The Need: The power cooperative's machine downtime was increasing and production decreasing, requiring a review of reactive maintenance processes. The Solution: An assessment identified issues, and Life Cycle Engineering implemented standard work processes, priority matrix, and scheduling software to change to preventative maintenance. The Benefit: Reactive work requests dropped 22% in 90 days, increasing craft utilization and scheduled jobs. Standardized processes supported cultural change for continuous improvement.

1. Project Profile
info@LCE.com
843.744.7110
© 2015 Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
Power Cooperative Improves
Work Management, Planning
and Scheduling with Life
Cycle Engineering
Minnkota Power’s Milton R. Young Station began commercial
operation in Nov. 1970,with one generating unit, addinga second
generating unit in May 1977. After speakingwith several Minnkota
employees, it was evident maintenance best-practices had steadily
slipped over the years,as focus had shifted more toward a reactive
philosophy.This is a common problem when no formally documented
work management processes arein placeor expected to be followed,
makingit easy to abandon proactivepractices whenever a “minor”
crisisoccurs.Oncefallinginto this trap,it’s difficultto return to the
proactivephilosophy,as maintenanceoften finds reactivework more
excitingeven if it’s less efficientand safe.
Heard many times was the statement that the job of maintenancewas
to keep the plantrunning.This attitude reinforced the reactive
philosophy of “fix-it-when-it-breaks”and presented a sizeablebarrier
againstchange.In 2006, the co-op began utilizingOracle, business
management software, to track and report on its maintenance
performance. However, Oracle’s capabilities werenever fully adopted
and put into practice.
To help change the maintenance culture, the co-op teamed with Life
Cycle Engineering (LCE), industry experts in reliability engineering,to
conduct a business assessment.The assessment scored both the work
management and planning/schedulingof maintenancework in the
reactiverange and revealed that the maintenance coordinators (or
planners) were acting as expeditors for the maintenance supervisors,
which meant very littleproactiveplanningwas donefor routine and
preventive maintenance.
Data gathered from the business assessmentwas used to develop an
action plan to implement improved work processes and facilitatea
plant-wideculturechange.
Understanding the barriers against improvement
Drivingthe co-op’s management of the maintenanceactivities was the
maintenance supervisor’s opinion of whatwas the highest priority
repair work, with minimal inputfrom the operations shiftsupervisors.
To supportthispractice,maintenancesupervisorsand technicians
The Need
The co-op’s machine downtime was increasing
and production levels were decreasing, so the
business needed a full-scale review ofits work
management processes to changetheir
maintenance activities from reactive to
preventive, planned processes.
The Solution
After completing an assessment, Life Cycle
Engineering used Prosci’s change management
model to prepare employees for the upcoming
change, counter resistance toward change,
provide hands-on training in work management
best practices and clearly define roles and
responsibilities in the co-op’s new proactive
maintenance strategy.
The Benefit
The co-op has seen significant improvements in its
work management, planning and scheduling
activities through the implementation of
standard work processes. Reactive work requests
dropped by 22 percent in 90 days, while
increasing the utilization ofmaintenance crafts.

