One of the most enjoyable parts of my job is visiting sites. I get to see many, and the differences between the processes, the way local problems are solved, etc are interesting and sometimes a source of inspiration.
But whenever I look at a facility, I make one conclusion based purely on visual information … is this a SAFE facility? First impressions apply to facilities as well as people, and this is my first impression.
It got me thinking … if that is my first impression, what do other people think? Is the first impression of a facility THAT important?
Of course the answer depends on the situation. If you are recruiting a new person to work for you, then I think the answer is an emphatic YES. And this is where your maintenance budget will impact (probably adversely) your ability to recruit and keep talent.
I recently visited a facility that was about 25 years old. It was showing its age, but the facility had been maintained exceptionally well. There were no weeds, the steam traps were working, the concrete was not cracking, and the fences were not falling down. My first impression was that this would be a good place to work. Management had made the decision to INVEST in maintenance, and any organisation that is willing to invest in maintenance is probably willing to invest in people. And because the facility was over 20 years old, it was apparent that the decision to invest was perpetual. I found this more impressive because the facility was in a small town with essentially no competition for skilled resources, meaning this company was truly willing to invest in the community.
I also recently visited another facility that was about 20 years old. It too was showing its age, but it had been neglected for a few years. There were weeds on the plant grounds, concrete was cracked, but the most telling issue was one fin-fan cooler. Operations had supplemented the cooling on hot days with a water spray, and they had done it so often that the concrete foundations for the fin-fan cooler had moss growing on it. My first impression was that this would not be a good place to work. It is worth noting that this facility has become one of my customers, and I have found the people and management team to be fantastic, but it took an effort to overcome my first impression.
Which leads me to my topic … if your maintenance budget is reduced, how will that affect your ability to attract talent? Will they want to join a facility that is “too cheap” to manage the weeds or repair cracked concrete? Will they want to join an organisation that is not willing to make an investment in maintenance? A company that is not willing to invest in maintenance is probably not willing to invest in anything.
Why am I using the words “invest” and “maintenance”? Well, this is my anecdotal observation (not supported by detailed surveys, but merely my first impressions). Organisations that view maintenance as an investment opportunity tend to be organisations that actively SEEK opportunities for improvement, because they understand that improvement can come in a variety of forms, but almost all result in a positive result to one of the bottom lines. These tend to be organisations that reward good contributions. Looking back at my career, I was able to accomplish more when the organisation was actively looking for improvement. I also doubt if it is a coincidence that those organisations were also quite profitable (more so than the organisations that carefully monitored expenses and did not actively seek improvements).
So in conclusion, I guess we can add one more downside to deferring or delaying maintenance … permanent loss of talent, both by people leaving the organisation and people not wanting to join the organisation.
What is your maintenance budget saying about YOUR facility?