Bridging the Gap Between Operations and Optimization- Part 2

 In part one of this series we talked a little bit about the divide between operations an optimization. I am of course being very "all or nothing" in describing each side when the truth it actually more of a spectrum. On the operations end you have the mindset that anything spent not doing the work at hand is a waste of time. This is your very traditional maintenance operations mindset where you hear things like "So and so knows where that is" ,"Ask so and so if you need help with that", or "What you need is someone who knows the building/plant/equipment inside and out." Statements like these are a telltale sign of a mindset born from a time when information collection, storage, and retrieval was expensive and/or time consuming.

 On the optimization side you hear about things like mean time to repair(MTTR), mean time between failure (MTBF),  and the value of building, organizing, and using information systems. To those on the operations side this comes across as "missing the point" since the job is to fix the equipment or keep it running, not fix the system so more people could fix the equipment or keep it running. You'll also hear well intentioned "leaders" acknowledge the value of improving the system, but lamenting the fact that those with the institutional knowledge are the very ones that lack the skills to help improve the system.

 With this disparate sides of the spectrum in mind, I'd like to start a discussion of some concrete actions to start bridging the divide.

And, not Or

 The first, and perhaps biggest, concrete suggestion is to view these challenges as opportunities to attack the problem from both sides, operations AND optimization, as opposed to framing it as a decision to go with one or the other.

 There tends to be a high correlation between age and institutional knowledge. This makes sense due to the simple fact that being around for a longer time has the benefit of increased exposure to learning opportunities. There is also a high correlation between age and technological comfort/fluency. Again, makes sense that someone who has used an iPad since they were 3 is much more comfortable using one than someone who first used one at 43, 53, or even 63.

 So the most probable situation we will encounter is someone with an abundance of institutional knowledge with little to no fluency in the realm of turning that knowledge into a useful tool OR someone with the ability to leverage technology to turn knowledge into scalable tools, but no knowledge to draw upon. This is where leaders need to step in and 1. recognize the disparity in skills/knowledge, 2. find advantageous pairings to shore up weaknesses, and 3. establish the importance of learning and task completion on both sides.

 What this looks like, concretely, is to pair someone with low technological fluency with someone with high technological fluency, so long as at least one of them has sufficient institutional knowledge. From above this will typically, but not always, lead us to pair a seasoned veteran with a less knowledgeable employee. At this point I hope you are laughing and saying, "Obviously! That's what we already do." Most of the time this is true and what we have been doing, but we also find our organizations still depending completely on institutional knowledge with no information tools upon which we can rely. Clearly something is missing.

Clarifying Expectations

 The missing piece, I would argue, is clarifying the expectation that the more seasoned veteran will play the role of learner, and have a deferential role where technology is concerned. The way this typically plays out is this: Suppose a time sensitive call comes in for a leak somewhere. The new employee has already been paired with and learning from the seasoned veteran so they go on the call together. They get to the location and realize that the water needs to be shut off to an area, so the seasoned veteran goes to some obscure closet location, removes a service panel and turns a valve. Water off. Cleanup and repairs take place and that is is the end of the story in most cases. But there should be a second phase in which the employee with the technological fluency steps into the leader/teacher role and shows how to document the existence of that valve, its location, take photos, input the locations it serves, and records any other valuable information the seasoned veteran can contribute. During this they should be walking the veteran through how to do this.

 So why doesn't this happen? It's a failure of leadership. All to often leaders will demonstrate, either implicitly or explicitly, that there is a giant difference between the value placed on each of these steps. Lets say for simplicity sake that we say for an area the response/repair is valued at 90% the overall value and the documentation at 10%. We have now built a perfect system where if I am the seasoned veteran I have every incentive in the world to not allow the time for completion of documentation, not put effort or time into learning, and to prioritize moving to the next response/repair without regard for how valuable the information at hand may be in the future. I'm deciding between scooping up new items at 90% or completing ones at hand at 10%. We have made a "no brainer" situation.

 Make no mistake, this is a failing of leadership. The leadership group are the ones who should be moving the balance back to 50/50, or if they don't believe that is the case (an argument for another day) they should be building in mechanisms to ensure the remaining percentage isn't systematically omitted. I will say at this point that it is absolutely the case that you will see key people in the leadership team who will profess the value of the informational side in the leadership meetings just to turn around and say to the operational team that it is an unreasonable expectation. I'm surprised when these people are surprised the next time they get caught in a bind because they don't have the information they need.

 I think a simple outlook on this is that the job isn't done until the work is done, and the information necessary to do the work again in the future is complete. Then if you manage work under that premise, eventually the team that has been moving on to the next response/repair without completing the informational portion eventually amasses a docket of incomplete work that is large enough to merit questioning.

Conclusion

 Without the a clear expectation from leadership that documentation IS part of the job it will continue to be an afterthought. We are already in and moving further toward a world in which information is the single most valuable tool for maintenance. Knowing where to find something, the history of it, how it acts that is contrary to our expectations are all key pieces of information. It used to be that you had a roster full of 10-20 year veterans who knew this. The modern workplace doesn't support tenure like that anymore. We can lament that fact all we want, or we can accept that informational tools will be more valuable than ever and start putting the effort into building them now.