2. Project Profile
info@LCE.com
843.744.7110
© 2015 Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
frequently planned their own jobs,secured their own partsand materials
and expected themaintenancecoordinatorsto bereactiveexpeditorsof
parts and laborfor rush jobs.Forced into thisreactiverole,the
coordinatorsweregreatly restricted in their abilitiesto plan and assistin
schedulingproactiveandPMactivities;andasa resultmany times work
was assigned before parts and other resources wereeven available.
The plantused four (4) work order priority codes,but being in such a
reactive state the majority of the work was prioritized as either
emergency (priority 1) or urgent (priority 2),with only a smattering of
lower priority 3s or 4s.The general feeling among plantemployees
was that if a work order wasn’t a priority 1 or 2, there was slimchance
it would ever get done. The backlogof identified maintenance work
was extensive, with over 3,000 open work orders. Whatcompounded
the situation was the troublesome practiceof work orders not being
completed in Oracleeven after the job was finished.This made the
coordinators job even tougher, as they had to sortthrough a largeand
inaccuratebacklogto find the jobs that still needed to be completed.
The limited application of preventive and predictivemaintenance
activities reduced the visibility of equipment health.Scheduled
preventive maintenance (PM) tasks were performed by defined PM
team members, who acknowledged they often deferred execution of
the scheduled PMs becausethey were pulled off PM tasks to complete
other jobs.PMs had not undergone a validation process to determine
if the preventive maintenance provided benefits or if it was justa
“check-the- box” activity.In many cases,the maintenance technician
determined some of the preventive maintenance did not provideany
benefit and had stopped performingthat activity.
Without a condition-based monitoringprogramto monitor equipment
health, equipment failures led to downtime and lostmegawatt
production.Parts to make repairs were often out-of- stock, which
resulted in expedited shipments and low craftutilization.Theculture
of the organization supported the belief that this was the only way to
do maintenance in a power plant; with proactiveand solid PM
practices reserved for businesses thatmanufactured physical products
on an assembly line– where production could more easily bestopped
and started to permit maintenance activities. After doingthings the
same way for so many years, many employees doubted they could be
done any other way.
The power plantuses low-gradeLignitecoal extracted from a nearby
surfacemine. The quality of this coal often causes boiler slagging
issues,requiringexcessivesootblowingto clean fouled boiler tubes.
The combination of tube foulingand soot blowingleads to boiler tube
weaknesses, erosion and wear, resultingin boiler tubeleaks that force
unplanned generating unit outages to make repairs.

3. Project Profile
info@LCE.com
843.744.7110
© 2015 Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
Responding to the business assessment
LCE’s business assessmentincluded a gap analysis of current work
management, planning and scheduling practices,with the current
performance scoring within the reactiverange.With the gaps between
currentstate and best practiceidentified,a master plan was developed
to create a structured approach to improvingwork management
processes and implementingthe recommended changes.
The approach was to build a Work Management Focus Team,
selectingteam members and a team leader from a cross-section of the
employee workforce, alongwith a team sponsor (i.e., plant
superintendent) to ensure resources were availableand to help
eliminatebarriers. LCE provided subjectmatter experts (SMEs) to
guide the team to implement best-practiceperformance in the
competency areas.In the firstphaseof the project, focus team
members received trainingon work management, planningand
schedulingbestpractices delivered by LCE SMEs. In the second phase,
the team developed a team charter to clarify understandingof the
team’s goals,expected benefits and key activities to achievethese
goals.As a result of the trainingand team charter, the team
developed a series of best-practicework management processes.
The work processes were supported with a step definition and RASI
chart,which provided details for each task and the correspondingroles
of responsibility.The RASI chartidentifies the person:
 Responsible for completingthe task
 Accountable to ensure the task is complete
 Providingsupport or opinions,typically a SME
 Staying informed on the progress of the task
The focus team was guided by LCE SMEs to define a series of activities
needed to achievespecific milestones thatwould support the
implementation of work management best practices.
The project’s highest priority was to establish guidelines for the
maintenance coordinators to plan,scheduleand execute a structured
program. This would ensure planned work activities were executed as
effectively and efficiently as possible.This goal required a drastic
paradigmshiftof behavior by all employees.To facilitateand support
the changes,the focus team received trainingfromSMEs on how to
help deliver the approved work processes to the workforce and verify
implementation. However, the responsibility of actually implementing
and setting the expectation that the processes were followed fell to
the superintendents and supervisors.To support the superintendents
and supervisors,the focus team also received trainingon developing
follow-up reinforcement tools to auditthe work process and to
measure performance usingkey performance measures to track

