S01CH03_Higgins 1/4/02 12:02 PM Page 1.

27

CHAPTER 3
AREA AND CENTRALIZED
MAINTENANCE CONTROL
Joseph McGuen
President, Albert Ramond and Associates, Inc.,
Management Consultants, Hinsdale, Ill.

GENERAL

Considerable confusion has developed in the discussion of area and central maintenance control,
mainly because a clear definition of the items being dispersed or centralized has not been made. The
two most critical items in this discussion are geography and organization.

Geography. The distribution of men, tools, material, etc., to positions within the plant site, geo-
graphically central meaning all men, tools, and material located at one point
Organization. The direct organization control of craftsmen, including their supervision, schedul-
ing, and guidance, organizationally central meaning the control of all maintenance in the facility
by one person below the level of site manager

It is also important to remind the reader that no plant need be established all area, all central, etc.,
but instead each should utilize the advantages of each possibility to fit the particular needs of the spe-
cific plant. Based on this, it is conceivable that owing to geography, plant age, etc., various plants
making the same product within the same basic organization could be structured in quite different
manners.
As a result, there is no proper way to recommend a specific format for any plant or situation.
Instead, certain concepts will be discussed and several actual examples presented along with some
of the advantages and disadvantages of each. Each plant must thus utilize this information to make
the specific decisions for its specific situation.
It is generally true that if a maintenance structure is geographically centralized, it will be organi-
zationally centralized, although theoretically it need not be. On the other hand, a maintenance struc-
ture which is geographically area-oriented can be controlled either centrally or by area depending on
many factors described in this chapter.
There is a universal desire of every production manager to have his maintenance available when
he needs it. The cost of downtime is often inflated to the point where justification for organizational
and geographic area maintenance is quite obvious. If there were no cost penalties for area concepts,
this would not be bad, but unfortunately there is often an increased cost in area concepts due to
duplication of tools, idle crafts, unbalanced backlog and work loads, etc. It is important that the over-
all balance be reviewed and real cost penalties and/or advantages be evaluated.

1.27

Copyright 2002 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Click Here for Terms of Use.
S01CH03_Higgins 1/4/02 12:02 PM Page 1.28

1.28 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MAINTENANCE FUNCTION

ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED

The following list presents (in no special order) some of the items which must be considered in each
plant in determining the degree to which central and/or area maintenance is to be utilized.

Plant Size. Very large plants which require vehicular transportation to reach various locations often
result in geographical-area maintenance to allow overall efficiency. Plant size, however, is not nec-
essarily the predominant factor in the decision as to whether or not to have organizational-area main-
tenance.

Number of Buildings, Floors, Etc. Manufacturing facilities which, although small by comparison,
have many buildings or floors may lend themselves to geographical-area control; however, as with
plant size, not necessarily organizationally.

Shop-Space Allocation. Shop-space allocation may force geographical centralization or area con-
trol. For example, a plant with no large space available but several small areas separated and set aside
for maintenance may dictate a geographical-area concept. Other plants may have but one large area
and no out areas and thus require geographical centralization.

Area Skill Requirements. When the maintenance skills necessary for one area of a plant are spe-
cial and specific, they may necessitate not only a geographical but also organizational area concept.
In some instances the maintenance forces may be virtually technicians and central control may be
impractical.

Area Tool Requirement. When the maintenance tools for a specific area are very special, this often
necessitates a geographical-area concept. Such is the case when one portion of a plant is explosion-
proof and the tools must be separated for special safety.

Size of Maintenance Force. The overall size of the maintenance force has a definite bearing on
decisions. When the maintenance force is very small, it is usually impractical to use area concepts,
either geographically or organizationally. The definition of small as used above is difficult, since
other factors mentioned in this chapter come into play, but in general, 15 or fewer craftsmen would
be considered small for this purpose.

