Reframing Downtime: A Collaborative Approach to Allocation and Analysis

In many process industries, downtime losses are frequently assigned to a single department—operations, mechanical, or electrical—based on subjective judgments. This blame‑centric approach can create unintended consequences.

I recall a morning meeting at a pulp mill where 50 tons of production were lost due to a leak in an elbow of a secondary knotter reject pipe. The secondary knotter is the final stage of coarse debris removal after the pulp exits the digesters, where wood chips are cooked to raw pulp.

Operations superintendent: "The reject pipe is a piece of mechanical equipment, so this is mechanical downtime."

Maintenance superintendent: "Sorry, but the pipe wore out because your operators have been running the chip piles too low and putting a lot of gravel through the system. It's not designed for that. It's operations' fault."

Operations: "But the reason for that is the chip conveyor to the chip pile keeps breaking down, so the pile has gotten so low that they're scraping the bottom, and the chip conveyor problem is definitely mechanical."

Maintenance: "The conveyor breaks down because the operators aren't keeping the conveyor gallery clean, and chips get caught under the drums and run the belt off. That's an operations problem."

Operations: "But we can't clean it because the air line that supplies the lances for blowing under the conveyor is rusted out, and we have no air there. That's mechanical."

Maintenance: "OK, so what's the work order to repair the air line? We'll get on to it tomorrow."

Operations: "We haven't submitted a work order yet. I'll do that right now."

The point is that downtime is downtime, and the focus should be on preventing the problems from recurring, not on assigning blame. Arguments over blame fracture the operations‑maintenance partnership and become especially loud when departmental downtime figures feed into incentive programs.

A prudent manager would recognize that the root causes were a lack of communication between operations and maintenance and a failure to follow the work‑order, backlog, priority‑setting, and scheduling processes. If a mechanical inspection program exists, it should be reviewed, especially for gaps such as corroded service piping.

Fortunately, there is a better way. Instead of assigning blame, treat downtime as a joint responsibility of the operations‑maintenance partnership. Record all losses against the equipment or event that caused the downtime (e.g., Eq. No. 23-4567, No. 3 hot oil pump, or raw material delivery delayed by a rail strike). Then assign the responsibility for action to the department best positioned to initiate and follow through, even if that department isn’t directly involved in the day‑to‑day operation.

For instance, in a pulp mill where a large fiberglass pipe failed during startup, the root cause was traced to insufficient operator training on the correct startup procedure. Responsibility was assigned to the engineering department, which trained operators on pump and piping fundamentals and developed a standard operating procedure for each pump.

After a major downtime event, the first step is a root‑cause analysis. This may involve a small team of experts or a broader investigation. Managers must ensure that the assigned party takes the required actions. If the action includes creating a work order for preventive or corrective maintenance or redesign, managers must also verify that the work is completed.

If your operation is ISO 9000‑qualified, maintenance provides a tool to track corrective action requests (CARs) and preventive action requests (PARs). Otherwise, use a 'how initiated' field in the work‑order database—one of the drop‑down values can be 'investigation'—to capture all such work orders. A 'reason' field can further categorize investigation orders by safety, operations, environment, etc.

Remember, nothing constructive emerges from assigning blame. While individual problems deserve attention, the greatest value comes from improving business processes so that a culture of problem avoidance takes root.