SlideShare a Scribd company logo
2
Most read
Elements LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
Outage Organization
No formal outage
organization defined.
Decisions regarding the
outage are made by
individuals, independent of
the big picture.
Outage leader implied
by job title, but authority
and centralization of
communication and
leadership not recognized.
Still a high degree of
individual decision making
with no coordination to the
big picture.
Outage leadership role
defined with responsibility for
communication and decision
making. Organization not
further defined. Leader tied
to high number of decisions,
resulting in slow progress
and independent decision
making with no coordination
to the big picture.
Formal outage organization
with responsibilities
defined for areas such as
materials management,
safety, mobile equipment,
contractor interface, and
overall outage leadership.
Team still challenged with
communication gaps,
delaying decisions and
progress.
Fully integrated outage
organization with specific
roles and responsibilities
defined. Clear evidence
that this team works in a
cooperative manner and
adheres to the process.
Communication and decision
making is largely seamless.
Single Outage Plan
Outage plan not formal or
published. Groups work off
of informal lists. Multiple
plans for the outage exist
(maintenance, engineering,
operations, etc.).
Single outage plan
developed, but the quality of
the plan is severely lacking.
Plan consists largely of
simple work lists developed
with spotty job plans.
Knowledge of plan resides
largely with maintenance
leaders.
Single outage plan
developed cooperatively
with input and oversight from
all affected disciplines. No
critical path identified. All jobs
are considered equal; no
consistent view on priorities.
Level III + Critical path job
for the outage identified and
lower priority jobs arranged
around it. Higher degree of
understanding across the
organization.
Level of detail on the plan
to support an hour-by-
hour breakdown. Plan
is communicated clearly
across the organization
and universally understood.
Scheduling conflicts between
tasks is extremely rare.
Risk Analysis
Performed
No risk analysis performed.
Rudimentary risk analysis
performed. Some jobs are
identified to be “watched
more closely”.
Formal risk analysis
performed, but largely
subjective. Level of detail
does not drill down to specific
recovery or avoidance
actions to be taken. Largely a
prioritization exercise based
on risk; little or no action
taken from analysis results.
Level III + Specific factors
for critical jobs defined.
Organization still struggles
with execution of avoidance
and recovery actions.
Emergencies occur and
focus is on quick recovery.
Level IV + Both recovery
and avoidance activities
identified and personnel
responsibilities assigned
for most critical jobs.
Emergencies still occur,
but they are rare and
organization is well prepared
for them.
Outage Process
No formal process for
outage planning; resources
allocated as “just-in-time”
immediately prior to outage.
Greatly diminished outage
performance.
An outage process and
cut-off dates have been
established, but cut-off
dates are not enforced.
Outage performance is poor;
organization struggles to
recover from outages.
Formal outage process
established and routinely
adhered to, covering only
critical elements of the
outage planning process
- Identification, Prepare,
and Execute. Process only
includes those directly
impacted.
Level III + Check Readiness
and Review processes
incorporated. Process
includes total organization
involvement.
Level IV + Heavy reliance
on the review element with
lessons learned integrated
into future outages.
Measurable and quantifiable
improvements to outage
performance over time.
Work Requests
Work Requests are not used;
work reporting is extremely
informal (verbal).
Work is requested informally
in most cases. A formal
system for reporting work
exists, but it is overlooked
and people prefer to use the
phone or make face-to-face
requests.
All requested work is
reported via some formal
system, but only certain
individuals have access
to these systems. Delays
in requesting work occur.
Limited feedback to the
requestor.
Individuals report all
requested work within the
same shift as the problem is
noted, but multiple systems
for reporting work may still
exist. Some consolidation
issues prevail.
Every individual is able to
use a single system for
reporting work with detailed
information and reports work
when problem is noted.
Feedback to requestor is
ensured.
Work Order
Prioritization
Production areas receive
attention based on loudest
complaints. Priorities are
constantly shifting.
Work Orders are managed
by the planner or
maintenance supervisor
based on production input.
No consistent method
applied.
Formal system documented,
but not consistently applied.
Maintenance leader
determines priorities.
Work Orders prioritized by
either asset criticality, defect
severity, or Work Order type.
Formal system documented
and followed most of the
time.
Work Orders prioritized
by asset criticality, defect
severity, and Work Order
type simultaneously.
Formal documented system
