IBP1146_19

MAINTENANCE PRODUCTIVITY
MEASUREMENT STUDY AT TRANSPETRO
Daniel Flores Canaan Ribeiro1, Daniel Henrique
Quaglioz Sartori2, Filipe Presta Vianna3, Jefferson
Cavalcanti de Sousa4, Thiago Correa do Quinto5

Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held
between 03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the
Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the
author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is
presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its
Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2019.

Abstract

This study aims to present the Maintenance Productivity Measurement project,

developed in Transpetro facilities, in two water transportation terminals. The study presents the
methodology used and the obtained results in comparison to the global reference numbers. The
maintenance productivity factor (“wrench time”) was calculated in each terminal using a
methodology based on forms filled out by the maintenance staff. There were also detected and
quantified the main factors responsible for the employees’ unproductive time. In the end, the
terminals presented productive time spans of 24,6% and 42,7% if compared to the total time
span. A raise in productivity reaching the levels considered ideal to each terminal, 55% and
60% respectively, would represent an upside potential of up to 3,5 million reals (BRL) a year
for the company, minimizing the maintenance costs and increasing the productive capacity.

Keywords: Productivity. Maintenance. Petroleum. Wrench Time.

1. Introduction

The productivity measurement is becoming more and more important in companies. It

provides valuable information that assist managers, engineers, planners, programmers and
supervisors to size properly the specialties, assuring the best application of the maintenance
employees during their daily activities.
The biggest coverage of the application of this method is due to the continuous increase
of the maintenance services demand. Although there has been a raise on the amount of work
attributed to field staff, there has not been a proportional raise on the labor force allocated to
execute it. Therefore, companies have been mobilizing to understand, in a structured and
evidenced way, how much productive the maintenance staff has been and, mainly, which are
the factors that prevent the employees from achieving a higher productivity. Based on the

______________________________
1
Mechanical Engineer – TRANSPETRO
2
Mechanical Engineer – TRANSPETRO
3
Mechanical Engineer – TRANSPETRO
4
Eletrotechnics Technician – TRANSPETRO
5
Master, Chemical Engineer – TRANSPETRO
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

identification of these unproductive factors, it is possible to seek for improvements that

optimize time and provide a better performance for the maintenance staff.
One of the ways to know the productivity of a team is through the measurement of the
labor productivity factor, also known as “Wrench Time”. According to Wireman (2004),
wrench time is defined as the actual amount of time that employees have their hands on their
tools performing the task that they are assigned. In other words, it represents only the time the
employee effectively spends executing the activity requested, not including breaks, preparation
or travel time.
During the first trimester of 2019, the project of Maintenance Productivity Measurement
was realized in two water transportation terminals at Transpetro, that will be labeled in this
study as “Terminal A” and “Terminal B”. The project, done independently in each terminal,
consists of the measurement of the productive and unproductive time spans related to several
activities performed in the routine of the maintenance employees.
The objective is to calculate the productivity factor of the maintenance staff on the
terminals, that is to say, the percentage of employees’ work time correspondent to the
execution of the maintenance services (wrench time). Furthermore, the key points responsible
for the unproductive time and the possible improvements to optimize the work routine and
enhance productivity. All the maintenance staffs have been involved in the study, namely,
boiler room team, electric and mechanic repairs, instrumentation and painting.

2. Methodology

The methodology used to measure the maintenance staff productivity has as a feature
the acquisition of the field information directly from the employees. During the determined
period, every day each employee filled out a form detailing the activities done by them with
their respective duration and associated codes (which will be presented in this section). The
data provided by the forms, then, were assembled being possible to determine the percentage
of time spent on each kind of activity. The work has been performed alongside to “Braidotti
Engenharia e Consultoria”.
The first step to do the study was determining the employees who would participate in
the measurement. It was established the adherence of at least 40% of the maintenance
performers so that the sample could have a good dimension, allowing to represent the whole
team. Then, the supervisor of each specialty (boilermaking, electric and mechanic repairing,
instrumentation and painting) selected the participants of his or her team. The number of
participants was 15 in Terminal A and 17 in Terminal B.
It was also decided that the measurement period would be of 10 week days for both
terminals, so that different routine scenarios could be evaluated. However, there was a big
occurrence of rain at Terminal B during the days the project was conducted, changing the
routine of the maintenance staff. Therefore, the decision of measuring for 4 more days was
taken, totaling 14 days in this terminal.

