The only way to create reliability resources without adding to the maintenance resource pool is either by decreasing the work load or working more efficiently.  A planner-scheduler will increase departmental efficiency.  Without a planner-scheduler, departmental efficiency trends from 30% to 40% as a rule of thumb.  With a planner-scheduler departmental efficiencies generally trend from 60% to 80%.  With the increased efficiencies, a planner scheduler can come from personnel on the floor.  Additionally, the added efficiency creates further manpower to address reliability strategies.

Maintenance foremen generally are too highly involved in reactionary maintenance management or maintenance quality work assessment to be effective planner-schedulers.  If the department is small, it is better to have a planner-scheduler instead of a foreman.  Maintenance can report to production for reactionary management. 

Rules of thumb for planner-schedulers:  1 planner-scheduler for every 20 technicians.  The planner scheduler should assign work from the prioritized work order list.  If the CMMS prioritized work order list is implemented properly, assigning work directly based on priority is the best reliability strategy.  As the work is scheduled, the more complex work should be planned. 

Planning involves writing step by step work procedures, parts lists, tool lists, prints and schematics, confined space permits, roof permits, and anything else needed to perform the work efficiently.  Parts should be kitted and staged.  The planner should keep this data together for repetitive work, so all this can be pulled from a file for performing this same task in the future.

As the planning-scheduling function becomes robust, resources will be freed because of increased departmental efficiencies.  In addition, because the proper work is being addressed, reliability should increase thus decreasing reactive work load.  This further frees up resources.

A strategic decision needed before implementing the planner scheduler strategy initially is how to manage reactive work.  The reactive work load once determined may be assigned to dedicated personnel.  It may also be handled by personnel with assigned work schedules.

As the maintenance function becomes more disciplined and planned, efficiency and reliability increases.  This creates resources to re-deploy for reliability improvement initiatives.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

The first step business must take to get into compliance with the new regulations is to implement an information security program. This program must be in writing and must outline various steps the business will take to protect personal information, whether that information is stored electronically or in paper documents. The regulations require numerous specific provisions that must be included in the program, such as a secure method of assigning and selecting passwords; encryption of all data containing personal information that is transmitted wirelessly or across public networks; and maintaining reasonably up-to-date firewall and malware protection.

Once they have their program in place, the next step businesses must take is to educate employees who handle personal information about their role in protecting that information. Additionally, businesses that retain third-party vendors such as payroll administrators or document disposal companies must take reasonable steps to ensure those vendors are properly safeguarding personal information.

Royal & Klimczuk, LLC continues to conduct seminars detailing businesses’ obligations under the new identity theft regulations and how businesses can come into compliance with the regulations. Details on these and other seminars can be found at: http://www.rkesq.com/upcomingseminars.html.

For more information about planning for compliance, please contact Amy B. Royal, Esq. or Kimberly A. Klimczuk, Esq. at (413) 586-2288. Amy and Kimberly may also be reached by e-mail at aroyal@rkesq.com and kklimczuk@rkesq.com, respectively.

Tweet This Post

The article also notes what we are assuming is good news for reliability engineers and the industrial maintenance community:

Other companies are adding to payrolls. Caterpillar Inc., the world’s largest maker of bulldozers and excavators, is recalling 100 workers at its large-engine center in Lafayette, Indiana, spokeswoman Bridget Young said in a Feb. 18 e-mail.

The Peoria, Illinois-based firm forecasts sales will increase as much as 25 percent this year and last month announced that it recalled more than 500 workers. “Caterpillar may be recalling or hiring employees in business units at various facilities this year based on demand fluctuation,” Young said.
Hopefully this is a start of a economic turning point and that we will begin to see more activity in the job market.  For those of you pursing reliability engineering jobs and predictive maintenance jobs, we encourage you to visit our site and get your profile set up so hiring companies can find you.

Tweet This Post

I will let the post speak for itself about the six reasons, all which we agree with completely.  Its a very well written post and provides some great insights that essentially identify how talented people can become over confident about their abilities.  This is something that isn’t uncommon for the members of our community who are looking for reliability engineering jobs.

However, what really struck me in the post was this tidbit:

17-to-one is the ratio of job interviews to job offers during a recession. During a recession, the average applicant will interview for 17 different opportunities before he/she gets one job offer. When job openings are plentiful and candidates are in high demand, the ratio drops to 6-to-1, meaning it takes only 6 interviews to get an offer during the good times.

17 interviews to get a job in a recession versus 6 during normal times.  This statistic alone is disheartening, but it only tells part of the story.  If your a reliability engineer or PdM professional who has been looking for a job, think about how many jobs you’ve applied for before you even get to an interview!  Assume its a 5:1 ratio of applications/interview.  In good times that means you applied for 30 openings to find your job; in this economic climate that means you might have to apply for 85 jobs to get one!

That is a lot of time and effort expended to find a job, never mind the time it takes to prepare for each interview and the time allocated to the interview itself.  You can see how finding a job quickly becomes a job.

Tweet This Post

Anecdotal evidence to prove this assertion can be tried in your facility.  Gather some pertinent maintenance data and post it in graph form.  Only let a few people in the department know what the data means.  They can transmit the data by way of the grapevine communications that exist.  Continue to post updated data weekly for a month to six weeks.  The data, simply because it is being measured and communicated, will trend in the positive direction with no other effort.

KPI’s that are the most valuable make sense not only to maintenance personnel but to operations and production personnel.  The KPI’s also need to be leading indicators showing outcomes that will result in less asset reliability.  If KPI’s are structured properly, interdepartmental relationships and effects on maintenance strategies will be seen.  Resource utilization will be indicated.  Operations managers will understand value provided by maintenance and be more favorable toward maintenance investment.