consistently applied.
Continued on back...
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
WORKCONTROLWORKCONTROL Ways to Measure Your
Planning and Scheduling, 2
Maturity Matrix
North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific
GPAllied EMEA
Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C
B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
o. +32(0)9.210.17.20
f. +32(0)9.210.17.28
www.gpallied.com
World Headquarters
4200 Faber Place Drive
Charleston, SC 29405
o. 888.335.8276
f. 843.414.5779
Elements LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
Work Order Usage
Work Orders rarely or never
used.
Individual Work Orders are
rarely issued. Blanket Work
Orders are commonplace.
Individual Work Orders are
used for proactive work.
Reactive work is covered
under blanket Work Orders.
All proactive and reactive
jobs have individual Work
Orders. Repairs/follow-up
work performed under parent
Work Order or PM Work
Order.
All proactive and reactive
jobs have individual Work
Orders. Scope creep and
additional work receive a
separate follow-up Work
Order.
Work Order Status
Work Order Status not in
use; all Work Orders entered
as the same status.
Excessive number of
statuses used. No one pays
attention to Work Order
Status and statuses are not
generally understood.
Work flow processes
documented, but only
understood and used by a
core group. The organization
as a whole does not react
properly to the Work Order
Status. No controls over
adding statuses to the
system.
Level III + Controls over
adding Work Order statuses
to the system exist.
Organization as a whole
understands the statuses,
but utilization of the status
codes is not consistent.
Level IV + Work flow is
bound by Work Order Status;
evidence of consistent
compliance is present.
Process mapped and
consistently followed.
Work Order Closeout
When the work is complete,
Work Orders are often left
in an open status for a long
period of time, with little or no
feedback provided.
Work Orders are closed with
some part codes identified.
No coordination delays
recorded. Verbal feedback at
best, but spotty performance.
Work Orders are closed
with part, some problem,
and some reason codes
identified. All coordination
delays greater than 60
minutes recorded. Written
feedback provided on less
than 50% of Work Orders.
Work Orders are closed with
part and problem identified
as well as some reason
codes. All coordination
delays over 30 minutes
recorded. Written feedback
on more than 50% of Work
Orders.
Work Orders are closed with
part, problem, and reason
codes identified. Required
follow-up work is noted. All
Work Orders have some form
of written feedback provided
on same shift.
Backlog Management
and Measurement
Backlog is not measured or
understood.
Backlog is understood and
actual performance is known
by a few select people.
Backlog calculations largely
inaccurate. No reaction to
current performance.
Work Orders have estimated
hours assigned and backlog
is known in total number of
hours. Organization struggles
to do anything with this
information, but it is generally
accurate.
Work Order backlog is
calculated in “crew weeks”.
“Ready to Schedule”
backlog is easily identified.
Appropriate reaction to
backlog calculations by
leaders in the organization.
Level IV + Management
closely monitors backlog
trends to determine proper
staffing and contract labor
needs. Constantly seeking
ways to expand "Ready"
backlog.
Work Order History:
Failure Reporting and
Corrective Action
System (FRACAS)
Failure data is not tracked.
Failure codes exist, but
usage is spotty. Some
craftspersons record them
diligently, most do not.
Failure codes are entered for
most Work Orders, but little
or no data analysis is done.
Poor knowledge of failure
codes.
Level III + Organization
does proper analyses and
understands codes; struggles
with corrective action follow
up.
Level IV + The organization
gains great benefit from
the solutions executed as
a result of the FRACAS
process.
% Planned vs.
Unplanned
0% Planned
100% Unplanned
30% Planned
70% Unplanned
50% Planned
50% Unplanned
70% Planned
30% Unplanned
90% Planned
10% Unplanned
Ready Backlog Unknown or not measured.
Less than 1 week Ready
Backlog.
1 week Ready Backlog. 2 weeks Ready Backlog. 4 weeks Ready Backlog.
Wrench Time Less than 25%. 25 - 35% 35 - 45% 45 - 55% Greater than 55%.
% Estimated vs.
Actual Hours
Unknown or not measured. 50% accuracy. 60% accuracy. 70% accuracy. 80% accuracy.
% Available Labor
Scheduled
Unknown or not measured. 30% 50% 75% 100%
Schedule Compliance Unknown or not measured. Greater than 30%. Greater than 50%. Greater than 70%. Greater than 80%.
METRICS/SCORECARDSMETRICS/SCORECARDSWORKCONTROLWORKCONTROL
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
Ways to Measure Your
Planning and Scheduling, 2
Maturity Matrix
North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific
GPAllied EMEA
Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C
B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
o. +32(0)9.210.17.20
f. +32(0)9.210.17.28
www.gpallied.com
World Headquarters
4200 Faber Place Drive
Charleston, SC 29405
o. 888.335.8276
f. 843.414.5779

