‘Wfl‘fllffli—wf-WM’
`1’.
`Attachment 1a W
`
`3.16
`
`Cl'IAI’TER THREE
`
`+Scheduling Principle 4
`
`Schedule for Every
`
`Work Hour Available
`
`+100%, not 1200/0, not 800/0
`
`+Work Persons Down
`FIGURE 3.7 How planned hours and fort-casted hours become Whetltllcd lmu rs.
`
`For example. consider the case ofassigning work for 120% of a crew‘s t'nm
`r“ . Custed work
`hours. This would mean that the crew that had 1000 labor hours would
`“CM 1200 hours
`ofassigned work. This strategy may seem to be a way to provide enough work to h -
`‘
`‘
`in case operators could not finish some of the jobs. It would also seem m her} bf“:
`encourage the crew to stay busy. This is because it sets a more ambitious goal ii Way k
`completion. This strategy also creates several problems. 11 becomes difficult in c, or u. or
`auge the
`performance of the crew. Maintenance management has a more difficult time c:
`_
`.
`a
`what the crew did accomplish to what it should have been able 10 dU- This is hec' "12‘1““:
`there are three factors to compare: what labor the crew had available. what the 3:321:13“
`assigned, and what the crew actually accomplished. 1n the 100% case favored Lt:
`this
`book. the first two factors are identical. The 120% method's three factors make; itymore
`complicated for management to question a crew’s performance, 11' a crew did not accom-
`plish all its scheduled work, management would normally wtml 10 know why However
`management might be hesitant to question why a crew only accomplished 1 100 hour;
`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 pussihle. In
`addition, maintenance coordination with plant operators and other crafts may he more dif-
`ficult 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 pro-
`vide a way to handle emergencies or other high priority work that may occur. However.
`the maintenance force is trying to eliminate emergencies altogether. Planning signifi-
`cant 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 fore—
`casted work hours nearly always inherently includes some jobs that can be easily inter—
`rupted in case emergencies arise. A 100% scheduling strategy encourages originators to
`understand that for every emergency. other work is delayed. The 80% scheduling strat-
`egy also makes it difficult to gauge crew performance. Maintenance management also
`
`
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 1
`# M
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`SCH
`
`i-jnL'IJNG PRINCIPLES
`
`3,17
`
`finds ll (filth-'9“ l” 35k a crew to improve it the crew completed all of its assigned work.
`A sell-{Ull'llmg PH‘Phecy is possiblc- EVL‘TY “Wk [hm C'l‘eTSCHClCS do not occur. the
`crew miglll Ctlmplete less work than possible. if the crew completes less work than 1305-
`siblC~ the work lel't undone mieht ht: “‘Ufk 1“ head ‘3” cillcl‘gchiCS. Consequentlv the
`I
`texpcr‘cncc" L"“L‘rgeneiesihat justify lCinn‘é labor forces unscheduled each week.
`plan
`Go the other hand. the Sufi arrangement may bC PFCfL‘rrcd in certain situations where
`maintenance crews ”11151 “-m-k within an overall lime limit. Perhaps an outage with a
`critical til"c C0llslraint might meet this criteria. The SOC} arrangement might also be jus-
`tified it the lllitltltciittttee group has a particular chdlbiliI)‘ problem with the operations
`grollP- Th0 “m“llcnance group could public”? 'IllL‘ work that it plans to accomplish and
`give regular reports- [n lllt.‘ tlrlL‘l'illlUni‘. group 0i llh‘ SllL‘CL‘SS.
`PrinciP1c 4 Prefers the tour; strategy Prinmnl)‘ lot accountability and claritv ol‘ cont-
`muniCflll‘m- The Hit)"; mp; also keeps the crew busy accomplishing a practical goal.
`Maintcnflncu himdlt‘fi imy emergencies throw}h interrupting jObS-in-progress. Maintenance
`nulnagcnlfilll Sllflllltl llt‘i[ plan fur regular CII'ICl'gl-‘llCICS in llllS regard.
