Six months ago, we introduced our ZoneMaintenance software to a new client in Central America. Our first project focused on their production haul truck, grader, and dozer fleet, and involved changing their PM service process and methods. We also implemented the ZoneMaintenance software, which they quickly adopted, achieving positive results early on in the implementation process. Now, six months later, they are self-sufficient and improving every day. Our next project with them involves applying the same principles to their shovel and drill fleet.

During a recent conversation with our Project Coordinator, I asked him about the most effective improvement he had seen since the implementation. To my surprise, he said "accountability," followed by "reliability", asset reliability. While we knew that accountability was one of the values that our software provides, we did not expect it to be the primary factor in achieving reliability. This realization made us understand that without accountability, achieving reliability is impossible.

Our ZoneMaintenance software has several areas where accountability is a focus, and different groups achieve collective results without realizing the value they provide. The first element of accountability is role assignment, which is integral to the methods we apply. We have assigned roles with clearly defined areas of focus and responsibilities. Each member of the PM service team assigned to a particular machine has a detailed list of tasks set in a specific order, along with strategic questions to ensure that the task is being achieved, and the condition of the asset's components is captured during the service process. This is the first point of accountability, and the data captured during this process is presented in near-real-time to the Supervisor's desktop application.

The Supervisor can see who is doing what, where they are, and what tasks they have completed, along with a clearly defined report of what they have found. Defects that have been reported have images attached, risk rated, and details of what they see, smell, hear or touch. Additionally, the condition of the component is captured via a condition rating or a value that is compared to the specification. If it is outside the min/max value, then a defect is logged. The system functions for them from within, and shares this information across the software platform for anyone with access to see.

The Supervisor can open up the defect to understand more about what the person has reported, and based on internal policies of managing a risk-rated defect, can take or not take action. For instance, a high-rated defect must be rectified before the machine returns to work. If not, the Supervisor must have a very good reason for the machine to return to work with the defect still unrectified. This simple rule puts an element of accountability on the Supervisor to ensure that the defect is rectified or is going to have to explain to the Superintendent why the machine returned to work without it fixed.

This is the next level of accountability that touches the second line of the decision-making personnel. Before making any decisions, they can look at the defect and talk to the person who reported it. The Supervisor knows that the Superintendent can see this data and what decisions have been made at any point in time. If the asset that's returned to work breaks down after the service, questions are asked about what was done during the service, whether a defect was identified, whether the defect was rectified, whether the breakdown was a result of any choices made through the service process, and who made the decision. Management is also aware that they have a tool and a process to evaluate the situation quickly and get on top of understanding what went wrong, should a breakdown occur as a result of a decision made during the service process.

The morning meetings now focus on why breakdowns occurred and what can be done to prevent them from happening again. Everyone in the room knows that the information is within ZoneMaintenance and easily accessible for all to see.

I then asked Chat GTP-4 – Does accountability improve asset reliability and if so how?

Yes, accountability can improve asset reliability in several ways. When employees are held accountable for the maintenance and care of assets, they are more likely to take their responsibilities seriously and perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Here are a few ways that accountability can improve asset reliability:

Regular Maintenance: When employees are held accountable for asset maintenance, they are more likely to perform regular inspections and maintenance activities, such as lubrication, cleaning, and calibration. This regular upkeep can help identify and address potential issues before they become major problems.

Timely Repairs: If employees are held accountable for asset repairs, they are more likely to prioritize repairs and perform them in a timely manner. This can prevent minor issues from turning into major breakdowns that require more extensive repairs and downtime.

Proper Use: When employees are accountable for the proper use of assets, they are less likely to misuse or abuse them, which can lead to premature wear and tear, damage, and failure.

Training: Holding employees accountable for asset reliability can also motivate organizations to invest in training programs to ensure that employees have the knowledge and skills needed to operate and maintain assets properly. This can help prevent accidents, reduce downtime, and improve overall asset reliability.

Overall, accountability can help organizations ensure that assets are maintained and operated properly, which can improve asset reliability, reduce downtime, and increase productivity.

Accountability improves reliability.