Can Maintenance and Operations Coexist? Lessons from a Postal Service Plant Reorganization

Traditionally, many manufacturing plants separate operations and maintenance into distinct departments, each led by its own supervisors and staffed by specialized craftspeople. A major European postal service broke this mold in the late 1990s by merging the supervisory functions of operations and maintenance. The United States Postal Service, too, has long discussed the possibility of consolidating these roles to streamline leadership and reduce the number of supervisory layers.

Implementing such a change is far from straightforward. It requires careful negotiation with unions to adjust the contractual definition of “supervision,” including shifts, wages, and working conditions. In the European case, the union agreed to reclassify operating‑equipment technicians under the umbrella of operations supervisors, effectively creating a new plant‑wide facilities maintenance support team separate from the operations‑maintenance crew.

The facilities team assumed responsibility for everything that does not involve operating equipment—storerooms, custodial services, HVAC, plant infrastructure, and the computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). Facilities planners handled work‑order estimation, while the operations side gained direct control over both production machinery and its maintenance schedules.

The goal was to form cross‑functional teams that could reduce downtime, detect degradation early, and keep maintenance staff engaged. In mail‑processing facilities, where maintenance personnel spend a significant amount of time on “area assurance,” operations hoped to capitalize on that expertise.

Key Findings from the Pilot

• Supervisors struggled to communicate effectively with technicians, offering little value when equipment failed and lacking the knowledge to assess technician performance.
• Supervisors leaned toward operators, avoiding technicians until a breakdown occurred. Technicians felt subordinated and underappreciated, leading to a decline in discretionary effort and creative problem‑solving.
• Area assurance was misinterpreted, and supervisors felt uneasy about appearing lax toward technicians while pushing operators, reducing collaboration between the two groups.
• Technicians sensed disenfranchisement, feeling disconnected from the camaraderie, mutual support, and advocacy they previously enjoyed within maintenance.
• Discrepancies arose between technicians, estimators, and supervisors regarding planned work orders, as supervisors tried to navigate a fragmented process they once oversaw.

The pilot was rolled out one plant at a time, revealing that a blanket approach does not work. Some plants reverted to the original structure, while others adapted the new model with modifications based on lessons learned. The data suggest that retraining maintenance supervisors to manage mixed teams of operators and technicians can yield better outcomes.

Strategic Recommendations

Successful integration hinges on clearly defining each role and ensuring that all team members understand their responsibilities in the new workflow. One effective method is to have teams walk through a typical workday in the proposed structure, allowing them to identify potential friction points early. This rehearsal should be conducted before implementation and revisited regularly to reinforce alignment.

When contemplating such a structural shift, begin with facilitated training sessions on change management and pair them with process‑management redesign tools from quality and reengineering disciplines. These resources provide the framework needed to navigate the human and operational complexities inherent in merging maintenance and operations.