Implementing “Best” Work Practices, CWMS and GIS
David Murdoch
Winnipeg is a Midwestern Canadian city with a population of approximately 650,000. The City’s Water and Waste Department operates as a Public Utility and is responsible for all functions associated with supply and delivery of potable water, collection and treatment of liquid waste (sewage), collection and disposal of solid waste (refuse and recycling programs) and certain aspects of the land drainage function.
M. Eng., P. Eng. Process Improvement Engineer City of Winnipeg, Water & Waste Department, Water Services Division. 552 Plinguet Street Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R2J 0G1 & Brian Hurding P. Eng. Managing Partner EMA Canada, Inc. 116 Spadina Avenue, Suite 301 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5V 2K6 Winnipeg obtains its water via a covered aqueduct from Shoal Lake, which is located approximately 100 miles (161 km) to the east of the City. Aside from chlorination & fluoridation, the water is not treated, although a treatment plant is being proposed for the future. The Water & Waste department operates 3 wastewater treatment plants and maintains approximately 1490 miles (2400 km) of water distribution piping and approximately 2860 miles (4600 km) of wastewater collection piping, along with associated infrastructure such as pumping stations and lift stations. The department also operates a short line railway from Winnipeg to Shoal Lake for the purpose of maintaining and servicing the aqueduct. To date, several “home grown” maintenance management systems have co-existed within the epartment. These were, for the most part, old, inefficient and cumbersome. Water & Waste had long wanted to replace these systems with a modern Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and, after several false starts, the work began in earnest in 1998. Originally, the intent of the project was to obtain modern and effective CMMS software for use in the wastewater treatment plants. However, the scope expanded several times in its early stages, first incorporating other areas within the Department, then expanding to include Work Process review and improvement, and ultimately spreading to potentially include other departments within the City. Recognizing that the project had expanded to include all aspects of work management, its name was eventually changed to the “Computerized Work Management System (CWMS) Project”. Starting Out a) The Gap – Recognizing the need for additional expertise in defining and attacking their problems, the Department engaged the services of an outside consultant who specialized in assisting public utilities in improving their work processes, as well as selecting and implementing CWMS software. One of the first activities the consultant undertook was to identify the “Gap” in efficiency between the manner in which the Department was currently performing work and how a private contractor, operating to industry “Best Practices”, would perform the work. The Department was pleasantly surprised to discover the “gap” was at 14%, not an acceptable figure, but better than many public utilities in similar circumstances. b) Scope – It soon became apparent that the CWMS project was becoming much more than just a software purchase. If the Department’s Work Processes were inferior, it was necessary to improve them before automating them with software. Since many work and technology improvement projects ultimately fail because of a lack of involvement and “buy-in” from front line employees who, ultimately, are the people who actually have to work with all the changes, it was necessary to develop a strategy to ensure this would not happen. Finally, the Department wanted a true “best of breed” CWMS product that would be adaptable to the way it worked, rather than forcing the Department to change its work practices to conform to the idiosyncrasies of the software. c) Vision – Well, every good project has to have a vision, right? In this case:
In order to secure funding, a business plan was prepared which outlined the savings that could be expected from proceeding with the project. The primary source of savings came from a reduction in staffing levels as a result of improved, more efficient, work practices supported by CWMS software. Additional savings were identified in the areas of improved asset reliability, reduced inventory levels, reduced energy costs and reduced paperwork. It all added up to a reduction of 60 staff members (out of approximately 450) and an overall saving of $13.25 million over a 10 year period. This proved a convincing argument and the project was given the authority to proceed. Work Process Redesign Prior to considering software requirements, it was necessary to redesign inefficient work practices within the Department so they would more closely conform to “industry best practices”. The Best Practices Paradigms applied to this project were as follows:
