an in-house workforce to avoid losing con-
trol of a possible core process. A logical alternative would be to upgrade
the in-house knowledge and understanding of modern maintenance.
Companies can do this by developing or hiring maintenance profes-
sionals to obtain optimum asset performance. These professionals can
in turn contract with consultants to supplement their knowledge and
expertise.
Arbitration Considerations for Contracting

Out Work
The last section in this appendix explores arbitration rulings for con-
tracting work disputes. Arbitration is a unique method for companies
and unions to settle issues. Both parties agree to abide by the decisions
of an impartial arbitrator saving time and expense over legal action
within courts. One of arbitration’s most unique attributes is the arbi-
trators do not develop compromises or alternate positions. Arbitrators
do not seek to reach a reasonable middle ground between two extreme
positions. They simply choose one or the other position presented. This
encourages both parties make as reasonable as possible cases because
the arbitrator is liable to reject an outrageous position. The arbitrator
merely selects the position as offered that makes the most sense.
This examination is valuable not only for companies with contracts
and organized labor, but also for those companies with neither one.
Companies without contracts or unions should be interested because
the rulings in these arbitration cases set forth principles of correct
and honorable dealings with employees. Even companies without
unions value their employees and try to avoid “patently unfair” practices.
Furthermore, companies consist of employees and they should highly
regard principles of proper conduct. Engaging the hearts and minds of
772 Appendix Q
“Subcontracting is one of the

most fundamental and
controversial issues in labor
relations.”
M. Fox, Jr.
Figure Q.3 Maintenance management must
understand this critical issue.
every employee in addition to their hands and bodies makes more pro-
ductive and effective maintenance departments.
Shown in Fig. Q.3 and as mentioned before, Arbitrator M. Fox, Jr.,
claims that “Subcontracting is one of the most fundamental and contro-
versial issues in labor relations.” On one hand, a company wants to run
its business as efficiently and economically as possible. On the other
hand, employees desire job security. These interests conflict occasionally
when management wants to contract out work.
This section conducts an extensive examination of 32 arbitration cases
to illustrate cautions and guidelines for contracting out work. This
investigation suggests certain guidelines that may be helpful in con-
ducting company business. Endnotes to this chapter identify the indi-
vidual cases.
The examination pursues what arbitrators consider the four primary
aspects of contracting out work disputes. Each aspect is evaluated for
cases with and without express contract provisions regarding contract-
ing out work. As illustrated by Fig. Q.4, these interrelated aspects are
impact on the employees, type of work or equipment involved, reason-
ableness and extent of the company’s justification for the business deci-
sion, and good faith or honorable intention on the part of the employer.
Generally, if the company has violated any single provision of the con-
tract, the arbitrator awards the case to the union, as stated in Fig. Q.5.
Arbitrators consider
♦ Employee impact
♦ Type of work
♦ Business justification
♦ Good faith
Figure Q.4 General areas of subcontracting dis-
putes.
Words like
“more reasonable” and
“must discuss with union”
are critical.
Figure Q.5 Silent contracts do not address sub-
contracting directly.
On the other hand, if the contract contains provisions regarding con-

tracting out and the company does not violate any of them, the arbitrator
usually rules for the company.
Many contracts are silent regarding subcontracting. These contracts
have no express contract provisions on contracting. As stated in Fig. Q.6
arbitrators consider that a contract is silent if it only contains a “recog-
nition clause.” A recognition clause merely states that the employees
work for the company. It does not give them exclusive right to all com-
pany work. Unions sometimes win cases involving silent contracts, but
arbitrators usually award to the company as long as there is some com-
pany economic justification.
Impact on employees
One of the important considerations that an arbitrator makes is what
impact the contracting out of work has on the employees. Impacts are usu-
ally detrimental to the employees. There are several types of adverse
impacts on employees from employers contracting out work to outside
companies. One of the most common impacts is the loss of overtime hours
that employees might have been able to work. Another common com-
plaint is that employees already on layoff or only working part time
might have been able to come back to work full time. A more serious
impact is that of employees being laid off or actually losing their jobs
due to contracting out. Sometimes, companies reclassify employees into
other positions or eliminate entire classifications. In one case, the com-
pany denied employees matching hours and in another case, it denied
employees the opportunity to learn a new skill. In several cases stud-
ied, however, there are no adverse impacts at all on the employees.
A contract is considered
“silent” on subcontracting
if there is only a
recognition clause.
Figure Q.6 Words mean things.
774 Appendix Q
Overtime. Loss of overtime hours was a typical complaint of the union.

In these cases, the employees claimed that had the company not con-
tracted out the work, they could have performed the work themselves on
overtime. Therefore, contracting the work made the employees lose money.
Eight of the 32 cases studied involved loss of overtime. Of these eight
cases, the union won five. Only three were decided in favor of management.
Four of the cases won by the union had actual contract language
addressing the contracting of work. One of these cases had contract lan-
guage that very specifically required while management could contract
out work, management must allow at least one employee to work over-
time whenever the contractor worked overtime. The company claimed
that it was illegal for them to require someone to work when the com-
pany had no work for them to do. The arbitrator ruled that the extra
employee on overtime was valuable in helping the contractor be con-
scious of specific plant safety considerations and the company could find
work to fill the employee’s spare time. The arbitrator was not very sym-
pathetic toward the company trying to avoid specific contract language.1
Another case the union won had specific contract language that prohib-
ited contracting out unless it was “more” reasonable not to do so. The arbi-
trator felt the case could have gone either way except for the word “more.”
He felt this wording made the company obligated to go above and beyond
the call of duty in evaluating why work should not go to the union, which
the company did not do.2 Another case with specific contract references
won by the union was actually decided by a management letter. The
contract did not allow contracting unless there were extenuating cir-
cumstances. There were extenuating circumstances, but the arbitrator
ruled in favor of the union because the union produced a letter in which
management had promised them all work on that system.3 The other
case’s contract allowed contracting, but only if management held advance
discussions with the union. The arbitrator ruled that a simple letter of
notice was not “discussion” and awarded to the union.4
Two of the cases management won had specific contract language. In
one of these cases, contracting out was not allowed if qualified employ-
ees were available. The arbitrator agreed with management the work
involved a higher level of skill.5 In the other case, the contract specifi-
cally did not allow contracting out to avoid paying overtime or if the
employees could perform less expensively for maintenance work. The
company won because it was able to show the work was not maintenance
work, but related to optimizing recent construction work.6
Each of the preceding five cases involving loss of overtime had specific
contract terms regarding contracting out. The arbitrator in each case did
not evaluate whether the loss of overtime work was particularly severe on
the employees, but rather addressed the specific requirements of the con-
tract and other amplifying written documents. Where management violated
any portion of the contract, the arbitrator tended to favor the union.
In the remaining two cases involving loss of overtime, however, the

contract had no requirements regarding contracting. The company and
the union each won one of these cases. In the case management won,
the employee job description specifically included the work involved
and management did not show any specific benefits of contracting out
the work. Yet, the arbitrator awarded to management because of a letter
management had sent to the union 2 years previously. The union had
not responded to the letter. This letter specifically stated that manage-
ment reserved the right to contract out this work.7 Labor won the other
case. In that case, the union successfully disputed management’s claim
that using its own employees would not have supported a required
schedule.8 Thus, in one case, the arbitrator allowed a past stated policy
of being able to subcontract even though no benefit was shown, while
in the other case the arbitrator awarded to the union because a perceived
benefit was not factual. A reasonable explanation of this apparent dis-
crepancy could be that in the former case, management had been upfront
and let the union know how it planned to run its business. It would seem
fair to require the union to voice timely concerns and not allow it to
thwart long-range company plans later. In the latter case, management
made no claim of involving the union in the planning stages.
Employees already not working. More serious from an employee point of

view is contracting work when there are employees already on layoff or
only working part-time. Of the 32 cases reviewed, eight cases involved
this type of situation. Management won six of these cases including
the single case in which there was no contract language regarding
contracting.
In the five cases management won where there was contract lan-
guage, the arbitrators appeared to follow the same pattern as in the loss
of overtime situation. The arbitrator considered the exact wording of the
contract and any unusual circumstances with little regard to the seri-
ousness of the employee impact. In two cases, the contract prohibited
contracting for “customary” work, but past practice showed similar work
was not always given to the employees. Therefore, the arbitrators
decided the work was not customary.9, 10 In another case, the contract
did not allow contracting for maintenance work, but management
showed how the work was part of previous construction work. Therefore,
the arbitrator decided the work was not maintenance.11 In the fourth
case, management was able to show that circumstances “beyond their
control” would have made using their own employees “doubly expensive.”
The contract only prohibited contracting without “consideration” of their
own employees.12 In the last case decided by Arbitrator Feldman, man-
agement was allowed to claim that they did not have sufficient super-
visory personnel to use their own employees. That contract did not allow
contracting unless there was a “lack of personnel.”13
776 Appendix Q
The union won two cases involving employees on layoff with specific
contract language. One case was the same case in the loss of overtime
claim where management’s letter of notice was ruled not the equivalent
of “discussion.” The contract required upfront discussion.l4 In the other
case, the contract only allowed contracting if there was a “lack of related
services.” Management claimed that it had too few supervisors to do the
work in house. The union claimed that
“The phrase ‘related services,’ ... was intended to apply to necessary bar-
gaining unit employees, not to supervisors. Any other interpretation would
totally negate the limitations on subcontracting because the Union has no
control over employment of supervisors. The Company’s view would allow
it to subcontract any work just by dismissing supervisors and then plead-
ing a lack of ‘related services.’”
The arbitrator agreed because there was no indication of any other

interpretation.15 This ruling made in 1986 appears to contradict
Arbitrator Feldman’s 1982 decision in the preceding paragraph regard-
ing lack of available supervision. Companies and unions should be wary
of relying on either of these cases for guidance.
There remains one case involving employees on layoff. Management
won the case. Although there was no reference to contracting in the
contract, there was a “Memorandum of Understanding” that allowed
contracting for new construction and large capital work. The arbitrator
considered this memorandum and the large size of the project when he
ruled for management.16
In all these cases involving employees on layoff, the arbitrator based
his judgment on written documentation rather than much consideration
of actual employee damage.
Loss of job. Much more serious than not recalling already laid-off
employees is when management terminates employees or lays off more
employees. In three cases, employees lost their jobs. Two cases had con-
tractual provisions regarding contracting and one did not. The only case
the union won was one of the cases with contractual provisions. There
were three cases where management did not discharge employees, but
only laid them off. Management won all three.
Arbitration upheld management in only one of the two cases where

management terminated employees and the contract had pertinent lan-
guage. In the case decided in favor of management, the contract disal-
lowed contracting if a job were lost. However, the work did not belong
to the company. The company had stopped pursuing nonprofitable work
and another company began to perform the work. The union really pur-
sued a strange course by calling this work contracting.17
The union won the other case in which contractual language applied
and an employee lost his job. In this case, the contract expressly did
not allow contracting of plant protection work previously per-
formed by employees. The company installed a remote camera system
and contracted with off-site personnel for monitoring. The arbitrator did
not allow contracting with upgraded new technology because he deemed
the work to be the same work as previously performed.18 Although it is
difficult to generalize from a single case, it is interesting to note that the
arbitrator made a judgment about the type of work in favor of the union
when the case involved job loss. Previously when the dispute involved
only overtime or employees already on layoff, the arbitrator readily
agreed with management about the skill involved or construction nature
of the work.
The remaining case involving job loss did not have a contract that
addressed contracting. The company won this case. The case was very
serious because a company decided to eliminate an entire trucking
department in favor of using common carriers. The company proved it
was more economical to use a common carrier. The arbitrator explained
“... the Union here fears for its job security without fully appreciating that
the best job security is with a successful, money making, firm/company.”19
There were three cases involving laying off employees due to con-
tracting. All three had no relevant contract provisions and manage-
ment won each. In the first case, management reclassified a janitor into
a higher paying parts handler job based on the economics of contract-
ing out janitorial work. A few months after this move, management laid
off a parts handler with less seniority due to lack of work. The arbitra-
tor ruled that the reclassification and the later layoff were entirely sep-
arate moves, each made properly. The arbitrator did mention that the
company was in serious financial straights, but did not link this with
his decision.20 In one of the other two cases, the lay off of a janitor was
allowed in favor of contracting on strictly economic reasons. The arbi-
trator noted that the company had solicited the union for alternatives,
but the union had offered none.21 In the last case, the layoffs were deter-
mined to be caused by usual ups and downs of business and they were
not related to the opening of a new plant (which the union claimed as
contracting).22
Considering the information on job loss in addition to the previous

cases on overtime provides an argument for extra caution for manage-
ment in the area of job loss. In two of the six cases the union grieved on
job loss, the work did not even belong to the company or was due to
normal swings in business. There may be a trend for the union to pres-
ent a grievance even in dubious circumstances involving layoffs or job
778 Appendix Q
loss. From the experience in the overtime situations, an arbitrator is very

liable to use management violation of any contract provision as sufficient
to decide in favor of the union. In addition, there may be some evidence to
suggest an arbitrator would decide a borderline case based on the severity
of the impact on the employee or the economic condition of the company.
Management should exercise sensitivity to these considerations when
contracting out work that may involve job loss or layoffs.
Employee classification. Five cases had employees reclassified, that is,

