This plan executes the engagement confirmed in Hartwell_Precision_Parts_ReactiveMaintenance_Brief.html, dated (brief issue date: needs verification). All scope, terms, investment, and engagement details are in that document.
Do not read this plan without the brief — it assumes everything the brief established.
What follows governs execution from Week 1 through full recovery: the phases, the week-by-week schedule, the metrics that prove progress, the cash model, the operating cadence, the risk register, and the five actions that start this week. It does not restate the diagnosis, compare options, or set terms — the brief does that.
| # | Phase | Duration | Primary focus | Key milestone | Gate question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Foundation | Weeks 1–2 | Rank downtime, stand up the CMMS account, lock PM windows into the two-shift schedule | Five worst machines live in the CMMS | Baseline signed off and PM blocks scheduled? |
| 2 | Implementation | Weeks 3–12 | Build PM schedules, log work orders, stage critical spares, attack the worst machine by name — first cash | First cash recovered (Week 12) | Downtime below 18 hrs/mo for two consecutive weeks? |
| 3 | Stabilization | Weeks 13–18 | Confirm the PM cadence holds without owner intervention; tune spares from real failure history | Reactive share holding ≤ 50% | Reactive ≤ 50% for two weeks with no owner push? |
| 4 | Optimization | Weeks 19–26 | Reach the 40% reactive target, extend the model to the next machine tier, lock the run rate | Annualized run rate confirmed | — |
Phase 2 is highlighted because it is where the first cash appears. Durations are scaled to Option B's stated first-cash window of 60–90 days (CMMS setup 3–4 weeks, downtime results following in 8–12 weeks once the PM cadence holds).
| Week | Tasks | Owner | Output | Milestone |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pull 12-month downtime data and rank machines; document the baseline; open the CMMS account. | Maintenance Lead, Controller, Tom Hartwell | Ranked downtime list; signed baseline sheet; CMMS account live | — |
| 2 | Enter the five machines in the CMMS; identify 4+ hour failure modes and required spares; lock PM windows into the two-shift schedule. | Maintenance Lead, Tom Hartwell, Shift Leads | Five machines configured; spares list; PM blocks on the schedule | Foundation complete — Phase 1 gate |
| 3 | Build PM schedules for machines 1–2; start work-order logging at the handoff. | Maintenance Lead, Shift Leads | PM schedules live for 2 machines; first work orders logged | — |
| 4 | Build PM schedules for machines 3–5; place purchase orders for critical spares. | Maintenance Lead, Controller | All five PM schedules live; spares POs placed | — |
| 5 | Receive and stage spares with min/max set in the CMMS; full PM cadence running on all five. | Maintenance Lead | Spares on the shelf; first full PM week logged | — |
| 6 | Capture failure history; produce the first reactive-vs-planned work-order split. | Maintenance Lead | Four weeks of work-order data; first reactive-share read | CMMS fully operational on 5 machines |
| 7 | Attack the #1 downtime machine — root-cause from history, schedule and complete corrective PM. | Maintenance Lead, Tom Hartwell | Corrective action completed on the worst machine | — |
| 8 | Mid-phase review: check PM completion rate, tune PM intervals from early failure data. | Maintenance Lead, Bruce Kaufmann | PM completion ≥ 90% confirmed or corrective step set | — |
| 9 | Continue the cadence; corrective action on the second-worst machine. | Maintenance Lead | Corrective action completed on machine #2 | — |
| 10 | Produce the first machine-uptime report against the baseline. | Maintenance Lead, Controller | Uptime report, Weeks 3–10 | Downtime trending below baseline |
| 11 | Reconcile the downtime reduction; value the first cash at $2,024/hr. | Controller, Bruce Kaufmann | First-cash figure documented | — |
| 12 | Route the first recovered cash to the line of credit; hold the Phase 2 gate review. | Tom Hartwell, Controller, Bruce Kaufmann | First cash on the LOC; gate decision recorded | FIRST CASH — Phase 2 complete |
| Metric | Baseline | Phase 2 target | Full target | How measured | Leading / Lagging | Review cadence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unplanned downtime (hrs/mo) | 22 (264/yr) | ≤ 17 | ~ 10 | CMMS downtime work-order logs, summed monthly across the five machines | Lagging | Weekly trend + monthly |
| Reactive maintenance share (%) | 68% | ≤ 55% | 40% | CMMS — reactive work orders ÷ total work orders for the five machines | Lagging | Monthly |
| PM completion rate (%) | 0% (PM untracked, skipped "often") | ≥ 90% | ≥ 95% | CMMS — completed scheduled PM work orders ÷ generated | Leading | Weekly |
| Repairs waiting 4+ hrs on parts (#/mo) | measured in Phase 1 (needs verification) | ≤ half of baseline | 0 | CMMS work-order wait-time field | Leading | Weekly |
| Critical spares in stock for 4+ hr failure modes (%) | 0% | 100% | 100% | CMMS min/max inventory against the identified failure-mode parts | Leading | Monthly |
| Reactive repair premium ($/yr) | $28,754 | trending down | ~ $17,000 | Controller — maintenance invoices coded reactive vs. planned | Lagging | Monthly |
| Cumulative cash recovered (production returned to revenue) | $0 | ~ $20K | $169K–$450K / yr run rate (expected $310K) | |||
Leading indicators — PM completion rate, repairs waiting 4+ hours on parts, and critical-spares availability — predict future cash because they are the inputs to uptime: when PM is completed on schedule and the right spares are on the shelf, breakdowns shrink before the downtime number moves. These are the metrics the Owner and Maintenance Lead review at the weekly check-in, alongside the downtime trend, because a slip here is the earliest warning that next month's cash is at risk.
