Implementing new software can bring significant improvement in a working process’ performance and reliability. A case from my career provides an illustrative example of this. My work at the time involved identifying potential points of critical points of failure in over 2300000 functional locations, assigning preventive maintenance (PM) tasks and matching them with functional equipment groups (FEG). Finally, my responsibilities included tracking the time these FEGs took completing their assignments to ensure an even distribution of work and availability for urgent tasks.
To organize this work, I initially used an operation management system (OMS) module in an Excel spreadsheet. Although this method was functional, it was inefficient and unreliable, ultimately reducing the work unit’s productivity. Due to the immense amount of functional locations and the complexity of each individual task and assignment, the method heavily relied on manual data entry. Each new entry had to be typed in by hand, which was took significant amounts of time and was susceptible to input errors. It was practically impossible not to make a mistake somewhere in the process, and at the worst times, its probability of error exceeded 80%. Thus, it was necessary to search for a more advanced replacement for the software solution that would reduce the amount of manual input and record-keeping.
After investigating the available options and internal testing, the company had a custom software solution developed, called eStrategy. It automates several functions that previously had to be performed manually and provides suggestions to decision making. Thus, transitioning to the new software reduced the possibility of input error. Furthermore, it saved time as each entry no longer had to be filled in by hand. These improvements facilitated the organization of work to a significant extent and reduced the amount of duplicate entries, assignment overlaps, incorrectly logged time, or other similar errors.
However, the transition process was faced with significant challenges that required cooperation from the stakeholders to overcome. The new software had to organize the work of three teams: the PM team, equipment reliability team, and information and communications technology (ICT) team. Thus, customizing it to each of these teams’ specifications was a necessity. Thankfully, the teams were able to collaborate and provide unified specifications to the developer.
Another critical part of the transition was migrating the data from the old OMS module to the new eStrategy software. Due to the amount of data logged in the old system, this task was not feasible to perform manually in a reasonable time frame. Thus, the ICT team had to develop additional utilities to automate the process. The PM and equipment reliability teams provided further input on the data transfer process and its organization in the new database.
The transition process was finished this year. Since then, all involved teams’ performance has increased significantly, with less time spent solving organizational issues and more efficient distribution of work. The overall reliability increased, as well, due to the significant reduction in input error and automation of previously manual processes. Finally, the same automation reduced the workload on the team members responsible for the organization of work and operation of the software. This transition, however, would not be possible without collaboration from all the teams involved. Their cooperative effort allowed them to complete the transition process sooner than initially projected and avoid serious issues that poor communication could have caused. I wish to thank every member of these teams and everyone who participated in the transition process and supported it.