2.1. Form and Activity Codes Description

The form used has 4 essential columns. In the first one, there must be informed the start
time of the activity. In the second one, a short description of the activity must be provided. The
third corresponds to the code associated to the activity and, at last, the fourth is the duration of
that activity. Every employee routine in a day must be added to the form, from the entrance to
the exit of the terminal, including pauses to rest, personal activities and displacement.
Consequently, the start time of the first activity has to be the same of the working hours start,
2
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

just like the last has to finish in the moment he or she is leaving. Table 1 presents an example
for filling the form out.

Table 1. Example of form filling

Start Time Activity Description Code Duration (minutes)

07:30 Changing clothes 10 15
07:45 Moving to the maintenance workshop 90 5
07:50 Restroom 10 10
08:00 Daily Secure Dialogue 20 15
08:15 Awaiting permit to work 80 15
08:30 Awaiting instructions 30 10
08:40 Evaluating the service 40 10
08:50 Preparing tools 50 15
09:05 Moving to the industrial area 90 5
09:10 Performing the requested service 100 80
10:30 Break 10 10
10:40 Performing the requested service 100 50

It is important to highlight that the form is not anonymous. However, the employee must
inform only his or her name just for hand-in control. Nobody must be evaluated individually.
This contributes so that the employees fill out the form honestly.
The 14 activity codes, numbered from 10 to 140, are presented on Table 2. The codes
have been provided by “Braidotti Engenharia e Consultoria” and adapted to the scenario at
Transpetro.

Table 2. Code description

Code Type of Activity

10 Breaks/personal activities
20 Daily Secure Dialogue
30 Awaiting instructions
40 Evaluating the service
50 Preparing tools
60 Warehouse – moving
70 Warehouse – awaiting
80 Awaiting permit to work or equipment release
90 Travel (work sites/workshop)
100 Wrench time
110 Eventual – Nursing/meetings/courses
120 Storing tools and materials
130 Administrative work
140 Delay/early leaving

2.2. Field Stage

At first, an initial meeting was set with the participant supervisors and technicians in
order to clarify the methodology and train the staff to fill out the forms. This training is
fundamental to achieve good results, being an important resource to assure the correct filling
done by the employees and the full understanding of the study purpose. It is necessary that the
participant employees feel safe to report their daily activities without being afraid of being
asked afterwards for something reported. Therefore, it must be clear that none of them will be
evaluated individually, but that the result will be presented in overall, without showing their
names.

3
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

During the whole measurement period, a field monitoring has been done with the
employees. Daily, members of the staff responsible for the project kept track of the field
maintenance performers, checking if the form filling was being done correctly and helping with
occasional questions. In the beginning of each day, the forms from the previous day were
collected and new ones were handed out.

2.3. Data Analysis and Comparison

After collecting all the forms, the data were transferred to computers and compiled,
summing up the total time and the correspondent time spans of each code from the 14 listed. In
this way, it was possible to obtain the wrench time percentage (code 100) in relation to the total
time, and the same for all the other 13 codes, emphasizing the key responsible factors for the
unproductive time. Each terminal was analyzed independently, having their own results. The
numbers found, then, were compared to the international reference numbers.
According to Peters (2014), the world-class wrench time is 55% to 65%. Also Leeuwen
et al. (2009) and Kister and Hawkins (2006) present the values of about 60% and 65%
respectively.
On the other hand, wrench time values normally found in industries are considerably
lower. Smith and Mobley (2008) presents that American studies typically put this number
between 25% and 50% for North American industries. Berquist (2006) shows even lower
results. According to him, in Australia, wrench time in organizations that have not implemented
best practices for maintenance planning and scheduling is 20% to 30%. Finally, Peters (2014)
states that most companies have a wrench time between 18 and 30%.

