The MPSH Scheduler is simply an “app” for your company’s CMMS. Although the scheduling process outlined in Chapter 6 can be easily executed with paper forms, the MPSH Scheduler is simply an Excel spreadsheet with some macros to manipulate the work orders.

Instead of spending three or four hours manually scheduling at the end of the week, the spreadsheet allows you to compile the best schedule for each crew’s labor hours in a matter of minutes. You can then print out the schedule for each crew or send them an Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet even prepares a SQL of the schedule you could use to select out the work orders in the CMMS itself.

Get the MPSH Scheduler Now

Not Software

The MPSH Scheduler is not software per se. It is a simple spreadsheet with macros. It is not a maintenance software package that reaches into the CMMS dataset. Instead you must first export the CMMS work order data to a target spreadsheet in predefined columns that MPSH Scheduler accesses. With a few clicks, the spreadsheet macro brings over and manipulates work orders to put them in the best order for the benefit of the plant considering both priorities of work orders and convenience of maintenance. The spreadsheet then calculates the best schedule with the labor forecasted for the crew being scheduled. This calculation even considers your labor agreements as to working crafts outside their levels or primary crafts. You can review the schedule and make additional groupings as well as mandate certain work be included or excluded. All of this scheduling is along the lines of Chapter 6 in the handbook.

System Requirements

System Requirements: Excel 2003 through 2010 (full install with macros enabled), Windows XP through 2007, 32 or 64 bit operating system. You should have some familiarity with basic Excel navigation moving between tabs and data entry. You (or your IT resource or someone) must be able to download (export) CMMS data into specified columns to create a target backlog spreadsheet in Excel.

Using Excel along with a CMMS

Most CMMSs do not take into account either the uncertain nature of maintenance time estimates or the high incidence of new reactive work that cannot wait until next week. These CMMS programs are programmed for some theoretical “World Class Maintenance” and therefore presume overly accurate job estimates and minimal interrupting new reactive work. This thought process carries into a misguided CMMS approach of creating daily hour-by-hour schedules doing job assignment for individually named craftspersons a week in advance or further.

In real life maintenance, enough jobs finish early or late and enough new urgent work interrupts scheduled work so that daily schedules assigning work must be created every day for the next day and coordinated.

In addition, just because you have three welders doesn’t mean that the best work for the plant would be to use them as welders. Perhaps you might need to use one as a mechanic or as a helper on an electrical task if your labor agreements allow.

Think about it: Someone might say “Don’t you want your maintenance to be ‘World Class’? If so, then why would you accept maintenance jobs running contrary to their estimates or allowing reactive work? Why wouldn’t you use your welder as a welder?” This is a dangerous thought process and leads to unrealistic scheduling practices.

In scheduling, it is better to be realistic and productive, than non-realistic and frustrated. Remember, our goal is not to create a perfect schedule. Our goal is to complete more maintenance work. A weekly schedule should help us accomplish more work rather than be an “end unto itself.” The objective is not to complete the schedule, but to get more work done.

Many companies use Excel extensively for various tasks even though they have a CMMS, for two reasons. One is that a single CMMS cannot be all things to all companies. Maintenance is a competitive edge and a core competency for many companies. The assets they own and how they maintain them are unique. The unique assets these companies utilize create profitable products and their maintenance is an investment in keeping the assets functioning.

This is not to say that there are not some underlying principles to successful maintenance, but that there is not a single “correct” way to execute maintenance. Although the CMMS is configurable to some extent, each company is unique beyond these allowed configurations at times requiring either “customization” or some other solution such as Excel.

The second reason to use an Excel solution beyond the capability of a CMMS is that many times the leadership at a CMMS provider or company IT department is largely “computer driven” instead of “maintenance driven.” As a result, the CMMS was established with more appreciation of what a computer could do than what maintenance needs done.

This is no reflection on an inadequacy of the CMMS implementation leadership, but on maintenance itself. Maintenance is one of the last frontiers to become “professional” in having standards. CPA’s and Accounting degrees; and PE’s and engineering degrees have existed for a long time, there are few maintenance curricula and almost no degrees in universities. The SMRP (Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals) was only established in 1993 and created a certification a few years later. The CMRP (Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional) certification still does not set a standard for each aspect of maintenance, but recognizes those maintenance persons who have demonstrated an ability to look beyond the traditional thinking of “Maintenance fixes things that break” to the modern “Maintenance keeps things from breaking.”

