Whether you manage physical assets that are plant equipment, facilities, IT equipment, or other asset classes, it’s difficult to avoid working in silos. Companies have to compartmentalize by function, process, craft/skills, technology, geography, customer segment, asset type, asset manufacturer, and many other possible silos, in order manage work more effectively. It’s always fascinating to watch the new executive, in an effort to gain a reputation of getting things done, present a new organizational chart that moves from one set of silos to another. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, for example, moving the maintenance function from under operations to under engineering, or vice versa, but it simply shakes things up a little and presents a new set of tradeoffs until the next executive makes changes.
Even more frustrating to middle management and front-line workers is when organizational change by executive decree precedes any changes to your processes and your supporting CMMS or, worse, before any sense of a new asset management strategy is provided. What are the objectives of the new organizational structure, in terms of both qualitative and quantitative measures and targets? How will targets be met? What are the implications from a change-management perspective? These are all important considerations long before sticks and boxes are moved around on an organizational chart.
System health teams (SHTs) provide one alternative to this endless cycling of silos. SHTs acknowledge that there will always be silos of some kind, and provide an effective means of integrating them.
Objective of system health teams
The primary purpose of SHTs is to monitor and improve the performance of a logical grouping of assets, by working with a cross-functional team. Simple analysis and reporting tools are used to measure progress against a set of targets. Sample measures that might be tracked and improved over time include:
- asset availability (uptime)
- asset utilization (asset is available, but is it being used?)
- asset reliability (MTBF)
- asset performance (percent of engineered design capability)
- quality of output (percent rejects due to asset-related issues)
- total cost of ownership (lifecycle cost).
Systems can be interpreted as interrelated assets that work together, such as HVAC equipment in a facility, or a given category of equipment like robotic palletizing systems. System health includes both short- and long-term viability of the asset group for which the SHT is responsible. This might involve bringing the SHT together for an emergency meeting to solve an immediate problem with the system or resolving a longer term issue through extensive monitoring and root cause analysis. The SHT must also exploit improvement opportunities over the short to long term, such as experimenting with different parts, comparing equipment manufacturers, switching maintenance policies, playing with inspection intervals, or trying different repair/replace strategies.
System health team structure
The SHT structure is an overlay onto your existing organizational structure, thereby creating a matrix organization. Each SHT must influence, not replace, the work of individuals in the existing organizational structure; otherwise confusion and diffusion of responsibility will ensue. For example, asset owners and planners are ultimately responsible for developing and improving the work program, but results of a given SHT meeting might influence how that gets done.
Each SHT draws from silos that are relevant to the system. For production assets, this typically includes representation from maintenance, engineering, operations, and materials management. For a multi-site operation or a large facility such as a power plant, there may be 25 to 50 or more systems. SHTs must be scaled to the number of assets and their complexity. On a practical level, the number of people available to form teams will also be a driving factor in how many teams are formed.
Each team should have a designated leader with clear roles and responsibilities. At least initially, the team leader is usually the asset owner drawn from engineering. The leader is responsible for running the meetings of the SHT, including coordination of all preparation and follow-up work. Leaders usually require some level of training on how to set an agenda, facilitate a meeting, and most importantly, how to motivate busy people drawn from other departments that do not officially report to you. All team leaders should report, dotted-line, to an executive sponsor of the SHT program, who is typically the head of engineering in an asset-intensive environment.
The role of the CMMS
All teams are responsible for tracking against a set of targets relevant to their systems, showing improvements over time. The CMMS is used to report on progress at least weekly. A dashboard can be shared with senior management to ensure it’s kept abreast of any important trends and anomalies. Depending on the number of teams, SHTs will present a minimum of once a year to senior management, demonstrating progress since the previous presentation.
The more advanced CMMS packages can also be used for tracking anomalies — unexpected events, incidents, or variances relevant to a given system. When an anomaly occurs, a case is opened within the CMMS. The SHT can help to monitor and resolve the case along with the asset owner who has ultimate accountability. The case may result in multiple phases before it’s eventually closed, such as immediate corrective action, investigation, root cause analysis, risk management, management of change, and possibly some permanent corrective action to prevent recurrence.
The SHTs are best implemented initially as a proof of concept for a test period of at least one year, starting with a minimum of the critical systems. The key deliverables from that first year are: