South African Journal of Industrial Engineering August 2016 Vol 27(2), pp 177-189

A MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK THAT INCLUDES MAINTENANCE

HUMAN FACTORS: A CASE STUDY FROM THE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY

R. Peach1, H. Ellis1 & J.K. Visser1*

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article details Over the past two to three decades, maintenance management has
Submitted by authors 17 Sep 2015
Accepted for publication 28 Apr 2016 undergone a paradigm shift; it is no longer seen as a necessary evil,
Available online 12 Aug 2016 but as an integral part of the business process that creates value for
the organisation. The next step in the evolution of maintenance
Contact details management is a maintenance performance measurement that
* Corresponding author includes human factors. The human factors in maintenance are well-
[email protected] known in the aviation industry, as it gained momentum in the early
1990s after a series of serious aviation accidents. Other industries,
Author affiliations however, have been slow to integrate the human factor in their
1 Department of Engineering and maintenance performance measurements. This paper discusses the
Technology Management,
University of Pretoria, South results of a research project that investigated the use and
Africa importance of maintenance management performance
measurements that focus specifically on human factors as part of the
DOI overall performance management system. From the research
http://dx.doi.org/10.7166/27-2-1492 presented in this paper, ‘motivation’ and ‘competence’ were
identified as the most important human performance factors in the
maintenance of electricity transmission systems.

OPSOMMING

Instandhoudingsbestuur het ’n paradigmaskuif ondergaan in die

afgelope twee of drie dekades, vanaf ’n noodsaaklike euwel tot ’n
integrale deel van die besigheidsproses wat waarde toegevoeg tot
die organisasie. Die volgende groot ontwikkeling in
instandhoudingsbestuur is prestasiemeting waarby meslike faktore
ingesluit word. Menslike motiveringsfaktore is welbekend in die
lugvaartindustrie sedert die vroeë 1990s na ’n rits ernstige
lugvaartongelukke, maar ander industrieë was stadiger om menslike
faktore in te sluit in prestasiemeting van instandhouding. Hierdie
artikel bespreek die resultate van ’n navorsingsprojek wat die
gebruik en belangrikheid van prestasiemetings vir
instandhoudingsbestuur ondersoek het met spesifieke fokus op die
menslike faktore as deel van die totale prestasiebestuurstelsel.
Motivering en bevoegdheid is geïdentifiseer as die belangrikste
menslike prestasiefaktore vir die instandhouding van elektriese
verspreidingstelsels.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Over the past two to three decades, human factors in the maintenance environment of the aviation
industry have been well-researched. The investigation and analysis of human factors in maintenance
began in the early 1990s after a series of serious and fatal aviation accidents that were caused by
maintenance errors: the DC10 crash in 1979 that killed 273 passengers and crew, the Aloha Flight
243 in 1988 that killed 94 people, and the Fokker F28 crash in 1989 that killed 24 people [1]. Other

177
industries, however, have been slow to include human factor awareness, procedures, and
measurements in maintenance, irrespective of their applicability.

Knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics (KSAPs) are known as the ‘elements of
competence’, and appear in many different definitions of competence. This is also in line with the
PEAR model, which defines competence as a combination of psychological factors (e.g., experience,
knowledge, and training). Lucia and Lepsinger [2] define competence as “a cluster of related
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that affects a major part of one’s job (a role or responsibility), that
correlates with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and
that can be improved via training and development”.

Motivation can be linked to performance using Vroom’s expectancy theory [3]. This theory is based
on three variables: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy is the perceived
probability – or a person’s belief – that their effort will lead to a desired outcome. Instrumentality
is the perceived probability – or a person’s belief – that performance will be met with a reward.
Valence is the value the person places on the expected outcome or reward. Valence is influenced
by the person’s values, needs, goals, and preferences.

OverIn the last three decades, performance measurement has progressed from being financially-
focused and short-term (from the late 1880s to the 1980s) to adopting a balanced scorecard approach
(early 1980s) that includes financial and non-financial measurements. Multi-criteria hierarchical
frameworks for maintenance performance measurement have been the focus of researchers since
the early 2000s. These multi-criteria maintenance performance measurements integrate
performance measurements from the strategic level down to the operational level, taking into
account different stakeholders’ views [4]. This shift in maintenance performance measurement has
also been fuelled by the broader paradigm shift within maintenance management [5].

Maintenance human factors, maintenance performance, and maintenance performance

measurements are uniquely linked. The maintenance performance literature does acknowledge
maintenance human factors; however, very few maintenance performance frameworks incorporate
these human factors as measureable indicators. Measuring maintenance human factors can be seen
as a leading indicator that can predict the quality of maintenance tasks, compliance with
maintenance and safety procedures and policies, and the desire to meet performance targets. Kumar
et al. [6] also stated that by adding additional categories for measuring human factors to traditional
maintenance performance measurements, the uniqueness of maintenance performance
measurements will be increased.