This is simple to say, but difficult to implement in practice. It is easy to see what broke and reward those persons that fixed it. It is difficult to know what to work on before anything breaks and how to reward such action. Thus, many companies use Excel to supplement their CMMS to provide a computer capability for their unique maintenance practices.

• Winner of Innovator of Month July 2011 Maintenance Technology Magazine
• MPSH Scheduler Screenshots

Get the MPSH Scheduler!

Planning is not simply anticipating problems in advance of a maintenance activity. Instead, proper planning is more oriented toward running a “Deming cycle” of continually collecting solutions to past maintenance problems to avoid them in the future. Proper planning also supports scheduling by estimating craft and time requirements.

Similarly, scheduling is not about specifying exact time slots for individual maintenance employees a week in advance. Instead, proper scheduling is more of a “goal setting” activity that simply batches together enough backlog work to match a crew’s expected labor hours for the next week.

Planning without scheduling is like a dog chasing its own tail: There is little appreciable increase in maintenance productivity.

• Planning and Scheduling Are Both Required (PDF)

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

• Employing Schedule Compliance

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

Nevertheless, a weekly schedule does not have to be overly complicated. Simply having a list of work to do for next week defeats Parkinson’s Law because it specifies “how much work.” It might even seem overkill to call such a simple list “scheduling” at all. On a daily basis, the schedule can also be as simple as making assignments from the weekly list and coordinating the clearances with operations.

Do we have to call simply assigning work “scheduling?” This presentation discusses these concepts to keep us mindful of not over-complicating the proper use of management tools.

• It’s All About Scheduling (PDF)

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

Introduction to effective planning and scheduling

• Benefits of planning and scheduling
• Key principles that make planning work
• Considering reactive work

Moving from weekly maintenance to outage maintenance

• Accuracy of job estimates
• Cycle of improvement
• Controlling scope

Organizing and Executing Shutdowns

• Outage organization
• Pre-outage, during-outage, and post-outage tasks
• CMMS benefits and cautions
• Defining outage success

Additional…

• Maintenance Planning for Shutdowns

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

• Planning Principles (PDF)

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

• Scheduling Principles (PDF)

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

Planning helps both the quality and productivity of maintenance.  Quality is directly affected by having the workscope, instructions, parts, tools, and crafts all correctly identified and ready before the job starts.  Quality is indirectly affected by the boost in productivity because the freed up workforce allows more time to be spent on difficult jobs and proactive work.  Proactive work includes root cause analyses on repair jobs and corrective maintenance to fix small problems before they get out of hand.  Proactive work also includes project work to improve less reliable equipment, and attention to preventive maintenance and predictive maintenance.

The reduction of delays is where planning impacts productivity.  25% to 35% productivity is typical of traditional-type maintenance organizations using “wrench time” as a measure.  Consider the case of 35% productivity of available maintenance persons: that is, on the average, a typical person on a 10 hour shift is only making productive job progress for 3 1/2 hours.  The other 6 1/2 hours are spent on “non-productive” activities such as necessary break time or undesirable job delays such as getting parts, instructions, or tools.  Simply implementing a fundamental planning and scheduling system should help improve productivity to about 45%.  Then as files become developed to allow avoiding problems of past jobs, productivity should increase to 50%.  Finally, a good CMMS should boost productivity to over 55%.

(Paradigm shift: now you may be thinking that “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.”  Unfortunately, a minute here and a minute there getting tools, traveling, and the like add up to significant delays.  Yes, you can be busy, but if you are getting a part instead of working on the job site, you are in a delay situation that might have been avoided.  Wrench time is properly measured with a statistical work sampling study.  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.  What is truly important is the analysis of the non-productive time.  For example, how much time is spent waiting for parts?)

How many planners?  It is intuitive if a planner could help multiply the productivity of a single craft person by a factor of 1.57 (55%/35%), that a breakeven point would be to take one of every three craft persons and convert them to planners:

Without Planner: 3 persons at 35% each = 3 X 35% = 105% total productivity.

With Planner: 2 persons at 55% and 1 planner at 0% = (2 X 55%) + (1 X 0%) = 110% total productivity.

