An Roinn Cosanta Óglaigh na hÉireann Department of Defence Defence Forces
Download 496.54 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 6. Performance Monitoring System
- 6.1 Performance Monitoring System
- Suggested Key Performance Indicators
5.4 RecommendationsThe Steering Committee found that maintenance outputs are meeting the objectives of Naval Service vessel maintenance. This was confirmed by the fact that operational readiness and deployment targets are being achieved to a high level and the low incidence of unscheduled maintenance resulting in lost patrol days as outlined in Section 5.1. The Steering Committee agreed that the current maintenance management structures in the Naval Service provide a sound basis for effective maintenance management. Implementation of the recommendations outlined in previous chapters requiring improvements to management information is critical in improving the performance management of the maintenance function. Whilst PIMM has responsibility for scheduling maintenance requirements the Steering Committee noted that the execution of maintenance was the responsibility of several stakeholders namely:
In addition Tech Stores have responsibility for procuring certain inventory and contracted services. The responsibility for procuring inventory and contracted services also rests with other stakeholders. The Steering Committee agreed that better co-ordination of all available maintenance resources coupled with improved performance measurement data will significantly improve the effectiveness of maintenance management in the Naval Service and makes the following recommendations:
This team should be comprised of management representatives from each of the shore based units responsible for conducting maintenance and be chaired by a representative from Maintenance Management Section. Representatives from ship’s management will participate where required. The 2 I/C of NSC will chair the MMT. This team will be responsible for project managing fleet maintenance execution for each calendar year.
This plan will outline prioritised fleet maintenance requirements including vessel re-fits, planned scheduled maintenance and modernisation upgrades. The overarching project plan will highlight inputs required from each unit (including vessels) and outline staff resource inputs and inventory requirements. It is anticipated that this overarching plan will represent an aggregation of project plans for each vessel. This approach should also allow for the assignment of a notional maintenance budget for each vessel. A co-ordinated approach to procurement should maximise opportunities for aggregation.
In order to provide for assignment of additional resources if required or re-prioritise maintenance inputs i.e. due to unscheduled maintenance requirements, the MMT will closely monitor project implementation and resource utilisation. The implications of resource re-prioritisation will be considered against the overarching project plan. Figure 5.2 outlines the revised maintenance management process. Figure 5.2 Revised Maintenance Management Process 
6. Performance Monitoring SystemThis chapter addresses the following term of reference:
6.1 Performance Monitoring SystemThe objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance as previously stated in Chapter 1 is “to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition, or to restore said vessels to a determined state or condition, in order to meet operational readiness and deployment targets.” Performance indicators must measure if the Naval Service and its units are achieving this objective in the most economic and efficient manner. This in turn will inform decision-making on maintenance issues and how the Naval Service are performing in their maintenance of vessels. The Steering Committee were cognisant of the fact that the Naval Service have developed a Balanced Score Card (BSC) for monitoring all aspects of Naval Service performance. The BSC has been used by the Naval Service to ensure that the, “emphasis is centred on obtaining the best value for money in terms of the quality of service and the range of services provided within the envelope of finance provided.” The BSC provides the Naval Service with a mechanism to monitor progress in achieving this objective from four perspectives. The perspectives are outlined below in an extract from the BSC.
The Steering Committee are confident that many of the performance indicators identified in the BSC relating to vessel maintenance remain relevant and should be retained. Some existing performance indicators require modification. It was also believed that the introduction of a number of new indicators would improve the Naval Service ability to monitor performance of vessel maintenance. The Steering Committee therefore developed indicators that could be absorbed into the current structure of the BSC and enhance its ability to monitor the performance of Naval Service vessel maintenance. Furthermore, the Steering Committee took the view that the programme logic model, used as the basis for the Review, was also the most appropriate basis for identifying relevant performance indicators for each of the constituent elements of the programme. The application of the model provides an analytical framework for the identification of inputs, activities, outputs and intermediate outcomes related to the programme and facilitates analysis of the linkage between the constituent parts of the programme. To properly measure the performance of the programme, it was identified that the following types of indicators were appropriate: Efficiency Indicators – how efficiently do we use the resources to produce our outputs? These indicators are used to help guide resource allocation decisions by managers. They are predominantly quantitative, with a heavy emphasis on financial data, productivity and timeliness. Quality Indicators – to what extent are the expectations of customers and stakeholders being met? They include among other things measures of reliability. Effectiveness Indicators – are we doing what we set out to do? They relate inputs and outputs to outcomes. They are used for external reports and for high-level internal management reports, including qualitative and quantitative data. 6.2 Recommended Performance Indicators Having considered Naval Service vessel maintenance, the Steering Committee recommends the following performance indicators based on the programme logic model identified earlier. Figure 6.1 Recommended Performance Indicators
This section will develop on the performance indicators identified under the programme logic model and will outline:
In most cases, the indicators identified are in fact a set of indicators to measure Naval Service vessel maintenance on a ship-by-ship and/or on a unit by basis, depending on which is the most appropriate. These indicators will be aggregated into an overall indicator for the Naval Service. Additionally, some act as a set of indicators that incorporate the constituent cost drivers of maintenance – staff, inventory, etc. These indicators will again aggregate into a Naval Service indicator, which allows for a comprehensive view of Naval Service performance and ease of analysis. 1. Percentage of Tech Stores Inventory Requisitions < €250 – This performance indicator arises as a result of the recommendation in Chapter 4 “[that] every effort be made to aggregate orders and reduce the number of smaller orders of inventory in order to fully exploit the economies of scale achievable in ordering inventory.” This indicator will measure Naval Service success in aggregating orders for inventory and the management of the inventory supply chain. Due to the nature of some of the inventory required for Naval Service maintenance and the need for a local purchase facility, there will always be a requirement for some number of small orders. For this reason, the target for the numbers of orders less then €250 in value, is set at less then 10% of the total number of orders.
