Changing a Culture – The Development of a Corporate M&R Standard

Abstract
How do you change a culture? How do you drive for consistency and operational excellence
when there are so many ways of performing maintenance and reliability processes across the
company? The first step is to document the “one way” for your company in simple, concise
words. The second step is to effectively deploy that standard so everyone understands the “one
way” and all sites know their gaps. Lastly you steward to gap closure plans, track compliance
and look for continuous improvement opportunities. Gaining consensus on defining a “one way”
to execute M&R processes across a corporation takes significant consultation and reviews
across all sites. Ownership must be defined and corporate authorization given to the authors.
Once the documented processes are approved then deployment begins. A gap assessment
process against the “one way” is kicked off with an overview of the entire standard at each site.
Using clear assessment protocols matched to the minimum requirements in the standard allows
for consistent gap analysis. Gaps are then risk ranked, prioritised, and gap closure actions
assigned in order to plot the journey towards the “one way”. Gap analysis also identifies best
practices at each site for use by others. Stewardship against an approved set of metrics with
reports and corporate dashboards allows for tracking progress and documenting value in the
improvements as well as looking for continuous improvement opportunities. Easy access to best
practices must be delivered to support the “one way”. This is a very long journey that takes
many years and dedicated effort with corporate sponsorship. As one gets good at the” one way”
one will automatically find the better way which sets the next step in the journey. Identification
and deployment of the “one way” is the simple part. Continuous improvement, diligence, and
perseverance are required in the journey towards changing a culture.

Background

Suncor Energy Inc. is a leader in oil sands development with conventional and offshore
production of 462,000 barrels per day refining capacity, and more than 1450 retail Petro-
Canada Stations. Suncor’s vision is “To be trusted stewards of valuable natural resources.
Guided by our values, we will lead the way to deliver economic prosperity, improved social well-
being and a healthy environment for today and tomorrow”.

The key to Suncor’s vision is an Operational Excellence Management System (OEMS). The
OEMS is an enterprise-wide management framework based on a series of elements linking all
applicable standards, systems and processes. The foundation of this management system is
defining the “one way” for our enterprise processes and functions. Within this management
system “Operations and Maintenance Controls” is one element. The Maintenance and Reliability
standard described in this paper is a “one way” standard for the corporation.

In 2009 Suncor and Petro-Canada operations merged to form Canada’s largest integrated
energy company. Post-merger different processes and cultures within the maintenance and
reliability organizations were found. These variations made the ability to consistently measure
and analyze performance difficult, impacting the ability to identify continuous improvement
opportunities. For example the various facilities used different Computerized Maintenance
Management Systems (CMMS). This required significant effort to normalize data. Maintenance
cultures also varied. Some facilities tended towards reactive maintenance (a low maturity
culture); others followed a proactive approach involving significant planning. Suncor’s desire for
a high maturity culture and the need to align processes started a corporate journey. Defining
“one way” M&R processes through a corporate-wide Maintenance and Reliability Standard has
been part of this bigger journey

Changing Culture – The “One Way”

So how is “one way” selected and defined from a large enterprise where facilities have “their
way” of executing processes? All of the variations in process are tied to variations in culture.
Culture is tied to the maturity of the processes. Reactive immature organizations tend to have
multiple individual processes. More mature planned organizations tend towards consistent
singular processes. Variations in “how” a processes is executed is not as critical when compare
with variations in “what” is required. When selecting the “one way”, the variations in “how” and
“what” for that process must be clearly understood and analysed. Once the consultation,
collaboration and analysis is complete and a “one way” is defined, it is critical to understand the
impact to those current processes that are no longer supported corporately. This information
becomes critical when executing change management strategies in the deployment of the new
standard.

There is a great quote by Winston Churchill “I am always willing to learn, however I do not
always like to be taught”. In most cases it is human nature to avoid change. Change comes with
risk and most people try to avoid risk. Early and continuous engagement with those that will be
affected by the change is critical to successfully changing cultures and driving for a “one way”
set of processes. Most people and organizations fall into a passive resistance model of agreeing
with the “one way” until compliance is required and then generating comments about how the
“one way” does not work. Early collaboration and consultation mitigates this risk because the
“one way” is supported prior to deployment.

Part of defining the “one way” for the corporation is understanding the value that the “one way”
brings to the corporation. Understanding lost opportunity value associated with past
performance is part of this value statement. Driving towards “one “way” with a clear reliability
focus will result in improved asset availability and therefore less downtime. This value statement
must be part of the deployment conversations to set the context and obtain early support for
change.

In addition to lost opportunity value a clear understanding of expected outcomes must be

defined. Expected outcomes should not be confused with results. Results are facts and figures,
data sheets and reports. Expected outcomes are process related goals that are achieved by
conformance. (i.e. increased asset availability, reduced downtime, improved safety, etc.). The
expected outcomes and the value statement must be part of the content for the standard.
Defining what a good process looks like is just the first step in a full deployment strategy. To get
everyone moving in the same direction and changing old habits requires a change management
strategy, deployment plan, and effort and diligence in sustainment.