More Related Content

PDF
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Maturity Matrix - #1 of 2
PDF
Preventive Maintenance Maturity Matrix 2013 version
PDF
Condition Monitoring (PdM) Maturity Matrix - Know Best Practices
PDF
Lubrication Maturity Matrix
PDF
Reliability Engineering Maturity Matrix
PPT
Measurement System Analysis - Module 2
PDF
Root Cause Analysis
DOC
Maintenance Leading and Lagging Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Maturity Matrix - #1 of 2
Preventive Maintenance Maturity Matrix 2013 version
Condition Monitoring (PdM) Maturity Matrix - Know Best Practices
Lubrication Maturity Matrix
Reliability Engineering Maturity Matrix
Measurement System Analysis - Module 2
Root Cause Analysis
Maintenance Leading and Lagging Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

What's hot (20)

PPT
MSA (GR&R)
PDF
APQP. 2nd Edition
PPTX
Introduction to FMEA/FMECA
PDF
Process Capability - Cp, Cpk. Pp, Ppk
PDF
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Maturity Matrix #1
PPTX
PROCESS CAPABILITY
PPT
16 major losses tng
PDF
Maintenance Craft Skill Maturity Matrix
PPT
FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION
PPT
Lecture-3-Introduction to Maintenance Management.ppt
PDF
Reliability Centered Maintenance Made Simple
PPT
Advanced Pfmea
PDF
Core tools apqp, ppap, fmea, spc and msa
PPT
PDF
Process F.M.E.A
PDF
How to implement an effective fmea process
PDF
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Tools
PDF
Best Practices in Maintenance and Reliability
MSA (GR&R)
APQP. 2nd Edition
Introduction to FMEA/FMECA
Process Capability - Cp, Cpk. Pp, Ppk
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Maturity Matrix #1
PROCESS CAPABILITY
16 major losses tng
Maintenance Craft Skill Maturity Matrix
FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION
Lecture-3-Introduction to Maintenance Management.ppt
Reliability Centered Maintenance Made Simple
Advanced Pfmea
Core tools apqp, ppap, fmea, spc and msa
Process F.M.E.A
How to implement an effective fmea process
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Tools
Best Practices in Maintenance and Reliability
Ad

Viewers also liked (20)

PDF
Best Practices in Maintenance Planning And Scheduling
PDF
8 Steps To Success In Maintenance Planning And Scheduling
PDF
Maintenance Planner Job Description
PPT
Maintenance planning systems
PDF
Maintenance Manager Balanced Scorecard
PPT
Maintenance Management
PPT
Maintenence management
PPTX
Maintenance management
PPT
3..maintenance management
PPT
The 5 Levels of Maintenance Scheduling - SMRP 2016 Annual Conference
PPTX
Maintenance Scorecard
PDF
The 5 Levels of Maintenance Scheduling - SMRP 2016 Annual Conference
PDF
Equipment Taxonomy for the Collection of Maintenance and Reliability Data
PDF
Understanding Hierarchical Asset Structures in CMMS
PDF
Maintenance planning and scheduling
PDF
World Class Maintenance WebEx Slides
PDF
Gates Belts PM Manual
PPT
Maintenance
PDF
Maintenance types
PDF
Maintenance management
Best Practices in Maintenance Planning And Scheduling
8 Steps To Success In Maintenance Planning And Scheduling
Maintenance Planner Job Description
Maintenance planning systems
Maintenance Manager Balanced Scorecard
Maintenance Management
Maintenence management
Maintenance management
3..maintenance management
The 5 Levels of Maintenance Scheduling - SMRP 2016 Annual Conference
Maintenance Scorecard
The 5 Levels of Maintenance Scheduling - SMRP 2016 Annual Conference
Equipment Taxonomy for the Collection of Maintenance and Reliability Data
Understanding Hierarchical Asset Structures in CMMS
Maintenance planning and scheduling
World Class Maintenance WebEx Slides
Gates Belts PM Manual
Maintenance
Maintenance types
Maintenance management
Ad

Similar to Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Maturity Matrix #2 of 2 (20)

