When Faster is Less Efficient for Maintenance and Repairs

If a maintenance tech saves 15 seconds per motor lube by not wiping the zirc (grease fitting) before attaching the grease gun, how much time is saved per 50 motor lubrication jobs? On the surface, it would seem that tech is saving the company twelve and a half minutes. But in a typical plant, that means using the grease gun to push dirt into the bearings and this can cause a significant loss of longevity. If you have to replace motors 20% more often, was any time saved by skipping that simple step? Obviously, no. And so it is more efficient to pay attention to details like this than to skip them.

If the same tech saves two minutes per motor by not allowing enough time for the old grease to come out of the drain, saves another 15 seconds by not wiping up the grease dollop that hit the floor, and with some motors saves three minutes by not removing and disposing of the old drive belts, how much time is “saved”? Look at all the slipping hazards; it takes only one.

Some other ways people might “save time” include not putting all the bolts back into a cover (reduces arc blast protection), not cleaning up a minor spill, tossing used solvent into the nearby used oil barrel instead of the used solvent barrel (hugely expensive to dispose of in a compliant way), skipping the three step voltage verification as part of lockout/tagout, substituting a quick visual inspection for the measurement required by the PM, tightening a connection instead of measuring the voltage across it, and not taking As Founds before making adjustments. All of these can be very expensive mistakes, and some of them can be lethal mistakes.

How can you prevent these kinds of negative “savings”? Some tips:

• Stress that maintenance is not about “checking off the box” but is instead about ensuring the equipment is in the desired condition.
• By example and training, teach the core principle “details matter.”
• Differentiate between speed and efficiency. Speed involves skipping steps or doing them inadequately to seemingly accomplish the immediate goal, while efficiency involves performing steps skillfully with the bigger picture in mind.
• Communicate the idea that we are most efficient when our work results in the least amount of disruption, unplanned downtime, and rework.
• Reward for professional work, not for work quantity in itself.
• Periodically observe work as it’s being done. When you see sloppiness, use that as a teaching moment. But rather than lecture on what the person did wrong, ask how that step could be done with better workmanship.
• Review all procedures to ensure they don’t contain unnecessary steps. If people understand that every step is in there for good reason, they are more likely to perform each step. In training, explain each step and why it’s necessary; get the trainee to do the same.
• Review all procedures to ensure they are clear and concise. A major reason people skip steps is the procedures are too verbose to be useful. Instead of a paragraph describing how to clean the zirk, that step should simply read, “Wipe the zirc clean”.
• Teach supervisors to be alert for abnormally high output. It could be a good thing, in which case that high-performing tech can share things like, “I carry a dropper so I don’t have to climb down in the middle of doing this” or “I have a complete kit for this so I am not running back and forth to the shop.” One reason people take shortcuts is they are trying to make up for inefficient work habits such as running back and forth to the shop as a consequence of poor planning. If abnormally high output occurs due to taking shortcuts, you want to stop that behavior.