But experience has shown that a single planner can plan for twenty to thirty persons, so there is never any question that a person cannot be taken out of the workforce to become a planner.

A 30 person maintenance force is leveraged as 30 persons X 1.57 to yield a 47 person effective workforce.  This means that you are getting the effect of having 17 extra persons on your team without having to hire anyone new; 17 persons for the cost of one planner.  Seventeen persons at $25/hr (including benefits) for a year are worth $884,000.

Consider a 90 person workforce, leveraging to get a 1.57 improvement yields a 141 person workforce; 51 extra persons.  This is worth $2,652,000 for a year.

(And remember, the above cases are conservative in considering a boost from 35% wrench time to 55%.  The above cases are dramatically improved if you are starting at 25% wrench time and move to 55%, which is a 55/25 = 2.2 factor improvement.  The 30 person workforce is increased to 66 persons in effect and the 90 person workforce is increased to 198.  What an improvement to the maintenance force!)

And what do you do with all these “extra” persons?  In the company with much reactive work, you leverage or use them to put out all the fires.  In the company with reactive work under control that is focusing on planned work, you leverage them to do more proactive maintenance work dealing efficiently with situations and avoiding fires.  And in those world class companies with preventive maintenance well in hand, you leverage them to invest in training to further increase labor skills and in projects to improve equipment or other work processes.  (In each of these companies you also have the capacity to grow or allow natural attrition without hiring.  You certainly do not lay them off and blow apart Deming principle #12 “Joy in work.”)

While the measure and value of the “extra” productivity can be calculated rather easily in terms of workforce, how you use 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.  Remember planning does not work in a vacuum, but brings the other aspects of maintenance together.  Nevertheless, these are important considerations.  Beyond just getting enough maintenance work completed to keep the plant on line and stay in business, there are considerations of increased availability of existing capacity, improved efficiency, and deferred capital investment for more capacity.  For an electric utility with a 1000 megawatt steam system, each 1% availability improvement might be worth over $300,000/year in power transaction capability.  Each 100 Btu/KWH improvement in efficiency might be worth over $400,000/year.  And a single 1% sustainable, improvement in availability for a 1000 Mw system means 10 Mw of future power plant that does not have to be built.  At $1200/kW construction prices, that is $12 million.

The leverage of work order planning on maintenance can be measured to see that it is definitely a good investment.

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

We must know why a craftsperson, a supervisor, a manager, and a company would want maintenance planning if we are to successfully implement a planning program. What is in it for each of these persons or levels in the organization?

Enlightened craftspersons* welcome planning for a couple of reasons. First, craftspersons gain their own personal file clerks. No longer do they have to keep tidbits of technical information in their lockers or memories. They simply write down information on job plans as feedback and the planners include it on future plans for the same equipment. The planners keep a file for every piece of equipment. In a plant with thousands of devices, craftspersons need the services of a competent file clerk. Advances in plant maintenance often result from little lessons of the past: here a little, there a little. The lesser craftspersons simply cannot keep up with the minute details. The better technicians have a wealth of this information stored in their minds and we hate the day of their eventual retirement. The planner as file clerk can put the lessons learned into plant memory. Second, the planners not only save these past lessons for future job plans, the planners codify the lessons into formal procedures. The planners take the lessons from feedback and gradually improve written job plans for specific equipment in specific plant environments. Craftspersons would be crazy not to want planning.

On the other hand, enlightened supervisors welcome planning because it gives them more control over maintenance work. This is an incredible statement because the chief impediment to planning is supervisors that fear a loss of control. These latter supervisors reason that their specific role in maintenance is to decide what maintenance to do. Which jobs should be worked? Yet, maintenance supervisors should never have assumed this role. The priority system of the plant decides what jobs should be worked! Maintenance should work the higher priority jobs first. Enlightened supervisors realize their role is to be out in the field supervising. One reason supervisors do not supervise present maintenance work is they are too busy lining up future jobs. They look over the work and decide how they would assign it. Maintenance planners free them of this task by taking care of the future work. Planners include craft needs and labor hours on job plans in addition to general job scopes. This information allows supervisors to assign work without inspecting every job personally. Not only does this information give supervisors information to control their work better, it gives them extra time to spend with their crews on maintenance work already in progress. A planning group further frees maintenance supervisors from constantly reviewing entire backlogs of open work to decide next job assignments. A planning group provides a backlog service when it develops a weekly schedule. Instead of a crew supervisor having to scan an entire backlog of all open work orders, a planning group gives supervisors a subset of the backlog matching their available crew labor hours for a week. A supervisor needs only to scan this subset instead of the whole backlog when selecting next work assignments in the absence of plant emergencies. Supervisors would be crazy not to want planning.