put into other jobs, because of contracting as the impact on the employees.
Management lost one of the two cases that had contractual provisions
against contracting, but won all three where no contract provisions
were present.
In the case management won which had contractual provisions, the
contract prohibited only layoffs for contracting. The contract also
expressly allowed management to determine the number of employees
in any classification. There was little question that management could
eliminate a classification, especially as the reclassified employees had
no loss of wages.23
In the case the union won which had contractual provisions, the con-
tract clearly prohibited contracting for “goods and services within the
normal scope of plant operations.” Arbitration ruled that the associated
trucking was a part of plant operations. Management could not reclas-
sify all of its truckers into other jobs even without wage loss.24
Arbitration vindicated management in all three reclassification cases
that had no contractual provisions about contracting out work. In each
of these cases, management gave clear business reasons such as eco-
nomics or customer appeal and there was no loss of wages.25, 26, 27
In these reclassification cases, the arbitrator tends to rely on strict
interpretations of written documentation where possible. Management
also appears to be free to reclassify employees with no loss of wages and
no contract provisions. There is less guidance for reclassifications where
loss of wages is involved.
Matching hours. One case involved the contractual promise of match-

ing hours. The arbitrator ruled for management that employees should
not get matching hours because the annual inspection work was not rou-
tine and because it had been contracted out previously.28
Opportunity to learn. An interesting case previously mentioned for loss

of overtime also impacted the employees for loss of an opportunity to
learn something new. The union won this case. The contract specifi-
cally prohibited contracting repair work unless it was “more” reasonable
to do so. The contract also specifically permitted contracting of major
reconstruction. The arbitrator ruled that management should have

given this unusual and major repair welding assignment to its own
employees. The employees did not normally weld nor did the company
possess the special knowledge of how to accomplish the task. Arbitration
decided this borderline case by the word “more” which meant that man-
agement should bend over backwards before contracting.29
No impact. Seven cases identified no adverse impact at all from the

contracting out of work. Management won six of these cases and the
union won only one. However, none of these cases were won or lost or
the basis of having no adverse impact on the employees. Management
won the two cases with no contractual provisions.30,31 Management won
two cases with contractual provisions, but no violations and no adverse
employee impact.32,33 The remaining two cases management won had
contract provisions and not only showed no adverse impact, but actu-
ally showed growth in the bargaining units (a benefit, though not due
to the subcontracting).34,35 Labor did win one case that made no men-
tion of employee impact. Labor won based on contractual provisions.36
Arbitrators seem to decide cases involving no adverse employee impact

either by contract interpretation of the type of work involved or by virtue
of the benefit to the company. The following sections discuss these issues.
Work type and equipment

Another important consideration an arbitrator makes is the type of
work and equipment involved. This consideration usually falls into two
broad categories. These categories are whether or not the employees cus-
tomarily or normally do the work.
There are many different reasons for arbitrators to consider work not
to be customary or normal for the employees. Typically, this work is
unusual in some respect or infrequently performed. Construction work
is one example. In addition, work may be a new type of method for doing
old or new tasks. Sometimes, the extensiveness of the work with regard
to time duration or amount of work is a factor. The level of skill required
of the employees may contribute. Occasionally, the location or the type
of equipment used helps to classify the work. The union was able to win
cases even with work that employees did not customarily or normally
perform and without specific contract provisions.
The following sections examine cases involving customary or normal
work and unusual or infrequent work.
Normal, customary work. There were seven cases involving normal or cus-
tomary work that had specific contract sections addressing contracting.
780 Appendix Q
Management won five of these cases. In three of them, the contact

specifically prohibited contracting if employees either were on layoff or
would lose their jobs. Arbitration ruled because no layoffs or job losses
occurred, management was free to subcontract. These cases involved
ditch digging by ditch diggers,37 cemetery security by guards,38 and cable
splicing by cable splicers.39 Clearly, the employees normally did the
work. In each case, however, management did offer other justification.
In another case, the contract expressly forbade the contracting out of any
“product” normally handled by the meat department of a grocery store.
Management began having chickens prepackaged by an outside con-
tractor. The butchers still handled the product albeit by a new “proce-
dure.” The arbitrator upheld that the company did not violate the
contract. The arbitrator also noted in this case that previous attempts
by the union to adjust that particular wording had failed in negotia-
tions.40 Arbitrators use such evidence to aid their interpretations of con-
tracts and they are sensitive not to grant an interpretation that past
negotiation has specifically avoided. The contract in this last case also
merely required the company to “give consideration” to the employees
before contracting. The company convinced the arbitrator that they had
done so in contracting based on economics.41
The union won two cases that had pertinent contract provisions. In
the first case, the contract did not allow contracting of work that unit
employees presently performed. The company had attempted to classify
the contracting as new type work since the contractor was doing the old
work in a new manner with new technology.42 In the second case, the
arbitrator considered an incidental service, trucking, as customary work.
The contract did not allow contracting of work within the normal scope
of the plant. The arbitrator ruled for the union.43
There were seven other cases that involved customary or normal work
and did not have any contractual provisions regarding contracting. The
union won only one of these cases.
Management won six cases. In three of them, management claimed
cost savings44, 45 or increased customer appeal.46 In one case, manage-
ment claimed a lack of workspace47 and in another, better performance by
contracting.48 The last case is the most unusual. In this case, there was
no doubt the employees customarily performed the work. In fact, the
company had even scheduled the employees to begin the work. However,
management then contracted out the work with no apparent company
benefit and loss of overtime to the employees. This case was the one pre-
viously discussed wherein the arbitrator leaned heavily on a prior man-
agement letter stating a right to contract out that particular type work.49
In the one case the union won with regular type work and no contract
provisions, the nature of the work was the key. The arbitrator ruled that
the work required no special knowledge or tools so management should
not have contracted out the work and avoided employee overtime.50
Unusual, infrequent work. For noncustomary work in work type and

equipment cases, arbitrators considered new construction, new type
work, the extensiveness of the work, the level of the skill, the location
of the work, and the skill required for the work.
Arbitrators typically do not consider new construction work to belong

to the union for an operating plant unless the contract so specifies. Four
of the cases investigated involved construction. Only one had no contract
provisions regarding contracting. Management won this case, but only
two of the three cases with contractual provisions.
There were three cases with contractual provisions. In two of these
cases, it was not clear that the work was indeed construction. The first
case involved warrantee work that management could obtain for free.
The arbitrator said warrantee repairs were an extenuating circum-
stance contractually allowable to be contracted. Nevertheless, the arbi-
trator ruled in favor of the union because of a previous management
letter stating that management would give all work on the system of the
employees.51 Management won the second case because the work was
to modify a recent construction project to achieve planned performance.
The arbitrator ruled that the task was not normal work protected by the
contract.52 The last case’s contract allowed the contracting of new con-
struction only if qualified personnel were not available. The work in
question was clearly construction, but arbitration allowed management
to claim a lack of qualified supervisory personnel.53
Only one construction work case involved no contractual terms.
Arbitration decided in favor of management because of the benefit of
company flexibility to pursue its other work. It is interesting that the
arbitrator noted it was not relevant the contracting began during an
employee strike.54
Besides construction, two cases involved new type work. Management

won both of these cases and both had relevant contract provisions
regarding contracting. In the first case, bus company employees did not
get the opportunity to operate or maintain vans for handicapped riders.
The arbitrator ruled that the smaller vehicles and gasoline engines
(versus diesel) made the work sufficiently different from normal work
that the contract prohibited contracting.55 The other case presented a
combination of new type work with customary work. The element of new
type work played a role in persuading the arbitrator in spite of very clear
restrictions against contracting customary work.56
The extensiveness of the work was a factor in three cases of noncus-

tomary type work. In the one case labor won, management disregarded
very specific contract regulations. Management claimed that the required
miniscule amount of chaperoning of contractors by employees simply was
782 Appendix Q
unnecessary work. The arbitrator declined to overlook specific contract

provisions.57 Neither of the two cases management won had any contract
language. In one case, a routine type maintenance task was much larger
than usual, so management was able to contract the work. The arbitra-
tor upheld the company even though there were employees on layoff and
employees had started the task.58 In the last case, management was able
to contract peak summer work or grass cutting around the plant.59
The level of skill involved in the contracted task was critical in two
cases. Both cases had contractual terms and the company and the union
each won one case. The case ruled in favor of management had a con-
tract which only allowed contracting if qualified personnel were not
available. Management claimed a higher level of welding skill was nec-
essary for safety reasons on a tank weld. The union did not prove oth-
erwise.60 The union won the other case. Management was not allowed
to hold that a clause allowing contracting only if no “capable employees”
were available included supervisors of which none was available.61
Arbitration included the actual location of the work in defining the

type of work and subsequent ruling in two cases involving noncustom-
ary work. Each case had contractual language on contracting. The one
the company won had a contract very specific as to naming a particu-
lar truck route. The arbitrator classified a new truck route being used
as different work, but he also considered that no jobs were lost by the
former truck drivers.62 The case won by the union involved an unusual
situation and a strike. The contract entitled the employees to all “reg-
ular work” which included the handling of deliveries after receipt at the
plant. Since the plant had been on strike earlier, another location had
received deliveries. The arbitrator ruled that handling the deliveries at
the new location belonged to the union.63
Equipment type played a role in two interesting cases. In the earlier

truck driver route case, the arbitrator ruled in favor of management par-
tially because the trucks used on the alternate contracted route were dif-
ferent tanker type trucks instead of smaller delivery trucks.64 In
contrast, the union won other case that also had contract provisions. The
contractor used company owned welding equipment. This fact was not
relevant to the question of skill that decided the case.65
Several points summarize the type of work and equipment consider-

ations. As expected, the arbitrators rely heavily on the written word as
much as possible. The most difficult part of this aspect involves relating
the specific work to the specific contract terms. Surprisingly, the role of
past practice does not seem to play an important role in this determi-
nation. One would think that past practice would be an excellent rule of
thumb for deciding if work was customarily the work of the employees.
Three explanations may account for this discrepancy. First, the cases
brought to arbitration are usually first of a kind. Parties might not bring
cases easily decided by past practice as far as arbitration. Second, the
sample of cases reviewed may have missed the pertinent cases. Third,
and most likely, perhaps the doctrine of past practice is so self-evident
that it is usually not expressly mentioned. Concerning contracts with no
contracting out provisions, the arbitrator is liable to judge the case from
a scrutiny of the company’s business basis for the decision. Finally, in
regarding type of work considerations, it would seem likely that cus-
tomary or normal work would be more favorable to a union ruling, but
there is insufficient evidence in these cases to verify this stance.
Reasonableness and extent justified

by employer
The following sections examine the 32 cases with respect to company jus-
tification of the decision to contract out work. The aspect is also an
important consideration from an arbitrator’s point of view.
The justifications offered by the companies fell into several groups.
Companies claimed cost savings in almost half the cases. One company
claimed a belief in increased customer appeal. A number of companies
offered lack of available personnel as a reason. One company made a suc-
cessful point that the work was experimental. Only two companies
raised past practice as critical points. A few companies did not even
bring up the benefit to the company and a couple of companies explained
that the work did not actually belong to the company in the first place.
The following sections examine each of these categories including
whether or not the contracts addressed contracting out work.
Cost savings. Cost savings cases fell into two subcategories. Often the sav-
ings were straightforward claims of money saved, but several cases brought
forth claims of better performance without any elaboration on the money
involved. There were eleven of the former type cases and six of the latter.
Of the 11 lower cost cases, there were six cases where the contracts
specifically dealt with contracting out work and five where the con-
tracts were silent. The arbitrators upheld the union in three of the six
specific contract cases, but in none of the five silent contract cases.
Management won three cases involving lower cost with contract
specifics. In one case, arbitration deemed management’s claim of “econ-
omy” not relevant because the contract forbade contracting out only if
there were employees on layoff. Thus, arbitration decided the case solely
on employee status.66 In the other two cases, the cost savings were rel-
evant. In one case, the contract required only “consideration” of the
employees before contracting. A reading of the case revealed only a
784 Appendix Q
statement that “costs would have doubled” which was acceptable for a
favorable ruling.67 In the other case, although the contract only
addressed customary work and the work was a new type, the arbitra-
tor closely examined a dispute over the actual savings. Because there
were “some savings,” management won.68
In two of the cases with contract terms that the union won, the decid-
ing factor was strictly the type of work involved. The work involved was
not restricted to in-house work according to the contract or in one case
other written agreements. The arbitrator did not consider relevant man-
agement claims of having free warrantee work69 or avoiding having
nonproductive employees70 by contracting. In the third case with con-
tract terms the union won, the contract expressly restricted the type of
work from contracting. Nevertheless, the arbitrator did go so far as to
mention that the economic data was “inconclusive.”71
In most of these cases where the contract addressed contracting, the
arbitrator usually allowed any contracting not specifically excluded by
the contract. However, exceptions did exist and arbitration resolved
them by considering company savings. The magnitude of the savings was
not particularly important.
On the other hand, management won all five lower cost type cases
where there were no pertinent contract terms. There were three cases
where the company contracted regular work of the bargaining unit. In the
first, the company saved $1000 per year versus no employee impact.72 In
the second, the company saved $7700 per year versus an employee reclas-
sification. The arbitrator also mentioned the poor economic condition of
the company.73 In the third, the company estimated savings of $100,000
per year versus a whole group of employees losing their jobs. 74 In the other
two cases, arbitration upheld management in disputes involving differ-
ent type work. In the first, management saved $56,000 with employees
already on layoff.75 In the second, management’s assertion of “economics”
prevailed over zero impact to the employees.76 In both cases, the arbi-
trator appeared to give equal weight to the type of work and the sav-
ings. From the first three cases with customary work, however, it
seemed that if the economics favored the company, the type of work was
not very important if there was no contract language on contracting.
Instead of outright lower costs, six cases addressed the economics in

the form of better performance, efficiency, or technology. Arbitration
upheld the union position in two of these cases. Management won two
of these cases that had contractual provisions regarding contracting
out work. In one case, the contract forbade contracting only if employ-
ees were laid off. No employees were laid off, but management bolstered
their case with a lengthy list of how the current guards had been neg-
ligent or incompetent in their duties. The arbitrator ruled entirely on
the employee impact basis of no layoffs.77 In contrast, the arbitrator
lauded a company’s attempt to increase “efficiency” in the second case.