PDF
Quality System Procedure - Control of Non Conformance.pdf
PDF
A3 Management (Part 2 of 2)
PDF
Step by-step instructions to write a non-conformance report
PPTX
Steps In the Control Process & Issues in Control System. ppt.pptx
PPTX
Risk Assessment Framework
PDF
5 Steps to Improve Your Incident Response Plan
PPTX
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Part 16
DOC
My Vision
PPTX
Controlling and evaluation mechanism
PPTX
IA PRESENTATION-4.pptx
PDF
3A - Turning Data into Decisions - Implementing a Cloud-based HSE Leading Ind...
PPTX
5 forces incident problem mgmt-presentation
DOCX
Planning visit
PPTX
Working in Compliance vs. Working On Compliance
DOC
Management systems
PDF
ESW2017-15 - 2016-11-04
PPT
CAPA Pitfalls and Keys
PDF
The Antidote to Implementation Failure in the World of Asset Management
Quality System Procedure - Control of Non Conformance.pdf
A3 Management (Part 2 of 2)
Step by-step instructions to write a non-conformance report
Steps In the Control Process & Issues in Control System. ppt.pptx
Risk Assessment Framework
5 Steps to Improve Your Incident Response Plan
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Part 16
My Vision
Controlling and evaluation mechanism
IA PRESENTATION-4.pptx
3A - Turning Data into Decisions - Implementing a Cloud-based HSE Leading Ind...
5 forces incident problem mgmt-presentation
Planning visit
Working in Compliance vs. Working On Compliance
Management systems
ESW2017-15 - 2016-11-04
CAPA Pitfalls and Keys
The Antidote to Implementation Failure in the World of Asset Management

More from Ricky Smith CMRP, CMRT (20)

PDF
Skills of a Proactive Maintenance Technician
PDF
Day in the Life (DILO) of a Proactive Maintenance Manager
PDF
Day in the Life of a Proactive Maintenance Planner
PDF
Day in the life of a Proactive Maintenance Supervisor
PDF
How to know if your maintenance planning and scheduling is not effective
PDF
Day in the life of a Proactive Maintenance Supervisor
PDF
Day in the Life of a Proactive Maintenance Technician Article
PDF
Best Maintenance Repair Practices Article
PDF
Tool Box Talk - Maintenance Parts Checkout
PDF
Tool Box Talk - Lubrication of Bearings
PDF
Tool Box Talk - Maintenance Planning and Scheduling
PDF
Top 7 Reasons why Maintenance Work Orders are Closed Out Accurately
PDF
Tool Box Talk - How to Stop Hydraulic Leaks and Why
PDF
Maintenance of Hydraulic Systems
PDF
PM Tool Box Talk 101 - Fundamentals of Preventive Maintenance
PDF
How to Develop an Effective Maintenance Skills Training Program
PDF
What is Lean Maintenance
PDF
Best Maintenance Repair Practices
PDF
PM Tool Box Talk 101 - Fundamentals of Preventive Maintenance
PDF
Day in the Life of (DILO) of a Proactive Maintenance Technician
Skills of a Proactive Maintenance Technician
Day in the Life (DILO) of a Proactive Maintenance Manager
Day in the Life of a Proactive Maintenance Planner
Day in the life of a Proactive Maintenance Supervisor
How to know if your maintenance planning and scheduling is not effective
Day in the life of a Proactive Maintenance Supervisor
Day in the Life of a Proactive Maintenance Technician Article
Best Maintenance Repair Practices Article
Tool Box Talk - Maintenance Parts Checkout
Tool Box Talk - Lubrication of Bearings
Tool Box Talk - Maintenance Planning and Scheduling
Top 7 Reasons why Maintenance Work Orders are Closed Out Accurately
Tool Box Talk - How to Stop Hydraulic Leaks and Why
Maintenance of Hydraulic Systems
PM Tool Box Talk 101 - Fundamentals of Preventive Maintenance
How to Develop an Effective Maintenance Skills Training Program
What is Lean Maintenance
Best Maintenance Repair Practices
PM Tool Box Talk 101 - Fundamentals of Preventive Maintenance
Day in the Life of (DILO) of a Proactive Maintenance Technician

Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Maturity Matrix #2 of 2

  • 1. Elements LEVEL 1 NOT ENGAGED LEVEL 2 EXPERIMENTING LEVEL 3 ENLIGHTENED LEVEL 4 GOOD PRACTICE LEVEL 5 BEST PRACTICE Outage Organization No formal outage organization defined. Decisions regarding the outage are made by individuals, independent of the big picture. Outage leader implied by job title, but authority and centralization of communication and leadership not recognized. Still a high degree of individual decision making with no coordination to the big picture. Outage leadership role defined with responsibility for communication and decision making. Organization not further defined. Leader tied to high number of decisions, resulting in slow progress and independent decision making with no coordination to the big picture. Formal outage organization with responsibilities defined for areas such as materials management, safety, mobile equipment, contractor interface, and overall outage leadership. Team still challenged with communication gaps, delaying decisions and progress. Fully integrated outage organization with specific roles and responsibilities defined. Clear evidence that this team works in a cooperative manner and adheres to the process. Communication and decision making is largely seamless. Single Outage Plan Outage plan not formal or published. Groups work off of informal lists. Multiple plans for the outage exist (maintenance, engineering, operations, etc.). Single outage plan developed, but the quality of the plan is severely lacking. Plan consists largely of simple work lists developed with spotty job plans. Knowledge of plan resides largely with maintenance leaders. Single outage plan developed cooperatively with input and oversight from all affected disciplines. No critical path identified. All jobs are considered equal; no consistent view on priorities. Level III + Critical path job for the outage identified and lower priority jobs arranged around it. Higher degree of understanding across the organization. Level of detail on the plan to support an hour-by- hour breakdown. Plan is communicated clearly across the organization and universally understood. Scheduling conflicts between tasks is extremely rare. Risk Analysis Performed No risk analysis performed. Rudimentary risk analysis performed. Some jobs are identified to be “watched more closely”. Formal risk analysis performed, but largely subjective. Level of detail does not drill down to specific recovery or avoidance actions to be taken. Largely a prioritization exercise based on risk; little or no action taken from analysis results. Level III + Specific factors for critical jobs defined. Organization still struggles with execution of avoidance and recovery actions. Emergencies occur and focus is on quick recovery. Level IV + Both recovery and avoidance activities identified and personnel responsibilities assigned for most critical jobs. Emergencies still occur, but they are rare and organization is well prepared for them. Outage Process No formal process for outage planning; resources allocated as “just-in-time” immediately prior to outage. Greatly diminished outage performance. An outage process and cut-off dates have been established, but cut-off dates are not enforced. Outage performance is poor; organization struggles to recover from outages. Formal outage process established and routinely adhered to, covering only critical elements of the outage planning process - Identification, Prepare, and Execute. Process only includes those directly impacted. Level III + Check Readiness and Review processes incorporated. Process includes total organization involvement. Level IV + Heavy reliance on the review element with lessons learned integrated into future outages. Measurable and quantifiable improvements to outage performance over time. Work Requests Work Requests are not used; work reporting is extremely informal (verbal). Work is requested informally in most cases. A formal system for reporting work exists, but it is overlooked and people prefer to use the phone or make face-to-face requests. All requested work is reported via some formal system, but only certain individuals have access to these systems. Delays in requesting work occur. Limited feedback to the requestor. Individuals report all requested work within the same shift as the problem is noted, but multiple systems for reporting work may still exist. Some consolidation issues prevail. Every individual is able to use a single system for reporting work with detailed information and reports work when problem is noted. Feedback to requestor is ensured. Work Order Prioritization Production areas receive attention based on loudest complaints. Priorities are constantly shifting. Work Orders are managed by the planner or maintenance supervisor based on production input. No consistent method applied. Formal system documented, but not consistently applied. Maintenance leader determines priorities. Work Orders prioritized by either asset criticality, defect severity, or Work Order type. Formal system documented and followed most of the time. Work Orders prioritized by asset criticality, defect severity, and Work Order type simultaneously. Formal documented system consistently applied. Continued on back... LEVEL 1 NOT ENGAGED LEVEL 1 NOT ENGAGED LEVEL 2 EXPERIMENTING LEVEL 2 EXPERIMENTING LEVEL 4 GOOD PRACTICE LEVEL 4 GOOD PRACTICE LEVEL 5 BEST PRACTICE LEVEL 5 BEST PRACTICE WORKCONTROLWORKCONTROL Ways to Measure Your Planning and Scheduling, 2 Maturity Matrix North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific GPAllied EMEA Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium o. +32(0)9.210.17.20 f. +32(0)9.210.17.28 www.gpallied.com World Headquarters 4200 Faber Place Drive Charleston, SC 29405 o. 888.335.8276 f. 843.414.5779
