Presented by: Steve Harrison & Mike Procaskey

1. Methods for Moving Independent Site Databases to Common Standards Presented by: Steve Harrison & Mike Procaskey

2. Agenda: • Introductions • General Motors Maximo Implementation Process 1995 – 2005 • Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • GM Common Process Implementation 2006 - 2009 • GM Common Process & Version 7 Upgrade

3. Introductions: • Steve Harrison - North American Maximo Implementation Co-Lead GM • Mike Procaskey - North American Maximo Implementation Co-Lead UAW • Quality Network Planned Maintenance 1992 – • Maximo Implementation Team 1995 – • Training and Plant Implementation Support • GM – 1979 – • Electrician

4. General Motors Maximo Implementation Process - History • Corporate Roll out began Sept 1995 – Maximo Ver 2.0 • Upgrade through version 2.1, 2.02 • Upgrade to version 3.0 – 3.03 1997 - 1998 • Upgrade to version 4.1.1 2002 - 2003 • Ver 5.2 for New Rollouts in all global regions outside of NA • Upgrade to Ver 7 currently piloted – Flint, Michigan Campus • Global roll out to be completed in mid-2011

5. The overriding goal of this process: create plant floor commitment Through Ownership & Buy-in because they created it General Motors Maximo Implementation Process – Method Quality Network Planned Maintenance – Plants define their process 1992 – • Maximo implemented to support improved maintenance processes – 1995 - • Maximo training and implementation process • Over 125 plants GM & Delphi (North America) beginning 1995 • Currently 60 + plants in US and 120 + out of US

6. General Motors Maximo Implementation Process – Method • Advantages of individual local plant implementations and control • Fantastic creativity and innovation in supporting maintenance processes • Development of Custom Applications • Customized fields & Screens • Report Writing Expertise – Quest, SQR/Brio, Crystal • Resulting in increased use and a Maximo system intertwined in • many plant functions through plant floor ‘buy-in’ There were disadvantages!

7. General Motors Maximo Implementation Process – Method • Disadvantages: • Significant differences in how plants were using Maximo • Variation in database & screens • Unable to take advantage of new Org/Site database design • Hard to share ‘Best Practices’ • Re-invention duplication • Resulting in difficult and time consuming upgrades • Something had to be done in order to move to next version

8. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Established goals in order to improve upgrade-ability: • Reduce/Eliminate the variation in database & screens • Define common Work Types, Work Order Status, Failure Codes & Priorities • Identify required Custom Applications • Standardizing Reports Resulting in forming: The North American Common Process Team

9. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • The North American Common Process Team – Mission • Involving users in Common Process development • Do not stop any plant processes in establishing the Common Database • Create Common business practices and work processes based on plant function • Assembly • Stamping • Engines • Transmissions • Casting • Facilities • Manage ongoing Change Control • Create a North American Common Process Manual

10. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Team Composition - Critical • UAW & GM representative from each Division • Current plant Maximo user required • Represent maintenance requirements of the Division • Communicate with other users in their division • Voting members • QNPM Maximo Team – Subject matter experts • Implementation, Training, & Ongoing Support • Assigned to work with each division team

11. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Work assignments Based on Primary Maximo Modules • Each divisional team • Assembly • Work Orders • Equipment • Operating Location • Powertrain • Inventory • Labor • Metal Fab • Job Plans • PMs • Reports • Entire Common Process Team • Work Types, Failure Codes • Work Flows for each work type • Define Priorities – work order, equipment, location

12. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Work assignment for each team • Review collect data from all plants (54) to establish • Range of field sizes for each field in assigned applications • Identify differences in data types for each field • Identify required fields • Identify all extra fields and how they are used • Determine if value lists are associated with any field • Obtain screen shots from plants if needed • Contact plants to • Determine if extra fields were important to their processes • What changes they could work with • Identify Cloned Apps • Identify Custom Apps • Develop Failure Code List This was a serious deep dive into a vast amount of data – not for the faint of heart

13. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • The data showed wide ranging results requiring much analysis in order • to establish any degree of a Corporate Common data base • Examples • Location field size 6 – 40 characters • Description fields size 75 – 250 characters • Different uses for same field – • Crew = Shift • Crew = PM Team/Group • Crew = Area • Extra fields being used differently • 600+ work types! • 300+ Crafts! How could this much variation be commonized?

14. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Guidelines for eliminating variation • Avoid truncating data • Minimize moving data to other fields • Have business process requirements for maintaining data • Address work types, priorities, value lists, screens …..

15. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Establishing Common Work Types – a major step in the Common Process • Work Types – resolving a complex & emotional issue: from 600 to 10 • Primary work types 10 • Sub-Work types 42?????? • Use optional • Dynamic value list based on Primary work type selection

16. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 10 Primary work types

17. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 Sub Work Type List for PDM

18. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 Work Order Priorities – Level of Urgency • WO Priorities List

19. Code Description 9 immediate impact to operations, no backup 8 impact to current shift, no backup 7 high impact to operations, with no backup 6 high impact to operations, with backup - manual or auto 5 impact to operations, with no backup 4 impact to operations, with backup - manual or auto 3 Off-seasonal impact to operations 2 No impact to operations, high replacement cost 1 No impact to operations, low replacement cost 0 Out of service Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Equipment Priorities List

20. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Common Failure Codes defined – Based on System Type • Failure Classes • Electrical Failures • Hydraulic Failures • Mechanical Failures • Pneumatic Failures • World Wide Facilities Group (Building-Property Failures)

21. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 Failure Code Example – Electrical Failure Class: Problems Problems – Component based There are 52 Electrical Problems

22. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 Failure Code Example – Electrical Failure Class: Problem – Cable/Wiring: Causes There are 37 electrical causes

23. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 Failure Code Example – Electrical Failure Class: Problem – Cable/Wiring Cause – Bent/Broken/Damaged: Remedies There are only 24 Electrical Remedies

24. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 • Required Fields & Required Data Identified Established • Required Fields – those set to Nulls=‘N’ in the database • Caution needed – existing data may contain nulls • May violate Maximo programming – requiring location in work order tracking - if PMs written to equipment there will be no location when generating PM work orders resulting in SQL rollbacks • Required Data – based on Common Process business requirements • in order to support reporting needs

25. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 Work flow established for data entry for each application

26. Defining a GM Common Process 2005 – 2006 Work flow established for each Primary Work type

27. Defining a GM Common Process 2007 - 2008 • Preparation for Implementing the GM common process • Reconcile North American and other Global regions Processes into a Global Common Process – 2007 • Establish Change Control process – 2007 • Prepare training process for North American database conversions – 2007, 08

28. Implementing the GM Common Process 2007 – 2008 • Training process for North American database conversions • Training conducted by Common Process team • Typically 4 – 7 plants from a division at a time • Training included • Installing the dynamic value list (DVL) function • Install custom application tool for converting existing work types to Common Process work types • Run Data base comparison tool to identify fields out of Common definition • Data length • Data type • Null values in required fields • Correct data in correct field (column) • Install common Screens • Install failure codes • Install Common value lists

29. GM Common Process Current • Plant Level Activity • Converting Crystal reports – to run in common data environment • Resolving how to handle specific data outside of the common data base • Completing the conversion to the Common database • QN Maximo Team • Supporting plant conversion issue resolution • Identifying issues related to maintaining the Common Data base in Ver 7 • Developing training for Ver. 7 upgrade based on GM Common Processes

30. GM Common Process Current & Future Ver 7 upgrade – Pilot started Conversion of North American from Ver 4 to Ver 7 - Over 1 year (2011) Conversion of all Global plant from Ver 5.2 to Ver 7 – Over 1 year (2011) Should be interesting to talk about next year our Maximo adventure is to be continued …….

31. Thank you for your interest Thank you to our great team: Mike Bachleda, Ron Lendon, Sarah Maliszewski, Dave Reiber, Wayne Tanis, and Lynne Waldron