`Tht: 55'5”"F' Part of this principle. “working PCFSUHS dOWIt." is somewhat more sub-
`tle. On 1' “ml”Flmfilruetion project rcauirins 30 “‘L‘ldcrs and 2t) helpers. the project
`would simply h'TL‘ 2t) welders and 3” llClPCFS- HUWCVCT. in normal maintenance. the
`most thICl‘lCiill hills requiring completion rarely match the exact skill composition of
`the h“ruling maintenance force. As a simple illustration. see Fig. 3.8. Consider a
`lanncd bilelOg CtliiSisting or [(10 hours 01' high Prifirily Work requiring only helpers
`and [(10 hours of low priority wurk rctllllflntI "Wt-‘hlnifils. If there were only 100 hours
`of machini-‘il-fi ill-’ailahle. 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 machinlSl-‘i can do helper work and allows asfiignntent of persons to hieher priority
`work in the plant. Otherwise. think of a not-so-cxtreme case where there was no machin-
`ist work in the backlog and machinists could not “work down.“ Would a company have
`high priority llUlPL‘r work sitting in the backlog and machinists sitting in the break room?
`This is it thlcm with the automatic scheduling logic of some CMll/lS systems.
`Considcr wllf“ [YDC of multicral‘t or work agreements are necessary to take advantage
`of the OPPOI’N'mllc-‘l in this area.
`Sec Ell-‘30 how the note numbers in Fig. 3.8 illustrate the scheduline principles dis-
`cussed so far. The haekltwg work is planned by lowest skill level (Principle I). The back—
`log is ordered by Priority or importance of work (Principle 2). The resources to work the
`jobs arc {UFCCQSICd by the highest skill level available (Principle 3). Principle 4 shows
`the correct itsfilghment of technicians to jobs.
`CraftPer-“Wls t)VPiCally should not mind working OUISide ol‘ their primary spedalties
`for work that is obviously in the best interest of the plant. It does become a source of
`resentment thn the plant abuses the priority system. Consider management assigning
`a first class ClCCtrtcian to he a helper for a mechanic. if it is obvious that the mechani-
`cal work is much less important than backlogged electrical work. there is a problem.
`
`Illustrations
`
`The following Ilium-alums demonstrate this PrlUClPlfi 0f scheduling. The first section shows
`problems OCCU'Tlllg as a result ofnot following the principle_ The second section shows suc-
`cess through application of the principle.
`Not This Way.
`Fred examined the plant‘s backlog of Planned work and selcCted the
`work for the maintenance crew for the following Week, The crew had forecasted 400
`hourg' worth oi
`total
`labor for all
`the various craft SPEClalties, Normally Fred only
`
`A--.a._
`
`i
`i
`
`-.
`i
`
`
`.
`U
`
`
`
`
`
`“nut-vi;Tr."&‘1\1t1
`
`
`
`.1“:i
`.1
`.‘
`
`l
`
`|
`
`li
`
`l.
`
`
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 2
`
`

`

`""- Mufi‘hr'éwi‘gi,PA¢’-nu—Lf——Wm‘_v-fldt—"
`
`,1_-J.':-__eee¢__.
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`
`
`
`3.18
`
`CHAPTER THREE
`
`"Working Persons DOWn"
`@
`(3)
`Planned Backlog
`Resource ForeCast——_\
`
`
`
`+100 Work Hours
`
`Helper Work
`
`+100 Work Hours of
`
`Low Priority
`Skilled Machinist
`
`Work
`
`FIGURE 3.8 Doing work most profitable for the plant.
`
`scheduled for 80% of the crew’s forecast to allow for emergencies.
`lThls meant that
`sometimes he was not able to schedule all of preventive maintenance
`t ”C 0n the equip—
`ment. This week he was able to schedule 60 hours of PM. At one poin
`[ WhCn allocating
`work out ofthe backlog, it became difficult to match the jobs needing attention t,
`'
`l up
`remaining available electrical skills. Therefore. Fred assigned 2011mm ot'lcqgcrv'ln )rL.
`tant priority-4 work. This work required first class electricians and the l‘irstlhl-lqlgi13:c-
`tricians had hours available. The resulting advance schedule was an allottili()i1i;)ii':70
`hours‘of planned work for the crew. During the next week. the maintenance Crew did-not
`experience any emergencies and completed all 320 hours of work.
`
`Fred examined the plant‘s backlog of planned work and selected the work
`This Way.
`for the maintenance crew for the following week. The crew had forecaster] 400 hours'
`worth oftotal labor for all the various craft specialties. Fred was able to schedmc about
`80 hours” worth of preventive maintenance into the schedule. At one point when flue-
`eating work out of the backlog, it became difficult to match the jobs needing attention
`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 electri-
`cian labor hours still available. The third class work was priority-3 work, whereas all of
`the first class electrical 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 emer-
`gencies and completed 360 hours of the work.