Going further up the organization, enlightened managers welcome planning because it allows them to control maintenance productivity. How much maintenance should be done? Is it enough to handle all the emergencies? What other work should be done? With the planning group developing a weekly schedule as a goal of work, management can see if the maintenance force accomplishes the amount of work expected. If not, the manager has a basis for asking why not? Did the storeroom run out of parts? Did several emergencies interrupt the schedule? Simply starting crews with s goal of work each week lifts their “wrench time” from the 35% of a typical maintenance force without planning to upwards of 55%. While a later article will have the space to explain all the nuances of wrench time, suffice it to say, maintenance programs frequently only get about a 35% productivity rate from craftspersons. Planning and scheduling can boost this level to as much as 55%, a 57% improvement (55% divided by 35%). Multiplying a 50-person group by 1.57 yields a 78-person workforce, a 28 person improvement. For every 50 persons, the plant can have another 28 persons, free! Managers would be crazy not to want planning.

At the top of the organization, enlightened companies and their stockholders welcome planning because the additional productivity means accomplishing more maintenance work. More maintenance work accomplished means higher plant availability for producing product and higher profits. Companies would be crazy not to want planning.

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc

*The term “Craftsperson” refers to any journeyman, technician, apprentice, helper, or any other maintenance worker.

What is wrench time?  Wrench time is the proportion of time craft persons are actually working on something versus their total time available to their supervisor.  Only the time available to the supervisor counts.  We do not consider vacation and time in training or other non-available time when determining the proportion of time that is wrench time.  Of the time available to their supervisors, wrench time is not time receiving assignments or being idle during a job.  Wrench time is not time waiting on parts, tools or instructions.  Wrench time is not time on break.  Wrench time essentially is the time you would be willing to pay for.  You would like to pay for persons working on something and not getting to their assignments to begin with or being delayed obtaining parts, tools, instructions or the like.

Why is wrench time important?  There is a huge opportunity involving this issue because industry average for wrench time is only 25 to 35 percent.  Even when giving workers the benefit of the doubt, non-work outweighs work time.  But planning and scheduling can boost wrench time to 50 to 55 percent.  This level is sustainable world-class performance.  Yet it also is very achievable at most plants.  The leverage of planning and scheduling is 55 divided by 35.  Using this ratio, 30 persons become 47 in their effective completion of work rate.  If the ratio is 50 divided by 25, 30 persons become 60, doubling the work force.  This measure shows a huge opportunity and wrench time is the primary measure of planning and scheduling effectiveness in closing this gap.

Nevertheless, wrench time is not the all-in-all.  It is not the “silver bullet.”  Wrench time only measures one aspect of maintenance, that is, time on tools.  It does not measure if we are doing the job the right way or even doing the right job.  It is much better to be doing the right job slowly than more wrong jobs quickly.  Wrench time does not tell you anything about that.  Nevertheless, we should not be looking at one indicator anyway.  Wrench time is an important measure but should not be used by itself. Planning and scheduling is to a large extent the productivity or efficiency piece of the maintenance equation. Effectiveness must come before efficiency. Yet, after identifying the effective maintenance tasks to perform, we must perform them. We must complete them. We must be productive or the low priority proactive work to head off reactive work remains in the backlog, not completed in time to prevent failures.

Wrench time is a critical measure of productivity because we presume if persons are working more of the time that they have available to the supervisor, then they will complete more work.  This presumes that the hours that persons actually work on their tools (wrench time) are always at the same rate per hour. This means that they would complete the same number of work orders per hour whether they work 3 1/2 hours per day or 5 hours per day. Thus, reducing delays to place persons more on their tools yields more work order completion per work shift.

