Maintenance

Management
in Multiple Plants
EXAMINING VARIOUS FACTORS

©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/HTTP://WWW.FOTOGESTOEBER.DE

By Erling Hesla, Curtis Fowler, THIS ARTICLE OFFERS INSIGHTS INTO PRACTICAL CONSID-
and Jerry Huber erations regarding implementing maintenance, operations, and
safety (MOS) in multiple plants. It addresses challenges faced
at the point of usage—on the factory floor. The maintenance
manager must look at each plant as a unique entity, while rec-
ognizing that together they form a part of a corporation that
requires a level of commonality. Maintenance requirements
and corporate significance will vary, funding resources are not
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MIAS.2020.2981105
the same, and people are unique with changing skills and atti-
Date of current version: 27 April 2020 tudes. The head office manager will use some form of matrix

88 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ J ULY/ AU GU ST 2 020 1077-2618/20©2020IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fausto Ludena. Downloaded on July 24,2020 at 11:27:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
management to meet such demands. This article centers
on an installation with a central administrative office Flow of Income
(head office) and multiple outlying plants varying in
Shareholders
size, staff, and budget, each with specific limitations and
demands. The article recognizes that the sole purpose of
the electrical system is to support operations of the fac- Corporate Office
tory, that management is fully committed to proper MOS
practices requiring a level of consistency between outly-
Regional Office Expenses
ing plants, and that a level of “fairness” between plants
must be addressed.
General Manager General Manager
Background
The purpose of an MOS programs is to support plant
Plant Plant Plant Plant
operations, not the electrical department. Maintenance
supports production, which pays the bills (Figure 1). MOS
programs provide a service, not a product. The responsi- FIGURE 1. The source of income.
bility of maintenance management is to create and man-
age the MOS program with the system “as is,” although it
may not be ideal for maintenance.
Maintenance managers recognize that needs, resourc-
es, financial support, and other factors vary from plant
to plant within the same company. Consequently,
management faces the differing perceptions of others
regarding production (machinery and equipment), ser-
vices (lighting and communications), human welfare
(safety and well-being), and regulatory rules. Manage-
ment is judged by the degree to which these interrelat-
ed needs are met. This article focuses on management
issues for multiple plants. The authors submit that,
although the relationship between maintenance and
operations is beyond the scope of this article, the sub-
ject warrants discussion at the IEEE Industrial Applica-
tions Society (IAS)/Industrial and Commercial Power FIGURE 2. An older plant. (Photo courtesy of Zodiac Aerospace.)
System (ICPS) level. Managing maintenance for one
plant is not simple or easy, and managing several is sig-
nificantly more difficult.
Maintenance managers must be fully aware that man-
agers maintaining multiple facilities are challenged when
dealing with several site and general managers in sepa-
rate plants. Although all facilities fall under one business
name and the same company policies—an aspect that
helps provide continuity and consistency—each plant
is isolated in its processes, with differing requirements
for maintenance head count, maintenance spending for
upkeep, upgrades or replacement of equipment, and
funding. This becomes a challenge when dealing with
individual site and general managers who see mainte-
nance expenditures differently at each facility. An electri-
cal installation may be older than the one shown in Figure 2
FIGURE 3. A well-designed, nearly complete installation. (Photo
or newer and more complex than the one in Figure 3. courtesy of OEG, Inc.)

Management Structure For  ­hands-on experience with other managers, contact

The many ways used to organize management are beyond the Project Management Institute [2].
the scope of this article. Readers are encouraged to This article uses a “top-down” approach (Figure 4)
obtain information from other sources. A good book to as the basic structure with “matrix management” (Fig-
start with is Project Management Body of Knowledge [1]. ure  5) superimposed for maintenance functions. The

J ULY /AUG US T 2020 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 89

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fausto Ludena. Downloaded on July 24,2020 at 11:27:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 reason for this is that the top-down
structure is familiar and widely
used, while matrix management is
employed for maintenance when
funding or other circumstances do
not justify any other approach.
Matrix management brings its
own challenges. Maintaining balance
is one of the most difficult and time-
consuming issues for most mainte-
nance managers when using matrix
management as the means to work
with multiple plants and managers.
discuss system design with the main-
tenance manager early in the design
Design engineers phase, although this is not always
must give careful possible. More often, the maintenance
manager has no choice but to accept
attention to the the system as designed, whether
he or she likes it or not, and adopt
requirements for the management program that best
the maintenance supports the goals of the company
within the constraints of the instal-
and operation of the lation as designed.
The design of a new system can be
system as well as difficult, while the design involving