Change Management Planning

In order to facilitate consistent adoption of the defined “one way” a change management plan
must be developed specific to each site. For each process the number of people affected must
be determined. Analysis of the physical amount of change for the impacted site personnel is
required. Tool and training requirements need to be assessed and communication plans need to
be created. What impact exists for tools and in general how long will the change take to reach
full conformance to the processes. All of these issues need to be examined for each facility.
What level of stakeholder engagement is required? What level of leadership support is
required? These are valid questions that must be answered before a plan can be created to
develop and deploy new or modified processes.

Management of change actually starts with the consultation of site resources in the creation of
the standard. Engagement from all levels of M&R organizations and leadership across each site
must be sought out to minimise future churn in the revision process for the standard. This must
form part of your management of change program. In order to change site cultures and move
organizations towards “one way”, the personnel must be part of the development process.

Developing a Standard

Standards need scope development the same as any repair for an asset. A clear understanding
of the end to end processes must be understood to form a basis for judging the value of content
for inclusion in the standard. Where do processes interact? Where does ownership and
accountabilities transfer between roles? What function/role has accountability for the process as
a whole? These are all valuable questions that can be answered once the end to end process is
understood. This process centric approach allows for the various options/comments to be
validated. Consideration for the present maturity level and current process gaps, allows for an
understanding of how much change needs to be, or can be, driven within an organization. With
gaps identified and maturity level understood the full scope for content in the standard can be
developed. Content not found to be destined for the standard can be used in other supporting
documents. Ultimately a well-defined end to end process allows for a prioritised list of
documents including the governing standard to be identified.

As the standard develops, work on the format and form of the document must be considered. A
style guide for technical writing can be valuable at this point in time. Within a corporation
consideration should be given to how standards are used and if there needs to be a consistent
look and feel to the documents. How often must the document be revised? Who owns the
document in terms of deviation approvals? The answers to these question in addition to
considerations for primary audience of the standard allow for form and format as well a style
descisions to be made. Managers and engineers look for different levels of detail so
understanding your primary audience will result in a more useful document. The language of the
document must be at or lower than the level of education for the general audience. If the
language in a document does not match the understanding level of the intended audience then
the consultation and review will be more difficult.

Subject Matter Experts (SME)

The governing standard must be clear, simple and speak to the correct audience, to support
successful deployment across the enterprise. With diverse and geographical remote facilities a
central organization should be considered to control the development and deployment process.
Best practices from each site and from industry in all the M&R functions of management,
reliability, planning, scheduling and execution must be researched, updated and/or selected to
define the “one way” that addresses the needs of the entire company, rather than any one
particular facility.

A group of Subject Matter Experts (SME) from across the corporation were used to define the
“one way” for Suncor. These SME’s were then given control of cross company technical
networks that represented ownership of the various M&R disciplines and processes. These
Suncor Technical Excellence Networks (STEN’s) were given the mandate to define the “one
way” for the corporation.

Great care must be used in selecting the personnel for this central group. They must have
credibility with the various facilities but also be able to represent the company as a whole. They
must be experts in the various processes, but also able to communicate and gain consensus
from diverse groups of facility specific experts. Each function within the M&R processes is
represented by these teams which were given the mandate by senior leadership to define “what
good looks like” for each process. This starts with validating the core process steps and the
minimum requirements for each process. The expected outcomes are confirmed and then this is
followed up with recommendations on how the processes are used.

Consultation and Revision

Once drafts of the documents are created, consultation continues across all parts of the
company. If the opportunity to comment on the documents does not occur then stakeholders
affected by the change are not engaged. Without engagement effectiveness of the deployment
will be impaired. This engagement must occur as soon as possible to head off issues early in
development. Clear feedback on acceptance or rejection of comments is also key to gaining the
support and engagement of the various facilities and personnel.

Comments tend to fall into two categories. “What” needs to be done versus “how” the process
needs to be executed. Grouping the content allows for a clean standard that defines “what” is
required but not losing all the good “how” information that can be used to create guidance level
recommended content.
There is a tendency to confuse review comments as associated with the requirements but in a
lot of cases the issues are with “how” a requirement is executed. Standards should relate “what”
is required and “how” these requirements are executed can be left for other types of documents.
Often more significant change mangment is associated with “how” requirements are met.
Clearly understanding the distinction in reviewing comments between “what” and “how” can
allow for more efficient and effective control of the consultation and revision processes.

As comments are collected they require review, consolidation, simplification and ultimately
approval by the appropriate controlling SME or technical teams. Review and control of content
is at the team level but ultimately approval of the document for something as significant as a
corporate M&R Standard must be at a Corporate Senior Leadership level in order to have an
effective deployment.