2.4. Critical Factors for Success

To obtain a good result with the study, the following factors have great relevance:
 Total support and comprehension from the maintenance supervisors;
 Training the employees and the field monitoring during the measurement period;
 Employees’ transparency when registering the daily events correctly with their
respective time associated.

3. Results

The results obtained show the current situation of the terminal in relation to the
productivity and the improvement potential for each of them. This potential is the difference
between the current value and the reference value. As they present different characteristics, the
reference numbers considered ideal for each terminal were slightly different.

3.1. Results - Terminal A

For Terminal A the reference number considered for productivity was 55%, since it has
particularities that demand a travel time relatively high. That way, the productivity will be
slightly lower. The value of 55% considers this fact and is still in the reference range. Therefore,
it was considered appropriate for this terminal. Table 3 presents the general productivity factor
of Terminal A and each of its rooms.

4
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Table 3. Productivity of Terminal A

Section Wrench Time (%) Benchmark (%) Improvement Potential (%)

Boilermaking 23,2 55 31,8
Electric 24,6 55 30,4
Instrumentation 25,2 55 29,8
Mechanic 25,6 55 29,4
Painting 23,1 55 31,9
Terminal 24,6 55 30,4

Compared with the values found in most companies, the result obtained is in the
average, but far from the values considered optimal. This shows a typical scenario of a unit that
has not yet implemented best practices for maintenance planning and scheduling. Therefore,
there is a great potential for this terminal.
The distribution of the time spans of Terminal A according to the activity codes is shown
on Figure 1.

Figure 1. Time span distribution of Terminal A

As shown in Figure 1, the three key unproductivity factors were:

 Code 90 – Travel: 18%
 Code 10 – Breaks or personal activities: 16%
 Code 80 – Awaiting permit to work or equipment release: 13%
Based on this diagnosis, it is possible to establish actions to enhance productivity. The
high amount of time spent due to the displacement evidences the logistic difficulties. It was
already expected a high number because of the particularities of the terminal, but it can be
reduced.
The time spent with personal activities shows schedule gaps. Therefore, the employees
stay part of the time doing no activities and use this time for personal purposes. A greater
supervision presence may also help to reduce this time.

5
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

The time waiting for the permit to work shows that the alignment between maintenance
and operation sections can be improved, since the operation section is the responsible for
allowing the maintenance activities. By improving the communication between them, it is
possible to reduce this time.

3.2. Results – Terminal B

For Terminal B the reference number considered for productivity was 60%. It was taken
into consideration that because of its operation conditions, in an ideal scenario, the productivity
can be higher than at Terminal A, since the time necessary for displacement is lower. Table 4
presents the general productivity factor at Terminal B and each of its rooms.

Table 4. Productivity at Terminal B

Section Wrench Time (%) Benchmark (%) Improvement Potential (%)

Boilermaking 39,5 60 20,5
Electric 43,1 60 16,9
Instrumentation 39,3 60 20,7
Mechanic 43,8 60 16,2
Painting 46,7 60 13,3
Terminal 42,7 60 17,3

Compared with the values found in most companies, the result obtained shows that
Terminal B is above average. This means that planning and scheduling are already generating
good results in the unit. But there is still an improvement potential.
The distribution of the time spans of Terminal B according to the activity codes is shown
on Figure 2.

Figure 2. Time span distribution of Terminal B

6
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

The results show that there are higher productivity rates with an improvement potential
for this terminal. The three key unproductivity factors were:
 Code 80 – Awaiting permit to work or equipment release: 12,5%
 Code 30 – Awaiting instructions: 9,8%
 Code 90 – Travel: 8,7%
Again, the great amount of time for code 80 represents problems in the alignment
between the maintenance and operation sections. The time waiting for instructions shows
schedule gaps. Therefore, focused actions must be taken to improve this issue. To finish, the
travel time appears again showing an opportunity for improvements in logistics.