4. Project Profile
info@LCE.com
843.744.7110
© 2015 Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
results.The Prosci® changemanagement model was used to identify
areas of resistanceand reinforcethe work management goals with the
employees most affected by the work process changes.
Closing the gaps and creating a new path
Usingdata from the business assessment,LCE developed an action
plan to closethe performance gaps.The focus team developed its
team charter and began a current-state analysis of howit identified,
approved, planned,scheduled and executed work activities and how
work orders were closed-outonce the jobs were completed. Usingthis
information fromthe current-state analysis,theteam identified
barriers,issues and workaroundsin currentmaintenanceactivities that
resulted in non-value-added efforts for the maintenancetechnicians
executing the equipment repairs.
The Work Management Focus Team developed a new matrix to assign
work request priorities,expandingthe priority code levels from four
(4) to six (6). Definitions for each priority provided guidanceon when
it was to be used, alongwith expected completion times. This helped
set parameters to accurately identify work requiringattention where
time wasn’t adequate for a coordinator’s assistancein planningor
scheduling.These priority 1 (emergency) and 2 (urgent) priorities
clearly identified work requiring immediately action, or needing to be
completed within 48 hours. As a resultof the new matrix, priorityone
and two work requests dropped by 22 percent within 90 days. The
shiftin work order priority established a backlogof identified work –
made up of priority 3 – 6 work orders – that could be properly planned
and scheduled (by the coordinators),ensuringthe parts arekitted and
availablebefore the work is scheduled and executed. Shiftingthe
prioritization of work requests to better plan and schedulecorrective
maintenance jobs increased the utilization of maintenance crafts and
the execution of scheduled jobs.
As the co-op adopted expectations for improved work request
information,the focus team began a weekly review usinga random
samplingof work requests. The team evaluated the requestor’s
information,verifyingthe problem was clearly defined, the priority
correct,and location of the equipment and other relevantinformation
was provided and accurate.The initial evaluationsresulted in only four
of 10 work requests containingsufficientand accurateinformation.As
the team continued to coach and evaluatethe work requests, results
improved to eight of 10 samplerequests containingthecorrect
information.
Together, LCE and the co-op in 2013 introduced Viziya,a software
application used to improve the maintenanceschedulingfunction.The
Viziya softwareinterfaces effectively with the Oracleprogramand has
Priority one and two
work requests
dropped by 22
percent within 90
days, because of the
newly implemented
priority matrix.

5. Project Profile
info@LCE.com
843.744.7110
© 2015 Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.
proven to be a valuabletool atother sites usingthis combination of
software programs.
Initially itwas not feasiblefor the co-op to adopt the weekly
schedulingof planned work, so itbegan with next-day scheduling.The
new expectation was that the shiftsupervisor (actingas facilitator),
maintenancesupervisorsand maintenancecoordinators attend the
daily schedulingmeeting. Each participantcameto the meeting with a
listof jobs desired and ready to be executed the followingday;and
after discussionson availableresources and pressingneeds,they’d
walk away with a jointly agreed upon next-day maintenance schedule.
Improved work management, planning and scheduling at the co-op
was achieved by implementing standard work processes and
standardizinghowmaintenance work was prioritized.The foundation
set in placethrough these changes of managingmaintenance activities
supports the culture change needed to sustain continuous
improvement and drivepositiveperformance trends.
Additional Information
For moreinformation aboutimprovingoperational and financial
performance,pleaseemail usat info@LCE.comor visitwww.LCE.com.
About LCE
Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) (www.LCE.com) providesconsulting, engineering,
appliedtechnologyandeducation solutions that deliver lasting results for
private industry, the Department of Defense and other government
organizations. The quality, expertise anddedication ofour employeesenable
Life Cycle Engineeringto serve as a trustedresource that helps people and
organizations to achieve their full potential. Founded in1976, LCE is
headquarteredinCharleston, South Carolina withoffices acrossNorth
America andexperience around the globe.
Contact Us
Corporate Headquarters
Life Cycle Engineering
4360 Corporate Road
Charleston, SC29405-7445
843.744.7110
info@LCE.com