Size and Distribution of Crafts. When the needs for various crafts are somewhat equal, and the
number of each craft in a production area is small, a geographical-area-oriented maintenance situa-
tion is often utilized. For example:

Area I Area II Area III

4 Craft A 2 Craft A 2 Craft A
2 Craft B 4 Craft B 2 Craft B
2 Craft C 4 Craft C 3 Craft C
3 Craft D 0 Craft D 3 Craft D
0 Craft E 2 Craft E 4 Craft E

Skill Orientation of Supervision. In the aforementioned craft distribution, an obvious requisite is

that the geographical-area foreman have the skill to supervise various assigned crafts. This does not
necessarily mean he must be expertly skilled, but he must be capable of supervising. Because of the
special supervisory skills required for certain crafts (electronics, some welding, etc.), in some cases
a combined central and area would be used for the aforementioned:
S01CH03_Higgins 1/4/02 12:02 PM Page 1.29

AREA AND CENTRALIZED MAINTENANCE CONTROL 1.29

Area I and Area III and

part of II part of II Crafts D and E
5 Craft A 2 Craft A 6 Craft D
2 Craft B 6 Craft B 6 Craft E
4 Craft C 5 Craft C
Note: This is a typical example of a combination of geographical
area and organizationally central maintenance as referred to at the
beginning of this chapter.

Number of Maintenance Supervisors. In certain plants, the number and location of craftsmen are
such that there is an uneven demand for maintenance supervision. A typical example is the maintenance
force of 17 men of several crafts, which may be more than one supervisor can properly handle, yet not
sufficient for a second supervisor. This may be handled by using an organizational-area concept:

Maintenance supervisor
service area I and II Service to area III


4 Craft A 1 Craft A Report to Area III
4 Craft B 1 Craft B production
6 Craft C 1 Craft C supervisor

Corporate Organizational Concept. Some corporate structures are divided by product line or ser-
vice, to the point where each is an autonomous group. When various groups are serviced within one
site, it is often essential to have organizational-area control. This does not necessitate geographical-
area control, but it does create certain special problems for a maintenance organization.

Cost of Downtime. When the real cost of downtime is so great that it overshadows the possible
added cost of organizational and geographical area maintenance, the area concept should be utilized.
(Note: It is often possible to become carried away with the desire to reduce maintenance costs
and in the process fail to remember that the reason for maintenance is to aid in the production of an
economically sound product. Although area maintenance may be more costly from a purely mainte-
nance standpoint, the cost of downtime can often overshadow other factors.)

EXAMPLES

As stated earlier, there are numerous combinations of area- and centralized-maintenance concepts.
Following are several examples from the authors experiences. These examples are provided to
expand further the possibilities to be considered by any plant in its decision-making process.
Plant 1. A process plant covering several square miles, over 10 basic and somewhat indepen-
dent product lines, and about 300 maintenance employees. The maintenance organization was cen-
tral, as shown in Fig. 3.1.
In this plant, all maintenance was under the control of the maintenance superintendent; however, a por-
tion of the services was geographically spread out to service the producing units, as shown in Fig. 3.2.
Each of these area shops was staffed with at least one maintenance foreman plus an appropriate
number of craftsmen such as pipefitters, welders, carpenters, field machinists, and electricians. The
area shop was physically sized and tooled to do routine repairs for the specific area; however, larger or
more complex jobs were sent to the central area for action.
S01CH03_Higgins 1/4/02 12:02 PM Page 1.30

1.30 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MAINTENANCE FUNCTION

FIGURE 3.1 Plant 1. The central maintenance organization.

FIGURE 3.2 Plant 1: The relation of the central area to the area shops.

This arrangement provided good service to the areas through craftsmen and
supervisors who were familiar with the particular area units. Travel time to jobs was
minimal, and frequently used parts or subunits were available with little or no trans-
portation problems. Esprit de corps was excellent in the various areas, sometimes to
the point where it was difficult to maintain the central organization lines in mainte-
nance and not slip to an area-oriented organization. There was a tendency to main-
tain a given number of craftsmen in the areas to meet emergencies; however, it was
difficult to maintain the productivity levels of the crafts. Often area craftsmen were
idle or were doing work in the area shop which could be much more efficiently done
in the central shop. Because of the multiskill requirements of the area foremen, it
was sometimes difficult to find and/or train men to handle the various groups.
A well-run maintenance planning and scheduling function can be an excellent
aid to such organizations, since they can distribute work, span peak periods, and
generally improve the efficiency of the various areas. They also serve as the nerve
center to utilize the central functions in serving the various areas. Once the area
groups (both production and maintenance) develop faith and understanding of a
planning function, the overall efficiency can be improved and many of the disad-
vantages of an area concept can be minimized. Crew sizes within the areas can be
minimized as long as the areas are convinced they will receive adequate aid when
jobs beyond their capabilities come up.
Plant 2. A process plant covering several square miles, four basic and inde-
pendent product lines, and about 300 maintenance employees. The product-
oriented organization resulted in area maintenance organization with a central main-
tenance facility for direction and central service. The plant organization is shown
in Fig. 3.3.
S01CH03_Higgins 1/4/02 12:02 PM Page 1.31

AREA AND CENTRALIZED MAINTENANCE CONTROL 1.31

FIGURE 3.3 Plant 2: Plant organization.

