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