Nevertheless, the arbitrator relied heavily on the interpretation of the
contract terms as derived from previous negotiation records. This inter-
pretation led him to judge the case as a type of work case.78
The union also won two cases that involved performance, efficiency, or
technology with specific contract language. These cases were both decided
as type of work cases wherein the arbitrator compared the type of work
to exactly what the contract restricted from being contracted. In one case,
the arbitrator disregarded vague claims of better performance and effi-
ciency as “inconclusive economic data.”79 In the other case, the arbitrator
did not allow company use of new technology because the contract specif-
ically addressed work already being done by unit employees as sacred.80
Management won both of the cases that did not involve contract lan-
guage. In the first case, management presented a detailed case of how
much theft had occurred under the existing employee guards. The arbi-
trator allowed management to reclassify the existing guards to less
desirable jobs and contract the security work. It appeared that arbi-
tration would have upheld the company even for employee discharge.81
In the final case, the arbitrator allowed the company to contract irreg-
ular work to permit a streamlined organization better able to pursue its
main work. Nevertheless, in this case, there was no employee impact.82
For performance, efficiency, or new technology cases, there seemed to

be several trends. First, when management violated express contract
provisions in any manner, the union won. Second, when management
did not violate express contract provisions, management won, even with
little or no justification. Third, when contract provisions were absent,
the company appeared to present a better case as to why it was rea-
sonable to contract out the work.
Customer appeal. Closely allied with the cases on cost and performance
was a case that had no contractual requirements and the arbitrator
upheld the company because of a reasonable belief that customer appeal
would be enhanced. The company felt that contracting grain inspec-
tions to a third party would make inspections appear less biased.
Nonetheless, there was not a significant employee impact.83
Availability. The availability of qualified personnel was a not-so-reliable

justification proposed by management in seven arbitration cases.
Management won only three of these cases. The union won four cases
including the only one that involved no contractual terms. These seven
cases included schedule concerns, skill concerns, and supervision concerns.
The union won both cases where the company claimed there were
insufficient personnel to meet a schedule. In the first case, the contract
786 Appendix Q
allowed contracting only if management first discussed the plan with

the union. The arbitrator ruled for the union on two connected issues.
First, he claimed that a simple letter of notice was not “discussion,”
and second, the arbitrator carefully evaluated the project and its nec-
essary labor hours. He felt that there were indeed few enough labor
hours necessary that the company could have used the employees. The
net result is that the “discussion” provision of the contract placed a higher
burden on the company to present a “reasonable” case for contracting.84
In the other schedule type case, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the union
even though contract terms were absent regarding contracting. In this
case involving normal work, the arbitrator also evaluated the project and
felt that the employees had the necessary overtime hours available.85
On the other hand, management won two out of three cases involv-
ing employee skill. All three cases had contracting provisions present in
the contract. In one case management won, the contract specifically
allowed contracting only if qualified personnel were not available. The
arbitrator ruled for the company’s plausible claim of higher welding
skill needed for safety, which the union did not dispute.86 Management
also claimed the contracted work needed a higher skill for safety in the
second case. The contract addressed skill involved as well as type of
work. The arbitrator ruled for management mostly on the type of work
basis.87 The union won the last case even though the arbitrator agreed
that the employees did not have the necessary skill. Nevertheless, he
ruled that there was a chance for them to learn something. The arbi-
trator stated that this situation was a borderline case and he felt per-
suaded by the words “more reasonable” in disallowing management’s
claim. No safety aspect was present, but there existed the potential for
damaging an expensive piece of equipment.88
This appendix already discussed the conflicting cases where man-

agement claimed a lack of supervisors being a valid reason for subcon-
tracting. The contracts expressly allowed contracting in case of a lack
of personnel89 or related services.90 Management won the former case
and the union won the latter.
Companies usually win

arbitration with silent
contracts if they have
ANY justification
Figure Q.7 Unions are not insulated from sub-
contracting merely by having a contract.
Overall, management is on less sure justification grounds claiming

availability concerns rather than economic reasons. Scheduling is most
likely to invite scrutiny with skill not far behind. It is uncertain how the
arbitrator might rule on a supervisory availability case.
Experimental. In one case with contractual provisions regarding con-

tracting, management based a portion of its justification on the new
work being experimental. The company did not want to involve their
employees in a program with an uncertain future. The arbitrator took
note of this fact, but ruled for management largely on the grounds of type
of work and no adverse employee impact.91
Past practice. Past practice only came into significant play twice. In both
cases, the company and the arbitrator relied heavily on past practice to
show that work was not customary for the bargaining units. However,
even after such determination, the arbitrator ruled the case involving
contractual terms as a type of work case92 and the case with a silent con-
tract as an economics case.93
There are two implications here. If the contract restricts contracting
out customary work, the company may show past contracting practice
as proof of the work not being customary. However, for a silent contract,
the arbitrator may want to inspect the economics rather than just the
past practice.
No benefit. The company claimed no specific benefit at all in only four

of the 32 cases. The lack of company benefit did not come into play in
any of these cases. Arbitration decided the three cases with contractual
provisions strictly as type of work cases, two in favor of management94, 95
and one in favor of labor.96 Arbitration also upheld management in the
case without contractual provisions. The only employee impact was a
loss of overtime opportunity. A close reading of this case found the arbi-
trator giving attention to a past letter whereby management claimed
this right.97 Thus, for all of the cases of no company benefit, it appeared
the arbitrators ruled on the basis of written documentation.
Not company work. Companies also successfully claimed the contracted

work not company work.98, 99 The key to these cases was that while the
companies may have benefited somewhat from the work, they were not
paying the contractor directly or indirectly.
Good faith
The final area of consideration in the 32 cases is that of good faith. Good faith
involves the motives of the employer in being fair with the employees.
The governing principles or good faith according to Arbitrator Hunter are
788 Appendix Q
the legitimacy of the employer’s business reason, the employer’s intent

with regard to the employees and bargaining unit, and the impact on the
employees.100 The legitimacy and the impact issues have been addressed.
The intent of the employee could use some further discussion.
In only one case did the arbitrator address the value of the moral issue
as being more important than the contract. Arbitrator Feldman thoroughly
researched the contract and kept management from procedurally dis-
missing a late filing. He stated that the “issue” should be more impor-
tant than the “procedure.” However, he was still able to rule by the
contract terms.101
Three cases show that the burden of proof is on the union for proving
the company had a dishonorable motive. For example,
“To the extent that the governing standards require proof, no violation can
be found.”102
“...the arbitrator finds no basis or cause to discredit Company honesty,
sincerity, integrity, and possible accuracy.”103
And in the third case, the arbitrator considered as honorable manage-

ment’s simple belief of customer appeal even though the subsequent
facts showed no increase at all.104
The union claimed a lack of company integrity in three cases to no
avail. In one, it claimed the company was avoiding contract terms by
helping supervise a contractor.105 In another, employees had even been
scheduled to do the work before the contracting.106 In the last, the union
simply made an unsupported claim of bad faith which the arbitrator did
not even address.107
One arbitrator saw previous discussions with the union where man-
agement involved the union in evaluating alternatives as an explicit act
of good faith. Regardless, the arbitrator decided the case on an economics
basis for management.108 Past discussions did not help management win
another case in which the work was contractually prohibited from being
contracted. The union won this case.109
Overall, there were not any cases examined where management
appeared as a malicious group attempting to beat down the union or the
employees. Of course, the company would be sure to put on its best face
for arbitration. Arbitrators resolved the cases mostly on tangible facts
without much attempt to embrace the subjective factor of good faith,
even in borderline cases.
Summary of arbitration. In summary, most of the arbitrators consider four

primary areas when judging cases of contracting out work. These areas
are employee impact, type of work, the reasonableness of a company’s
business decision, and good faith. Above all, however, the arbitrator
makes every effort to adhere to any contractual provisions or other writ-
ten documentation.
An arbitrator’s instinct is
to avoid ANY subjective
factors and rely on
contract and other
written word.
Figure Q.8 Arbitrators rely heavily on written
agreements in contracts and other documents.
For cases in which the contract has express contract provisions regard-
ing contracting out, a clear trend exists. As a rule, if the company has
violated any single provision of the contract, the arbitrator awards the
case to the union. The union wins regardless of the employee impact,
type of work, or decision reasonableness. On the other hand, if the con-
tract contains provisions regarding contracting out and the company
does not violate any of them, the arbitrator usually rules for the com-
pany. He makes this ruling also without regard for employee impact,
type of work, or reasonableness.
A different situation arises when there are no express contract pro-
visions on contracting. There are exceptions, but the arbitrators usually
award to the company in spite of employee impacts such as job loss as
long as there is some company economic justification. Arbitrators con-
sider that a contract is silent on the issue of contracting if it only con-
tains a “recognition clause.” As stated in Fig. Q.9 a recognition clause
merely states that the employees work for the company. It does not give
them exclusive right to all company work. In addition, the fact that the
contract is silent about contracting does not bar contracting out work.
There also appears a higher probability of a union bringing a case to
arbitration if job loss is involved whether or not there is any merit in
the grievance.
A “recognition clause” merely

states that the employees work
for the company. It does not give
them exclusive right to all
company work.
Figure Q.9 Even with silent contracts, companies
should have a reason to subcontract work.
790 Appendix Q
Finally, good faith itself as it relates to employer intention does not

seem to be too significant. This factor is a subjective consideration that
the arbitrators usually discuss as an added reason to uphold the com-
pany. The cases make it very clear that the burden of proof is on the
grievant to prove bad faith on the part of the company.
Summary
A company should consider contracting out any of its maintenance work
only if it can achieve better asset performance and not on the basis of illu-
sory lower cost alone. A company might consider a number of strategies
for contracting out maintenance work. The most common form of con-
tracting is when companies hire special expertise or skills not routinely
kept on staff or hire extra labor needed for limited special times of
extreme maintenance. Contracting out entire maintenance programs
carries larger risks for companies with significant assets because main-
tenance might well be a core process or the contracted maintenance
might end up both less effective and more expensive. A better solution
for overall maintenance might be upgrading professional skills to manage
effective in-house maintenance. Contracting for routine services that
mixes same skill in-house and contract labor leads to significant morale
problems. These latter situations lead to most labor arbitration cases.
Arbitration settles most contracting labor disputes based on specific
contract or written terms without regard to business economics when
the documents address contracting. When contracts are silent regard-
ing contracting, arbitrators generally rule on the basis of company eco-
nomic justification. Companies should heed arbitration guidelines to do
what is right by their employees and avoid labor problems. Companies
should follow the written word of their labor documents and, where con-
tracts are silent regarding subcontracting, they should have proper busi-
ness reasons for contracting out work.
Planning can play an essential role in any form of company con-
tracting out of maintenance. An entire maintenance program run by a
contractor should install planning to increase its maintenance efficiency.
When contracting out only special skills, planning can arrange pur-
chase orders to have the special expertise on hand for in-house super-
visors to manage. Mixed labor contracting situations cause planning the
most problems. They make technicians fear losing work and increase
their resistance to planning. In these situations, planning should continue
to plan all the jobs keeping to a standard of not spending too much time
including extensive details. Planners would expect the supervisors to
guide less familiar contractors in the field and to provide proper feed-
back on contractor work. The planners also expect the supervisors to
help gain good feedback on work from in-house technicians. The best
service a planning program can provide is to help in-house maintenance
personnel become more efficient and reduce management’s tendency to