Deployment

Once the standards and guidelines are approved deployment plans need to be ecexuted. The
concept of deployment includes management of change from a site point of control. Deployment
can mean gap assessments, but also include learning and competency analysis and
communication planning. Education material must be valid and up-dated to ensure the correct
message is carried forward. Deployment considerations include dealing with approval of
deviations if required, and commitment to close identified gaps in an agreed timeframe.

Approval for deployment needs to be given from site senior leadership prior to any contact with
site personnel. This approval usually takes the form of a high level summary of the content,
discussions of the plan and timing as well as assignment of the site sponsor to help work on the
logistics of the site deployment. Site senior leadership will normally wish to understand who was
consulted from their teams to ensure their site specific requirements were part of the
development process. Once site approval to proceed with deployment is achieved the standard
deployment includes overview presentations, gap assessments and gap closure planning. It is
also advisable to have the site senior leadership open the first overview presentation to set the
context for what is happening, why it is needed and to show visible support for the rest of the
deployment efforts.

Once the Site sponsor is identified detailed planning can take place This planning involves
communication, but also logisitics for things like arranging conference rooms and booking times
for various meetings. Most present day assessment tools will use some type of software to
record comments and track gaps. Some web based programs will require Wi-Fi or network
connectivity. Presentations require equipment for projectors and teleconference capabilities.
These logistics must be considered to make any deployment as successful as possible.
Gap Assessment

The central team must define the criteria by which the processes will be measured. This takes
the form of fully developed audit protocols that match the requirements in the Standard. Within
each protocol the accountable role for each requirement is defined, and the documentation that
proves conformance is described. These protocols can then be used in interviews with site
personnel to assess conformance to the Standard. The assessment, based on consistent
protocol, allows for companywide comparisons to be drawn once all the initial deployments are
complete.

Several levels of interviews should occur to validate the gaps. Often the level of understanding
of “how” the process is executed at a site will vary between technical, supervision and
management. The same audit protocols should be used across the levels of leadership and
then compared to obtain a true picture of the present state. These interviews should be
performed by qualified personnel who understand the standard to a high degree. The ideal
interviewers would be the SME’s who lead the creation of the standard. The audit protocols are
matched to minimum requirements which specify “what” is required. Skilled assessors who
understand the standard requirements can make value added observation on site practices as
well as identifying gaps. Often these observations can drive as much improvement as the gaps
themselves.

Often questions of applicability will occur. The assets, production, output, and geography can
drive for site specific considerations. The personnel who own the standard are best suited to
interpret these details with respect to the meeting minimum requirements in the gap
assessment.

Once all the gaps are assessed and collected a report to site senior leadership is required. This
normally takes the form of an informal report out to management that allows for a review and
management alignment prior to a formal report issued to senior site leadership. Gap closure
planning can then begin.

Gap Closure Plans

The site personnel must create gap closure plans that can be used to measure progress
towards conformance. Some gaps and opportunities may be easy quick wins and can be
addressed quickly, but many actions could involve significant effort to close. Each site is
different and therefore gaps closures will be different. Gaps must be risk ranked against other
priorities in order for sites to prioritize the action and determine timing.

This process can take a significant amount of time. Multiple levels of review and consultation
between all teams is required before final gap closure plans are approved and ready for
execution. Some level of corporate leadership direction is required to drive the ultimate
timetable for conformance to the standard. Within that corporate window each site plan will be
specific to their gaps. As gap closure plans are executed, stewardship, reporting, and status
updating keep site leadership and corporate leadership informed on the progress and able to
drive adjustments as required.

Conclusion - Stewardship and Sustainment

Stewardship and sustainment never ends. When continuous improvement is incorporated into
the culture of an organization it becomes apparent that good enough is not part of the language.
The strive for operational excellence and a culture of continuous improvement means always
looking for the next improvement opportunity. As results improve and goals are achieved,
continuous improvement processes drive for new results and goals to be defined and ultimately
achieved. There is another great quote from Winston Churchill that summarises the concept
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the
beginning”.

Sustainment is dependent on how well the change being driven is measured and analysed.
Without fully developed performance indicators success in the driven change will be limited or
unsustainable. How these indicators are reported as part of stewardship is also critical. Typical
questions that must be answered include; who should see the reports, are the metrics
understood by all who need to interpret them, and also are continuous improvement actions
being created and completed based on the analysis of the results.

With continuous improvement processes well in hand, changing a culture really never ends. A
lot of work and effort must go into setting up the basic foundation for the change. Standards and
guidance would be the physical representation of this change in culture, but the change is not
effective until the deployment and the sustainment models are executed. Results are the true
bottom line. Is availability and safety improving, are costs going in the right direction. Analyzing
the results will drive improvement and the goals can then be adjusted as required. Eventually as
new processes are adopted and old practices fall away, the culture of the organizations begin to
mature towards the direction specified in the Standard.