A decade on it surprises the life out of me that there are still so many companies where the concept of setting work order priorities still seems to create so much confusion.
The process I described in that article was a bit intense, and took a bit to set up and run correctly. But it really did cut the emotion out of the entire process and changed systems from squeaky wheel scheduling to risk based scheduling.
Not only that but once you look at it - it is pretty straight forward and simple. Yet many companies still seem to get confused over what "priority" means when talking about a work order.
Confusion sets in around he curse of criticality, a common affliction for maintenance professionals.
"But it is a critical asset!!" Sure, but that doesn't mean the work on it is "critical/die for it/must happen yesterday" important.
Then you see complications over what to do with PM's, Standing work orders, modifications and additions.. etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Priority (not criticality) of works in progress is there for one reason above all others. To help you (somebody) make decisions about the allocation of scarce resources.
That's it. Period. The more you dig into it, the more you come to this point.
So for my money, priority needs to represent the time window in which the work order should be scheduled. The underlying thought is - if it isn't done by this time, then there could be even more trouble.
Working through it may be different for your company, but generally the outcome revolves around some sort of answer like the following.
Priority Meaning
1. Immediate
2. 24 hrs 48 hrs (RM's belong here)
3. 48hrs < 1w
4. 1w - 2w (Modifications start here.)
5. 2w - 1m
6. > 1m (Standing work orders if you must)
it also gives you the ability to do cool stuff like reporting on the age versus priority of the work orders in progress to give you an idea of how well, or not, your planners are dealing with the task of backlog management.
No comments:
Post a Comment