`Scheduling Principle 4 dictates that the scheduler should match the advance alloca-
`tion of work to the number of hours a crew has available. To accomplish this task. the
`advance scheduling process considers working persons out of their strict classifications
`or below their level of expertise. This methodology allows the scheduler to select the
`
`
`
`__
`
`.
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 3
`. ..._ __—.—.._fl
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`:
`i
`1'
`'; )
`-
`;
`.
`.
`B-IIZ IIIDL l,l.\( l R1\Clll.l.$
`
`3-19
`
`best combination of Work orders In ilL'thVC plum 301115 SUCh as reliability and efficiency.
`The combination of work orders is onc in WWII“ the crew C1095 P055355 the skill required
`to accomplish Ihc wurls'.
`.
`.
`Principlc 4 csnihlishcs u iiicrliodnlngy 1“ ”“1 Plimmng Office to assign enough
`Work. In addition, it
`is worthy to notc what actually happens in the field on a day-to-
`day basis. BL‘L‘HUSL‘ ll];ll1_\'j0h5 run (“r-Tr ur-undlcr‘ th CTCW‘ SupCerSOF frequently does
`not ever huvc to assign pcrsons oulsulc of thH' normal crafts. On a day-tu-day basis.
`the supervisor is usually ablc l0 3155'3'1_\""rk ”0'“ the weekly allocation by craft.
`There are more occasions whcrc lcclImClilnS may be used as helpers. For example. a
`job planncd for one mcchnnic and I lIL‘lPCT may be assigned to Iwo mechanics. The
`next principle ilcscrihcs lhc husis tor the crew supcrwsnr instead of the scheduler
`making the daily work :Issignincnlfi-
`
`PRINCIPLE 5: CREW LEADER HANDLES
`CURRENT DAY’S WORK
`
`Scheduling Principle 5 (Fig. 3.9) SINGS
`
`Tim ('n'w .I'rqu-rrr'xrlr (h-i'ylupx it daily St‘ht'dfl’l' our day in advance using cnrn'mjnb
`hmgrmx, Hu- mar iI-m-k si-Iu-dulv and MW his”! l’fit’l’iry. rcuc‘riI-cjnbs us a guide. The crew
`.I‘upr’n'ixnr marches prrirmmrl skills and msks. Thy crew supervisor handles (he currenf
`day's work and prnhlg'ms £'\'£'H m rm‘r‘l‘n’duling Hn' cnrin’ ch'u'fnr c'im’rgt'lzcics.
`
`+Scheduling Principle 5
`
`Crew Leader Handles
`
`Current Day’s Work
`
`+Daily Schedule
`
`+Matches Names t0 Tasks
`
`+Coordination of Resources &
`
`Clearances
`
`+Emergencies
`
`FIGURE 3-9 The crew supervisor is in the best poxilioiL
`
` CiM EX. 1059 Page
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 4
`
`

`

`"“"W"camwfl‘sawgmu—fi .
`
`'—
`
`- Attachment 1a
`
`
`
`3.20
`
`Cttairrtitt 'FllRl-Ll-l
`
`Once the week has begun, obviously some jobs will run m'CI‘ imd so
`.
`the
`.
`W I 11
`.
`their planned work hours. Experience shows that although individual
`_
`-
`.
`s
`run undLF
`.Ibe
`variance between planned and actual times. over the courw 0" 11 Week n
`hire . hon. a Wtdb
`agreement between the sums of the planned and actual times. That is the t‘
`1“ rclltttrkabl‘:
`daily scheduling is best done by the crew leader or supervisor Who is chum rL‘ason that
`situation ofjob progress. Equally important is the ability of tilt“ crew quL‘rfi-‘F ‘0 the field
`particularjobs to individuals based on their experience or even their "Cud‘. lstit‘ to assifg.n
`Each day the crew supervisor assigns the next day's work to Uétch m 'L‘arn.
`if
`working [0-hour shifts. each technician would receive assignments totali, Ccllhieian.
`work for the next day. The supervisor intends for each technician to com lg I” 11mm or
`of planned work each day. The technicians may be continuing on a cmulcmcte It) hour"
`several days or working several smallerjobs in a single day.
