Engineering & Mining Journal

APR 2016

Engineering and Mining Journal - Whether the market is copper, gold, nickel, iron ore, lead/zinc, PGM, diamonds or other commodities, E&MJ takes the lead in projecting trends, following development and reporting on the most efficient operating pr

Issue link: https://emj.epubxp.com/i/665536

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 43 of 91

MAINTENANCE 42 E&MJ; • APRIL 2016 www.e-mj.com environment. Typically, if distributed for completion at the respondents' leisure, expect poor results because there are too many opportunities for misunderstanding when questions about the standards can- not be answered quickly or interpreted by the administrator. Questionnaires ad- ministered in a controlled environment, where participants can be oriented and their questions answered, are always best. Physical audit with questionnaire–The combination of a physical audit and a questionnaire provides the most com- plete coverage. The techniques work to- gether. The questionnaire, for example, provides confi rmation of physical audit fi ndings. This technique is helpful if it combines the objectivity of the outsider in the physical audit with insight of mine personnel using the questionnaire. The questionnaire is useful in educating per- sonnel to gain their early potential com- mitment to improvement. As the insiders, their help is needed. Without it, little will happen. This combined technique is the best way of preparing for the improve- ment effort that must follow. For purpos- es of initiating the journey to world-class maintenance as quickly as possible, an evaluation using a questionnaire is rec- ommended. While the plant may choose any method of conducting an evaluation, some methods may require funding as in the use of consultants. If this procedure is chosen, there may be considerable de- lay in requesting and obtaining funds to pay for the consulting evaluation. A physical evaluation could be help- ful but the objectivity of personnel from the mine conducting a physical evalu- ation may be questionable until such time as the evaluation has proven its worth. Therefore, the use of a question- naire would permit the organization to get through the initial evaluation pro- cess as quickly as possible and launch the journey toward world-class mainten- ance without further delay. However, it is important that if standards are con- sidered, a suffi cient cross-section of per- sonnel from the mine must be involved. Participants should include not only those key personnel who are in maintenance but also personnel from operations, all staff departments and mine management. When all of the results are brought togeth- er there will be a reasonably accurate pic- ture of improvement needs and their pri- orities. But more importantly, exposure to the self-evaluation process will cause the participants to realize that they are not perfect in their performance and as they rate themselves against the standards they will also be making a preliminary commitment to do something about it. Conducting the Evaluation Identify participants—Every department and management should participate in the evaluation because all impact the success of maintenance. The number of personnel from each department will vary with maintenance having the largest per- centage. The maintenance group should represent a vertical slice of their organi- zation: the superintendent, several fore- men, a planner and several craftsmen. Operations would have: the operations manager, several supervisors, the produc- tion scheduler and several operators. The mine or plant manager should participate along with the managers of principal de- partments such as warehousing, purchas- ing and accounting. Using standards—Standards establish the best, most effective way that an activity should be carried out. Partici- pants compare their personal know- ledge of the organization's performance against the standards. The standards cover key activities like: preventive maintenance, planning or organization. The accompanying sidebar illustrates the standards that would apply to preven- tive maintenance. Rating the standards—Participants would compare maintenance performance a- gainst the standards and assign a rating based on their personal knowledge. The rating scheme should be simple and easy to understand. Typical: 1 – Never done or done poorly. 2 – Rarely done or much improvement needed. 3 – Occasionally done but trying to improve. 4 – Done most of the time and continual- ly improving. 5 – Done all of the time, carried out pro- fessionally. X – It is important to me, but "I don't know." 0 – Activity not applicable. The evaluation administrator should illustrate how "X" and "0" are to be used. If the participant does not have personal knowledge use "X." If the standard has no application to the participant use "0." Evaluation results—Once the ratings of all participants are processed and com- piled, each individual standard can be MGMT OPNS MTCE TOTL 15-The maintenance program has been R 30 25 35 30 explained to all mine personnel to enable X 33 45 00 26 them to support it effectively. Figure 1—Legend: MGMT = management and staff. OPNS = operations. MTCE = maintenance. TOTL = weighted average. 'R' scores = all 1 – 5 including (0) zero. 'X' scores = percent that 'did not know.' Explanation: Management/staff rated the standard 30%, but 33% did not know. Operations rated the standard 25%, but 45% did not know. MTCE rated themselves 35%, but everyone could rate the standard (X = 00). However, they rated it poorly (R = 35%). Interpretation: Assessment of all of the ratings that make up the Maintenance program may suggest that mainte- nance personnel may not consider the program adequate and others may not have been advised of its details. A close examination of the program may be indicated. "Continuing evaluation is the best guarantee" of sustained achievement.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Engineering & Mining Journal - APR 2016