Design
for the safety older installations can be more prob-
lematic. Readers who seek additional
In this section, the authors address of workers. information are encouraged to search
design to remind readers that it is a the many IAS and ICPS sources on the
crucial factor in an MOS program. subject as well as several standards
Design engineers must give careful published by the IEEE and others [3]–
attention to the requirements for the maintenance and [6]. The authors suggest readers watch for IEEE Standard
operation of the system as well as for the safety of workers. P1814 [7] as well, when it is released for publication.
Ideally, the design engineer will have an o ­ pportunity to
Risk Assessment
Maintenance management begins with risk assessment,
Shareholders covered at length in the paper by Roberts and Graves
[8]. To assess risk, the maintenance manager must
understand the electrical system and the production
Corporate Office functions it supports. First, system and plant informa-
tion must be collected. Whenever possible, the authors
Regional Vice President recommend a personal investigation of each plant as a
powerful tool for determining actual conditions. Also
highly recommended are discussions with plant per-
General Manager General Manager sonnel, local management, and local operating staff
to obtain long-term business prospects for each plant,
Plant Plant Plant Plant complete with insights and perceptions not found in
Manager Manager Manager Manager records. Usually, this step will be similar for all plants,
with modest differences in emphasis. The following
FIGURE 4. Top-down management. approaches are offered to provide a concrete example;
however, the authors recognize that
this is not a universal pattern and
that different situations call for dif-
Regional Vice President ferent approaches.

Drawings, Manuals, and Charts

Maintenance Manager General Manager General Manager
Much information should be avail-
able in the form of single lines,
Plant Plant Plant Plant
Manager Manager Manager Manager
plant organization charts, site plans,
equipment layouts or their equiva-
lents, internal records, and certainly,
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance through discussions with associates.
Department Department Department Department

Production Factors
Production justifies the existence of
Human Resources
the plant, therefore, MOS support for
production is a first consideration.
FIGURE 5. A matrix management for maintenance. For example, a primary requirement