`“
`”’1‘ ”mt spanS
`During the course of the day.
`the supervisors are out
`in the fig
`,
`_
`ltl
`progress. lfajob runs over the planned hour estimate. th‘ HUPCFViMH‘ may disguising job
`ule additional time for the next day. If ajob runs under the planned mum-l?“ ‘0 SCth‘
`visor may have to assign additional work to begin a day earlier than L‘x mlcc‘ ”‘9 HUPL'"
`The supervisor normally assigns new work orders out of the Work alllc-dh-
`supervisor is also free to assign urgentjobs that come up during the com-Remimim- The
`Ordinarily, the supervisor has the planning group quickly assess urgcm'jugi the week.
`supervisor assigns them as soon as qualified technicians CUIltpletc cu”?- rhen the
`progress. Because emergency jobs are begun immediately. the supervisor h-Lnl JOE“ m
`by interrupting jobs in progress. Emergency jobs do ”01 FCCL'iVC mummifimm‘ them
`They are handled entirely as jobs in progress from a planning standpoint
`it» attention-
`Because jobs may finish earlier or later than expected. it is ”Di PriIL‘ticah
`work order assignments more than a day in advance. Because the crew Sup“, n SCthUIC
`abreast of individualjob progress, they are in the best position to cr ‘ate the (1‘. tsors keep
`ule. The crew supervisor creates the daily schedules and works the Crew mwfuly “-th-
`of completing all the work allocated in the advance schedule.
`“rd the $031
`The second reason the crew supervisors need to make the daily fichcd |_ .
`understand the specific abilities of their various technicians. There also .niulLLblf they
`ous personalities making a crew supervisor favor pairing certain technicifn .[
`L Vim-
`and keeping certain others apart. Some technicians might also work b
`‘
`5 togct 1”
`.
`.
`.
`.
`t. on obs.
`CUCI‘ tllnn s
`-
`.
`while others might work better as a team. A crew supervrsor as also be.“
`J
`personnel concerns. such as persons that call in sick.
`dwmc 0t dally
`To meet the goal ofthe weekly schedule allocation. the SUpchiSor m
`ay also have I0
`challenge some of the technicians. In the past. the supervisor may have allowed cerl'tin
`technicians to accomplish less work or less challenging W0rk than others, Faced With '1
`goal amount of work orders to complete, the supervisor may now be more encour-i ved
`to help technicians rise to the occasion. The supervisor approaches these considcmt‘iins
`carefully. The situation may be a benefit to technicians who have been "frozen" at [hail—
`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 r
`CqUirements for
`another craft to assist on a job. The supervisor 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
`
`The following illustrations demonstrate this principle of scheduling. The first section shows
`problems occurring as a result of not following the principle. The second section shows success
`through application of the principle.
`
`
`
`._ ____ _
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 5
`_—___._#
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`st'tlt-LhtaJNtE PRINCIPLES
`
`3.21
`
`Not This War. The maintenance planning SCllCtJtllCr sat down to make the weekly allo-
`cation of work. This was done by Ll¢"°l“p'"g 1' 5m“ Ol- dlill)’ schedules for a week: After
`the schedules were complete. the scheduler sent the operations group a list telling which
`systems and equipment to have cleared at’dittc'rent times each day for work.
`As the crew supervisor visited the variouf' 10b Site-h“ during the day. he had a good idea
`of which jobs would t'inish early or late. [his-ICQUUL‘d constant communication with the
`operations group. which gals—Til”? "mead d'Splcasurc “hm” the situation. The opera-
`tions group expected maintenance crews to be able to work on the jobs to which the
`planning schedule had committed them. Operators generally wasted time clearing sys-
`tems when the maintenance group did I101 have personnel ready. He had done the oper~
`ations 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 maintenance supervisor had assigned each
`technician one job at a time after he had checked with the operations group regarding
`Clearances. The operations group L‘OUld lllt‘n mum on maintenance personnel being
`ready to work on the cleared equipment-
`
`This Way. The tnaintenance planning scheduler sat down to make the weekly allocation
`of Work. This was done by developing it lib“ Ol '“Wli Orders for a week. After the alloca—
`tion was complete. the scheduler sent the operations grottp 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 supervisor knew that in order to com-
`plete the weekly allocation of work. he would have to assign each crew member a full [0
`hours of planned work for the nest 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. TllL‘)’ “150 said they had earlier written a work order for
`a fan problem that probably could not Will! until "C?“ week. The crew supervisor said that
`he would check with planning to see it' they had started planning it. Depending on the
`Craft skills needed. he would probably be able to start it the first thing in the morning. He
`had several persons who were ready to start new jobs. After the meeting. he called plan—
`ning. They had just planned the job for two mechanics. The crew supervisor called the
`operators group, who said they would have the fan cleared for work. He made the neces-
`sary changes on his schedule and went to the crew meeting area to post the assignments
`f0r the next day.