A number of project teams were created. First and foremost was the Work Practices Team, which was charged with developing a new way of doing work, based on the principles given above. The Communications Team was charged with ensuring that all employees within the Department were kept aware of how the project was progressing. The Organizational Development Team was the Human Resources group, charged with translating the new work practices into revised job descriptions and responsibilities. The Technology Team was responsible for ensuring that the technological infrastructure (computers, access lines, etc.) was adequate to meet the needs of the new systems. The Selection Team was the group charged with actually evaluating and selecting the CWMS software that would be used. And finally, there was an Implementation Team, responsible for ensuring that the new technology was actually installed and worked properly. But, the success of all these teams was dependent on the initial success of the Work Practices Team. The Work Practices Team Because the Work Practices Team was to provide the cornerstone upon which the rest of the project would be built, the selection of this group was taken very seriously. So was the commitment of time required; the Work Practices team was to spend several months analyzing existing business practices and developing new ones on a full time basis. The Department’s management was well aware that one of the prime contributors to failure in projects of this type is opposition by the very front line employees for whom the new system is supposed to be beneficial. This issue is well known. Many people are not very receptive to change in their work lives, and can be especially unreceptive to radical change. Passive resistance has sunk many a project in the past and we were determined not to let it sink this one. In addition, the City is a fully unionized environment and unions are traditionally not very receptive to the idea of reducing staffing levels. The Water & Waste Department has a history of fair and relatively harmonious dealings with its unions, which provided a strong foundation upon which to build. The union executive are aware that strong changes are sweeping through the Water & Wastewater industry worldwide and that many Public Utilities are being privatized. They were pragmatic enough to appreciate the advantages of having a smaller group of their members working for a Public Utility as opposed to none of their members working for a Private Sector employer. For its part, management adhered to the principles espoused in the second clause of the Project’s Vision statement (“recognize the importance of the well-being of staff etc.”) and were able to promise that any staff reductions would be handled through attrition, rather than lay-offs. The Work Practices Team was comprised of 17 individuals plus the consultants. Representation came from all areas of the organization, and the bulk of the members were from the unionized ranks, including a shop steward and a unit president. Structuring the team in this way offered the following advantages:
It represented a significant commitment to the project (which was not lost on those involved) on the part of management to allow all these individuals to be away from their regular jobs for the several months that the Practices Team was in session. Because most of the Team members had no experience with TPO or the concepts of Industry Best Practices, the consultants spent several days conducting a training seminar to bring everybody “up to speed” on the basic principles. This also served as a time to educate the team members on the nuances of group dynamics and proper decorum (everybody gets to speak; all ideas are worthy of consideration; promptness; no fisticuffs; etc.) Once the Team had mastered the basic concepts, they moved on to developing a detailed picture of how the organization’s operating divisions currently functioned (“as-is” condition). This not only provided the basis for future work, it also provided additional training to the Team in the techniques they would use to develop the new work practices (“to-be” scenario). Developing the “to-be” work practices proved to be a very challenging exercise which occupied almost two months of the Team’s time. It was not always a smooth process. Tempers flared, voices were raised, arguments raged. But, everybody hung in there and stuck with it and, at the end, a blueprint for a greatly changed organization emerged. Among the significant features:
With a prototype design in hand, a pilot project was begun to see how the new work practices would play out in the real world. The group selected for the pilot project was the excavation crews, who repair watermain and service line breaks. Half the excavation workforce (dubbed “Supercrews” by the rest of the staff) became “Pilot” crews who worked according to the new work practices. The remaining crews carried on as they always had. Selection of the Pilot crews was done with great care in order to obtain both employee and union cooperation. The Pilot crews were given a limited time mandate of 6 months with an extension to 12 months permissible (which pleased the union). Appointment to the Pilot crews was done by canvassing for volunteers and then sorting the volunteer list by seniority and ability (which pleased both the staff and the union). All members of the Pilot crews received an increase in pay for the duration of the Pilot (which certainly pleased the staff). Initially, training sessions were held with all crews to teach them the best practices concepts and prepare them for the changes envisioned in their work practices. Input from the crews was solicited and the pilot plan was modified accordingly. A list of equipment was developed, based upon what the crews believed would help them do their job better. Such equipment as could be justified was purchased immediately. (For example, it was not possible, because of financial constraints, to purchase new backhoes and dump trucks. However, concrete breakers were purchased which could be carried with the crew to the jobsite and quickly interchanged with the bucket of the backhoe – thus allowing the crews to break out concrete on their own, rather than wait for an outside contractor, as was their former practice. Some requests were very simple, such as better shelving in the crew vans.) A Site Committee was formed. Consisting of representation from the crews, the Union and management, the Site Committee met on a regular basis to discuss how the Pilots were