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/652911
56 E&MJ; • MARCH 2016 www.e-mj.com M A I N T E N A N C E Development of the mining maintenance program acknowledges the unusual, often harsh demands on maintenance personnel in support of mining operations. It re- quires fortitude to change a shovel cable while snow is arriving horizontally and skill to command several hundred such person- nel as their managers must do. Program documentation spells out who does what, how, when and why—serving as a starting point for determining the best organiza- tional configuration. As these aspects are being considered, the desirable attributes of a future organi- zation must also fit the demanding cir- cumstances of mining. Will the organiza- tion, for example, interact cooperatively with other departments? Can it be flexible and responsive and use information effec- tively? Can our personnel adapt? Examining the Types Against such requirements, a range of orga- nizational types should be examined to identify possibilities. Would traditional organizational models work? Could the best features of several models be successfully blended together in a hybrid organization? Could existing staff and personnel fit orga- nizational demands? Various types of organizations will exhibit pros and cons requiring critical examination. For example: Centrally controlled organization— Centrally controlled maintenance organiza- tions lack flexibility and responsiveness. They are best used in mine-wide support organizations like lubrication or a compo- nent-rebuilding shop staffed with person- nel possessing unique skills. Craft organization—The craft organiza- tion assigns personnel of the same craft to a single supervisor. This single-craft orienta- tion means that major jobs requiring many different skills must be drawn from other organizations. Thus, the success of many major multicraft jobs performed by craft organizations will depend on the quality of job coordination. Anytime all personnel are placed within one organization, that organi- zation tends to become the sole decision- maker on how the group will be utilized. Then, when maintenance needs at the plant-level are unknown to the group, the result is often the wrong or least productive use of personnel. Herein is a significant drawback of the craft organization. The most prominent justification for the craft organi- zation is the promotion of the group's craft skill. This is also a weakness. The boundary lines within which craftsmen apply their skills are invariably too narrow. Then, when compounded by labor contract craft juris- dictions, poor productivity can result. Consider, for example, the task of replacing a simple electric motor. A mill- wright could easily do the job but, if the labor contract prohibits him from perform- ing electrical work, an electrician must assist. Thus, a simple one-man, half-hour job costs twice as much and downtime may be doubled if the electrician is not immediately available. The expansion of the jurisdiction of each craft would improve this situation. However, this is not always easy to negotiate. Moreover, while newly negotiated language might broaden craft jurisdictions, it may not change the way individuals do the work. Thus, old habits and poor productivity remain. Separation of electrical and mechanical skills often plagues the craft organization. The single-craft alignment of personnel in craft organizations also inhibits the expan- sion of skills that are required to maintain modern equipment. This is best seen in the traditional separation of mechanical and electrical trades in the craft organization. While the skills involved are different, there is no reason for the physical separation of crews. Some organizations justify this sep- aration by claiming that only a mechanical supervisor can supervise mechanics and only an electrical supervisor can supervise electricians. This limited view overlooks the fact that the job of the supervisor is work control, not overseeing work. Supervisors are chosen primarily as effective managers of their crews and not as technicians. In addition, operations personnel often won- der why their inoperative equipment must await the arrival of the electrician hours after the mechanical group proclaimed their part of the job is "finished," for exam- ple. Any organization still committed to this physical separation may detract from over- all labor productivity (Figure 1). Achieving World-class Mining Maintenance: Step 5—Organize Properly In the fifth installment of this six-part series, the author explains how identifying and structuring the right type of organization can improve maintenance performance By Paul Tomlingson Figure 1—The craft organization assigns all personnel of the same to craft to a single supervisor.