While working this April in Holland, I saw a plant utilizing a marvelous Dutch phrase: “Ja, maar”, which means “Yes, but …” Seeing it first-hand helps me understand a principle of successful planning. Many plants can’t implement successful planning because they assign the planners many worthwhile activities that are not planning. “Yes, planning is supposed to really help us, but we need the planner to do this other thing that really helps us.” Ja, maar.

To actually realize potential increases in profits, maintenance must be taken a step further through planning and scheduling. In addition to identifying potential failures, we must also focus our resources to correct them before the failure occurs. With decreasing workforces and increasing responsibilities of those left at the facility, the efficiency of our resources easily becomes a second priority.

Underground mining operations, similar to many industrial enterprises, have long recognized the potential benefits of maintenance planning. However, underground mining operations’ efforts to implement maintenance planning have generally met with little success. One finds that after an initial period of enthusiastic support implemented systems and procedures fall to disuse. Most companies, upon the collapse of their maintenance planning, convince themselves that underground mining is so “unique” that to accurately plan, schedule and measure maintenance work is impractical.

Organizations should have a clear work description of what a planner’s role is. The role may vary between organizations, mainly due to plant size. Some organizations have combined planners/supervisors. Some have dedicated planners for shutdowns/turnarounds. Many have people with a planner’s title, but no planning. So, how do we figure out a planner’s role?

Many who work in mine and site maintenance will probably tell you that chaos not only reigns but has moved in and set up shop. This is not for a lack of planning in maintenance because in fact, it’s quite to the contrary as many mining operations have entire departments dedicated to maintenance planning. The problem in many instances is that the effort that goes into creating those plans is not matched by the support required to make them effective.

A few weeks ago, someone asked me, “How many hours should a planner plan for each week?” This is a great question, but I can only give a touchy-feely answer. A strict numerical approach to productivity might miss the point of why planners exist (to promote crew productivity). I want the planner to keep the unplanned backlog under control by adjusting the time spent on the level of detail put into each job plan.

It’s common knowledge that increasing the share of planned maintenance over the time spent on breakdowns should be a top priority for forward-thinking maintenance organizations. The financial benefits of that strategy, however, may not be readily apparent.

Priority, as defined in the Franklin Dictionary, means “coming before in time, order, or importance.” When prioritizing maintenance work, one must consider its importance to the entire company in question. My experience shows that, in the real world of most maintenance departments, you can classify priorities in two groups: Emotional priorities and real priorities.