doing, and to identify and solve small problems before they became big ones. The Committee also served as a communications tool, allowing the Pilot Crews (and through them, other staff) to be kept aware of how the rest of the project was proceeding. The Pilot Crews concentrated on flexible work practices. With all of the crew pitching in and helping on all tasks, it was possible to reduce the crew size from 5 to 4. The crew members also learned to do a greater variety of tasks, meaning that the number of additional supporting workers who formerly had to attend at the jobsite was reduced. After several months, the Pilot was evaluated. It was discovered that, although the crew size had been reduced by one, the Pilot Crews were actually doing slightly more jobs per day, on average, than the non-Pilot crews still working under the old system. Productivity was definitely up. The crewmembers generally enjoyed the greater variety of tasks they were performing and the additional responsibility they were given, although they did note that they were definitely more tired at the end of each day. Other Concurrent Aativities Organization Development Team With a comprehensive map now developed showing how the organization should look over the next 10 years (courtesy of the Work Practices Team), the Organizational Development Team could now begin their work. This group was responsible for developing the Human Resources/Staff Transition Plan, a process that included:
CWMS Software Selection Team The Software Selection Team consisted of 14 individuals who were drawn, as was the Work Practices Team, mostly from the ranks of front line employees. It was desirable to get input from the ranks of the people who’d actually have to use the software when it was deployed. There was only one member from the Information Technology (IT) Department and one individual who was almost computer illiterate (we figured if he could understand it, just about anybody could). An “extended” team was also created – resource people from other areas and departments that the primary team could interview as needed to insure that our work did not negatively affect other parts of the organization. Initial training was provided to the Selection team members by the consultants so the team members could understand the (extensive) requirements that would become part of a CWMS software bid package. In order to save evaluation time (by limiting the number of unqualified bidders), the team relied on the consultant’s expertise to pre-select a manageable number of suppliers who would be specifically asked to bid. With the (considerable) aid of the consultants, the Selection Team took the Work Practices Team's functional work requirements and used them to develop a comprehensive and detailed specification set that, when combined with the City’s general Terms and Conditions, produced a bid package that CWMS software vendors could respond to. Nine of them did. The vendor’s responses were screened and scored using a rigorous scoring matrix. Ultimately, two vendors were invited to provide a full demonstration of their product. Again, the demos were scored rigorously over a three day period (each) and a successful vendor was chosen. Cwms Software – How IT Will Work The CWMS software will be used to facilitate all aspects of the planning, scheduling, executing and documenting of work. When a Work Planner signs on to the system, he or she will be planning all aspects of a job from start to finish, both on a day-to-day and on a longer time frame basis. Such planning would include some or all of the following:
In order to provide all of this functionality, the CWMS software (which, typically, already includes functionality in purchasing and inventory management, plus some aspects of data management, timekeeping and human resources) must be interfaced with a variety of outside systems. In this example, interfaces are being created to the following functions and applications:
CWMS & GIS The City of Winnipeg has an existing GIS which is known locally as the Land Based Information System (LBIS). The LBIS was created in 1990 and contains a substantial amount of very useful data, including streets & property information, water lines with valves, and sewer lines with valves. However, time and technology have now passed it by. It suffers from many deficiencies common to systems of that era, including:
In the Water & Waste Department, the people who most use the LBIS are those who are responsible for maintenance of the water distribution and wastewater collection systems. With the infrastructure buried and spread out all over the City, it becomes crucial to know exactly what’s down there, and where, before commencing any excavations. At present, field staff rely on paper mapbooks. These maps are printed up from the actual data in the LBIS. While helpful, they suffer from all the common flaws associated with such a system, namely:
In the future, the Planners will append a small map printout (obtained from the GIS through the CWMS) to every work order that requires locate information. Field staff will thus have the latest location data available to them when the attend at the jobsite. Changes, corrections and such will be marked on the map in the field and turned in at the end of the day, so the GIS can be continuously updated. In the longer term, field staff will, via mobile computing, have in-field access to real time, live, GIS data so that they are always as up-to-date as possible. As well, they may enter changes and corrections directly into the system from the field. The use of GPS technology is also being considered, however, financial constraints are a significant factor at present. | ||
| © GISdevelopment.net. All rights reserved. |