`The supervisor is in the best position to make the daily RChedule. This person has the
`latest information on field progress and can judge when operations should clear equip-
`ment. This person has the responsibility of working toward the weekly allocation of
`work. However. the crew supervisor is still responsible for breaking the weekly sched-
`ule when necessary to take care of urgent problems.
`
`PRINCIPLE 6: MEASURE PERFORMANCE WITH
`SCHEDULE COMPLIANCE
`
`Scheduling Principle 6 (Fig. 3_l0) states
`
`Wrench .“lm‘, i". ”'9 Primary "ma-WW "f‘mrkfi’rt‘l’ t’fiit'iencv and ofplrmnirtg and sched-
`uling C’fj"£‘“"£’”£’-\‘.\'. Work rim! is planned (“if-(”'1’ Ussignmenr Art‘dllfé’i‘ mutet'es’san' delavs
`dun-"XJOb-V “”d ‘l'm'k that is scheduled rt'dtli‘é'fi‘ dt’lm'a‘ betwr’cnjobt' ”S‘Chl'dfljt; C(iiiiplimtt‘t'
`is the measure nfgdhcrenw m the one-it't’ek schedule and m Efikc'f‘il’;nggg
`
`
`'rjeiérann""
`mar-era“m
`
`
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 6 ii
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 6
`
`

`

`Attachment 1a
`
`
`
`3.22
`
`CIlAl’l‘l-LR 'l‘llRl-Lli
`
`.
`I'll}; perfor-
`
`Work sampling or wrench time is considered the best measure of t
`Chg)
`mance. However. maintenance management also tracks schedule comp”
`The bottom line is whether or not planning and schedulint1 hiWL‘ imp;
`.
`hVL- .
`force’s efficiency. Planning and scheduling aim to do this by rcducjn
`g Lle
`Ll the work
`.
`:l
`r
`.
`erwise keep technicians from completing work orders. Planning in
`d'Viu 3" Ilia: oth-
`reduce delays such as wailing to obtain certain parts. tools. or lcchnicim in” jobs can
`However, other than setting an individual job time standard. planning ‘1‘: Ilisirumions.
`reduce delays between jobs. These delays include such circumstanecx us
`Us nothing to
`receiving an assignment after completing their current work. In ildtllllonLLlh‘llcizllls110‘
`sufficient amount of work assigned may encourage technicians to [like U
`tin“ having a
`or have lengthy mobilization and shut down periods at the heginnjng 1inhlkfisive breaks
`day. Scheduling aims at reducing these type delays. Work sampling 0: end of each
`studies quantify both of these type delays. They give the primary ”Wham-L. _“ “flich time
`and scheduling effectiveness.
`5' ”1 planning
`Schedule compliance is also an important indicator. John Cross-
`)
`.‘a
`-
`iat
`weekly schedule compliance is the ultimate measure of proactivity.
`When 11
`\ lyh H
`nance force has control over the equipment. the maintenance t'oreu dck‘ldcg \ Ilc mainte-
`certain actions to preserve equipment. When the equipment has comm] ml‘iien to take
`force, the equipment drives the efforts of maintenance. A more reactive Dl'Lr the work
`ment has more circumstances of the equipment experiencing problems Illntl‘uit cnwron-
`maintenance force to break the weekly schedule. The proactive ItiziinlclnlLausing the
`control ofits equipment experiences few circumstances of a sudden C‘lUlPIii 1"” “WC ”1
`that interrupts scheduled work. Schedule compliance is merely a me-
`Lm problem
`‘1'“er t) ‘
`r
`1
`the crew kept to the scheduled allocation ofwork for the week. Super
`' ho“ Wk”
`ViSOI‘fi
`-
`\V
`.