This paper focuses on maintenance human factors that influence the maintenance function’s
performance within the electricity transmission environment. For the purposes of this research,
maintenance performance is defined as the ability of the maintenance function to control the cost
of maintenance, extend equipment life, and increase safety. A maintenance performance
measurement framework was developed to include maintenance human factors. A survey within
Company 1 was used to evaluate the importance of the identified maintenance human factors.
1.2 Objectives
The primary objective of this research was to determine whether motivation and competence are
the most important maintenance human factors influencing the maintenance function’s
performance within the electricity transmission industry.

The following secondary research questions were also posed:

 What influence does the competence level of the maintenance staff have on the maintenance
function?
 What is the level of staff motivation while performing maintenance tasks?
 What is the maintenance staff’s general perception of certain maintenance performance
measurements?

178
2 LITERATURE

2.1 Maintenance human factors

The quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of maintenance work are solely dependent on the
maintenance worker executing the maintenance tasks. Acknowledging that there are factors that
can influence the maintenance worker’s state of mind is critical to all activities relating to
maintenance planning and execution. Improving and predicting the maintenance worker’s
performance allows improvements and predictions to be made to the overall maintenance
department’s performance. Maintenance human factors can therefore be seen as a leading indicator
for maintenance performance.

As presented in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) PEAR model, the key focus points of a
maintenance human factor programme within the aviation industry are the people who do the job,
the environment in which they work, the actions they perform, and the resources necessary to
complete the job [7]. These four focus points have various subcategories, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: PEAR model with subcategories (Source: CASA [8] and Johnson and Maddox [7])

People Environment Actions Resources

Physical factors Physical Steps to perform a task Procedures/Work
Physical size Weather cards
Gender Workspace Sequence of activity
Age Location Number of people Technical manuals
Strength Inside/Outside involved Other people
Sensory limitations Shift Communication Test equipment
Lighting requirements
Physiological factors Sound level Tools
Nutrition Safety Information control Computers/Software
Health requirements
Paperwork/Signoffs
Lifestyle Organisational Knowledge
Fatigue Personnel requirements Ground-handling
Chemical dependency Supervision equipment
Skill requirements
Labour management Work stands and
Psychological factors relations Attitude requirements lifts
Workload Pressures Certification Fixtures
Experience Crew structure requirements
Materials
Knowledge Size of company Inspection requirements
Training Profitability Task lighting
Attitude Morale Training
Mental or emotional Corporate culture
Quality systems
state
Time
Psychosocial factors
Interpersonal conflict

2.2 Competence
The Oxford English Dictionary [20] defines competence as “a basic or minimal ability to do
something”. McClelland (in Hoge et al. [9]) defines competence as “the knowledge, skills, traits,
attitudes, self-concepts, values, or motives directly related to job performance”. Rodriguez et al.
[10] define competence as “a measurable pattern of knowledge, skill, abilities, behaviour, and other
characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions
successfully”. Hongli [11] has a similar definition that relates competence to performance by
defining competence as “a combination of knowledge, skills, behavior and other traits to improve
performance”. Lucia and Lepsinger [2] define competence as “a cluster of related knowledge, skills,
and attitudes that affects a major part of one’s job (a role or responsibility), that correlates with
performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and that can be
improved via training and development”.

Although these definitions are based on similar principles, the definitions differ over the purpose of
competence. This adds to the criticism that the word ‘competence’ is commonly used, but that its
definition can be unclear or described as a fuzzy concept because different meanings of the word
are experienced within different organisations [12, 13]. Le Deist and Winterton [13] add to this

179
critique by comparing the historical background, definitions, and concepts of competence in the
USA, UK, France, and Germany.

Competence management can identify organisational and employee knowledge, and can be used to
determine strategies to bridge the gaps in the knowledge that the organisation and employees should
have. This can empower the employees, promote innovation and effectiveness, and lead to
increased competitive advantage [14]. Competence models and frameworks are some of the main
tools used in competence management.

A competence model, which is defined as a set of competencies that are required for performance
[2, 9], can be used for workforce planning, recruitment management, learning management,
performance management, career development, and succession planning [14].

Measurement and recognition of maintenance staffs’ competence can promote further competency
development, and is regarded as a critical component of maintenance resources management [15,
16]. Components of competence can be recognised through qualifications, certification, training
courses, and practical experience [15]. Practical experience should not be disregarded when
recognising competence. A survey of Swedish industries showed that 38 per cent of their
maintenance workers did not have secondary school education; but they had gained practical
experience through work-related activities and industrial courses [16]. Record-keeping of the staff’s
competence can be used to identify scarce skills, competency gaps, knowledge transfer strategies,
and resource allocation to maintenance tasks.