Nevertheless, there are great dangers in measuring wrench time.  Measuring makes persons very nervous and concerned about their job security.  Introducing concerns about job security is probably one of the more serious errors a compassionate manager could make.  Frederick Taylor in 1911 published his book, Principles of Scientific Measurement.  This book was primarily focused on determining the right way to do each job.  But it also pushed measuring everything.  Involved work groups became so angry that it led to a U.S. Congressional investigation. Fortunately, we do not have to measure wrench time.  We could very easily use surrogate indicators such as work orders completed per month.  We could also keep an eye on the backlog of work.

The recent advent of Six Sigma offers some excellent advice.  Six Sigma says that “Y” is a function of “X.”  You cannot affect a “Y” directly, but you can affect an “X” directly to influence “Y.”  A good analogy would be that I cannot affect my daughters’ school grades because grades are a “Y.”  However, I strongly suspect that their going to bed on time and doing their homework are “Xs” that affect their grades.  Because I can affect bedtime and doing homework, I simply concentrate on that rather than their grades.  Similarly, we should concentrate on doing planning and scheduling. Wrench time should take care of itself because planning and scheduling are “Xs” for the “Y” of wrench time.

Planning is an “X” that affects productivity because it reduces delays during jobs.  (Planning also affects quality because it leads to better craft assignment, as well as better parts, tools, instructions and other requirements for good jobs.)  Scheduling is an “X” that affects productivity because it reduces delays between jobs.  It also affects quality through productivity because the increased productivity allows more time for troublesome jobs and more time to complete lower-priority, proactive work.

Nevertheless, you might want to measure wrench time after all.  Measuring wrench time might be necessary to convince yourself that your work force is not at 80 percent.  Measuring wrench time also might be necessary to convince your work force what their true productivity is and help change its culture.  The existing culture is “Our job is to be here” or “Our job is to take care of operations and backlog is fill-in work.”  The culture we want is “Our job is to take care of the backlog so Operations will not have to call us.”  Measuring wrench time also allows you to quantify a benchmark for current productivity and later measure successful improvement.

There are ways not to measure wrench time.  One is having employees self-report their productivity.  Self-reported wrench time is commonly 70 percent or higher because it is hard to account for delays.  A second way not to measure wrench time is to physically follow persons around.  Such wrench time is commonly 50 percent or higher because of non-typical work conditions and a non-sustainable Hawthorne effect.  Another way not to measure wrench time is to go out only into workplaces and see who is doing what.  Such measurements commonly report wrench time as 50 percent or higher because it only measures delays in the workplaces.

The proper way to measure wrench time is statistically where each person has an equal chance of selection for observation.  First, we must determine categories and definitions.  The ones I use are attached to this paper.  We must next presume that the percent of observations equals the percent of time.  For example, if we take 100 observations and 35 are in Category I working, we presume that 35 percent of the time average persons are available to their supervisor; they are in Category I working.  Next, we must determine a representative period.  We want to have a period representative of ongoing normal maintenance and avoid unusual events such as a once-per-year outage.  Observations over the course of a month are probably sufficient.  Next, we must determine how many observations are needed for accuracy through a suitable Margin of Error (MOE).  The statistical formula for margin of error is MOE = k[(1-p)p/n]^1/2.  In this equation, the statistical constant k is 1.96 for a 95 percent confidence interval.  This means that if we did the same study 100 times, 95 percent of the time we would get a result within this MOE. The interval is common for the level of accuracy we need.  “p” is the proportion of the observation such as 35 percent for wrench time.  It might only be 5 percent for a category such as waiting for tools.  And finally “n” equals the number of observations for our study.

Let’s see how many observations we would have to do over the course of a month.  If we took five days over the course of a month such as one Monday, one Tuesday, one Wednesday, one Thursday and one Friday, this would seem representative of a typical week as well.  If we observe two persons each half hour for a ten-hour shift, then that would give us 160 total observations for the five days and seem to appropriately cover an entire shift each day with observations.  Expecting 0.35 for wrench time, the margin of error would be 0.0739 or 7 percent.  In other words, wrench time is 35 percent plus or minus 7 percent or between 28 and 42 percent.  This is a good enough MOE to tell us that wrench time is not 80 percent and also accurate enough to tell us that a 50 percent wrench time would be a statistical improvement because the MOEs do not overlap.