90 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ J ULY/AUGUST 2020

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fausto Ludena. Downloaded on July 24,2020 at 11:27:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
may be continuity of service. Some
operations can be shut down for an
extended period, others are so criti- Should a major
cal that they cannot tolerate even a
­momentary interruption of power,
shutdown occur,
while most lie in between. Evaluate project how long
the differing requirements for indi-
vidual load sectors because loads vary, it can be tolerated
as do MOS requirements.
before marketing
Maintenance Factors is curtailed and
Determine the frequency and dura-
tion of production shutdown schedules market sectors are
when maintenance can be performed
so that downtime is not charged to the
possibly lost.
maintenance budget. Pay attention to
major portions of the electrical sys-
tem that require major shutdowns. Maintenance frequency
information can be found in standards [3]–[6], and [10] and
recent literature such as [8], [9], [12], and [13]. An analysis
of mean time between failures, mean time to repair, con-
siderations of weather, holidays, and other external factors
all play a part in the maintenance manager’s decisions.
Above all, the manager must have the paperwork in place
before the need arises.
Major maintenance for a given area of production is usu-
ally performed when production is shut down, although it
may be difficult to interrupt a major source of power. Deter-
mine whether the production shutdown time is adequate
for maintenance. Also, some loads such as fire pumps,
emergency services, and ventilation fans in mines are so
critical that they must be supported at all cost, perhaps
bypassed by emergency, standby, or rented equipment. For
more information, see IEEE Standard P3007.2 [14].
Operating Factors
Eventually, equipment will require servicing. It will
become obsolete and, ultimately, fail. Establish time-
lines for these events, particularly for critical equip-
ment. The standard references cited previously in this
article provide guidelines.
Safety Factors
Providing a safe working place is mandatory (readers are
urged to study IEEE P3007.3 [15] in its entirety). Defining
a safe working situation or modifying practices to ensure
one typically involves maintenance management. (This
article addresses safety in subsequent sections.)
Laws, Rules, and Regulations
The following “laws” apply to areas requiring MOS support:
●● 
Laws of physics: These laws always prevail. Electrical
calculations define what electricity will do (like it or
not), with arc flash being a prime example. Remem-
ber that “you can’t fool Mother Nature.” Relate these
laws to field conditions.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fausto Ludena. Downloaded on July 24,2020 at 11:27:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
●●  aws of commerce: Economic con-
L
siderations govern the success of
the plant and cannot be ignored.
Should a major shutdown occur,
project how long it can be toler-
ated before marketing is curtailed
and market sectors are possibly
lost. With the participation of both
production and general manage-
ment, assess the related risks and
costs. Acknowledge that a direct
return on investment rarely sup-
ports MOS programs and that
funding usually is based on sup-
porting continuous production,
which provides the requisite return
on investment.
●● Laws of the land (regulations): Although broadly similar
in all locations, details of such requirements vary signifi-
cantly from one jurisdiction to another. Basically, both
maintenance and plant management must deal with
local government, particularly local governing authori-
ties that have jurisdiction. Maintenance management
must know the regulations and the plant must comply
with them.
●● Laws of upper management: Corporate management
establishes positions on what is acceptable, not accept-
able, how much risk the company will tolerate, how
much will be covered by insurance, and other governing
factors. These positions must be known. Maintenance
management must evaluate the attitudes, expectations,
and frames of reference of both corporate and plant
management; these characteristics vary and change.
Existing Resources
Determine present resources such as plant personnel
standby equipment, maintenance materials, support from
suppliers, contractors, engineers within and outside the
company, and other resources. These resources become
part of the maintenance budget and should be defined for
each area that will have MOS support. The maintenance
manager needs this information before deciding how to
use the resources. Note that the manager has very little
budget control (Figure 6) and must convince production
managers that they should fund maintenance.
Infrastructure
An important issue to consider is the infrastructure at each
site. The authors doubt that there have ever been many
maintenance managers who have multiple facilities where
they were able to assist in the design of all the facilities at the
same time, with all equipment being the same age, and all
of it being new at the time of installation. Relate information
such as the date of the building to the types of switchgear
installed in each building. Building requirements—from
regulatory entities through insurance companies—can vary
J ULY /AUG US T 2020 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 91
 depending on the location and inspec-
tors. Construction and upgrades have
the same issues—from permitting by
the authority having jurisdiction to the
final inspectors—with each inspector
having a specialty but not necessarily
having the best grasp of the overall pic-
ture of the project.
For this article, the authors assume
that maintenance management person-
nel obtained the desired information
from every plant, organized the infor-
mation as outlined, have a satisfactory
understanding of plant operations, are
acceptably familiar with company politics, and are ready to
implement MOS programs. The authors admit that rarely, if
ever, does this reflect actual working conditions.
Risk Management
Roberts and Graves [13] maintain that risk is not elimi-
nated, it is managed. This article holds that for each
plant, risk and management are unique; hence, the
choice of an MOS program may vary from plant to plant,
although maintenance management attempts to establish
a level of similarity between plants. The management
span can run from “fix it when it breaks” to “never inter-
rupt power.” Obviously, most plants fall somewhere
in between. The authors refer readers to the standards
mentioned previously for guidance. Here the authors
limit their remarks to subjects sometimes thought of as
intangibles, although they are critical factors that litera-
ture seldom addresses.
The task is to manage or mitigate risks, knowing that the
approach to perfection is asymptotic. Maintenance manage-
ment is challenged to apply knowledge to several plants;
justify MOS to others in terms they understand; and obtain
financing, material resources, and personnel to support
the desired MOS program. Maintenance management will
recognize that all factors change over time and may change
Corporate Office
Regional Office
Maintenance Manager General Manager
Plant Plant
Manager Manager
Maintenance Maintenance
Department Department
FIGURE 6. The maintenance budget.
92 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ J ULY/AUGUST 2020
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fausto Ludena. Downloaded on July 24,2020 at 11:27:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
abruptly, hence; management must be
alert and flexible. It is not easy.
Another benefit of
Support for MOS Programs
managing multiple Naturally, support comes from those
facilities can be who benefit from the program.
The inclination is to think first of
the use of critical satisfying production imperatives,
spare parts for the which is certainly important but not
the sole demand and perhaps not
equipment. even a major consideration. The
manager will develop many sources
of support.
Financial
Does the plant have the financial strength and cash flow
to support the program? Some plant managers focus on
minimizing capital and annual costs, while other managers
decide that total or long-term cost provides the best mea-
sure of value. Maintenance management must be aware of
how the plant manager elects to run the plant and dem-
onstrate his or her support. Always remember that plant
managers provide the money and differ from plant to plant.
Production
Production supervisors and middle management must
feel confident that the MOS program is designed to sup-
port them and that maintenance management personnel
have done their best to ensure such support. As a simple
example, one author presented these options for the main-
tenance of a fan with a mean time between failure of one
year: 1) replace the complete fan with two days downtime
and US$29,000 total cost, 2) repair the wheel with a week
or more downtime and US$5,000 cost, or 3) use a spare
wheel with under a week down and more than US$5,000
cost. It is the maintenance manager’s responsibility to pres-
ent options and the production manager’s responsibility to
decide which option to choose. Facts and figures play their
part, though understanding and mutual respect becomes a
large factor here. Reinforce this under-
standing from time to time. If these
personnel (production supervisors
and middle management) feel that
maintenance management supports
them, they will do their best to make
the program work. Remember, these
people grade the level of success.
General Manager
Line Workers
Plant Plant At the foundation are those who do
Manager Manager the work, whether plant personnel
or subcontractors. Maintenance man-
Maintenance Maintenance agement must evaluate the knowl-
Department Department edge, ability, and commitment of
these staff (those who implement
the MOS program). Often, gaps in
knowledge can be closed through training. Be aware that
coverage may be inadequate, particularly during peak
periods of MOS work or during vacation periods. A small
plant may operate without a qualified electrical person.
Whatever the situation, it is incumbent upon maintenance
management to foster good understanding among these
personnel, listen openly to their suggestions and recom-
mendations, and explain clearly, in their terms, the pur-
pose and direction of the MOS program. Obtaining the
support and cooperation of staff at this level is crucial.
Training for electrical workers should be uniform. In this way,
members of the maintenance team can help across the sepa-
rate divisions as needed for specialized tasks and equipment
and during emergencies. Even with facilities spread over hun-
dreds of miles, this can and should be used by maintenance
management as a viable option for repairs or troubleshooting.
Another benefit of managing multiple facilities can be the
use of critical spare parts for the equipment. Critical spare or
expensive parts can be shared by these facilities to ensure
that the machine uptime can be kept to a high standard.