Managing maintenance staffs’ competence can improve performance, efficiency, and service
reactivity by reducing human error in maintenance operations, reducing maintenance rework, and
reducing maintenance task duration [17, 18]. It is essential to manage staff’s competence, as this
will contribute to the total effectiveness of the maintenance department.

Some of the literature suggests a difference between ‘competence’ and ‘competency’, but the
Oxford English Dictionary [20], Brown [19], and Le Deist and Winterton [13] suggest that the two
are synonymous; and that is how they were understood in this research. Furthermore, for the
purpose of this research, ‘maintenance staff’ refers to artisans, technicians, and engineers who are
responsible for the maintenance tasks associated with high voltage (HV) or the secondary / control
plant equipment commonly found in the asset base of an electricity transmission organisation.
2.3 Motivation
Robbins et al. [21] define motivation as “the processes that account for an individual’s intensity,
direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal. Intensity has to do with how hard a
person tries. Direction defines to what the effort is applied. Persistence is a measure of how long a
person can maintain the effort”. Motivation can be either intrinsic or extrinsic; intrinsic motivation
is self-initiated, and extrinsic motivation comes from external factors such as financial benefits or
praise.

Motivation can be fostered by employee involvement, extrinsic rewards (performance-related pay,

bonuses, skill-based pay, profit-sharing, and cash alternatives), job satisfaction through job design,
management communication and performance feedback, recognition, flexi–time, and
telecommuting [3, 22, 23]. Care should be taken when focusing only on the financial motivations
method: the rewards might not form part of the employee’s valence, and might therefore not
address the person’s intrinsic motivational needs [24].

Motivation within maintenance management is essential, as motivation can be used to improve the
commitment of maintenance staff to maintenance actions, and increase their desire to achieve
performance goals.
2.4 Maintenance performance measurements
Dwight [25] defined performance as “the level to which a goal is attained”. He added that the
problem with this definition is mainly that these goals need to be defined, and that they can be
subjective. Performance measurements can be defined as “a measure equipped with baselines and
realistic targets to facilitate prognostic and/or diagnostic processes and justify associated decisions
and subsequent actions at appropriate levels in the organisation to create value in the business
process” [26].
180
Specific drawbacks of maintenance performance measurements are maintenance objectives that
are not linked to business strategies and maintenance performance measurements focusing on the
operational view; and neglecting the influence of the organisation’s maintenance policies and
influences from other departments [6]. Maintenance performance measurements can also focus on
a variety of aspects, such as equipment performance, cost performance, process performance, the
maintenance function, the maintenance work management cycle, and others [27-29].

Selecting maintenance performance measurements is mostly industry-specific, and care should be

taken not to select unnecessary measurements: this could cause wasteful effort in data acquisition
and analyses, and could hinder actual work from being done [6, 30]. Woodhouse [31] suggests that
a maximum of six measurements should be used per supervisor/manager, and Kumar et al. [6]
suggest that the measurements chosen should be the measurements that will have the biggest
impact [6].

Thirty-two transmission maintenance departments from various countries were surveyed by Bodrogi
et al. [32] and their key performance indicators were evaluated. The findings of the survey were
that the most common KPIs were maintenance work-related – for example, maintenance completion
– and that the most important measure was the overall result (reliability of the grid and the number
of equipment faults). Other measures of concern were measures of cost effectiveness and the ratio
between preventive and corrective maintenance [32].

As seen from the literature, there are several key performance measurements to measure either the
maintenance function or maintenance performance in relation to production and manufacturing.
The most comprehensive list and discussion of key performance measurements in maintenance is
provided by Wireman [33]. Some studies have also been done to determine the most commonly-used
key performance measurements within the transmission sector [34]. However, these frameworks
lack the acknowledgement and measurability of maintenance human factors.

3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Various models have been proposed that incorporate maintenance performance measurements.
Tsang et al. [35] developed a general maintenance model that takes into consideration different
factors that influence maintenance performance. However, a holistic view of all the factors and
their relationships is still lacking in this model. A conceptual model was therefore developed in this
research to address this knowledge gap relating to human factors in maintenance performance.

Maintenance performance measurements give a quantitative value to maintenance performance.

These quantitative values are used to determine whether the maintenance performance is adequate.
A feedback loop from maintenance performance measurements to maintenance performance is
created through maintenance resource management and maintenance human factors.

Maintenance performance measurements influence maintenance human factors through motivation

and the expectancy theory. Positive performance results could be rewarded through either
performance bonuses or intrinsic rewards such as job satisfaction, achievements, and the possibility
of career advancement. Negative results could influence maintenance human factors if the
maintenance staff perceive the maintenance performance measurements to be unattainable or
unrealistic.

Maintenance resource management plays a crucial role between maintenance human factors and
maintenance performance measurements through maintenance performance. Maintenance resource
management manages the maintenance human factors in a positive way to improve maintenance
performance, either through sound managerial principles or through procedures and policies such as
high performance work systems or talent management. The improved maintenance performance is
then seen in the improvement of maintenance performance measurements. Maintenance resource
management principles are used to implement corrective actions that address maintenance human
factors, should the performance not be adequate.

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model used in this research. Motivation and competence were
chosen as the main focus areas.

181
 Workload
Maintenance
performance

Personal Work planning

Competence and scheduling
factors

Maintenance
Motivation performance
Maintenance measurements
human factors

Supervision
Maintenance
Organisational resource
factors management
Performance
feedback

Figure 1: Relationship between maintenance human factors, maintenance performance

measurements, and maintenance performance
Muchiri et al. [29] developed a framework for the maintenance function aligned to manufacturing
objectives. The framework comprises three categories: maintenance strategy formulation,
maintenance effort/process, and maintenance results. Muchiri et al. [29] also provided a list of 17
leading performance indicators and 14 lagging performance indicators. In order to adapt these
performance indicators, maintenance performance measurements that meet the three criteria
mentioned in the next paragraph were chosen.

The first criterion for choosing the performance measurements was to identify leading performance
measurements with the greatest impact on lagging performance measurements. The second criterion
was that the supervisor or middle manager should have control over the factors influencing the
performance measurement. The third criterion was that the information needed for the performance
measure should be available either on an electronic management system or through the
departmental manager. Muchiri et al.’s [29] framework was chosen for this research, since it related
best to the lead author’s model and to KPI trends in her current work place. Maintenance
performance measurements meeting the above mentioned criteria were chosen from Muchiri’s [29]
leading performance indicators and lagging indicators that are illustrated in Table 2.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The importance of maintenance human factors such as competence and motivation levels was
evaluated by gathering empirical data. Empirical research is the predominant research method used
in the social sciences, especially in the disciplines of organisational behaviour, psychology, and
sociology [36]. It is also gaining popularity in some engineering fields such as engineering
management and industrial engineering. The research methodology used in this study is based on
the systematic approach to empirical research, as developed by Flynn et al. [36] for operations
management.

In theory, verification hypotheses are formulated and tested through data collection. For this
research, the following hypothesis was formulated:
 Competence and motivation are the most important maintenance human factors that influence
the maintenance function’s performance within the electricity transmission industry,
compared with supervision, workload, and performance feedback.
This hypothesis was tested through analysis of data collected via a survey questionnaire.
The survey respondents were homogeneous in the sense that all of them were responsible for
maintenance work within the electricity transmission industry in South Africa. The types of
maintenance for which these respondents are responsible are either HV plant or secondary plant
maintenance.

182
 Table 2: Maintenance performance measurement inclusive of maintenance human factors
(Source: adapted from Muchiri et al. [29])

Category Sub-category Type Measurements

Work-hours for planned maintenance work/
Planning intensity Leading
available work-hours

Work planning and Schedule intensity Leading Scheduled work-hours / available work-hours
scheduling Percentage Work-hours used for unplanned / available work-
Leading
reactive work hours
Planned downtime Leading Planned number of maintenance-related shutdowns
Schedule Percentage of work orders completed as per
Leading
compliance schedule
Backlog size Leading Percentage of work orders in backlog
Work-order
turnover Number of work orders completed / number of work
Work execution Leading
(Maintenance orders issued
completion)
Quality of
execution Leading Percentage of maintenance work requiring rework
(Rework)
Number of training (skill improvement)
Training Leading
interventions / Number of maintenance staff
Maintenance
Number of certified maintenance staff / Number of
human factors Competence Leading
maintenance staff
Motivation Leading Overall staff motivation level
Maintenance cost Lagging Total maintenance cost
Maintenance
Cost / Financial Lagging Maintenance cost per product unit
intensity
Cost of personnel Lagging Maintenance staff cost / Total maintenance cost
Number of maintenance-related shutdowns /
Downtime Lagging
Planned number of maintenance-related shutdowns
Equipment Number of failures classified by their consequences:
Number of failures Lagging
performance Operational, non-operational, safety, etc.
Availability Lagging Availability (MTBF / (MTBF + MTTR))
Regulatory Lagging SAIRI average interruption duration [min]
Safety Safety Lagging Number of accidents / incidents

A survey questionnaire was compiled and sent to all HV plant and secondary plant maintenance
workers within Eskom Transmission. The survey questions were categorised as: 1) general
information, 2) competence, 3) motivation, and 4) performance measurements.

A pilot survey questionnaire was sent to selected maintenance staff. The respondents were asked
to confirm the clarity of each question and to provide feedback on how much time was needed to
complete the questionnaire. Feedback from the pilot questionnaire resulted in the questionnaire
being revised to reduce the number of questions.

The questionnaire comprised 17 questions with 60 data fields. Ninety-eight respondents from the
staff completed the questionnaire. A questionnaire was treated as incomplete if less than 21 of the
60 data fields were completed. The results of 21 respondents were subsequently removed from the
survey, and the results of the remaining 77 completed questionnaires were used for data analysis.

The first group of questions on the survey established each respondent’s age, gender, work
experience within their present position, educational background, educational activities,
certification status, and exposure to on-the-job training. A second group of questions aimed to
determine the present motivation levels of the respondents, as well as their supervisor’s
contributions to their motivation levels. The last group of questions aimed to determine which
183
factors are important to staff motivation, as well as which values are connected to different reward
incentives. These questions were adapted from work by Robbins [21]. Question 16 was used to
determine the perceived importance that skill levels, motivation, supervision, workload, and
feedback have on improving the respondents’ work performance. The last question was used to
evaluate the respondents’ perceived importance of each of the proposed maintenance performance
measurements.

All information gathered through the survey was exported from ‘Kwiksurveys’ to Microsoft Excel.
The raw data file was modified by removing the responses of the participants who did not complete
the survey. The modified Microsoft Excel file was then analysed by the University of Pretoria’s
Department of Statistics.

5 RESULTS

Using the KSAPs elements of competence (knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics),
the workforce’s educational levels and years in their present position were used to evaluate their
knowledge elements. Certification levels were used to evaluate the ability elements. On-the-job
training refers to both knowledge and ability elements of the maintenance staff’s competence.
5.1 Competence
A slight majority of personnel have a moderate level of knowledge from work experience: 37.6 per
cent of the workforce have been in their present position for between four and seven years, while
32.5 per cent are still relatively new in their present positions (i.e., between one and three years).
The majority of the workforce (55.8 per cent) have some form of an N-level qualification, which is
typical for maintenance staff within the company.

For HV plant certification, 27.3 per cent of the staff have no certification and 39 per cent have basic
certification (e.g., theory introduction and preventive maintenance). Less than 20 per cent of the
staff are certified to perform major overhauls, and less than 7 per cent are certified as subject
matter experts. Certification for secondary plant staff follows a similar trend.

The majority of respondents (76.6 per cent) received on-the-job training, with 57.1 per cent of
respondents rating their training as ‘good’, ‘very good’, or ‘excellent’. The minority of respondents
(24 per cent) rated their on-the-job training as ‘poor’ or ‘fair’.
5.2 Motivation
No definite conclusion can be made about the present motivational levels of the maintenance
workers. About 57 per cent of respondents rated their present motivation levels as ‘good’, ‘very
good’, or ‘excellent’, and about 42 per cent rated them as ‘poor’ or ‘fair’. Even though the results
indicate a slight majority of the employees feeling motivated, the percentage of non-motivated
employees is significantly large.

A positive finding is that 70 per cent of the respondents stated that their direct supervisor plays a
positive role in improving their motivation. Figure 2 ranks these motivational improvement strategies
in terms of the percentage of respondents stating that the motivational improvement strategy was
very important.

It is interesting to note that remuneration-related issues rank only number 4 and number 12 on this
distribution. Opportunities for personal growth and development and for developing new skills and
knowledge rank number 1 and 2 respectively as motivational factors. This strengthens the
importance of competence as an important maintenance human factor that influences the
maintenance function’s performance.
5.3 Importance ranking of motivation and competence human factors
In the survey, the word ‘skill’ was used instead of ‘competence’. The reason for this is to respond
to political sensitivity within the organisation. The word ‘competence’ has a negative connotation
for most staff members because of the negative use of the word ‘incompetent’ in the workplace.
Table 3 illustrates the five maintenance human factors compared in the survey, and the order of
importance these factors have for improving work performance, as stated by the survey respondents.

184
 90

Number of respondents (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

stretched, allowing for…

Feeling valued and

Good pay for my work

A complete fringe-benefit
Cooperative relations with my

Opportunity for independent

Opportunity to develop close

Developing new skills and
Opportunities for personal

Frequent raises in pay

A sense of security from

Openness and honesty with

Being accepted by others

growth and development

Being challenged and

knowledge at work

appreciated

thought and action

friendships at work
bodily harm

my co-workers

programme
co-workers

Figure 2: Importance of motivation improvement strategies

Table 3: Importance of maintenance human factors

Maintenance human factor Ranking Ratio (%)

Skill level 1 57.1

Motivation 2 55.8
Supervision 3 52.8

Workload 4 51.9

Feedback 5 51.9

5.4 Performance measurements

The respondents were asked to rate the importance of the 20 maintenance performance
measurements. Table 4 indicates the five performance measurements regarded as the most
important by the respondents.
Table 4: The five most important performance measurements

Performance measurement Sub-category Type Ratio (%)

Number of equipment failures Equipment performance Lagging 55.8

Number of training (skill improvement)

Maintenance human
interventions / Number of Leading 54.6
factors
maintenance staff

Number of work orders completed /

Work execution Leading 53.3
Number of work orders issued

Percentage of work orders in backlog Work execution Leading 52.0

Number of accidents / incidents Safety Lagging 52.0

The number of equipment failures was identified as the most important performance measure;
together with the third and fourth most important performance measurements, this indicates a
reactive maintenance culture, as immediate breakdowns (lagging indicator to equipment
performance) take preference over work identification, work planning, and work scheduling, which
are needed for a preventive maintenance culture.

185
The third and fourth most important performance measurements relate to performance
measurements used currently. Even though the only official performance measurement for
maintenance is ‘maintenance completion’ (number of work orders completed / number of work
orders issued), much focus is placed on backlog because supervisors use these backlog reports to
focus their attention on identifying work orders that need to be completed.

The second most important performance measurement relates to skills (number of training [skill
improvement] interventions / number of maintenance staff), which refers to the competence levels
of the maintenance staff. This correlates with the workforce identifying ‘skill level’ as the most
important factor to improve their work performance (refer to Table 3). This performance
measurement, which is a maintenance human factor measurement, together with organisational
safety culture (the fifth most important performance measure), indicates the importance of
including maintenance human factors as part of maintenance performance measurements.

The fifth most important performance measure correlates with the strong safety culture of the
workforce. This culture is due to the danger of working with electricity, as well as working at heights.
All levels of management are committed to safety; they make safety part of every meeting, host
safety forums, and arrange safety meetings at the beginning of each work day.

Table 5 indicates the ranking for work planning and work scheduling performance measurements,
and Table 6 indicates the ranking of maintenance human factor performance measurements.
Table 5: Ranking of planning and work scheduling performance measurements

Performance measurement Sub-category Type Ranking

Work-hours for planned maintenance Planning intensity Leading 9

work / Available work-hours

Scheduled work-hours / Available Schedule intensity Leading 10

work-hours

W o rk - hours used for unplanned / Percentage reactive Leading 19 (2nd last)

available work-hours work

Planned number of maintenance Planned downtime Leading 12

related shutdowns

Percentage overtime Workload Leading 20 (last)

Table 6: Ranking of maintenance human factor performance measurements

Performance measurement Sub-category Type Ranking

Number of training (skill improvement) Training Leading 2
interventions / Number of maintenance
staff

Number of certified maintenance staff / Competence Leading 7

Number of maintenance staff

Absenteeism Motivation Leading 18

Number of personal interventions / Motivation & Leading 13

Number of maintenance staff performance feedback

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Competence and motivation

27.3 per cent and 28.6 per cent of the maintenance staff do not have HV plant or secondary plant
certifications, respectively. This could be attributed to the relatively new and inexperienced
workforce; 32.5 per cent of the workforce have been in their current positions for only one to three
years.

186
The survey results indicate that 39.0 per cent and 36.4 per cent of the respondents have only basic
HV plant and secondary plant certification, respectively. The question can be asked: “Is this
percentage high enough to counter the new and inexperienced workforce with only a small amount
of expert knowledge?”

The survey results also indicated that competence (skill level) was perceived to be the most
important maintenance human factor that influences the maintenance function’s performance
within the electricity transmission industry, compared with motivation, supervision, workload, and
feedback. Because of this perception, it is recommended that certification awareness be driven
from top management downwards, and that incentive packages and career path advancement
possibilities be given to maintenance staff who achieve higher levels of certification. An example of
this would be to promote a technician to senior technician should they achieve major overhaul or
advanced certification. It is also recommended that these strategies be followed in stages to
increase the number of certified personnel to the appropriate levels.

The survey results indicated that motivation was perceived to be the second most important
maintenance human factor that influences the maintenance function’s performance within the
electricity transmission industry, compared with competence (skill level), supervision, workload,
and feedback.

The survey also indicated that 41.6 per cent of the respondents had poor or fair motivation levels.
Non-motivated employees can sabotage plant equipment, increase the safety risks, and lower the
morale of other employees. It is recommended that when the overall staff motivation levels are
being tracked, the reasons for poor or fair motivation levels be investigated, in order to address
these issues via the maintenance resource management system.

The most significant factors identified by the maintenance staff as contributing positively to their
motivational levels were opportunities for personal growth and development, and developing new
skills and knowledge at work.