“Notional budgets for each ship should be developed with a system to monitor outturn against assigned budgets. The notional budgets for each of the vessels should be apportioned to the individual vessels with performance monitored by OC PIMM.” This set of indicators will measure the effectiveness of Naval Service management in estimating their maintenance requirements and allow for better monitoring of budgeted maintenance expenditure. Notional budgets will be set for each of the individual ships using the four cost drivers - staff, inventory, contracted maintenance and equipment costs, as the basic building blocks. Outturn will be measured against budgets on three levels - for each of these cost drivers, on a ship-by-ship basis and across the Naval Service.
“The Steering Committee recommend, that major PPM routines are isolated and that standard times are introduced for each of these routines. Utilising manufacturers, USCG and other suitable comparative data can identify standard times for the major service routines” This set of performance indicators will monitor the economic and efficient management of maintenance inputs. Standard times should be developed for all major service routines on each of the Naval Service vessels with actual time taken to complete these routines measured against those standard times. The reason for major service routines exceeding standard times should be indicated under the following headings:
This will allow speedy analysis of variance between standard and actual times for completing routines. This indicator should be reported on a ship-by-ship and unit basis aggregating into a Naval Service indicator. Target – 100% of major service routines completed within standard times 4. Percentage of PPM per annual maintenance schedule completed - This set of performance indicators arises from the need to monitor performance of Naval Service maintenance against PPM schedules set by PIMM. They will measure the efficiency with which maintenance is managed and conducted to complete annual maintenance schedules. The set of indicators should identify performance on a ship-by-ship basis, which can be aggregated to an overall Naval Service performance indicator. The raw data for quantifying this measure is already being recorded on a ship-by-ship basis using Excel, AMOS and EAM. The reason for any PPM not being completed should be indicated within the confines of the following categories:
This indicator should be reported on a unit and ship-by-ship basis aggregating into a Naval Service indicator. Target - 100% 5. Percentage of days Naval Service vessels are deployed or at a state of readiness21 - This performance indicator arises as a result of the stated objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance earlier in this chapter “to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition…… in order to meet operational readiness and deployment targets.” This performance indicator is also identified in the Defence Forces’ Annual Plan 2008. These indicators will measure how effectively the Naval Service manage and conduct maintenance, by identifying the proportion of the year that each Naval Service vessel is deployed or at a state of readiness. The set of indicators should identify performance on a ship-by-ship basis, which can be aggregated to an overall Naval Service performance indicator. Naval Service vessels should be deployed or at a state of readiness 90% of the calendar year, in line with the Defence Forces’ Annual Plan 2008 and targets set in agreed MOUs and SLAs.
“to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition…… in order to meet operational… deployment targets.” This set of performance indicators will measure the effectiveness of Naval Service vessel maintenance. They will record patrol days lost due to UCM on a ship-by-ship basis aggregating into a measure for the performance of the Naval Service. Patrol days lost to UCM should be categorised and reported under the category the defective component relates to.
This will facilitate the analysis of the reasons for UCM. Target – 10. 7. Number of patrol days achieved by the Naval Service - This performance indicator arises as a result of the stated objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance earlier in this chapter, “to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition…… in order to meet…deployment targets.” This set of performance indicators will again measure the effectiveness of Naval Service maintenance. The indicators will report the number of patrol days on a ship-by-ship basis, which will aggregate into a performance indicator for the Naval Service. This performance indicator is already contained within draft SLAs between the Naval Service and the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) and is being reported on an annual basis. This practice should continue with the full set of performance indicators being monitored, in line with targets set in MOUs and SLAs, on a quarterly basis with corrective action taken as necessary. Current Target – 1,680. 6.3.2 Recording and Reporting Performance A formal system to record and report performance of Naval Service vessel maintenance against the identified indicators is fundamental to the success of any performance measurement system. The previously established Naval Service BSC provides the most appropriate mechanism for recording and reporting on performance. Baseline data should be collected to enable progress to be monitored. Progress against performance indicators should be recorded in such a way as to allow performance to be monitored at any given time with six-monthly results being reported on. Download 496.54 Kb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||