look outside for supplemental maintenance labor.
References
(All references are cases as recorded in the Commerce Clearing House.
Inc. Labor Arbitration Awards.)
1. U.S. Industrial Chemical Co., 85-2ARB8482 (J. Caraway, 1985).
2. Latrobe Steel Co., 85-1ARB8308 (R. Creo, 1985).
3. United Aircraft Products, Inc., 82-2ARB8414 (H. Dworking, 1982).
4. Rockwell International Corp., 85-1ARB8217 (H. Wren, 1985).
5. Williamette Industries, Inc., 85-2ARB8396 (M. Fox. Jr., 1985).
6. GAF Corp., 81-2ARB8560 (R. Penfield. 1981).
7. General Dynamics, 78-1ARB8136 (W. Gray, 1978).
8. Mead Paper Corp., 85-2ARB8458 (C. Ipavec. 1985).
9. Laurel Run Mining Co., 85-1ARB8247 (M. Feldman, 1985).
10. United Telephone Company of Missouri, 84-lARB8278 (M. Berger, 1984).
11. GAF Corp.
12. Lever Brothers Co., 79-lARB8128 (Collins, 1979).
13. Reitz Coal Co., 82-2ARB8384 (H. Felman, 1982).
14. Rockwell International Corp.
15. Manville Forest Products Corp., 85-2ARB8559 (D. Nolan, 1985)
16. Reynolds Metal Co., 84-2ARB8450 (Blinn, 1984).
17. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., 79-2ARB8455 (Robins, 1979).
18. Lobdell Emery Manufacturing Co., 86-1ARB8054 (Daniel, 1986).
19. Continental Fibre Drum, Inc., 86-1ARB8218 (M. Hart, 1986).
20. American Motors Sales Corp., 84-lARB8215 (J. Thornell, 1984).
21. Fruehauf Corp., 83-1ARB8309 (D. Crane, 1983).
22. West Virginia Armature Co., Inc., 77-1ARB8114 (J. Hunter, 1977).
23. Greenwood Cemetery, 77-2ARB8538 (M. Glushien, 1977).
24. American Paper Co., 78-1ARB8063 (R. Ables, 1978).
25. Singer Co., 78-2ARB8280 (Kossoff, 1978).
26. Central Soya Co., Inc., 84-2ARB8524 (Craver, 1984),
27. American Motors Sales Corp.
28. International Paper, 84-2ARB8585 (Dunn, 1984).
29. Latrobe Steel Co.
30. Philips Petroleum Co., 80-1ARB8125 (H. Finston, 1980).
31. Binswanger Glass Co., 83-1ARB8246 (L. Holman, 1983).
32. Mid-America Dairyman, Inc., 84-2ARB8546 (Yarowsky, 1984).
33. Safeway Stores, Inc., 83-2ARB8432 (D. Allen, Jr., 1983).
34. Pennzoil Co., 81-2ARB8617 (Amis, 1981).
35. Central Ohio Transit Authority 78-2ARB8336 (M. Handsaker, 1978).
36. Jeffboat, Inc., 85-2ARB8400 (W. Mulhall, 1985).
37. Orange and Rockland Industries, Inc.
38. Greenwood Cemetery
39. United Telephone Company of Missouri
40. Safeway Stores, Inc.
41. Lever Brothers Co.
42. Lobdell Emery Manufacturing Co.
43. American Paper Co.
44. Fruehauf Corp.
45. Continental Fibre Drum, Inc.
46. Central Soya Co., Inc.
47. West Virginia Armature Co,
48. Singer Co.
49. General Dynamics
50. Mead Paper Corp.
792 Appendix Q
51. United Aircraft Products, Inc.

52. GAF Corp.
53. Reitz Coal Co.
54. Binswanger Glass Co.
55. Central Ohio Transit Authority
56. Laurel Run Mining Company
57. U.S. Industrial Chemical Co.
58. Reynolds Metal Co.
59. Phillips Petroleum Co.
60. Williamette Industries, Inc.
61. Manville Forest Products, Inc.
62. Pennzoil Co.
63. Jeffboat, Inc.
64. Pennzoil Co.
67. Lever Brothers Co.
69. United Aircraft Products, Inc.
70. U.S. Industrial Chemical Co.
72. Fruehauf Corp.
73. American Motors Sales Corp.
75. Reynolds Metal Co.
77. Greenwood Cemetery
78. Safeway Stores, Inc.
81. Singer Co.
82. Binswanger Glass Co.
84. Rockwell International Corp.
85. Mead Paper Corp.
87. GAF Corporation
89. Reitz Coal Co.
90. Manville Forest Products Corp.
92. International Paper
94. International Paper
95. Laurel Run Mining Co.
96. Jeffboat, Inc.
98. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
99. Mid-America Dairyman, Inc.
100. West Virginia Armature Co., Inc.
101. Reitz Coal Co.
105. Philips Petroleum Co.
107. Singer Co.
108. Fruehauf Corp.
Appendix
R
Concise Text of Missions,
Principles, and Guidelines
This appendix concisely recaps the text of the many principles and
guidelines pulled together from throughout the book and helpfully puts
them into a single place for reference.
Maintenance Planning Mission Statement

The Planning Department increases the Maintenance Department’s abil-
ity to complete work orders. Work plans avoid anticipated delays, improve
on past jobs, and allow scheduling. Advance scheduling allows supervisors
to assign and control the proper amount of work. A work crew is ready to
go immediately to work upon receiving a planned and scheduled assign-
ment because all instructions, parts, tools, clearances, and other arrange-
ments are ready. The right jobs are ready to go.
Maintenance Planning Principles

1. The planners are organized into a separate department from the
craft maintenance crews to facilitate specializing in planning techniques
as well as focusing on future work.
2. The Planning Department concentrates on future work—work that
has not been started—in order to provide the Maintenance Department
at least 1 week of work backlog that is planned, approved, and ready to
execute. This backlog allows crews to work primarily on planned work.
Crew supervisors handle the current day’s work and problems. Any
problems that arise after the commencement of any job are resolved by
the craft technicians or supervisors. After every job completion, feedback
is given by the lead technician or supervisor to the Planning
Department. The feedback consists of any problems, plan changes, or
793

794 Appendix R
other helpful information so that future work plans and schedules might
be improved. The planners ensure that feedback information gets prop-
erly filed to aid future work.
3. The Planning Department maintains a simple, secure file system
based on equipment tag numbers. The file system enables planners to
utilize equipment data and information learned on previous work to pre-
pare and improve work plans, especially on repetitive maintenance
tasks. The majority of maintenance tasks are repetitive over a sufficient
period of time. File cost information assists making repair or replace
decisions. Supervisors and plant engineers are trained to access these
files to gather information they need with minimal planner assistance.
4. Planners use personal experience and file information to develop
work plans to avoid anticipated work delays and quality or safety prob-
lems. As a minimum, planners are experienced, top level technicians
that are trained in planning techniques.
5. The Planning Department recognizes the skill of the crafts. In gen-
eral, the planner’s responsibility is “what” before “how.” The planner
determines the scope of the work request including clarification of the
originator’s intent where necessary. The planner then plans the general
strategy of the work (such as repair or replace) and includes a prelimi-
nary procedure if there is not one already in the file. The craft techni-
cians use their expertise to make the specified repair or replacement.
The planners and technicians work together over repeated jobs to
develop better procedures and checklists.
6. Wrench time is the primary measure of work force efficiency and
of planning and scheduling effectiveness. Wrench time is the proportion
of available-to-work time during which craft technicians are not being
kept from productively working on a job site by delays such as waiting
for assignment, clearance, parts, tools, instructions, travel, coordination
with other crafts, or equipment information. Work that is planned before
assignment reduces unnecessary delays during jobs and work that is
scheduled reduces delays between jobs.
Maintenance Scheduling Principles

1. Job plans providing number of persons required, lowest required
craft skill level, craft work hours per skill level, and job duration infor-
mation are necessary for advance scheduling.
2. Weekly and daily schedules must be adhered to as closely as pos-
sible. Proper priorities must be placed on new work orders to prevent
undue interruption of these schedules.
3. A scheduler develops a 1-week schedule for each crew based on a
craft hours available forecast that shows highest skill levels available,
job priorities, and information from job plans. Consideration is also
Concise Text of Missions, Principles, and Guidelines 795
made of multiple jobs on the same equipment or system and of proac-

tive versus reactive work available.
4. The 1-week schedule assigns work for every available work hour.
The schedule allows for emergencies and high priority, reactive jobs by
scheduling a sufficient amount of work hours on easily interrupted
tasks. Preference is given to completing higher priority work by under-
utilizing available skill levels over completing lower priority work.
5. The crew supervisor develops a daily schedule one day in advance
using current job progress, the 1-week schedule and new high priority,
reactive jobs as a guide. The crew supervisor matches personnel skills
and tasks. The crew supervisor handles the current day’s work and
problems even to rescheduling the entire crew for emergencies.
6. Wrench time is the primary measure of workforce efficiency and
of planning and scheduling effectiveness. Work that is planned before
assignment reduces unnecessary delays during jobs, and work that is
scheduled reduces delays between jobs. Schedule compliance is the
measure of adherence to the 1-week schedule and its effectiveness.
Guidelines for Deciding if Work is Proactive

or Reactive
Proactive work heads off more serious work later. If the damage is
already done, the work is reactive.
Reactive:
1. Where equipment has actually broken down or failed to operate

properly.
2. Priority-1 jobs are defined as urgent and so they are reactive.
Proactive:
1. Work done to prevent equipment from failing.

2. Any PM job.
3. Generally predictive maintenance initiated work that if done in time
will prevent equipment problems.
4. Project work.
Guidelines for Deciding if Work is Extensive

or Minimum Maintenance
It is not cost effective to spend much time planning certain work. In
these cases, simple scoping and abbreviated information is all that is
necessary. This work is considered minimum maintenance.
796 Appendix R
Minimum maintenance:
Minimum maintenance work must meet all of the following conditions:
1. Work has no historical value.

2. Work estimate is not more than 4 total work hours (e.g., two persons
for 2 hours each or one person for 4 hours).
3. While parts may be required, no ordering or even reserving of parts
is necessary.
Extensive maintenance:
All other work is considered “extensive.”
Guidelines for Deciding Whether to Stage

Parts or Tools
Always stage anticipated items that are:
1. Nonstock and purchased especially for the job.

2. Certainly needed for the job and there is little likelihood any other
items from the same place will be needed. Example: Job to replace
air filter.
Favor staging anticipated items where:
1. There is high likelihood that the item will be needed.

2. There is a low likelihood that other items from the same place will
be needed.
3. Technician time is valuable.
4. Technician time is limited.
5. Persons to stage items are readily available.
6. Equipment downtime is valuable.
7. Equipment downtime is limited.
8. Distance to the storeroom or tool room is excessive.
9. Availability or accessibility of storeroom or tool room is limited.
10. It is relatively difficult later to transport items to the site if they are
not staged.
11. Item is easily returnable to storeroom or tool room.
12. The item is disposable if unused or lower in value than would be
worth technicians’ time to return.
13. There is some experience with planning and scheduling.
Concise Text of Missions, Principles, and Guidelines 797
14. There is high maturity and sophistication of the planners to antic-

ipate items correctly.
15. There is high confidence that the job will start the week or day
scheduled.
16. The storeroom frequently has the wrong parts.
17. The storeroom is unstaffed or not very secure.
18. The storeroom carries very low stock levels.
19. The storeroom has a lot of stock-outs.
Do not stage items that are:
1. For unscheduled jobs unless a nonstock item was exclusively obtained

for a job.
2. Difficult or impractical to move repeatedly due to size or storage
requirements.
3. Difficult or impractical to move repeatedly due to legal tracking
requirements.
Guidelines for Craft Technicians to Provide

Adequate Job Feedback
1. Identify quantity of persons and specific craft and grade of each
person. Identify the names of the persons.
2. Identify labor hours of each person. Give start and finish times of
job. Explain any variance from the plan estimates if greater or less
than 20%.
3. Thoroughly describe the problem if not accurately specified by the
plan.
4. Thoroughly describe the action taken if the job did not proceed
according to the plan. Report any special problems and solutions.
5. Identify actual quantities of parts used and report stock numbers
if not given by the plan.
6. Identify actual special tools used or made if not given by the plan.
7. Return the original work order and all attachments provided by
planning. Include any field notes and return any datasheets that the
technician filled out whether or not planning provided them.
8. Return updated drawings.
9. Note any changes to equipment technical information such as
new serial numbers and model numbers and names. Return any
798 Appendix R
manufacturer’s information or literature that was received with any

new parts being installed. This information is especially vital and
often cannot otherwise be determined to help future maintenance.
10. Include any other information such as bearing clearances (radial
and thrust), wear ring clearance, shaft runout clearance, bearing to
cap clearances, coupling condition and gap clearance.
11. Make any recommendations to help future plans.
Glossary
aging Automatically increasing the priority or attention given to an incom-

plete work order the older it becomes. The concept of aging is that an older work
order should get higher attention than a similar work order only recently writ-
ten. This practice may help a crew with low productivity, but hinder a crew with
already high productivity. The former crew might increase its productivity to
include the aged work order. The latter crew might have to drop a more seri-
ous work order to accommodate the aged, though less important, work order.
backlog Amount of identified work on work orders either by number of work
orders or work hours.
blankets or blanket work orders Standing work orders not specifying specific
work but allowing the collection of work hours for time accounting.
book hours Standard hours by which maintenance personnel might be paid
regardless of actual hours spent.
clearing equipment or systems Tagging or locking out the necessary valves or
devices surrounding equipment to be worked on so that the equipment is safe. Also
may involve draining or otherwise making equipment ready to be maintained.
CMMS Computerized maintenance management system.
component level file A file made for a specific piece of equipment rather than
for a system or group of equipment. Also called a minifile to emphasize its size
relative to a system file.
confined space An area with limited access and potential respiratory hazard
requiring a special permit to enter.
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) This is the calculated cost of the poor performance
of the company based on its current performance versus perfection.
critical factors Inputs necessary for different parts of a process that do sig-
nificantly affect the overall results of the process. The significance of identify-
ing critical factors is that companies can only control process results by
manipulating critical factors of the process.
corrective maintenance Work to restore an equipment to proper operating con-
dition before failure or breakdown occurs.
CPM (Critical Path Method) A schedule technique allowing determination of
the overall time of a large maintenance by arranging and sequencing tasks
with preceding and succeeding events.
deficiency tag An information tag hung by the requester of maintenance work
to identify the equipment.
equivalent availability Equivalent availability factor (EAF). EAF is a common
utility performance measure of how much generating capacity is actually
799

