environment * safety * health * quality 1 improving work planning through communication and...
DESCRIPTION
Environment * Safety * Health * Quality 3 A Little Background Fluor Hanford (FH) work planning process viewed as effective and work performed safely Nonetheless, there were areas needing improvement Corrective Action Plan prepared Actions affected all FH ProjectsTRANSCRIPT
1Environment * Safety * Health * Quality 1
Improving Work Planning Through Communication and Training
Reed Kaldor/Sandi GrayISMS Champions Workshop
November 29, 2007
2Environment * Safety * Health * Quality 2
Presentation Overview
• A little background – why improvement was needed
• It’s really about managing change• What we did to build consensus on
changes • How we know if we have made a
difference• What made it work
3Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
A Little Background
• Fluor Hanford (FH) work planning process viewed as effective and work performed safely
• Nonetheless, there were areas needing improvement
• Corrective Action Plan prepared• Actions affected all FH Projects
4Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
Example Actions
• Develop guidance on incorporating hazard controls in work instructions
• Develop criteria for determination of “skill-based” work
• Introduce human performance improvement concepts into work planning
• Clarify procedures• Develop a work planner qualification
program • Develop work planning training courses
5Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
The Challenge
Develop consensus onthe changes to be madeand create and sustain commitment
6Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
It’s Really About Managing Change
• Our approach – Address the people issues– Start at the top– Involve affected parties– Make case for change– Create ownership– Communicate the message (i.e., change)
7Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
What We Did To Build Consensus and Commitment
• Conducted monthly work control managers meetings
• Formed interdisciplinary teams to address issues
• Conducted multiple pilot sessions• Communicated often with affected parties• Allowed adequate time for implementation• Provided mentoring
8Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
Have We Made A Difference?
Determining improvement• Customer feedback • Assessment results• Work Management metrics
9Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
Work Management Metrics
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Oct
-02
Dec
-02
Feb-
03
Apr-
03
Jun-
03
Aug-
03
Oct
-03
Dec
-03
Feb-
04
Apr-
04
Jun-
04
Aug-
04
Oct
-04
Dec
-04
Feb-
05
Apr-05
Jun-
05
Aug-
05
Oct
-05
Dec
-05
Feb-
06
Apr-06
Jun-
06
Aug-
06
Oct
-06
Dec
-06
Feb-
07
Apr-07
Jun-
07
Aug-
07
Average = 1.8(Apr 03 - Jan 04)
Total FH Post Job Reviews, ALARA Reviews, and Activity Level Feedback per 100 Worked JCS Work Packages
u-chart UCL
Average = 0.5(Feb 04 - Nov 05w ithout May 04)
Average = 2.1(Dec 05 - Oct 06)
New FeedbackSoftw are
Average = 1.0(Nov 06 -Apr 07)
Work Organization and Planning Less than Adequate CAMS/DTS with Apparent or Root Cause A4B3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Jan-
04
Mar
-04
May
-04
Jul-0
4
Sep
-04
Nov
-04
Jan-
05
Mar
-05
May
-05
Jul-0
5
Sep
-05
Nov
-05
Jan-
06
Mar
-06
May
-06
Jul-0
6
Sep
-06
Nov
-06
Jan-
07
Mar
-07
May
-07
Jul-0
7
Sep-
07
Month (Origination Date)
Num
ber o
f AR
's
Average = 9.6(Jan 04 - Sep 05)
c-chart UCL
c-chart LCL
Average = 5.1(Oct 05 - Mar 07) > 7 in a row
below average
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
Month Completed
Perc
ent o
f Pac
kage
s Co
mpl
eted
with
out S
uspe
nsio
n
UCL
LCL
Average = 93%(Jan 03 - Jan 05)
Percent of Work Packages Completed without unplanned Suspension(s)
Average = 95%(Nov 06 - May 07)
RL Facility Representative Operational AwarenessMaintenance/ Work Planning Findings and Observations by Month
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Jul-0
6
Aug
-06
Sep
-06
Oct
-06
Nov
-06
Dec
-06
Jan-
07
Feb-
07
Mar
-07
Apr-
07
May
-07
Jun-
07
Jul-0
7
Aug
-07
Sep
-07
Month Observed
No.
of F
indi
ngs
and
Obs
erva
tions
c-chart UCL
Average = 3.6(Jul 06 - Jan 07)
10Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
What Made It Work
• Person leading effort was knowledgeable and passionate about the work management process, personable, and well respected by peers
• Allowing time needed to reach solution consensus
• Allowing adequate implementation time frame
• Responding to specific issues that arise • Communicating often
11Environment * Safety * Health * Quality
Bottom Line
It is all about:
CommunicationCommunicationCommunication