Maintenance productivity concepts have been around since public transit agencies were founded. In the 1980s, transit agencies were compelled to set time standards for repetitive maintenance tasks, preventive maintenance programs, and repair functions. Repair times and written procedures for maintenance tasks were established and provided as productivity improvement tools. Some were successful; others were not. The advent of computerized maintenance record keeping in the 1990s facilitated data collection, analysis, and information dissemination, and supported faster problem solving. However, the nature of public transit agency operations requires that transit agencies continually strive to do more with less. Currently, tight operating budgets are forcing transit agencies to look closely at productivity improvements without compromising safety and quality. Transit agency operating budgets have been the subject of in-depth review to be more efficient concerning the costs of performing maintenance. In response, public and political interests are increasing the pressure on transit agencies to be more efficient, reduce costs, and improve service before increasing fares. For public transit agencies to improve productivity, management must communicate a strong commitment down through the ranks of the agency, and the employee union must be included as a partner. Agencies that have already partnered with the employee unions to institute productivity programs have shown success in demonstrating that a productivity improvement program can provide a more efficient and safer use of personnel at a lower cost. The results of a survey and follow-up telephone interviews indicate that all transit agencies are interested in increasing productivity, and a large body of information and documentation is widely shared throughout the industry. Documented work procedures and processes are the first necessary steps. Some agencies have sufficient staff to generate their own documentation, whereas others modify documents obtained from the manufacturers and/or other transit agencies to conform to their own operating conditions. A few transit systems have provided internal documentation on standards for use by other agencies and have posted them on the TRB’s Transit Maintenance Webboard (http://webboard.trb.org/~A1E16). Many transit agencies use standards as a guide to what they expect their employees to meet when accomplishing a specific maintenance task, and some agencies use the standards as a goal. The term “standard repair time” is now being used to describe the proper procedures and time required to accomplish those procedures. However, most agencies will consider using a standard that includes a timely procedure, including safety and quality factors. The survey found that the most common performance indicators for ensuring quality, reducing costs, and improving productivity include road calls, repeat failures, making pullouts, component rebuild costs, and component life. Monitoring of those indicators is important. Also, incentive programs can be successfully integrated into productivity improvement programs and simultaneously increase employee morale. The survey also indicated that integrating parts kits and bills of material, special tools, and equipment produces positive improvements. All agencies agreed that training is an important factor in productivity improvement. The use of the electronic diagnostic features of the engine, transmission, and other components has been found to reduce overall diagnostics time. Additional training is always desired, especially where there is new equipment and newer diagnostic technology. This synthesis summarizes the experiences of transit properties that vary in size, union affiliation, and operating conditions in using various maintenance productivity improvements and programs. It also provides descriptions of successful programs and creative modifications to existing programs. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting