© 2007 Management Controls, Inc.The information contained herein is subject to change without notice.
Track Optimization Workshops
2
Purpose:To deliver a structured process enabling
optimized value from Track
New Customers
Existing Clients
3
Because there is more to Track than meets the eye.
Why Bother?
4
The “Potential” Problem
Existing Clients and New Customers• Track was or will be implemented without full
functionality or without a goal of 100% of the contractors engaged
• Project vs. process approach• Limited implementation scope • Timing• Resource availability• Narrowed focus for the initiative• Limited continuous growth planning
5
Where is the Proofthat there is
additional value to be realized with Track
functionality?
6
1-25%11%
25-50%19%
51-75%22%
76-99%30%
100%19%
Percentage of Plant Contractors
Using Track
Total Survey = 31
30% of the respondents
have less than 50% of their
contractors in Track
7
2544%
1424%
14 25%
4 7%
What Functions are Tied to Track?
Gates
Financial
Contracting
Maintenance Mgt
8
Site personnel provided training
Track Software trainers
On-the-job trainers
No training0
5
10
15
20
25
18
14 14
0
21
7
16
0
Training MethodologyCompany Personnel
Contractor Personnel
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
9
Within thePlant
External to the Plant
0
10
20
30
4
24
Does the Contractor Work Entirely within the Plant?
Re
spo
nd
en
t C
t.
Yes No05
1015202530
1410
Are Gate Readers at Remote Locations?
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
Yes No05
1015202530
9
15
Contractor Trailers Located Off-Site
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
10
Grace Period Always Applied0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
11
7
14
18
Grace Period Provided?Yes No
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
11
1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
6 6
10
2
How Much Grace Period is Allowed?
Minutes
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
12
Yes No0
4
8
12
16
1213
Equipment in Track
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
Daily Weekly Monthly Other02468
10121416
13
8
13
5
Rental types
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 75-99% 100%02468
10121416
13
3 35
1
% Equipment in Track
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
13
Yes No02468
1012141618
9
16
Material Handled in TrackRe
spon
dent
Ct.
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 75-99% 100%02468
1012141618 16
5
02 2
0
% Material Handled in Track
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
14
4.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.20
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
5
1
Software within Track
Version Being Run
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
4.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.20
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 1
3
0 0
3rd Party Software
Version Being Run
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
4.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.20
0.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.5
1
3
4 4
1
In- House
Version Being Run
Resp
onde
nt C
t.
Measurement of Contractor Activities
15
The Optimization Workshop Process
16
Gap Analysis
Focused Workshops
PlanningDeploym
ent
Measurement
The Optimization Workshop Process
17
The Optimization Workshop Process
Gap Analysis
Focused Workshops
PlanningDeploym
ent
Measurement
Goals vs. Current Level of Use
• SLT• Maint.• T/A• Projects• Matl.
Mgt• Finance
Gap Closure
Execution per Plan
TrackingSuccess
18
The Process
Full Functionality
Contractors at 100%
SeniorLeadership
Maintenance
TurnaroundsOutages
Projects
MaterialsManagement
FinanceA/P
Workshops
19