`.
`_
`.
`;
`‘
`‘
`to the schedule as much as possible ensure accomplishing as much prL-chivhu Klimt“
`C main 6‘
`nance and other timely corrective work as possible.
`Schedule compliance provides a measure of accountability. It guards
`working on pet prejects or other jobs that are not more important lh
`
`ugainst crews
`an lllc allocated
`
`+Scheduling Principle 6
`
`Measure Performance by
`Analysis of Schedule Compliance
`
`QM msmrt Finish Compliance
`
`
`6)
`
`®
`
`10
`
`1
`
`10
`
`1
`
`9
`
`0
`
`100%not90%
`
`100% not0%
`
`@ 1000
`
`900 850
`
`90% not 85%
`
`FIGURE 3.10 Making schedule compliance acceptable to supervisors and practical to
`calculate.
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 7
`_.._._——
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`SCHEDULING PRINCIPLES
`
`323
`
`werk. Yet if ”mu more urgent 0T NCFiUU-N‘ 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 interrurtl the SCI‘CdL][°-_ A supervisor may have a low schedule
`'
`ten-opting work. '1 his might indicate there may be a problem
`such as storeroont performance that needs to'be identified and resolved. The schedule
`compliance Hum-ct rite-Hittite discussant and Identification of plant problems between
`maintenance managers and suPCf"‘5(‘r5-
`Sinfihlrlv. a technicianspertormancc measured against the planned estimate of a
`single job helps l'acilitatc discussion between the supervisor‘and the‘technician. The
`technician must ignore the planned estimate when the actual dictates oi the job demand
`otherwise. The technician and supervisor may need to sendjob feedback to the planning
`department to prevent certain problem areas lrotn hindering future work.
`Schedule compliance is not a weapon 10 Mid against Supervisors. Maintenance man—
`agement and supervisors want
`to use schedule compliance 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
`it) but only completes 9. The crew receives a score of
`100% schedule compliance rather than 90%. The second case explains this reasoning
`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 rccciVes a score of [00% schedule compliance. ln actual practice. case 3 shows
`how maintenance measures schedule compliance. Schedule compliance actually tracks
`”19 Manned ii'urk hours delivered to the crew for the following Week‘s work ([000 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 compliance as 90%. which is
`(IUOU — Him/mill) times 100%. Giving the CTC\’ credit forjobs only started in the cal-
`culation 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 remaining planned hours ofjobs-
`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 scheduledjobs. 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 suc-
`cess" 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 monitored. 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 l-week period is short enough normally
`hm to need significant alteration due to new work identification_ This may be less true
`In a plant with more than a moderate amount of reactive work. These plants may nor-
`mally experience a significant deviation from the set schedule. These plants especially
`Should continue to schedule and track schedule compliance. This indicator would deter-
`mine what improvement maintenance has been able to make in overcoming the reactive
`Situation.
`
`\‘2111
`_I(54-.
`
`
`
`r~1r\\\\"‘{“‘v'-'r"
`
`
`
`\1—“_n."."n
`
`
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 8
`
`
`J
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 8
`
`

`

`W‘:?H‘:MW*mVS-fllm .
`
`..' " ' " ‘
`
` Attachment 1a
`
`3.24
`
`CHAPTER 'l‘llRlili
`
`Illustrations
`
`.
`
`'
`
`The following illustrations demonstrate this principle of scheduling. The fir“ .
`problems occurring as a result of not following the principle. TllL‘ second he ',
`.XCL‘tion Shows
`cess through application of the principle. Chapter It). Control. shows Km ””11 “hours suC‘
`actual calculation of schedule compliance fora crew.
`Mmp]c or the
`
`It mat] ‘
`Not This Way. Three plants considered schedule compliance.
`Plant Shelton to track schedule compliance. The plant simply had toh I:“ho sensc 1“
`work orders. However. the chWs had become very efficient “1 lilking Car Tiny reactivt2
`It was never a problem for maintenance expeditiously 10 TCSUlVC hum :“f lhe plant-
`encountered.
`lchllmtunCCfi
`Plant Bains had made a commitment to track schedule compliance.