800 Glossary
available over a given period for producing power. When a unit is only available
(whether it is running or not) for less than full load, the equivalent amount of
its full load availability is counted. For example, a unit having boiler feedwa-
ter pump problems and only available for half-load for the entire month would
have an equivalent availability of 50%. Likewise, a unit available for full load
the entire month of 30 days except for a full outage lasting three of those days
would have an equivalent availability of 90%. The equivalent availability of an
entire plant site or utility would be calculated by weighting the units by
megawatt capacity. Equivalent availability is normally expressed as a percent
such as 90%, although technically the factor itself would be shown as 0.90.
extensive maintenance Maintenance that takes more than a few hours and
may have historically significant data.
equipment file, equipment history file See component level file.
front end loading Spending time and resources ensuring that equipment will
be suitable for maintenance before the equipment is purchased or installed.
GPM Gallons per minute.
I&C Instrument and controls craft.
infant mortality The failure of a component or equipment soon after initial
installation or after a maintenance operation. There is a higher percentage
chance that equipment will need repair at these times than during the remain-
der of its time in service.
insource Using in-house resources to obtain a service or material. Making
equipment or components with in-house labor.
job tool card A record kept by a tool room to keep track of tools issued to jobs
rather than individual technicians.
KPI (Key Process Indicator) This is the same as the term metrics except that
the company has has determined this metric to be particularly important.
metrics Indicators or measures of maintenance performance.
minifile See component level file.
minimum maintenance Maintenance work requiring less than a few hours and
not historically significant.
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet describing dangers and safety procedures
for a specific hazardous substance.
MTBF (mean time between failure) A calculation showing the trend of aver-
age time periods between failures of the same equipment over time or showing
the time periods between failure of different equipment. For example, “The
MTBF of the circuit has improved from three weeks to over 2 months.”
O&M manuals Operation and maintenance manuals provided by the equipment
manufacturers or suppliers giving basic details on operation and maintenance
of the equipment. They usually included suggested preventive maintenance
tasks, troubleshooting guides, and identification of parts and special tools.
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer.
OJT (on-the-job training) Many times either the best or the only training an
employee receives is while actually doing the job either alone or under the eye
of an experienced co-worker.
Glossary 801
operations, production The plant personnel responsible for operating the

plant equipment and systems.
operations coordinator A specific person in the operations group specifically
tasked to help maintenance planners.
originator A person that writes a work order or other request for maintenance
work.
outage A condition of being out of service and unavailable for operation. Refers
to the condition of the entire plant unit, not the individual piece of equipment.
overhaul Normally a major outage requiring a significant amount of time and
planning.
piece workers, piece work An arrangement where technicians receive pay
based on how many units are produced.
pigeon-holing Estimating a job’s time requirements by referring to a table or
index of similar jobs and making adjustments for particular job differences.
planner, maintenance planner The person responsible for preparing work
orders for execution through applying the principles of maintenance planning.
planning, maintenance planning The preparatory work to make work orders
ready to execute. This term may involve scheduling depending on how it is used.
planned job, planned work, job plan The product of the planner including all
the preparatory work done.
planner active file A planner may keep the original work order in an active
file and take a copy into the field for scoping purposes.
PM optimization A similar process to RCM to develop preventive maintenance
tasks and frequencies to reduce likely failure modes. Makes significant use of
existing PMs as a starting point.
point of diminishing returns The point where an additional action or task
provides a benefit, but the benefit would not outweigh the cost of the additional
action or task.
potential factors Inputs necessary for different parts of a process that might
significantly affect the overall result of the process.
predictive maintenance The use of technologically sophisticated devices as
vibration trend analysis to predict future impending equipment problems.
preventive maintenance Time- or interval-based maintenance designed to
head off or detect equipment problems.
proactive maintenance Maintenance performed to head off failure and break-
down.
product life cycle The economic curves showing profitability of any given
product for sale. Initially profit is low as the product is developed. Next, profit
increases as sales increase. Then profit begins to drop as market substitute
products and other competition become common. The company may attempt
to modify the product and willingly take some drop in profit before the effect
of market forces. This modified product eventually achieves greater profitability
than possible from the initial product. An analogy can be made to playing
tennis. One can become a fairly good player without using correct techniques. But
when the player decides to adopt correct grips, stances, and other techniques, the
802 Glossary
player’s ability will first drop as the new skills are learned. However, the player
should be able eventually to rise above the old level of ability.
project work, project maintenance Modifying or improving a piece of equip-
ment or system.
RCM (reliability centered maintenance) A process or system to evaluate equip-
ment and develop preventive maintenance tasks and frequencies to reduce
likely failure modes.
reactive maintenance Maintenance work performed as a response to a failure,
breakdown, or other urgent equipment situation.
scoping, scope Determining the job scope, studying and defining what work
a job requires, deciding the magnitude of the work involved. For an individual
job, this requires determining the objective of the job. For an outage, this involves
determining all the jobs involved in the outage.
shakedown Returning units or plant processes back to service after mainte-
nance activities. The shakedown process identifies discrepancies with the main-
tenance work that require attention.
SNOW An acronym for short notice outage work.
SPC (Statistical Process Control) SPC uses mathematics to calculate whether
a process is “in control” or functioning without a trend or special problems by
measuring variance or the sigma level of its results over time.
stretch goals Goals that are hard to reach, but not seen as impossible.
stockout A measure of how many times the storeroom is out of stock for an
item when that item is requested. Stockouts do not necessarily measure that a
storeroom is either out of a material or has a less than desirable quantity on
hand.
sunk cost A sum already spent by the company that cannot be retrieved
whether it receives a return or not. The company cannot retrieve the cost regard-
less of future decisions. Many companies errantly decide to “throw good money
after bad” because they have already made an investment.
vicious cycle A situation where the solution to a circumstance creates another
problem in a chain that makes the original problem worse. An example is when
a plant attempts to save labor by reducing preventive maintenance. The inci-
dence of equipment failure rises requiring more labor and leaving no time for
ever doing preventive maintenance. The plant finally saves no labor and has
worse equipment reliability.
Bibliography
Baldridge, Rick (2005). Cargill, personal conversation with the author.

Baldwin, Robert (1995). Planning for the future. Maintenance Technology, 8(4): 8.
Beck, Larry (1996). Editorial: Your CEO needs your help. Engineer’s Digest, July 1996: 6.
Berger, David (1997). CMMS software review: A detailed guide to help you find the software
that best meets your needs. Plant Services Special Supplement, January 1997: 5.
Berger, David (2003). Defining “user friendly.” Plant Services, August 2003: 27–29.
Berger, David (2004). It’s all about the people. Plant Services, October 2004: 32.
Berger, David (2005). Keys to success with CMMS. Plant Services, January 2005: 33.
Bradley, Larry (2005). Technical Superintendent of St. John’s River Power Park, per-
sonal conversation with the author.
Brown, Gifford (1993). Maintenance prevention. Keynote address presented at Society for
Maintenance and Reliability Professionals Annual Conference, 2–3 October, Nashville,
Tenn.
Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Labor Arbitration Awards.
Connaughton, George E. (1993). One plant’s experience with contract maintenance. Paper
presented at Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals Annual Conference,
2–3 October, Nashville, Tenn.
Crossan, John (1997). Experiences in a corporate maintenance improvement initiative.
Discussion during paper presented at Society for Maintenance and Reliability
Professionals Annual Conference, 5–8 October, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Crew, Wayne A. PE (1999). Using incentive-based contract maintenance. Maintenance
Technology, February 1999: 26–27.
Day, John E. Jr. PE (1993). Maintenance vision: Total Proactive Maintenance. Paper pre-
sented at Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals Annual Conference, 2–3
October, Nashville, Tenn.
Fox, M. Jr. (1985). Williamette Industries, Inc. 85-2ARB8396. Commerce Clearing House,
Inc. Labor Arbitration Awards.
Humphries, Jim PE (2004). Get on the same page. Plant Services, October 2004: 51–56.
Hutchins, Greg (2005). Armor yourself against outsourcing. Quality Digest, March 2005:
42–47.
Idhammar, Christer (1998). Results oriented maintenance: What the best performers do
different from others. Iron and Steel Engineer, June 1998: 58.
Jones, Doug (2005). Making partnerships real. Keynote speech presented at Association
of Iron and Steel Technology Specialty Conference, March 10, Mobile, Ala.
Kapp, Karl (1996). The USA Principle. Manufacturing Systems, August 1996.
Kelley, Eleanor (1993). Case studies. Paper presented at Society for Maintenance and
Reliability Professionals Annual Conference, 2–3 October, Nashville, Tenn.
Mintzberg, Henry (1983). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Mobley, Keith (1997). Barriers to plant performance: real or imagined? Plant Services,
18(7): 37–39.
Moore, Ron (1998). Switch in contract maintenance proves costly. Maintenance Technology,
February 1998: 26–30.
Moore, Ron (1998). Using maintenance contractors effectively. Maintenance Technology,
March 1998: 13–15.
Naisbitt, John (1984). Megatrends, ten new directions transforming our lives. New York,
NY. Warner Books, Inc.
Nicholas, Jack and Drew Troyer (2005). Procedure-based maintenance. Paper presented
at Reliability World Conference, April 27, San Antonio, Tx.
803

804 Bibliography
Oas, Arne (2005). How to really achieve ROI. MRO Today, December 2004/January 2005: 35.
Paulson, Stephen (1988). Lecture on organizational theory in University of North Florida’s
MBA program, January 1988. Jacksonville, Fla.
Peterson, Brad (1998). The central issue: to centralize or decentralize maintenance.
Maintenance Technology, December 1998: 29–31.
Phillippi, Nicholas (1997). Evaluating maintenance information management systems.
Maintenance Technology, April 1997: 24.
Reimer, Ron (1997). The use of metrics to manage proactive maintenance. Paper presented
at Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals Annual Conference, 5–8
October, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Riggs, Warren and Edwin Harrington (1995). Mechanical integrity at Tennessee Eastman
Division. Paper presented at Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals
Annual Conference, 2–4 October, Chicago, Ill.
Schimmoller, Brian K. (1998). Outsourcing plant maintenance. Power Engineering,
February 1998: 16–22.
Senge, Peter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, 1st edition. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Smith, Adam (1776). The Wealth of Nations. Edited volume by Edwin Cannan 1994 New
York, NY: The Modern Library, Random House, Inc. pp 4–5.
Sowell, Thomas (1993). That’s the way it is with bureaucrats, politicos and kids. Florida
Times Union, June 6, 1993, A-15.
Spielman, Joe (1997). Maintenance and reliability as a competitive advantage. Keynote
address presented at Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals Annual
Conference, 5–8 October, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Stewart, Steve (1997). Strategies to optimize the impact of a PM program. Paper presented
at Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals Annual Conference, 5–8
October, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Sutherland, Sandy and Ian Gordon (1997). A manufacturing strategy based on mainte-
nance. Paper presented at Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals Annual
Conference, 5–8 October, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Tognazzini, Bruce (2005). First principles of interaction design. World wide web
http://www.asktog.com/basics/first principles.html. Accessed April 7, 2005.
Wireman, Terry (1996). Maintenance basics: the first step toward zero breakdowns.
Engineer’s Digest, August 1996: 36–41.
Yourdon, Edward (2004). Death march, second edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice
Hall Professional Technical Reference.
Young, Keith (2001). Getting it right and keeping it right: the use of procedures and con-
figuration management in maintenance. Paper included in JEA workshop, July 10,
Jacksonville, Fl.
Young, Phillip (1997). Roundtable discussion at Society for Maintenance and Reliability
Professionals Annual Conference, 5–8 October, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Index
Accountability, 77 Advance (weekly) scheduling (Cont.):

for schedule compliance, 101 standards, 237–238
for time estimates, 409–410 time period for, 92
Action taken codes, 635–640 value of, 90
Active files, 130 Aging of work orders, 193–194
Added value, 59 Alignment Readiness Checklist, 431
Adhocracy organization structure, Alignment techniques, 397
325 Allocating work orders, 201–215
Adjustments in planning, 107–119 examples of, 203–215
for communication and procedure for, 201–203
management support, 113–115 Apprentices, 150–151
example of, 115–119 defined, 150
for extensive vs. minimum as planners, 48
maintenance, 112–113 Apprenticeship program, 373–374
for proactive vs. reactive Arbitration (with contracted-out
maintenance, 108–112 work), 771–790
Advance Schedule Worksheet, and company justification of
201–216, 428–429 subcontracting, 783–787
Advance (weekly) scheduling, 88–89, for employees who are out of work,
183–239 775–776
and accuracy of estimates, 89–90 and good faith, 787–788
allocating work orders, 77–78, impact on employees, 773
201–215 for loss of jobs, 776–778
benchmarks, 236–237 for loss of opportunity to learn,
with CMMS, 310–311 778–779
compliance with, 101 for loss of overtime, 774–775
defined, 89, 183 for matching hours, 778
forecasting work hours, 184–191 and normal/customary work,
formal weekly schedule meeting, 779–780
215–217 for reclassified employees, 778
foundational principles for, 88–100 and unusual, infrequent work,
importance of, 84–88 781–783
outage scheduling, 226–235 and work/equipment involved, 779
quotas, 235–236 Area maintenance, planning group
sorting work orders, 191–201 for, 698–699
staging parts and tools, 217–226 Assigning work orders, 247–255
805