  • 2. Elements LEVEL 1 NOT ENGAGED LEVEL 2 EXPERIMENTING LEVEL 3 ENLIGHTENED LEVEL 4 GOOD PRACTICE LEVEL 5 BEST PRACTICE Work Order Usage Work Orders rarely or never used. Individual Work Orders are rarely issued. Blanket Work Orders are commonplace. Individual Work Orders are used for proactive work. Reactive work is covered under blanket Work Orders. All proactive and reactive jobs have individual Work Orders. Repairs/follow-up work performed under parent Work Order or PM Work Order. All proactive and reactive jobs have individual Work Orders. Scope creep and additional work receive a separate follow-up Work Order. Work Order Status Work Order Status not in use; all Work Orders entered as the same status. Excessive number of statuses used. No one pays attention to Work Order Status and statuses are not generally understood. Work flow processes documented, but only understood and used by a core group. The organization as a whole does not react properly to the Work Order Status. No controls over adding statuses to the system. Level III + Controls over adding Work Order statuses to the system exist. Organization as a whole understands the statuses, but utilization of the status codes is not consistent. Level IV + Work flow is bound by Work Order Status; evidence of consistent compliance is present. Process mapped and consistently followed. Work Order Closeout When the work is complete, Work Orders are often left in an open status for a long period of time, with little or no feedback provided. Work Orders are closed with some part codes identified. No coordination delays recorded. Verbal feedback at best, but spotty performance. Work Orders are closed with part, some problem, and some reason codes identified. All coordination delays greater than 60 minutes recorded. Written feedback provided on less than 50% of Work Orders. Work Orders are closed with part and problem identified as well as some reason codes. All coordination delays over 30 minutes recorded. Written feedback on more than 50% of Work Orders. Work Orders are closed with part, problem, and reason codes identified. Required follow-up work is noted. All Work Orders have some form of written feedback provided on same shift. Backlog Management and Measurement Backlog is not measured or understood. Backlog is understood and actual performance is known by a few select people. Backlog calculations largely inaccurate. No reaction to current performance. Work Orders have estimated hours assigned and backlog is known in total number of hours. Organization struggles to do anything with this information, but it is generally accurate. Work Order backlog is calculated in “crew weeks”. “Ready to Schedule” backlog is easily identified. Appropriate reaction to backlog calculations by leaders in the organization. Level IV + Management closely monitors backlog trends to determine proper staffing and contract labor needs. Constantly seeking ways to expand "Ready" backlog. Work Order History: Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) Failure data is not tracked. Failure codes exist, but usage is spotty. Some craftspersons record them diligently, most do not. Failure codes are entered for most Work Orders, but little or no data analysis is done. Poor knowledge of failure codes. Level III + Organization does proper analyses and understands codes; struggles with corrective action follow up. Level IV + The organization gains great benefit from the solutions executed as a result of the FRACAS process. % Planned vs. Unplanned 0% Planned 100% Unplanned 30% Planned 70% Unplanned 50% Planned 50% Unplanned 70% Planned 30% Unplanned 90% Planned 10% Unplanned Ready Backlog Unknown or not measured. Less than 1 week Ready Backlog. 1 week Ready Backlog. 2 weeks Ready Backlog. 4 weeks Ready Backlog. Wrench Time Less than 25%. 25 - 35% 35 - 45% 45 - 55% Greater than 55%. % Estimated vs. Actual Hours Unknown or not measured. 50% accuracy. 60% accuracy. 70% accuracy. 80% accuracy. % Available Labor Scheduled Unknown or not measured. 30% 50% 75% 100% Schedule Compliance Unknown or not measured. Greater than 30%. Greater than 50%. Greater than 70%. Greater than 80%. METRICS/SCORECARDSMETRICS/SCORECARDSWORKCONTROLWORKCONTROL LEVEL 1 NOT ENGAGED LEVEL 1 NOT ENGAGED LEVEL 2 EXPERIMENTING LEVEL 2 EXPERIMENTING LEVEL 4 GOOD PRACTICE LEVEL 4 GOOD PRACTICE LEVEL 5 BEST PRACTICE LEVEL 5 BEST PRACTICE Ways to Measure Your Planning and Scheduling, 2 Maturity Matrix North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific GPAllied EMEA Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium o. +32(0)9.210.17.20 f. +32(0)9.210.17.28 www.gpallied.com World Headquarters 4200 Faber Place Drive Charleston, SC 29405 o. 888.335.8276 f. 843.414.5779