`1
`assigned an analyst almost full time to the task. Rather than only give the l.” Plant had
`for completed jobs. each week the analyst would also giVc L‘rcilll f0!” HontchiwS credtl
`hours for jobs-in-progress. The analyst carefully recorded the actual Wor f” ”“3 work
`technicians had already spent on jobs not completed and added them to m hours lhal
`planned hours for completed jobs. There was some concern that the ea c [Sn-n 0‘ the
`mixing actual work hours for uncompletcdjobs with planned Wth hours 'oi] lulu“ was
`jobs. One alternative was having the planners give an estimate of the plannL-(lLluml'JlC‘c;i
`on each partially completed job. Another alternative was having the super\’iso-1i)u'rs 1i:
`1
`estimate of the percentage of each job remaining and propnflioning the “right-l1“ 3W6 '3
`hours. The analyst doubted there was adequate time to fine tune the caleu]. il— plant“:
`week using either alternative.
`(mom each
`Plant Calvin used the schedule compliance indicator as a hammer. The 1110-
`'
`tant task for any supervisor was to finish allocated work. Management used h-l~lnipulr:
`compliance scores as the major part of each supervisor's periodic evaIu-tt'thdE-L.
`ensured that crews accomplished all the scheduled preventive Inaintermncé "on" T If
`work t0 keep the plant reactive work to a minimum. Supervisors nevt;
`and 0th“
`-
`r failed
`,
`'ke
`charge 0f emergencies, but they were understandably reluctant to re
`u I"
`‘
`_
`_
`ieiwist.
`solve all
`' " ‘
`urgent Situations before they became emergenctes. Manugcll‘mfiL knew lhztt thin w-ts the
`price to pay for concentrating on proactive work In the long run. they felt tl '
`.
`,
`-
`n: .-
`i
`a 1
`would provade the plant wrth superior reliability.
`8 so" may
`
`It made sense at Pl'tnt
`This Way. Three plants considered schedule compliance.
`Shelton to track schedule compliance. Plant Sheldon Called it “schedule sttcceifi " The
`plant had many reactive work orders. The crews had become very efficient
`H -
`at taking can:
`of the plant. It was never a problem for maintenance to resolve most Circunygtqnccs
`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 [hut
`somehow they needed to reduce the amount of reactive work at the plant. As manage-
`ment implemented various solutions, they examined 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 the crews had originally been allocated allowed a simple measure
`of schedule success. This procedure consumed about 2 hours of the stipervisor‘s time
`near the end of each week, primarily for gathering back the work orders that the super—
`visors knew that they would not be able to begin. The supervisor rel‘lCCU-‘Cl that the work
`
`
`
`Attachment 1a
`
`CiM Ex. 1059 Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`'
`'
`5(lll
`
`il)Ul.l\'(‘ PRINCIPLES
`l
`a
`
`3-25
`
`tvc to he gathered each week in any case because the sched-
`orders not started \vould hi
`uler needed them to add back t0 ”W PW" 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 indicator. It was
`y supervisor to concentrate on allocated \vork. Management used sched-
`important for an
`ot‘ eacli .N‘urN-‘TV'WT'S PUFiOdiC evaluation. This ensured that
`Ule success scores as one part
`ance of accomplishing scheduled preventive maintenance
`crews understood the import
`ant reactive work to a minimum. Supervisors never failed
`and other work to keep the pi
`and were also quick to resolve otherwise urgent situations
`to take charge ot'cniergciicics
`cs. Management ensured that supervisors understood
`before they became einergetici
`t' trouble. in the long run. management felt this strategy
`their role to keep the plant out o
`crim’ reliability.
`‘
`would provide the plant with sup
`As one can see. the plant's t‘JhJL‘L‘ilVC is not to have a high schedule compliance. The
`plant‘s objective is to have a reliable plant. A low schedule compliance indicates oppor—
`lunities for management to address othL‘r problems in the plant to increase the plant reli-
`ability. The schedule compliance score facilitates discussion and investigation of
`problems. When supervisors are appropriately fOHOWing the advance schedule and
`reacting to urgent plant devclulNllL‘m-‘i— the SCthUIe compliance score indicates the
`degree to which the plant is in a reactive or proactive 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 neglect of urgent development-5‘ might PU! lhe company out of busi-
`ness. Once it occurs. reactive maintenance needs cannot be ignored.
`
`WEJ_________—__*__.____.———
`
`Maintenance planning will not increase labor productivity if it only concentrates on
`planning indiVidual work orders. Making it Cflfiicr to accom