806 Index
Attachments File, 273–274 Certified lab technicians, 153

Attachments to work orders, 144, Certified machinists, 151
147–148 Certified mechanics, 151
file for, 273–274 Certified painters, 151
forms, 263–265 Certified welders, 151
O&M manuals as, 273 Cleanliness (of equipment), 314–316,
for parts, 159 396
Augusta Service Company, 768–769 Clearing equipment, 256, 257, 654
Auto generation of work orders, 303 Clerks, as planners, 47
Availability metrics, 329–330 Closing work orders, 128, 174–181
Awareness, 676–677 CMMSs (see Computerized
Backlogged work hours, as indicator, maintenance management
338 systems)
Backlogged work orders, 191 Codes, 127, 133–137, 602
allocating, 203–212 action taken, 635–640
assignment of, 259–260 department and crew, 605–606
as indicator, 336, 337 equipment group and system,
sorting, 195–200 611–615
Backup systems (CMMS), 300 equipment type, 631–635
Baldridge, Rick, 651 in formal work order system, 358
Baldwin, Bob, 261 how found, 607–608
Beck, Larry, 283 outage, 609–611
Benchmarks, 236–237 plan type, 608–609
Berger, David, 283, 298–300, plant and unit, 611
651, 652 priority, 602–603
Bills of material, 159, 274 problem cause, 635–640
Blanket work orders, 562–563 problem class, 635–640
Blind squirrel theory, 354 problem mode, 635–640
Bonus plans, 365 status, 603–604
Bradley, Larry, 416 work type, 606–607
Break time, 156, 157 Common databases (CMMS), 296–297
Breakdowns, 2 Communication, 113–115
Brown, Gifford, 2 coding and clarity in, 135
Bulkhead mounted spares, 384 as planning tool, 364–365
Burner Checksheet, 432 plan-writing guidelines, 148–149
Company vision, maintenance in,
Canceling of work orders, 142 1–2
Capacity: Compensation:
indicators of, 329–330 for planners, 690–691
as lifeblood of company, 1–2 and productivity, 236
Cause maps, 569–594 and skill of planners, 328
Cautions, 148–149 for technicians, 374
Central staging area, 221–222 Component level files (minifiles),
Centralized maintenance, planning 40–46, 266–271
group for, 698–699 and computerization, 46
Certification programs, 377–379 creating, 267–269
Certified electricians, 152 in Equipment History Files,
Certified I&C technicians, 152 269–272
Index 807
Component level files (minifiles) Computerized maintenance

(Cont.): management systems (CMMSs)
filing system for, 41–42 (Cont.):
illustrations of, 44–46 inventory control with, 293–294
information in, 266 linking information to equipment
as key to success, 40–41 with, 296
making, 137–138 ongoing support for, 679
number of, as indicator, 336, 337 paper work orders with, 175–176
numbering of, 43–44 parts list development with, 160
O&M manuals in, 160 in planner’s daily work, 284–290
paper work orders in, 176 planning and scheduling features
physical arrangement of, 43–44 of, 650–656
special tools list in, 165 and planning group establishment,
system files vs., 42–43 736–739
using, 137 planning projects using, 662–679
work order history in, 361 planning vs., 46, 649–650
Computerized maintenance and predictive maintenance,
management systems (CMMSs), 302–303
283–311, 649–680 problem diagnosis with, 298
advanced planning/scheduling purchase of, 291–292, 304–305
features of, 310–311 reliability and speed of, 299–300
advice for planners using, 308–310 root cause analysis with, 298
and assignment of backlog work, scheduling with, 297
259, 260 selection of, 304–308
and auto generation of work single user vs. larger networks,
orders, 303 291
backup systems with, 300 and software already in use,
benefits with, 292–298 290–291
cautions with, 298–305 standardizing work processes with,
common databases with, 296–297 293
confidence in, 268 templates with, 303–304
cost assignment with, 300 type of projects with, 656–657
creating vs. purchasing, 291–292 unnecessary metrics with, 301
customizing, 292 unreasonable expectations of, 283
and death march projects, 659–662 user-friendliness of, 304
and elimination of paper work calendars in, 186
documents, 301–302 work order system manual
and employee evaluations, sections for, 602–638
300–301 work request for, 663
faulty processes with, 298–299 and workflow system, 301
finding work orders with, 295–296 and working with IT group,
generation of PM work orders 679–680
with, 297 Computers, 291
glitches in, 657–659 Configuring CMMS, 292
implementation of, 304–305 Confined spaces, 167
information for metrics/reports Connaughton, George, 763, 766
from, 294–295 Construction, maintenance and
and instrument calibration, 303 deferral of, 1
808 Index
Construction phase, 675 Crew (maintenance) supervisors

Consultants, 669 (Cont.):
Contracting out work, 172–174, daily scheduling by, 75–77, 97–100,
759–791 184, 246–261
alternative forms of, 767–771 day in life of, 241–246
arbitration considerations in, duties of, 462–463
771–790 as keepers of culture, 405
problems with, 764–767 options for handling extra work, 31
reasons for, 760–764 as planner supervisors, 29–31
Contractor, defined, 172 reliance on, 59
Control, 323–338 staging by, 224
indicators in, 329–338 and unsatisfactory work plans, 62
of inventory, 382–386 work calendar updates by, 186
and organization structures, Crew Work Hours Availability
323–326 Forecast, 184–191, 427
for planning group establishment, Cribs, open, 385
695–696 Critical factors, 674
of schedule compliance, 414–415 Critical path methods (CPMs), 231
selection/training of planners, Critical spares program, 280,
326–329 384–385
of wrench time, 413–414 Crossan, John, 101
Conversion scripts, 672 Culture, 405, 697
Coordination, 15–19 Customizing CMMS, 292
of parts, 157–159 Cycle of maintenance and planning,
planners’ skill in, 327 34–37
of planning process, 343–344
COPQ (see Cost of Poor Quality) Daily Schedule form, 430
Corporate projects, 393–394 Daily schedule meeting, 256
Cost: Daily scheduling, 183, 246–261
of CMMS, 304–306 assigning names, 247–255
CMMS and assignment of, 300 benefits of, 246
of contracted out work, 173 as continual cycle, 260–261
of jobs, estimating, 168–171, coordination with operations
676–677 group, 255–257
of maintenance, 3 by crew leader, 75–77, 97–100,
Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ), 184
666–667 handing out work orders,
CPMs (see Critical path methods) 257–260
Credibility of job plans, 155–156 importance of, 84–88
Crew leaders, supervisors vs., one job at a time, 76
371–372 and outage maintenance,
Crew ready area, 223 75–76
Crew (maintenance) supervisors, Databases (CMMS), 296–297
379–380 Day, John, Jr., 2
advance scheduling and role of, Death March (Edward Yourdon), 659
78, 90 Death march projects, 659–662
availability forecast by, 184–185 Deficiency Tag form, 433
buy-in to planning by, 114–115 Deficiency tags, 265, 360
Index 809
Delays: Equipment (Cont.):

allowing for, 50–51, 56 linking information to, with
avoiding, 56, 65 CMMS, 296
as percentage of workforce time, minifiles linked to, 266
66, 67 newly-installed, 317
planning and reduction of, 342 O&M manuals with, 160
reduction of, 10 parts lists for, 274
and schedule compliance, 100–102 preinstallation maintenance of, 2
and staging of items, 225 schematics for, 278–280
in work hours/job duration Technical Files for, 272–273
estimates, 156 Equipment group and system:
Department and crew codes, 605–606 codes for, 611–615
Design document, 670 definitions of, 615–631
Design phase, 673 Equipment History Data Sheet, 434
Detail, level of, 144–147, 174 Equipment History Files, 269–272
Discipline, organizational, 363–364 Equipment manuals, 360–361
Divisionalized organization Equipment Normal PM’s and
structure, 326 Checks, 271, 437
Drawings, level of detail in, 144–147 Equipment tags, 643–650
Duplication of inventory, 384 creation/placement of, 648–650
Duration of jobs: numbers for, 644–648
estimating, 153–157 and planning group establishment,
work hours vs., 80 730–731
Effectiveness, maintenance, 2, 6 Equipment Technical Data Sheet,
Efficiency, maintenance, 3, 6, 269, 435
100–104 Equipment type codes, 631–635
80% rule, 38 Error proofing, 677
Electrical apprentices, 151 Estimates:
Electrical trainees, 149 accuracy of, 51–52
Electricians, 151 based on planner expertise, 47–55
Employee evaluations, CMMS and, illustration of, 53–55
300–301 of job cost, 168–171, 676–677
Empowerment: of job duration, 153–157
scheduling vs., 563–569 and nature of maintenance work,
standards vs., 61 52
value of, 87–88 by pigeon-holing, 50
Engineering assistance, 62, purpose of, 52
143–144 and skill of planners, 47–49
Engineers, as planners, 48 and specialized skills, 52–53
Enjoyment of work, 412–413 standards for, 50, 51
Equipment: time, 49–50
clearing, 218, 256, 257, 654 at weekly or longer level, 89–90
control over, 101 of work hours, 153–157
data on, 360–362 Extensive maintenance:
filing information by, 43 examples of, 113
history of, 360–362 guidelines for identifying, 795–796
identification and tagging for, minimum maintenance vs.,
643–650 112–113
810 Index
Facilities under construction, Equipment Technical Data Sheet,

planning group for, 698 435
False priorities, 84, 85 functions of, 262
Fastening (in maintenance), 315 Information Checksheet to Balance
Feedback, 174 Observations, 438
benefit from, 43 Parts Information Sheet, 436
for estimating work hours, 261 work order, 356, 426, 440–451,
guidelines for, 174–175, 797–798 597, 600–602
for improvement, 34–35 work request, 130
in planner’s learning curve, 37–38 Wrench Time Observation Data
from technicians, 59 Sheet, 439
on work order form, 128 Fox, M., Jr., 760, 772
50% rule, 38 Full automation, 677
File Creation Station, 268, 694–695 Future work, 33–40
Files: and cycle of maintenance/planning,
active, 130 34–37
Attachments, 273–274 defined, 34
availability of, 44 and help with jobs-in-progress,
component level, 40–46, 137–138, 38–39
266–271 illustration of focus on, 39–40
Equipment History, 269–272 and planners as information/parts
and planning group establishment, finders, 36–38
732–733 and technicians’ need for
for project work, 393–394 information, 34
security of, 280–281
system, 42–43 Galley, Mark, 569
Technical, 272–273, 278 Goals:
Vendor, 274 in advance scheduling, 78
waiting-to-be-planned, 128, 129 in incentive programs, 367–369
workspace layout for, 694–695
Filing system, open, 272 Hand tools, 382
Forecasts: Helpers, 151
labor, 88–91 Hiring employees, 271
work hours, 184–191, 332–333 History, work order, 361
Forms, 262–266, 425–451 How found codes, 607–608
Advance Schedule Worksheets, Human factors in planning
428–429 (see People rules of planning)
Alignment Readiness Checklist, Humphries, Jim, 765–767
431 Hutchins, Bruce, 759
Burner Checksheet, 432
Crew Work Hours Availability I&C (instrument and controls)
Forecast, 427 apprentices, 151
Daily Schedule, 430 I&C (instrument and controls)
Deficiency Tag, 433 certified technicians, 152
Equipment History Data Sheet, I&C (instrument and controls)
434 technicians, 151
Equipment Normal PM’s and I&C (instrument and controls)
Checks, 437 trainees, 149
Index 811
Idhammar, Christer, 283 Job description (planners), 688–689,