It is not the purpose of this chapter to evaluate the general organization shown in Fig. 3.3, but it
is obvious that such an organization provides a tremendous tie between the various product vice-
presidents and their appropriate producing units. At the same time, the maintenance organization
problems can become critical if not properly organized.
This plant utilized facilities similar to those of the plant described earlier (Plant 1); however, the
product area maintenance supervisor has much more control over the activities within his area. The
distribution of floating crews or central shop services was determined by the maintenance superin-
tendent, but he received his priority guidance from the plant manager as expressed by the product
vice-presidents.
The key to this organization was the priority-determination system. Maintenance priorities are
difficult at best, but the response by a plant organization to several external company officers is an
added burden. It can be done, once again with a strong central maintenance-planning staff and a cor-
porate-accepted priority concept. The most complete and objective fundamental priority concept is
RIME (relative importance of maintenance expenditure) as presented by E. T. Newbrough in
Effective Maintenance Management (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York).
Plant 3. A manufacturing plant covering several multilevel buildings with over 1,000,000 sq ft
of floor space, and about 60 maintenance employees. Because of contractual limitations, the main-
tenance employees were very craft-oriented into many small groups, as shown in Fig. 3.4.

FIGURE 3.4 Plant 3: Craft orientation in maintenance.

S01CH03_Higgins 1/4/02 12:02 PM Page 1.32

1.32 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MAINTENANCE FUNCTION

The multilevel, multibuilding plant facility and the limited availability of elevators made the
response time from the central maintenance facility quite long. Several attempts had been made to
utilize the area concepts; however, on each attempt several problems repeatedly came up. To staff
each area location with the essential crafts required a force increase of about 20 percent. Even with
such an increase, supervisory control became difficult from central; thus there was the request for
added supervision. Attempts to utilize the production supervisors as maintenance foremen proved to
be more of a problem than a solution.
This particular plant found the most efficient and economical maintenance to be a central orga-
nization with a central facility; however, each building area was equipped with a small work area and
maintenance supply facility under the control of maintenance. There were obvious times when pro-
duction delays were directly attributable to maintenance forces not being immediately available, but
their overall impact was less than the cost of an increased firehouse maintenance concept.
Plant 4. A manufacturing facility covering several square miles, one basic product with four
distinct final product configurations, multibuilding, large equipment, and about 2000 maintenance
employees. The maintenance organization was shown in Fig. 3.5.

FIGURE 3.5 Plant 4: Maintenance organization.

Because of the size of the maintenance force in this plant, plus the need for high equipment uti-
lization, the maintenance was organized on an area basis geographically and organizationally. There
was a dotted-line responsibility between the superintendent of maintenance and the area supervisors
of maintenance to provide technical and administrative guidance to the areas.
The assigned area had sufficient staffing to respond to most of the area needs with the exception
of large repair shops such as machine shops, motor repair, and construction. Because of the size and
multishift operation, the area was to a great extent self-sufficient.
In large heavy-machinery plants where equipment utilization is the economic lifeline, such area
concepts are common and have obvious advantages. Their ability to respond to the production needs
is excellent, and with a direct organizational tie to the production unit there is excellent communi-
cation with respect to priorities, goals, etc. There is usually an excellent relationship between the
operating and assigned maintenance group, since they have the same immediate supervisor. An
added advantage is that the operating superintendent is not only financially responsible for the entire
area (including maintenance) but physically responsible.
The key to this system is the area supervisor of maintenance. The particular area tends to become
a reflection of this man, and his strengths and weaknesses become a distinct part of the maintenance
program. Because of his isolation from an outside evaluation, many times these weaknesses can
cause serious problems in a given area. The dotted-line relationship between this area man and the
superintendent of maintenance is designed to reduce this individual impact, but it requires continued
management guidance to ensure that this takes place.