3.3. Improvement Actions

After finding the key factors related to the unproductive time, some improvement
actions were proposed in order to increase productivity.
The first point to be analyzed is travel time. In Terminal A it is necessary to use boats
to move from the maintenance workshop to the pier, where many services take place. The time
waiting for the boats is sometimes too high because they leave at set times, and it counts as
travel time. So an improvement action would be to put a speedboat to stay at the disposal of the
maintenance staff. This can be done if it is considered viable after an economic study, which
will still be carried out. About Terminal B, this is divided into two main areas with 13 km
distance between them. Therefore, one way to decrease travel time is to schedule maintenance
activities so that each employee stays in the same area throughout the day, avoiding movement
between them. Furthermore, a relevant action for the two terminals is the review of the
maintenance plans focusing on the necessary materials and tools. This prevents the employee
from returning from the work site to the workshop during the service to get some material.
Regarding the time awaiting permit to work, it is important to inform that the issue of
permit to work documents is made by the operating sector, as well as the equipment release.
Then, it is necessary to improve the relationship between maintenance and operation. A
proposed action is the implementation of a sector that integrates operation and maintenance,
facilitating communication between the parties. Another is to conduct a study to try to reduce
the bureaucracy involved in the process. It is also important to improve the activities scheduling,
avoiding cancellations and unexpected maintenances. Thus, the equipment can be released and
the documents prepared in advance. This involves training the responsible employees and
reviewing the times provided in the maintenance plans.
Time awaiting instructions is directly linked to planning and scheduling. Sometimes the
scheduled time for a maintenance activity is not adequate, which disrupts the rest of the
schedule. In other cases, services are canceled because the equipment has not been released and
it is not possible to assign other activity to the professionals at that moment, generating idle
time. Therefore, the actions for this problem also involve improving activities scheduling and
alignment between the maintenance and operation sectors. Another suggested action is to leave
some activities on hold, such as a "Plan B", in case some scheduled service is canceled.
Finally, time with personal activities is also related to programming gaps, in addition to
other factors. One suggested action is the greater presence of maintenance supervisors in the
workplace, guiding employees closely and avoiding idle time.

4. Conclusion

The maintenance productivity measurement provided important information to

Transpetro, helping to elaborate actions to make the maintenance staff more productive and by
7
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

doing that obtaining economical and productive incomes. The method used presented two
positive points. First, the possibility of having a large sample. Then, the fact that the employees
would not feel constrained as they did not have people monitoring their work all the time, did
not end up altering their routines during the maintenance periods.
The key factors related to the unproductive time were gaps in schedule, travel time and
waiting time for safety documents and equipment release. If work is done to improve these
issues, the productivity can be enhanced significantly.
The next step is the implementation of actions to optimize the key unproductive factors
detected and later perform a new measurement to evaluate the obtained income. Based on the
numbers paid by Transpetro in maintenance services contracts, a productivity increase to the
reference numbers – from 24,6% to 55% in Terminal A and from 42,7% to 60% in Terminal B
– may represent a potential profit of up to 3,5 million reais (BRL) a year, considering both
terminals. It represents a good opportunity for the company to optimize the maintenance section
even more.

5. References

BERQUIST, S. Improving maintenance workflows through the use of activity sampling to

identify and remove barriers to productivity. In: Engineering Asset Management, Springer,
London, 2006.
JANTUNEN, E., EMMANOUILIDIS, C., ARNAIZ, A., GILABERT, E. E-Maintenance:
trends, challenges and opportunities for modern industry. IFAC, v. 44, n. 1, p. 453-458, 2011.
KISTER, T. C., HAWKINS, B. Maintenance Planning and Scheduling, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Elsevier, 2006.
LEEUWEN, J. V., STEINHUBL, H. A., ROGERS, W. Beat the Clock, Booz & Company,
2009.
PETERS, R. W. Reliable Maintenance Planning, Estimating, and Scheduling, Gulf
Professional Publishing, Elsevier, 2014.
SMITH, R., MOBLEY, R. K. Rules of Thumb for Maintenance and Reliability Engineers,
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008.
WIREMAN, T. Benchmarking Best Practices in Maintenance Management, Industrial Press,
2004.