Incentive programs, 365–369 745–746
Included/excluded lists, 669 Job duration:
Indicators (metrics), 329–338 estimating, 153–157
backlog of work hours, 338 work hours vs., 80
backlog of work orders, 336, 337 Job (work) plans:
with CMMS, 294–295, 301 common traps with, 81–82
in control of planning/scheduling, contents of, 27
329–338 credibility of, 155–156
minifiles made, 336, 337 defined, 27
planned coverage, 330 and experience of planner, 58
as planning tool, 397–403 level of detail on, 57
reactive vs. proactive work, 330–331 for outage maintenance, 81
schedule compliance, 333–335 research in creating, 262
schedule forecast, 332–333 and skill levels of technicians, 56,
work orders completed, 337–338 79–83
work type, 331, 332 wrench time in, 82
wrench time, 335–336 Job safety, 167–168
Inefficiency, interruption as source Job sites, staging at, 223
of, 84–85 Job tool card, 165
Informal planning, 127 Jobs-in-progress:
Informal scheduling, 127 parts procurement for, 161
Information Checksheet to Balance planners’ help with, 38–39,
Observations, 438 410–411
Information technology (IT), in schedule compliance,
291–292, 679–680 101–102
Instrument and controls (I&C) troubleshooting, 140
apprentices, 151 Jones, Doug, 768
Instrument and controls (I&C)
certified technicians, 152 Kapp, Karl, 298
Instrument and controls (I&C) Kelley, Eleanor, 363
technicians, 151 Knowledge drain, 261
Instrument and controls (I&C)
trainees, 149 Lab technicians, 151
Instrument calibration, CMMS and, Labor cost, 169
303 Labor forecasts, 88–91
Insulation work, contracting of, Layoffs, 777
172–173 Leadership, as planning tool,
Interruptions: 362–364
emergency jobs, 98 Leonard, Joel, 416
as source of inefficiency, 84–85 Leverage, 10, 13–14
Inventory control/management, Lube oil manual, 278
293–294, 310, 382–386 Lubrication, 314–316, 396
Issues log, 670
IT (see Information technology) Machine bureaucracy organization
structure, 326
Job, ownership of, 408 Machinists, 151
Job cost, estimating, 168–171 Mainframe computers, 291
812 Index
Maintenance: Maintenance planning, 4–22

competitive edge provided by, 1 adjustments in, 107–119
details involved in, 3–4 benefits of, 9
investment in, 1 calculating specific benefit of,
need for improvement in, 3–4 13–15
outage, 8 CMMS features for, 650–656
planned, 389 component level files in, 137–138
planning and cycle of, 34–37 as coordinating mechanism, 15–19
predictive, 319–320 coordination of, 343–344
preventive, 313–319 craft skill levels in, 149–153
proactive, 2, 22 defined, 4, 341
project work, 393–396 effectiveness of, 36
purpose of, 1–2 and engineering assistance,
reactive, 21 143–144
reliability, 386, 393 frustration with, 21–22
routine, 8 as “giving away work,” 406–407
Maintenance analyst duties, 464 imperfection of, 407
Maintenance effectiveness, 2, 6 informal, 127
Maintenance efficiency, 3, 6, 100–104 job steps in, 410
Maintenance improvement lack of perfection in, 407
programs, 353–355 and maintenance
Maintenance managers: effectiveness/efficiency, 6
duties of, 463 mission statement for, 20–21
and planners on field crews, 31–33 need for, 341–342
planning improvement ongoing, 714–717
considerations for, 755–757 for parts, 4–5
Maintenance metrics and performance
(see Indicators) testing/engineering, 141–142
Maintenance planners, 17, 19 practical results of, 9–12
CMMS in daily work of, 284–290 principles of (see Planning
day in life of (using CMMS), principles)
284–290 process of, 128–130
day in life of (without CMMS), and productivity, 12, 19–20
121–124 purpose of, 6, 65
duties of, 453–458 quality issues in, 19–20
expertise of, 47–55 resources for, 353
on field crews, 29–33 and scheduling control, 6–8
formal job description for, scheduling vs., 73, 75
745–746 scoping jobs, 138–139
role of, 8 and specialization, 15–16
sample training tests for, 747–753 as system, 6, 342–343
selecting number of, 13–14 as tool, 284, 352–354
selection and training of, 323, for tools, 5
326–329 troubleshooting, 139–141
specialization by, 32 work order system in, 124–128
as technicians’ information-finders, (See also Work orders)
34, 36–38 Maintenance planning clerk duties,
training of, 725–727 460–461
Index 813
Maintenance planning project Minimum maintenance:

manager duties, 463–464 examples of, 113
Maintenance productivity extensive maintenance vs.,
(see Productivity) 112–113
Maintenance purchaser/expediter guidelines for identifying, 795–796
duties, 461–462 Mission of planning, 20–21, 27, 29,
Maintenance scheduler duties, 78
459–460 Mission statement, 20, 793
Maintenance shops, 380–381 Mobley, Keith, 11, 372
Maintenance supervisors (see Crew Moore, Ron, 760–761, 763–765
supervisors) MSDSs (see Material Data Safety
Maintenance Technology, 261 Sheets)
Management: MTBF (see Mean time between
human resources issues for, failures)
370–371 Multicraft programs, 375–377
key questions for, 755–757
planning as support for, Naisbitt, John, 412
113–115 Nameplate, equipment, 360
for planning group establishment, New plants/units, planning group for,
695–696 741–742
planning group support from, Newly-installed equipment, 317
717–719 Nicholas, Jack, 57
planning role of, 343–344 Notes, 148–149
as planning tool, 362–364 Numbering:
Material Data Safety Sheets of equipment, 644–648
(MSDSs), 167, 278 of files, 43–44
Materials: parts stock numbers, 162
coordination of, 157–159 of work orders, 130–131,
identification of, 157–159, 162 639–640
purchasing, 160–162
stockouts, 162–163 Oas, Arne, 293
Materials purchaser, 224 O&M manuals, 160, 360
Mean time between failures (MTBF), as attachments to work orders, 273
399–400 with CMMS, 302
Mechanical apprentices, 150 files for, 273
Mechanical trainees, 149 1-10-100 Rule, 2
Mechanics, 151 100% rule, 94
Meetings: Open filing system, 272
for coding, 135 Operations coordinator, 134–135, 461
crew, 175 Operations group:
for daily scheduling, 256 daily scheduling coordination with,
for weekly scheduling, 255–257
215–217 equipment clearing by, 218, 256,
for work order review, 127 257
Megatrends (John Naisbitt), 412 in outage scheduling, 235
Metrics (see Indicators) Organization structures, 323–326
Minifiles (see Component Organizational discipline, 363–364
level files) Outage codes, 609–611
814 Index
Outage maintenance, 8 PdM (see Predictive maintenance)

assigning crews for, 75–76 Peer pressure, daily scheduling and,
defined, 227, 654 77
individual jobs within, 229–232 People rules of planning, 405–417
job plans for, 81 accountability for time estimates,
keys in scheduling, 226–227, 235 409–410
major outages, 227 attitudes toward technicians,
planning work orders for, 229 411–412
project work as, 320 control of schedule compliance,
scheduling for, 226–235 414–415
scope control in, 232–234 control of wrench time, 413–414
short outages, 227–228 cutting of resources, 416–417
standing work force for, 226 enjoyment of work, 412–413
Overall availability metric, 329 help with jobs-in-progress,
Overassigning work, 93–94 410–411
Overhauls, 227 imperfection of planning, 407
Overtime cost, 169 job steps in plans, 410
Ownership: need for skilled technicians, 408
of job, 408 ownership of job, 408
of work orders, 59–61 planning as “giving away work”
concept, 406–407
Painters, 151 scheduling as stress reduction, 413
Paper documents: time estimates, 408–409
CMMS and elimination of, training, 415–416
301–302 Performance evaluations, for
for work order systems, 125 planners, 692–694
work orders, 175–176, 652 Performance measurement:
Parts: with schedule compliance,
breakdowns of, 159 100–104
bulkhead mounted spares, 384 with work sampling, 64–70
coordination of, 157–159 Performance testing/engineering,
cost of, 169–170 141–142
critical spares programs, 280, Personal computers, 291
384–385 Personality (in work assignment),
equipment parts list, 159–160 252
identification of, 8, 157–159 Personnel:
planning for, 4–5 hiring of, 271
purchasing, 160–162, 733–735 planning issues with (see People
rebuilding, 173–174 rules of planning)
reserving, 162–163 qualifications of, 369–371
rotating spares programs, 280, training and classification of,
384–385 371–380
staging, 163, 217–226 Peterson, Brad, 4, 12
storeroom identification/stock Pigeon-holing, 50
numbers for, 162 Plan type codes, 608–609
Parts Information Sheet, Planned coverage, 61, 330
270, 436 Planned maintenance, 389
Paulson, Stephen, 323, 325 Planned packages, 27
Index 815
Planned work, 22 Planning principles, 27–72, 342–343,

Planning (see Maintenance planning) 793–794
Planning group establishment, component level files, 40–46
683–744 estimates based on planner
aids and barriers to, 700–744 expertise, 47–55
for centralized vs. area focus on future work, 33–40
maintenance, 698–699 measuring performance with work
and CMMS, 736–739 sampling, 64–70
and equipment tags, 730–731 recognizing of skill of crafts, 55–64
executing jobs, 712–714 separate department for planning,
existing, 696–697, 739–741 29–33
in facilities under construction, use of CMMS vs., 649–650
698 Planning supervisor, 29–30, 463
and files, 732–733 Plans, standard (see Standard plans)
first-time initiation of, 683–696 Plant and unit codes, 611
management and control for, Plant capacity, 1–2
695–696 Plant schematics, 278–280
management support for, Plant-level project work, 394
|717–719 PM (see Preventive maintenance)
for new plants/units, 741–742 Predictive maintenance (PdM),
in older vs. newer facilities, 698 319–320
and ongoing planning and and CMMS, 302–303
scheduling, 714–717 in outage maintenance, 232
organization and interfaces for, as tool, 390–393
686–688 Preventive maintenance (PM),
organizing/establishing, 313–319
703–706 checklists for, 318–319
planner development, 691–692 and CMMS, 297
planner selection, 689–690, files for, 317–318
725–727 frequency of, 316–317
planner training, 725–727 planned maintenance vs., 389
and planning of work, 706–710 priority of, 193
purchasing of parts, 733–735 scheduling, 91
scheduling jobs, 710–712 scope of work orders for, 315
and self-directed teams, 743–744 sliding schedules with, 317
as separate unit, 29–33 standards for, 237
setting up, 683–686 time estimates for, 316
supervisor support for, 719–721 TLC in, 314–316
and technician interruptions, as tool, 387–390
728–730 Priorities:
technician support for, 721–723 and daily scheduling, 246
with traditional vs. self-directed false, 84, 85
work teams, 699–700 importance of, 84–88
urgent breakdowns issues for, overriding, 91
727–728 and productivity, 584–594
and work order system, 735–736 sorting work orders by,
workspace layout, 694–695 192–194
Planning management, 703–717 Priority codes, 602–603
816 Index
Proactive maintenance, 2, 22 Reactive maintenance, 21

advance scheduling of, 78 examples of, 112
examples of, 112 guidelines for identifying, 795
guidelines for identifying, 795 priority of, 129
reactive vs., 107–112, 330–331 proactive vs., 107–112, 330–331
Problem cause codes, 635–640 schools of though about, 109–110
Problem class codes, 635–640 Reactive work hours, as indicators,
Problem diagnosis (with CMMS), 298 331
Problem mode codes, 635–640 Reassignment of work, 143–144
Procedures-based maintenance, 57, in daily scheduling, 251
59, 144–146 for performance
Procurement: testing/engineering, 141
of nonstock items, 160–162 Rebuilding parts, 173–174
resources for, 419–424 “Red Green Report,” 333–335
Productivity, 10–11, 561–594 Reimer, Ron, 397
and aging of priorities, 194 Reliability maintenance, 386–387,
and amount of work assigned, 393
73, 75 Reliability-cost relationship, 3
and blanket work orders, 562–563 Repetitive work, 38, 40
and compensation, 236 Report information, from CMMS,
and empowerment vs. scheduling, 294–295
563–569 Reserving parts, 162–163
in exceptional crafts and plants, Resources, 262, 266–281
561–562 Attachments File, 273–274
and maintenance, 10–11 component level files, 266–271
of maintenance time, 4 critical/rotating spares program,
measurement of, 11 280
planning vs., 65, 66 cutting of, 416–417
and priorities system, 584–594 Equipment History Files, 269–272
and quality, 19–20 equipment parts lists, 274
and schedule compliance, 569–584 lube oil manual, 278
and scheduling/control, 6–8 Material Data Safety Sheets, 278
and specialization, 17 plant schematics, 278–280
and use of standards, 238 for procurement, 419–424
(See also Wrench time) security of, 280–281
Professional bureaucracy standard plans, 274–278
organization structure, 326 Technical Files, 272–273
Profitability, productivity and, 6–8 Riggs, Warren, 61
Project charter, 669 Root cause analysis, 139, 298
Project plan, 667 Rotating spares programs, 140–141,
Project work, 320–321, 393–396 280, 384–385
CMMS, 662–679 Routine maintenance, 8, 48
cost of, 170–171 Safety, 167–168
Purchasing parts, 160–162 Scattered staging areas, 222–223
Schedule compliance (schedule
Quality: success), 100–104, 250
and estimated work hours, 157 control of, 414–415
focus on, 19–20 as indicator, 333–335
Quotas, 235–236 and productivity, 569–584
Index 817
Schedule forecast, as indicator, Scoping (Cont.):

