Work orders, electronic or paper, should show the labor time estimate to the assigned craftspersons. However, industry has two schools of thought on this topic. One school holds that we should not tell the craftsperson the time estimate primarily to avoid lingering if the estimate is excessive. The other school holds that we should give the craftsperson as much knowledge as possible for a number of reasons. Because this whole issue affects both productivity and quality, it certainly merits discussion.
Let’s say a planner estimates that a certain job should take a craftsperson 5 hours of labor, but the particular assigned craftsperson can finish the job in only 2 hours. In this example, some managers fear that if the work order shows the estimate, the craftsperson will take all 5 hours on the job, killing productivity. (Parkinson’s Law says that, indeed, the work assigned expands to fill the time available.) Worst case: If every job could be done in only 40% of its estimate, perhaps the entire workforce is grossly oversized. On the other hand, perhaps another craftsperson would really need 8 hours to do that same job correctly; in this case, managers fear that this craftsperson will cut corners, killing quality, to do the job in 5 hours. Wouldn’t it be better not to show the estimate and let craftspersons simply work at a determined pace and complete jobs in a quality manner without worrying about the estimate?
The problems with not showing time estimates
In my experience, there are a number of problems with not showing time estimates including Parkinson’s Law itself, not having “typical” humans, and factors involving estimating itself and knowing exact job scopes. Another problem is one of treating professional craftspersons as children. A final problem is not considering the rest of the maintenance system when dealing with time estimates.
First, Parkinson’s Law affects our productivity whether or not we show the estimates to craftspersons. If we assign work, how much should we assign? If we assign a craftsperson two jobs (without visible estimates) for the day, aren’t we saying that this is a full day’s work and thus the two jobs should take all day? The worst case would be assigning a single job at a time saying, “Come back when you are finished.” Doesn’t that imply it might be acceptable to take all day?
Second, if we assign a single job at a time, an additional human factor comes in – i.e., there is no “typical” human. Some craftspersons are naturally faster and some are naturally slower than others. We worry about super-fast craftspersons, but we do not want to slow them down if they are competently completing assignments. And to protect quality, we hesitate to speed up the naturally slower craftspersons. Real life experience with assigning a single job at a time shows that some persons come back for more work continually throughout the day, some persons seem to never come back for more work, and the persons in the middle wonder if they came back enough times and how that affects their reputation.
Furthermore, planners do not know the exact scope for many corrective maintenance jobs and even for some preventive maintenance jobs. Exactly what needs to be done to stop the leak on that pump? Will the PM technician find a few extra things to remedy along the route? Should the planners put extra time on all these jobs just in case we find something else or assign a slower craftsperson? If planners do add extra time on all the work estimates, Parkinson’s Law kills our productivity. Another factor is that a visible time estimate itself also helps clarify the job scope. The time allotted for a cleaning job sort of helps tell “how clean.” A short time for a sparkplug change helps clarify that we are not changing all the engine filters and hoses.
The benefits of adding time estimates: increased trust and a more proactive mindset
We must also consider Douglas McGregor’s “Theory X and Theory Y.” Theory X says that if you treat people like children, they tend to act like children; whereas Theory Y says that if you treat people like adults, they tend to act like adults. Isn’t it demeaning to not tell an adult craftsperson the time expected on a task? Doesn’t that imply we do not trust them? Accordingly, visible estimates show that each crew is getting a full week’s worth of work and each craftsperson is getting a full day’s worth of work. If the craftsperson needs longer to do a job right, we need to take longer. Quality is king. Management must NEVER downgrade a craftsperson for taking longer on work simply by comparing actual versus planned times.
Finally, time estimates are not “the silver bullet.” We need to assign enough work for the week and each day using the not-so-accurate times. We still need supervisors in the field. Fully loading crews with work for the week and supervisors being in the field together defeats Parkinson’s Law to take care of productivity. We need to generate proactive work. We need skilled craftspersons. We need planners making plans better over the years, especially with adult craftsperson feedback. Skilled craftspersons allowed to take their time and planners continually upgrading plans takes care of quality. We also programs generating proactive work and reliability persons doing root cause analysis and developing projects for upgrading inherently unreliable assets. And we need managers maturely leading all these efforts. We have to do all this stuff.
Don’t compromise your craftspersons by withholding trust regarding time estimates. We must work together to make our facilities great. Treat craftspersons as the adults they are and provide them with the information to complete the work assigned as best they can. Don’t settle for good. Be great!