Gaps in Coverage Maintenance Teams

The possible options used to cover gaps are to accept the Maintenance teams must be strong and prepared to
risk, buy insurance coverage, develop required resources train new employees on all equipment and processes,
within the company, or obtain support from outside enti-
ties. Limited internal coverage is a real factor that the
maintenance manager will address, with an acceptable
“Plan B” for emergencies. A common approach is to iden-
tify and recruit outside support from contractors, vendors,
and engineers. The plant need not be totally self-sufficient.

Contractors, Vendors, and Engineers

This section uses electrical contractors as an example
because that is where the manager first looks for help.
The same logic applies to vendors and engineers.
A qualified electrical contractor will have a full staff of
qualified foremen and superintendents who are prepared
to mobilize a job on short order, familiar with the number
and abilities of electricians who are available at any one
time, and practiced in the art of managing maintenance
work—either planned or sudden. Ideally, the contractor
selected will be one who has worked in the plant and is
familiar with its layout. Given that there is trust established FIGURE 7. Ground-testing equipment. (Photo courtesy of OEG, Inc.)
through a good working relationship,
many times, the most effective proce-
dure is to work “time and material”
under a budget estimate. Bidding a
job and selecting the lowest price can
result in major problems, particularly
if the low bidder is not well known.
In addition to a strong, skilled
workforce, the contractor has tools
that the maintenance manager cannot
afford or support. A common ex­­ample
is that of equipment used to evaluate
grounding networks (Figure 7). Anoth-
er example is sophisticated power
monitoring instruments, as shown in
Figure 8. These are examples; readers
are familiar with many more.

Consolidation, Commonality,
and “Fairness”
Maintenance management will con-
solidate some aspects to have continu-
ity and avoid problems in the future. FIGURE 8. Power monitoring. (Photo courtesy of OEG, Inc.)