332–333 for outage maintenance, 232–234
Schedule meetings: for preventive maintenance, 314
daily, 256 and type of job, 139
weekly, 215–217 work hours in, 156
Schedule success (see Schedule Security of files, 280–281
compliance) Self-directed teams, 699–700,
Scheduling, 710–712 743–744
advance (see Advance scheduling) Senge, Peter, 364
with CMMS, 297, 650–656 Shops, 380–381
daily (see Daily scheduling) Short notice outage work (SNOW),
empowerment vs., 563–569 228–229, 231, 234
importance of, 84–88 Short outages, 227–228
informal, 127 Shutdown checklists, 397
information for, 8 Signoff, 676
ongoing, 714–717 Simple organization structure, 326
outage, 226–235 Sketching, level of detail in, 144–147
planning vs., 73, 75 Skill level:
and productivity, 6–8 folders for, 201, 202
as staging factor, 221 job plan designation of, 149–153
as stress reduction, 413 of planners, job estimation and,
success in, 73 47–55
and time spent on planning, 30 planning for lowest required,
of training/special meetings, 189 79–84
weekly, 183–184 scheduling from highest skills
work order process for, 358 available, 88–92
Scheduling principles, 73–106, of technicians, 57–58
794–795 in work hours/duration estimates,
advance scheduling, 77–78 153–155
crew leader development of daily Smith, Adam, 15–16
schedule, 97–100 SNOW (see Short notice outage work)
importance of schedules and job Software:
priorities, 84–88 CMMS, 304–305
need for, 73, 75–77 existing, CMMS with, 290–291
performance measurement with upgrades for, 656–657
schedule compliance, 100–104 Sorting work orders, 191–201
planning for lowest required skill SPC (statistical process control), 677
level, 79–84 Special tools, 165–167, 382
scheduling for every work hour in CMMS, 669
available, 93–97 cost of, 170
scheduling from forecast of highest Specialization, 15–16
skills available, 88–92 Spielman, Joe, 373
Schematics, 278–280 Splitting work hours, 207
Schimmoller, Brian, 762 Staging, 163, 217–226
Scoping, 142–143 benefits of, 217–219
checking minifiles prior to, 137 daily, 225
defined, 138 defined, 217
intent of, 145 and delays in jobs, 85
need for, 138 guidelines for, 220–221, 796–797
818 Index
Staging (Cont.): Technicians (Cont.):

location for, 221–224 job file history information for, 57
personnel for, 224 job plan detail vs. skills of, 57–58
process of, 224–226 and ownership of work orders,
selecting items for, 219–221 59–61
Standard plans, 274–278 peer pressure among, 77
examples of, 275–278 as planners, 48
forms vs., 263, 264 planners finding information for,
parts lists in, 160 34, 36–38
purpose of, 274–275 planning group support from,
Standards, 237–238 721–723
empowerment vs., 61 recognizing skills of, 55–64
for job duration, 155 scheduling factors with, 98
for time estimates, 50, 51 single vs. pairs, 81
for work hours, 155, 186 skill levels of, 149–153
for work processes, 293 skilled, need for, 408
Standby crews, 396–397 total information for, 62
Startup time, 157 Technologists, as planners, 48
Statistical process control (SPC), 677 Templates (CMMS), 303–304
Status codes, 603–604 Test labs, 672–673
Stock numbers, 162 Test phase, 675–676
Stockouts, 85, 162–163 Test script, 670–671
Storerooms, 382–383 ThinkReliability.com, 569
arrangement of, 160 Thomas Register® books, 274
identification of materials in, 162 Tightness, 314–316, 396
Stretch goals, 367 Time estimates:
Subcontracting (see Contracting out accountability for, 409–410
work) and people rules of planning,
Supervisors: 408–409
crew (see Crew supervisors) for preventive maintenance, 316
as planners, 48–49 skill needed for, 49–50
planning supervisors, 29–30, 463 TLC (tightness, lubrication, and
Supplier resources, 419–424 cleanliness), 314–316, 396
System files, 266 Tognazzini, Bruce, 651, 652
in Equipment History Files, Tool room, 381–382
269–272 Tools (for maintenance work):
usefulness of, 42–43 cost of, 170
hand tools, 382
Tags: identification of, 8
deficiency, 265, 360, 433 planning for, 5
equipment, 643–650, 730–731 shops, 380–381
Teamwork, as planning tool, 365–369 special, 165–167, 170, 382, 669
Technical Files, 272–273, 278 staging, 163, 217–226
Technician benches, 223–224 tool room, 381–382
Technicians, 374–375 Tools (for planning), 351–403
attitudes toward, 411–412 CMMS, 283, 284
defined, 151 communication, 364–365
feedback from, 59 defined, 351
interruptions by, 728–730 equipment information, 360–362
Index 819
Tools (for planning) (Cont.): “What’s In It For Me?” (WIIFM), 344

improved work processes, 396–397 White knights, 363
inventory management, 382–386 WIIFM (“What’s In It For Me?”), 344
leadership and management, Wireman, Terry, 314
362–364 Work calendars, in CMMS, 186
maintenance metrics, 397–403 Work flow diagrams, 597–599
predictive maintenance, 390–393 Work hours:
preventive maintenance, 387–390 allocation by, 202–203
project maintenance, 393–396 backlog of, as indicator, 338
qualified personnel, 369–371 in daily scheduling, 252
reliability maintenance, 386–387 estimating, 153–157
teamwork, 365–369 forecasting, 184–191
training and classification of as indicators, 402–403
personnel, 371–380 job duration hours vs., 80
work order system, 355–360 rounding off, 81–82
Trainees, 149 scheduling for every work hour,
Training, 371–380 93–97
apprenticeships, 373–374 splitting, 207
certification programs, 377–379 Work Order Allocation Worksheet,
as control method, 676–677 203
for crew supervisors, 379 Work order form, 130–133, 426
in estimating, 52–53 completed, 440–451
for giving feedback, 175 defined, 356
multicraft programs, 375–377 manual information on, 597,
need for, 415–416 600–602
of planners, 691–692, 725–727 Work order planning, measuring
as planning tool, 371–380 leverage of, 13–15
sample tests for, 747–753 Work order system:
scheduling of, 189 defined, 356
Troubleshooting, 139–141 guidelines for, 359–360
Turnarounds, 75, 227 and planning group establishment,
735–736
Underassigning work, 93, 94 as planning tool, 355–360
Unplanned work, 22 value of, 356–357
Work order system manual,
Vendor Files, 274 595–640
Vision: action taken codes, 635–640
company, 1–2 CMMS instructions, 602
of planning, 29, 78 codes, 602
department and crew codes,
Waiting-To-Be-Planned file, 605–606
128, 129 distribution of, 597, 640
Warnings, 148–149 equipment group and system
The Wealth of Nations (Adam Smith), codes, 611–615
15–16 equipment group and system
Weekly schedule meeting, 215–217 definitions, 615–631
Weekly scheduling (see Advance equipment type codes, 631–635
scheduling) how found codes, 607–608
Welders, 151 outage codes, 609–611
820 Index
Work order system manual (Cont.): Work orders completed, as indicator,

plan type codes, 608–609 337–338
plant and unit codes, 611 Work packages, 27
priority codes, 602–603 Work plans (see Job plans)
problem cause codes, 635–640 Work processes:
problem class codes, 635–640 CMMS and standardization of, 293
problem mode codes, 635–640 improved, as planning tool,
status codes, 603–604 396–397
table of contents for, 595–596 Work request forms, 130
work flow diagrams, 597–599 Work requests, 356, 392, 663
work order form information, 597, Work sampling, 64–70
600–602 administrative time in, 69
work order numbering system, full-blown study of, 487–560
639–640 as measure of how planning is
work type codes, 606–607 working, 66
Work orders, 6, 124–149 methods used in, 67–68
accuracy of estimates for, 51 ministudy of, 465–486
aging of, 193–194 perceptions of, 68
allocating, 201–215 value of, 67
assigning, 247–255 Work type, as indicator, 331, 332
attachments to, 147–148 Work type codes, 606–607
auto generation of, 303 Workflow system, CMMS and, 301
backlog of, as indicator, 336, 337 Working persons down, 94–95, 203
blanket, 562–563 Workspace layout, planning group,
canceling of, 142 694–695
closing, 128, 174–181 Wrapup time, 157
CMMS and availability of, 301 Wrench time, 11–12
coding, 127, 133–137 control of, 413–414
defined, 356 in exceptional crafts/plants,
finding, 295–296 561–562
function of, 357–358 as indicator, 335–336
handing out, 257–260 in job plans, 82
with insufficient data, 134–133 work sampling full-blown study,
numbering, 130–131, 639–640 487–560
origination of, 125–127 work sampling ministudy, 465–486
ownership of, 59–61 work sampling study of, 64–70
paper, 125, 175–176, 652 (See also Productivity)
in planning process, 128–130 Wrench Time Observation Data
for predictive maintenance, 297 Sheet, 439
scoping, 138–139, 142–143 Writing job plans, 148–149
sorting, 191–201
status of, 654 Young, Keith, 57–58
“why” of job in, 144 Young, Phillip, 2
writing, 148–149 Yourdon, Edward, 659
About the Author
Richard D. Palmer, PE, MBA, CMRP, better known as Doc Palmer, with
this handbook bridges the significant gap between the well-publicized ben-
efits of maintenance planning and the achievement of the benefits in
actual practice. Doc Palmer has more than 23 years of industrial expe-
rience with the past 17 directly in a maintenance role. He also has a
master’s degree in business from the University of North Florida and a
degree in engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. In addi-
tion, he holds a professional engineering license in the State of Florida.
This maintenance background with a technical and business education
gives him a unique perspective on the maintenance environment and
challenges. As an actual practitioner within a company’s maintenance
organization, he recognized and developed the necessary principles, and
then led the grassroots’ establishment of a successful planning pro-
gram. Doc Palmer is the author of numerous well-received articles and
presentations and is a recognized authority on the establishment of
successful maintenance planning. He is also a Certified Maintenance
and Reliability Professional. Doc Palmer works in the maintenance
department of an electric company and lives in Neptune Beach, Florida
with his wife, Nancy, and two daughters, Abby and Brittany.
821

Maintenance Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance

Want to learn more?

Chapter 1. The Beneﬁt of Planning 1

Chapter 2. Planning Principles 27

Principle 6: Measure Performance with Work Sampling 64

Chapter 3. Scheduling Principles 73

Chapter 5. Basic Planning 121

Equipment parts list 159

Chapter 6. Advance Scheduling 183

Chapter 7. Daily Scheduling and Supervision 241

Chapter 8. Forms and Resources Overview 261

Lube oil manual 278

Chapter 9. The Computer in Maintenance 283

Chapter 10. Consideration of Preventive Maintenance, Predictive

Chapter 11. Control 323

Chapter 12. Conclusion: Start Planning 341

Epilogue: An Alternative Day in the Life—May 10, 2010 345

Appendix A. Planning Is Just One Tool; What Are the Other

Appendix B. The People Side of Planning 405

Rule 2: Planners cannot plan the perfect job 407

Appendix C. What to Buy and Where 419

Appendix D. Sample Forms and Work Orders 425

Appendix E. Step-by-Step Overview of Planner Duties 453

Appendix F. Step-by-Step Overviews of Others’ Duties 459

After job execution 462

Appendix G. Sample Work Sampling (Wrench Time) Study: “Ministudy” 465

Appendix H. Sample Work Sampling (Wrench Time) Study:

Appendix I. Special Factors Affecting Productivity 561

Empowered to do what? 565

Appendix J. Work Order System and Codes 595

Appendix K. Equipment Schematics and Tagging 643

Appendix L. Computerized Maintenance Management Systems 651

Reliability is second 655

Appendix M. Setting Up and Supporting a Planning Group 683

Key Aids and Barriers 717

Appendix N. Example Formal Job Description for Planners 745

Appendix O. Example Training Tests 747

Appendix P. Questions for Managers to Ask to Improve

Appendix Q. Contracting Out Work 759

Appendix R. Concise Text of Missions, Principles, and Guidelines 793

We are witnessing a major change in maintenance. It is moving from an

Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. Click here for terms of use.

explain how to make planning work. Additional sections cover the

The welcome demand for the Maintenance Planning and Scheduling

Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. Click here for terms of use.

The Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook shows how to

Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. Click here for terms of use.

chemistry of rubber tires before finally getting around to explaining how

consultants helping others will benefit as well as risk management pro-

with more than ten maintenance persons, the resulting maintenance

I gratefully wish to acknowledge several persons who made this book

Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. Click here for terms of use.

Bill, Mechanic at Delta Ray, Inc., No Planning

Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. Click here for terms of use.

Sue, Supervisor at Zebra, Inc., No Planning

Juan, Welder at Alpha X, Inc., Has Planning

Jack, Planner at Johnson Industries, Inc.

One cannot discuss maintenance planning without first considering an

Copyright © 2006 by Richard D. Palmer. Click here for terms of use.

that effective maintenance provides reliable plant capacity. Some of the