These factors relate significantly to competence (skill level), which was the most important
maintenance human factor perceived to influence the maintenance function’s performance.
Opportunities for personal growth and development that are reinforced by opportunities to advance
were the second most important reward strategy identified by the maintenance staff. Maintenance
resource management strategies to improve the maintenance staff’s competence will create
opportunities for personal growth and development, as well as opportunities to develop new skills
and knowledge at work.

Alignment between the organisational human resource strategy and maintenance competency
strategy should be done to ensure that the efforts of the maintenance resource management
strategies are not lost. Assisting maintenance staff to obtain their BTech qualifications speaks of an
organisation that provides opportunities for personal growth and development, and assists with
developing new skills and knowledge at work. However, a higher qualification enables the
maintenance worker to apply for higher positions within the organisation that are normally not
within the maintenance department. By aligning the organisational human resource strategy and
maintenance competency strategy, job grading and remuneration benefits can be restructured to
allow for opportunities of advancement for BTech qualifications within the maintenance
department.
6.2 Performance measurements
Training opportunities and certification levels ranked second and seventh respectively, when
comparing the most important performance measurements indicated by the maintenance staff. This
echoes the significance of competence as a maintenance human factor, as well as the most
significant factors identified by the maintenance staff as contributing positively to their motivational
levels: opportunities for personal growth and development, and developing new skills and knowledge
at work.

The top five maintenance performance measurements are a reflection of the top management’s
present priorities. Work identification, work planning, and work scheduling performance
measurement ranked 9th, 10th, 12th, 19th (second last), and 20th (last) respectively. This indicates a
lack of focus on these activities, which are crucial to moving from a reactive maintenance culture

187
towards a preventative maintenance culture. Maintenance staff, supervisors, and middle
management can focus on these activities and can create an awareness of the importance of these
activities; but without support and strategies driven by the top management, the chances of a
successful maintenance culture change are small.
6.3 Implications for and/or contributions to theory and practice
Maintenance human factors were ranked as the second most important maintenance performance
measurement out of the 20 factors mentioned in the survey. This illustrates the importance of
maintenance human factors in the electricity transmission industry. The results also confirm that
competence (skill levels) and motivation are the most important maintenance human factors that
influence the maintenance function’s performance within the electricity transmission industry,
compared with supervision, workload, and feedback.

The results from the survey indicated the present certification and motivation levels and the general
perception of maintenance performance measurements by the maintenance staff. The insight gained
into the psyche of the maintenance staff can be used to create effective strategies to increase the
maintenance staff’s level of certification and to identify factors that could be used to increase the
maintenance staff’s overall motivation levels.
6.4 Recommendations
1) It is recommended that the motivation and competence levels (qualifications and
certifications) be tracked on a bi-annual cycle, together with the maintenance performance
results. The recorded values can be used to create corrective maintenance resource
management strategies should the staff’s motivation levels decline, and to provide information
on whether the maintenance competency improvement strategies are increasing the staff
competence levels. This information will also allow the following hypotheses to be tested:

 H0: There is no correlation between the maintenance staff’s competence and motivation
levels within the electricity transmission industry and the associated maintenance
performance.
 H1: There is a positive correlation between the maintenance staff’s competence and
motivation levels within the electricity transmission industry and the associated
maintenance performance.

2) It is also recommended that a comparison be done of the importance of competence and

motivation to maintenance human factors from other categories, such as the number of people
involved in maintenance task (action), and test equipment and tools available for maintenance
tasks (resources).
3) It is also recommended that minimum (baseline) specific measurable standards be set for
motivation and competence levels within the electricity transmission industry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Eskom Transmission for supporting the study, University of Pretoria for assisting
with the data analysis of the survey, and Department of Engineering and Technology Management
for their administrative assistance.

REFERENCES

[1] Dupont, G. 2014. History of human factors training for aircraft maintenance personnel. Retrieved from
http://www.systemsafety.com/hfhistory/human_factors_ history.htm. Accessed on 3 February 2016.
[2] Lucia, A.D. & Lepsinger, R. 1999. The art and science of competency models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[3] Guest, D.E. 1997. Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), pp. 263-276.
[4] Parida, A. & Chattopadhyay, G. 2007. Development of a multi-criteria hierarchical framework for
maintenance performance measurement. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 13(3), pp. 241-
258.
[5] Parida, A. & Kumar, U. 2006. Maintenance performance measurement: Issues and challenges. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(3), pp. 239-251.
[6] Kumar, U., Galar, D., Parida, A., Stenström, C. & Berges, L. 2013. Maintenance performance metrics: A
state-of-the-art review. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 19(3), pp. 233-277.

