Uncontained Complexity - Plant maintenance within process industries is often complicated and managing several plants is even more difficult. The same tasks are often performed differently at different plants, even when they are owned by the same company. Uncontained, such complexity can breed inefficiencies, extend the duration of plant outages and increase costs. There is a better way. A.T. Kearney's six-step approach to managing complexity in plant maintenance helps mitigate "bad" complexity in individual plants while increasing sales and revenue potential.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region's access to feedstock and the changing nature of global demand likely means that more companies in process industries will be building production facilities in the Middle East. The players will be both primary and secondary companies, including manufacturers of petrochemicals, fertilizers and metals. Joint ventures between GCC-based companies and foreign multinationals are already common, and while this typically creates exclusivity and propriety issues, there is usually nothing to prevent the sharing of best practices across several plants operated by the same parent company.

Nonetheless, individual plants often operate independently with minimal interference from other plants or company headquarters. This often leads to unnecessary complexity - particularly in plant maintenance - as the same tasks are completed at different plants using different approaches. Considering how much value is locked up in plant maintenance improvements, managing complexity in this area is vital for improving efficiency, reducing downtime and outages and cutting overall costs.

Resolving The Impasse

"My plant is different and this procedure is too complex - those techniques won't work here." This is a common - and understandable - refrain we hear for justifying plant complexity. However, our detailed studies of plant maintenance processes find that such statements do not pass muster. Indeed, we developed a more nuanced six-step approach to complexity management that estimates objectively the "value" of complexity at different plants - eliminating the costliest complexity while making clear to all stakeholders the financial benefits of change. To this last point, the financial benefits often prove to be a vital factor for corporate managers facing resistance from individual plants.

We recently applied this approach to replace superheat bundles on a boiler for a process utility that operated numerous power plants in the Middle East. Superheat bundles are large water tubes (steam) located in the boiler that can only be replaced by taking a plant offline for up to 13 weeks. By standardizing certain processes, the company was able to shorten the outage period by 10-25 % at individual plants, representing $2 million in total additional revenues. While some steps increased costs on the front end, the net benefits - including higher profits - have been substantial.
A.T. Kearney has developed a six-step approach to manage complexity in process industries. The following outlines each step in our six-step approach:

1. Determine where to focus complexity management efforts. What processes will get the maximum impact from complexity management efforts? The ideal processes are those performed multiple times (either at different locations or during different periods), have demonstrated some unpredictability at the various sites, and have some possibility for generating tangible results. What is the key to identifying the target processes? Determining the value of the complexity relative to its cost. Some complexity adds incremental value, while some is more costly than is justified. Targets for complexity reduction should be examined for possible upstream and downstream impact on other processes.
The superheat bundle replacement work was deemed a good target. It was large, inherently complicated and expensive, and played a major role in how long and often the plant went offline - which in turn affected potential revenues. A typical outage period for bundle replacement could last up to 13 weeks, with each day adding up to a net revenue loss of as much as $250,000. And most vendors across different plants operated independently of each other with minimal communication about possible ways to shorten the process. While each power plant was slightly different, the existing level of complexity was high and unnecessary at all locations.

2. Plot current process steps. Mapping processes and outlining how they are performed will help illustrate the complexity, while plotting each step in the process will help identify all of the variations. At the end, you will have a map of your current process steps, their duration and a baseline cost for the entire process.
The superheat bundle replacement process had 19 discrete steps, which we mapped by plant, noting duration and method for each step. We also calculated process cycle efficiency, which is the percentage of total time devoted to value-added activities. The figure notes the three value-added activities in the process. By mapping the process, total duration time for each step, and tasks that could be performed concurrently, we identified which plants had considerable variations in times to perform certain steps.

3. Identify variations in the process steps. Documenting variations in each process step is the most time-consuming part of the approach, but also the most rewarding in terms of uncovering unnecessary complexity, and finding more efficient ways to perform a process. Identifying variations might be different ways of doing things based on experiences at other locations or new techniques in the market.
Experts are useful in helping to brainstorm ideas; their assistance helps generate buy-in from workers later in the implementation phase. The company conducted independent workshops with mechanical contractors and plant management to help identify faster ways to accomplish certain tasks, repeating this for every task to obtain a best-practice process for superheat bundle replacement. All additional costs necessary to implement these best practices (materials, labor or capital investments) were quantified and used in a final evaluation.

4. Determine which "best practices" to apply. In comparing the costs of best practices with the costs of current practices, every step in the process is examined for ways to reduce material costs or labor, or to shorten the cycle. Importantly, not every current practice requires replacement by a "best practice." Indeed, every location is different so new best practice steps may actually negatively affect parts of the process. So implementing a best practice requires considerable thought about its effect.
How do you know when process variation is worth keeping and when it is worth replacing with a best practice? The decision often depends on the company, the plant, and the speed or smoothness of the process, among other things. When a plant's peculiarities prevent the use of best practices, we recommend the next best practice. A step-by-step analysis creates a customized best-practice roadmap that helps reduce the duration of outages.

5. Evaluate standardization opportunities. Having one team examine processes at each plant will facilitate discussion of process standardization across plants. Subject matter experts may also help determine the feasibility of standardization. The potential to standardize should be evaluated with consideration for necessary complexity versus unnecessary complexity. One common challenge is the resistance to change - as many will see best practices as criticism of plant management. With this in mind, standardizing should not mean eliminating necessary (that is, value-adding) complexity.

6. Quantify the value of standardization. Armed with a detailed map of best-practice and standardization options across plants, the last step is to quantify their value and reduce value-destroying or unnecessary complexity. In the face of resistance, this is critical. Complexity must be justified relative to its explicit costs, such as the time to complete a complex task, and hidden costs, such as failing to take full advantage of the workforce's inherent skills. The value of standardization is quantified by the reduction in time, labor or materials due to the new simplified process.

Quantifying value is vital for implementing broad, company-wide change. Most senior executives in process industries are well aware of the potential for standardization across their plants, yet entrenched philosophies at individual plants can make it difficult. Communicating the benefits and generating broad buy-in requires hard work.

Hitting the Right Targets

Managing complexity in plant maintenance will improve efficiencies and increase financial returns for companies in the process industries. The six-step approach described in this paper will help address and simplify processes that often lead to value-destroying complexity at individual plants. The key is finding and hitting the right targets as well as generating the stakeholder buy-in that will be vital for long-term success.