A sensitivity analysis shows us that if “n” equals 40, the MOE equals 15 percent which would be too inaccurate to show a statistical improvement in wrench time between 35 to 50 percent, mostly because the MOEs overlap. (35 plus 15 overlaps 55 minus 15.)   On the other hand, if we took 320 observations, the MOE is only 5 percent, which is not much of an improvement over 7 percent.  Therefore, 160 observations appear adequate for a quick study.

The attached presentation also includes a form for helpful collection of observation data.

Now we are ready to start a study. Use the attached categories or your own that make sense for you. Start by letting the crews know what you are doing. You are trying to find out how much we are preventing them from working. We are not measuring their effort. Get a list of the work force and the crews to be included and number the persons sequentially to help keep track of the observations on the forms. We do not plan to publish any reports with names on it. Do not number hardhats or do anything dehumanizing. Plan a practice day to perfect your techniques in looking for persons. On the first day (or day before) let the supervisor know you are in the area to do your study and ask for any kind of assignment sheet they have for where persons might be to help you look. Before the first half hour, identify the first person on the list. The second person could be the second person on the list or any person who should be in close proximity to the first person to help facilitate the search. (You must have a structured consistent method to give each person in the work force an equal chance to be observed throughout the study. The mentioned two methods are considered “sequential sampling.” You could also randomly pick any two persons each half hour throughout the study.) Then start the search for a half hour only for the first two persons. Starting the second half hour, proceed to the next two persons. You must cycle through the list throughout the study and not simply start at the top of the list each separate day. Start each new day where you left off the first day. The instant you find the particular person you are searching for, record their activity for what they are doing that instant by selecting the appropriate category. It is okay to ask a few persons what they are doing if you are not sure. This “Hawthorne effect” actually enhances the study somewhat because if persons are at only 35 percent when they are trying to be on their best behavior, it reinforces notion that wrench time is not higher than that observed.

The following are ten example observations we might make:

Example Observation: You glimpse person across the plant walking.
Category 2, Travel

Example Observation: The person is carrying a tool and he says he is coming from the tool room.
Category 2, Travel

Example Observation: The person is at a piece of equipment doing something that looks like work.
Category 1, Work

Example Observation: The person is waiting at the parts counter.
Category 6, Waiting for Materials

Example Observation: The person is putting stuff away in a locker at the end of the day.
Category 5, Wrap up

Example Observation: The person is assembling something together in the shop.
Category 1, Work

Example Observation: The person is talking to their supervisor away from the job-site.
Category 8, Waiting for Instructions (Would be Cat 4, Waiting for Assignment, if the person were between jobs)

Example Observation: You see the person is in the morning check-in meeting.
Category 4, Waiting for Assignment, (Not Category 15, Meetings, per definition)

Example Observation: The person is watching the other crew member work at the job-site.
Category 1, Work

Example Observation: The person is in the break room but it is not break time.
Category 19, Break (per definition)

In analyzing the results for the observations we just did above, we have 3 out of 10 observations in Category 1. Therefore, wrench time is 30 percent (+/- 28%). We conclude we are not at 80 percent, but we definitely need some more observations to lower that MOE to something meaningful

In a more typical study we might have 56 out of 160 observations in Category 1 and wrench time at 30 percent (+/- 7%). We could then conclude we are not at 80 percent and also not at 50 percent, our desired productivity level. Thus, we have determined an opportunity. An opportunity to complete more work with our existing work force that should improve plant availability, reliability, and efficiency according to the industry rule of thumb “1:10 Rule.” The 1:10 Rule states that every additional $1 invested in proper maintenance returns $10 to the company bottom line. Of course, that presumes we have identified that extra valid work in the form of lower priority proactive work orders.

You could take eight days over the course of a month and do an entire wrench time study:
one day for set up to establish definitions and methods including talking to crews; one day to practice searching; five days of observations; and one day to analyze and write the report.

Conclusion

Wrench time is an important issue that shows we could potentially double our work force in terms of productivity and we could do an in-house study fairly easily. However, wrench time is not the “silver bullet” alone and there are some cautions in doing studies. Whether we do a study or not, we do have to plan and schedule maintenance activities to increase wrench time.

Additional…

• Wrench Time Study DIY (PDF)

Contact Doc Palmer for questions about planning and scheduling or for a proposal for training at your facility. Email Doc