188
[7] Johnson, W.B. & Maddox, M.E. 2007. A model to explain human factors in aviation maintenance. Avionics
News. Apri, pp. 38-41.
[8] Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Safety Behaviours: Human Factors for Engineers resource kit -
Resource guide for engineers, Retrieved from https://www.casa.gov.au/safety-management/standard-
page/safety-behaviours-human-factors-engineers-resource-kit. Accessed on 26 July 2016.
[9] Hoge, M.A., Tondora, J. & Marrelli, A.F. 2005. The fundamentals of workforce competency: Implications
for behavioural health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research,
32(5-6), pp. 509-531.
[10] Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D. & Gowing, M.K. 2002. Developing competency models
to promote integrated human resource practices. Human Resource Management, 41(3), pp. 309-324.
[11] Hongli, C. 2010. A study on the employees' competence modelling based on the personal space of
information. IEEE International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and
Industrial Engineering (ICIII), pp. 539-542.
[12] Antonacopoulou, E.P. & FitzGerald, L. 1996. Reframing competency in management development. Human
Resource Management Journal, 6(1), pp. 27-48.
[13] Le Deist, F.D. & Winterton, J. 2005. What is competence? Human Resource Development International,
8(1), pp. 27-46.
[14] Draganidis, F. & Mentzas, G. 2006. Competency based management: A review of systems and approaches.
Information Management & Computer Security, 14(1), pp. 51-64.
[15] TWI Ltd. 2006. Plant ageing: Management of equipment containing hazardous fluids or pressure. HSE, ABB
Engineering Services, SCS Ltd & Allianz Cornhill Engineering.
[16] Alsyouf, I. 2006. Measuring maintenance performance using a balanced scorecard approach. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(2), pp. 133-149.
[17] Bohlouli, M., Ansari, F. & Fathi, M. 2012. Design and realization of competence profiling tool for effective
selection of professionals in maintenance management. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 2195-2200.
[18] Bella, Y., Latreche, S. & Mostefai, M. 2011. Dynamic scheduling of maintenance tasks under competence
constraints in a distributed environment. International Conference on Communications, Computing and
Control Applications (CCCA).
[19] Brown, R.B. 1993. Meta-competence: A recipe for reframing the competence debate, Personnel Review,
22(6), pp. 25–36.
[20] Garner, B.A. (ed.) 2000. The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style. Oxford University Press.
[21] Robbins, S.P. 2009. Organisational behaviour: Global and Southern African perspectives. Pearson South
Africa.
[22] Grant, A.M., Campbell, E.M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D. & Lee, K. 2007. Impact and the art of
motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behaviour.
Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), pp. 53-67.
[23] Kirstein, J.C., Lefifi, K.G., Mabea, M.J., Madlala, R.M., Mokgabudi, K.I. & Rautenbach, L. 2013.
Developing an environment conducive to performance – Using motivation as a tool. University of Pretoria.
[24] Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Harvard Business Review
Press, Boston, MA.
[25] Dwight, R. 1999. Searching for real maintenance performance measures. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, 5(3), pp. 258-275.
[26] Liyanage, J.P. and Kumar, U. 2002. Adjusting maintenance policy to business conditions: Value-based
maintenance performance measurement. Proceedings of the International Foundation for Research in
Maintenance, Maintenance Management and Modelling Conference, (IFRIM-2002), Paper no. 20, Växjö,
Sweden, May 2002.
[27] Weber, A. & Thomas, R. 2005. Key performance indicators: Measuring and managing the maintenance
function. Canada: Ivara Corporation.
[28] Campbell, J.D. 1995. Uptime: Strategies for excellence in maintenance management. Portland, OR:
Productivity Press.
[29] Muchiri, P., Pintelon, L., Gelders, L. & Martin, H. 2011. Development of maintenance function
performance measurement framework and indicators. International Journal of Production Economics,
131(1), pp. 295-302.
[30] Krauth, E., Moonen, H., Popova, V. & Schut, M.C. 2005. Performance measurement and control in
logistics service providing. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems (ICEIS), Miami, USA, pp. 239-247.
[31] Woodhouse, J. 2000. Key performance indicators in asset management. The Woodhouse Partnership Ltd.,
Institute of Asset Management, Bristol.
[32] Bodrogi, F., Carlini, E., Simoens, L., Maire, J., Delpet, R., Hoekstra, H., Melkersson, T. & Allison, M.
2004. Evaluation methods and key performance indicators for transmission maintenance. CIGRÉ, Paris.
[33] Wireman, T. 2005. Developing performance indicators for managing maintenance. 2nd edition, Industrial
Press, Inc., New York.
[34] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2003. Transmission system reliability performance metrics
requirements. Palo Alto, CA.
[35] Tsang, A.H.C., Jardine, A.K.S. and Kolodny, H. 1999. Measuring maintenance performance: A holistic
approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19 (7), pp. 691-715.
[36] Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A. & Flynn, E.J. 1990. Empirical research methods
in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 9(2), pp. 250-284.

189