Work Planning, Scheduling and Execution

Work Planning, Scheduling and Execution Electric, Gas and Water Utilities © UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved UMS Group | Performance and Asset Ma...
Author: Nelson Newman
11 downloads 2 Views 1MB Size
Work Planning, Scheduling and Execution Electric, Gas and Water Utilities

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

UMS Group | Performance and Asset Management |

Work Planning, Scheduling and Execution In addition to the frameworks, methodologies, and analytics applied to assess and improve upon current state, the implementation of an effective Work Planning, Scheduling and Execution Process is foundational to providing safe, effective and efficient service to our customers.

Three-Dimensional View Processes (e.g.; IPSEC and Cadence)

Systems (e.g.; Work and Asset Management, Scheduling and Forecasting)

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

Productivity / Cost (e.g.; Schedule Performance, Efficiency and Work Flow)

2

IPSEC Model and Processes Effective processes require development of a hierarchy framed by the IPSEC Model

And supported with well-defined Processes and detailed Procedures

Failure to do so results in a general lack of cadence (i.e.; routine), which inevitably leads to waste / low productivity © UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

3

Establishing Cadence A proper cadence clarifies organizational roles, responsibilities and decreases waste and uncertainties

T-4

T-2 • 4-week look ahead meeting – establishes all potential scope that should be performed in four weeks

Day - Before • Afternoon meeting to validate tomorrow’s workload. Chaired by planner/scheduler to ensure that all work is ready to go.

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

T-1 • Two week planning and scheduling meeting that looks at work two week out to determine if job is likely to be accomplished and competing work that has been identified

“Game day” • Operations directed meeting to review work that is on the schedule and any emergent work that has “broken” the schedule.

• One week look ahead – locks in on all work that should be accomplished next week. 100% of manpower should be scheduled during this meeting with a goal of 80% planned verses 20% “break-in” work

T+1 • Weekly meeting to review work metrics and lessons that were learned from not meeting schedule

4

Productivity / Cost Productivity can be improved through a number of interventions:

1. Field Observation – Observing crews often yields revealing insights and opportunities for immediate improvement as do relatively simple comparisons of actual vs. planned task / activity durations. With respect to work planning, scheduling and execution, the cause-effect relationship can go either way. Many of the tasks performed in the field can be eliminated or drastically reduced through proper work planning.

2. Analysis of Budget Costs along with Overtime Rates can certainly point to issues, many of which involve shortfalls in work planning, scheduling and execution.

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

5

Productivity / Cost (Continued) 3. The extent to which an organization optimizes its Maintenance regimen also impacts workforce productivity and overall costs: Interval/Compliance Based Maintenance

Reactive Maintenance



Breakdown Maintenance





Repairs are made as defects and failures are discovered

Elapsed Time Based Maintenance



Intervals extended based on failure experience and inspection results



Result of poor Maintenance Planning



Scope of PM Activities driven by OEM Recommendations and failure / defect experience, including few, If any replacements

Condition-Based Maintenance •

Maintenance decisions made based on inspection and test results



Asset Health Index maintained to support decision making

Risk and Criticality Based Maintenance •

Maintenance decisions made on assessment of risk and a determination of asset criticality



Scope of these PM activities include RCM / FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) analysis and asset criticality

4. Similarly, the concept of optimizing the trade-off between value and risk assures more optimal spending of investment capital:

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

6

Productivity / Cost (Continued) 5. Risk and Criticality Based Maintenance leads to Economic Asset Lifecycle Planning where optimum Repair vs. Replacement decisions must be made. Asset Inventory / Demographics

Economic Life Model

INPUTS

Health Index Formulation

Applying SME input and weightings of Inspection and Testing parameters as well as Industry Standards to correlate age and/or condition (health index) to failure; Likelihood (Probability) of Failure in the form of Hazard Curves can be developed fro each type within an asset class.

OUTPUTS

Determine optimum replacement point by balancing the trade-off between spending on one hand and the cost due to risk of failure on the other. Risk Matrix

4%

3% 2% 1%

0% $0

Failure Consequence (Criticality of Asset)

:Develop Failure Scenarios (ranging from minor to catastrophic)

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

Asset Replacement Profile (Based on Economic Life Model)

NOTE: Typically, there will be a large spike in year 1, likely due to underinvestment. The actual replacements will be levelled, but with a clear statement of embedded risk during this “catch up” period. 7

Productivity / Cost (Continued) 6. The relationship between Workforce Staffing Strategies and actual Workload also plays a role in the overall productivity of an organization’s work planning, scheduling and execution program.

Allowing sufficient flexibility to adjust resource to predefined workload is a key concept to apply in sizing the full-time staff is matching the workforce to the work required, rather than the more traditional approach of matching the workload to the capabilities and capacity of the workforce.

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

8

System Implementation The Systems Component of an effective Work Planning, Scheduling and Execution Program should be viewed as an enabler rather than a driver of process: • Process and Culture “trump” systems every time (system selection should support end state regarding organizational design, process and procedure implementation and performance management) • Separation of Program Implementation and System Selection yields the best result (removal of bias towards one system assures alignment to previous point) • System decisions amidst process and organization redesign efforts should reflect a “no regrets” approach • There is no perfect system; but most incidents of frustration with system performance more often than not point towards breakdowns in processes and/or the aforementioned productivity areas • System customization should, to the maximum extent probable, be limited to the more cosmetic aspects of terms and nomenclature

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

9

Assessment Framework A possible first step may be an overall assessment of the practices and systems in place at your company, and an evaluation across the more germane areas driving workforce productivity. UMS Group would propose the following Maturity Scale system-wide and specific to each step of the IPSEC model

The final deliverables would include a listing of observations and implications leading to a series of recommendations, categorized by impact, difficulty and cost.

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

10

Contact

Jeffrey W. Cummings Senior Vice President UMS Group Inc. 1543 Abbotsford Drive Naperville, IL 60563 USA Mobile: +1-630 561-2146 Office: +1-630-561-2146 Fax: +1-888-298-1648 [email protected] www.umsgroup.com

© UMS Group Inc., All Rights Reserved

11

Suggest Documents