KPI’s found to be valuable include:

• Resource utilization efficiency
• Work order backlog broken down by the types as noted in the previous blog
• Start-up OEE
• Proactive/reactive work mix
• Work orders due/overdue
• Reliability work backlog
• Reliability work on time completions percentage
• Financial KPI’s

Effective KPI’s are covered in more detail in a free white paper entitled:  “Maintenance Managers in Pursuit of World Class Performance” at www.bin95.com/Maintenance-Managers.htm

Tweet This Post

Companies are not required to tell you if they’ve run a credit check and whether or not it impacts their decision to offer a job.  Consequently, no solid numbers are available as to how often bad credit impacts a hiring decision.  However, some anectdotal information is available.  According to the post:

“But a recent survey by the Society of Human Resource Management found that many employers use credit checks to screen job candidates. Of the roughly 100 employers who responded, 60 percent said they checked credit histories for some or all job applicants. That’s up from 43 percent in 2004 and just 25 percent in 1998.”

The reasons for the review vary and are obviously utilized higher for senior executives and for positions that have financial responsibility.  That being said, its clear that employers are checking because they want to see how reliable and therefore responsible the potential employee is.  The thinking goes that if you can’t pay your electric bill, how we can trust you to show up on time and do your job?

Credit checks will likely to grow as employers are increasingly requiring more and more data about the people they hire.  What will prove challenging for many is the reality that many otherwise qualified people will lose a job opportunity because they were impacted by the great recession.  With job growth continuing to lag, we may find ourselves in a vicious cycle that feeds on itself.

Tweet This Post

At NextUp Careers, we’ve seen a significant increase in the discussion regarding the use of temporary staff and independent contractors.  While Reliability Engineering and Predictive Maintenance have always had its share of contractors, its becoming increasingly clear that this may no longer be an exception, but may become an expectation.  In discussing the potential for hiring, many of the company’s we have talked to have indicated a strong desire to have a variable workforce available to it.

As an example, one company recently explained to us that for every five reliability engineers they will hire this year, only one of them is likely to be a full-time position.  This is a significant change in their business model and one partly driven by what they saw happen in the past year and a half.  As this video attests, freelancing may become a way of life for more Americans than ever.

As this trend becomes to gain momentum, we anticipate that it will have a significant impact on reliability engineers and predictive maintenance professionals

What do you think?

Tweet This Post

Some key findings from the study:

• 22% of respondents indicated that their salary actually dropped last year; another 44% reported that their salary was frozen. In the previous years survey, only 4% said their salaries dropped and only 27% said they were frozen.
• Despite compensation concerns, 25% of respondents reported that they were very satisfied with their job and another 45% reporting that they were satisfied.

According to an expert quoted within the survey, this may indicate that employees are generally happy with the total value proposition provided by their job – benefits, salary, flexibility, career path, etc.  Of course, it may also mean that people are just happy to have an job and that once the economy turns, the march for higher salaries will commence again.

In monitoring the salaries posted for the reliability engineering jobs and predictive maintenance jobs on our board, we have noticed that they have remained pretty consistent from our past reviews.  It appears, at least for the time being that salaries have found an equilibrium.  This isn’t to say that reliability engineering professionals wouldn’t like to earn more, its more a reflection that both employers and employees have, at least for the moment found a common ground for value.

What have you seen for salaries and compensation trends?

Tweet This Post

In Smith, the Supreme Court held that the RFOA test is the appropriate standard for determining whether a practice that disproportionately affects older individuals violates the ADEA. The RFOA provision of the ADEA provides that actions that have an adverse impact on older individuals will not violate the statute as long as the adverse impact “is based on reasonable factors other than age.”

In Meacham, the Supreme Court held that an employer defending against a claim of disparate-impact age discrimination bears the burden of both producing and proving reasonable factors other than age that caused the disparate impact. In doing so, the Court overruled the employer’s argument (and the previous decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals) that plaintiffs in an ADEA case have the burden of showing that the adverse employment action was not based on reasonable factors other than age. The Court held that, since RFOA is an affirmative defense, it is the employer’s burden to prove that RFOA existed, not the employee’s burden to show that RFOA did not exist.

In light of these decisions, the EEOC proposes to revise its regulations to clarify the scope of the RFOA defense. Specifically, the proposed revision:

* explains that a “reasonable factor” is one that is objectively reasonable when viewed from the position of a reasonable employer under like circumstances and is a factor that an employer exercising reasonable care to avoid limiting the employment opportunities of older persons would use;
* explains that whether a particular employment practice is based on reasonable factors other than age turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular situation and whether the employer acted prudently in light of those facts;
* provides a list of specific factors to be considered in determining whether a particular employment practice was reasonable, including: 1) whether the employment practice and the manner of its implementation are common business practices; 2) the extent to which the alleged reasonable factor is related to the employer’s stated business goal; 3) the extent to which the employer took steps to define the factor accurately and to apply the factor fairly and accurately; 4) the extent to which the employer took steps to assess the adverse impact of its employment practice on older workers; 5) the severity of harm to older individuals; and 6) whether other options were available to the employer and the reasons the employer selected the option it chose;
* provides that the RFOA defense may only be used if the practice was truly based on an objective non-age factor;
* sets forth the following factors relevant to determining whether a factor is an objective non-age factor: 1) the extent to which the employer gave supervisors unchecked discretion to assess employees subjectively; 2) the extent to which supervisors were asked to evaluate employee based on factors known to be age-based stereotypes; and 3) the extent to which supervisors were given guidance or training about how to apply the factors and avoid discrimination.

Before adopting final regulations, the EEOC will consider comments on the proposed rule until April 19, 2010. You may submit comments to the EEOC through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov; by faxing your comments to (202) 663-4114; or by mail addressed as follows:

Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20507

Tweet This Post