J ULY /AUG US T 2020 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 93

Authorized licensed use limited to: Fausto Ludena. Downloaded on July 24,2020 at 11:27:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 including the nuances of company
politics. If each facility has a strong
maintenance supervisor, the mainte- When dealing
nance manager (at headquarters) can
take advantage of those skill sets and
with electrical
direct this person with clear expec- contractors, pricing
tations. The supervisor in the plant
must be a strong-willed individual is important but
who will correct things directly. This
individual must be allowed enough
should not be the
“rope” to get things done. Reel in this determining factor
individual only when future issues
will have a fallout that directly affects for deciding whom
job functions or the perceptions of
the person to whom you report. Sup-
to use.
porting this individual is imperative
for success. As manager, make it very
clear that you will support his or her decisions provided
they are made using all of the information available at the
time of the decision. The manager can council this person
later if he or she truly made the wrong decision, given the
information provided to make such decisions.
Maintenance System
The manager needs a system that will assist in preplanned
daily preventive maintenance as well as work requests
generated by the operators or floor personnel. Plant sys-
tems should be similar, though this is not always the case.
One author has worked with many software packages; the
other authors only used software from one vendor because
that was all the facility had available. Regardless of the sys-
tem each facility uses, decide w ­ hether it is really working,
whether the plant is just getting by or failing, and whether
the business is being impacted. Most maintenance systems
produce daily tasks such as visual inspections or preventive
maintenance work. Some are so full of options that they
become burdensome. Sharing one program among all the
sites helps the manager evaluate the pulse of a facility from
any location with a few keystrokes on his or her PC.
Vendors
The maintenance manager will likely be the contact per-
son for critical vendors, while the plant supervisor will
contact daily vendors. A purchasing clerk may assist in
the routine purchases. The maintenance manager will
want/need to be the authorizing person for all items
above a set dollar amount depending on the buying
structure of the facility. When dealing with electrical con-
tractors, pricing is important but should not be the deter-
mining factor for deciding whom to use. The manager
must be able to trust the contractor’s project manager and
his or her skills or the project risks becoming a disaster.
Conclusions
Without a doubt, there are many more factors to take
into account. This article examined considerations that
94 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ J ULY/AUGUST 2020
Authorized licensed use limited to: Fausto Ludena. Downloaded on July 24,2020 at 11:27:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
are vital to engineering but are not
a direct part of engineering calcula-
tions. Focus on the fundamental pur-
pose of the production plant, provide
the support and MOS program that
best serves this fundamental pur-
pose, and make it clear to all affect-
ed parties that the MOS program
and the methods by which mainte-
nance management will implement
the MOS program will support their
goals, not threaten them. Above all,
never forget that you are dealing with
people, not automatons. The authors
suggest that this, and other related
aspects of maintenance management
warrant further deliberation in com-
mittees and in papers, with the goal of providing further
insights into the subject.
Author Information
Erling Hesla (e.hesla@ieee.org) is with Hesla and Associ-
ates, Edmonds, Washington. Curtis Fowler is with Zodiac
Aerospace, Marysville, Washington. Jerry Huber is with
OEG, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Hesla is a Senior Member
of the IEEE. This article first appeared as “Maintenance
Management of Multiple Plants” at the 2018 IEEE IAS
Annual Meeting. It was reviewed by the IAS Power Sys-
tems Engineering Committee.
References
[1] A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide),
6th ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc., 2017.
[2] Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA. [Online].
Available: https://www.pmi.org/
[3] Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance, NFPA
70B, 2016.
[4] Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA 70E, 2015.
[5] IEEE Red Book, IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Power Distribution
for Industrial Plants, Chapter 14, Cost Estimating, IEEE Standard 141-1993, 1993.
[6] Recommended Practice for Estimating the Costs of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems, IEEE P3001.4, to be published.
[7] Recommended Practice for Electrical System Design Techniques to
Improve Electrical Safety, IEEE P1814, to be published.
[8] D. Roberts and R. Graves, “Risk assessment myth busters,” in Proc.
2018 IEEE Industry Applications Society Electrical Safety Workshop
(ESW), Mar. 19–23, 2018. doi: 10.1109/ESW41044.2018.9063872.
[9] J. R. Duenckel, R. Soileau, and J. D. Pittman, “Preventative mainte-
nance for electrical reliability,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 23, no. 4, pp.
45–56, July–Aug. 2017. doi: 10.1109/MIAS.2016.2600695.
[10] Recommended Practice for the Operation and Maintenance of Indus-
trial and Commercial Power Systems, IEEE P3007.1, 2010.
[11] Standard for Maintenance Testing Specifications for Electrical Power
Equipment and Systems, ANSI/NETA MTS-2019.
[12] T. Zind, “The human and technical sides of electrical testing,” EC&M,
vol. 115, no. 7, pp. 18–26, July 2016.
[13] R. Beverly, “Wait and see: Vonnegut & facility engineering,” Engineered
Systems, p. 10, Dec. 3, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.esmagazine
.com/authors/1987-robert-beverly
[14] IEEE Recommended Practice for the Maintenance of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems, IEEE P3007.2, 2010.
[15] IEEE Recommended Practice for Safety of Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems, IEEE P3007.3, 2012.