Lagging indicators — unplanned downtime hours, reactive share, the repair premium, and cumulative cash recovered — confirm what already happened. They are reviewed in the monthly summary, where the Controller reconciles the downtime reduction into dollars at $2,024/hr and routes the recovered cash to the line of credit.
The Conservative scenario governs all commitments made in this engagement. The Expected and Upside scenarios are achievable — they are shown so you can see the full range of what this engagement makes possible. All figures are derived from Hartwell Precision Parts' operating data: 264 lost production hours a year valued at the two-shift revenue rate of $2,024/hour.
| Meeting / Communication | Format | Frequency | Duration | Participants | Purpose | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly progress check-in (Phase 1–2) | Call / video | Weekly | 30 min | Tom Hartwell, Maintenance Lead, Bruce | PM completion, downtime trend, blockers, decisions | Action items with owner and date, logged in the CMMS notes |
| Phase gate review | Structured meeting | At each gate (end of Weeks 2, 12, 18) | 60 min | Tom Hartwell, Maintenance Lead, Controller, Bruce | Assess the gate question against data; go / no-go | Written gate decision recorded in this plan |
| Bi-weekly metrics review (Phase 3–4) | Status report + call | Bi-weekly | 30 min | Tom Hartwell, Controller, Bruce | Metrics vs. targets, reactive-share trend, cash routed to LOC | Metrics snapshot sent before the call |
| Monthly executive summary | Written report | Monthly | n/a | Tom Hartwell (prepared with Bruce) | Cash impact, downtime trajectory, overall trend | One-page summary emailed to the Owner |
| Issue escalation | Email / call | As needed | As needed | Bruce + Tom Hartwell | Obstacle resolution, scope clarification (e.g., a hot job threatening PM windows) | Written decision or scope note |
| Final outcome presentation | Meeting | End of engagement (Week 26) | 60–90 min | Tom Hartwell, Maintenance Lead, Controller | Results vs. plan, what was built, next steps | Outcome report (separate document) |
| Activity | Bruce (KC) | Tom Hartwell (Owner) | Maintenance Lead | Controller | Shift Leads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pull and rank 12-month downtime data | C | A | R | C | I |
| Document the maintenance baseline | C | A | R | C | I |
| Open and configure the CMMS account | C | A | R | C | — |
| Identify 4+ hr failure modes and required spares | C | A | R | I | C |
| Lock PM windows into the two-shift schedule | C | A | R | — | C |
| Build PM schedules in the CMMS for five machines | C | A | R | — | C |
| Stand up work-order logging at shift handoff | C | A | R | — | R |
| Pre-stage critical spares (approve spend) | C | A | R | C | — |
| Attack the #1 downtime machine by name | C | A | R | I | C |
| Produce machine-uptime report from CMMS | C | I | R | C | — |
| Verify downtime reduction and value the cash | C | A | C | R | — |
| Route recovered cash to the line of credit | C | A | I | R | — |
| Facilitate weekly check-ins and phase gate reviews | R | A | C | C | I |
| Tune spares and PM intervals from failure history (P3) | C | A | R | I | C |
| Extend the PM model to the next machine tier (P4) | C | A | R | — | C |
| Document the final outcome | R | A | C | C | I |
Escalation. Any obstacle that threatens a PM window or the schedule — most often a rush job competing with a scheduled PM block — is raised by the Maintenance Lead or Shift Lead to Tom Hartwell, who makes the call on the floor. Anything that changes scope, spend, or the engagement timeline is raised to Bruce, who responds within 24 hours on any flagged obstacle. A scope conversation is triggered when a fix requires capital, headcount, or work beyond the five target machines and the CMMS — none of which is in this engagement without a written change to the brief.
| Risk | Category | Likelihood | Impact | Score | Mitigation | Contingency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM stops get skipped the first time a hot job comes through — the shop already skips PM "often" to keep machines up — and reactive creeps back to 68%. | Organizational | High | Medium | High | PM blocks are locked into the two-shift schedule as fixed named events; completion is reviewed at the shift handoff, not in a new meeting. | If PM completion drops below 90% for two weeks, Tom Hartwell personally re-blocks the windows and pauses the lowest-priority job to protect the PM slot. |
| The CMMS becomes a data-entry burden no one keeps current, so the failure history is useless within a quarter. | Technical | Medium | High | High | Track only the five worst machines at first, and log at the existing shift handoff — a small dataset that is actually maintained beats a complete one that isn't. | If logging compliance is below 90% by Week 8, cut scope to the top three machines until the habit holds, then re-expand. |
| Over-buying spares trades a downtime problem for an inventory problem — the shop already carries $1.085M of inventory under LOC pressure. | Data | Medium | Medium | Medium | Stage spares only for the failure modes with a documented 4+ hour wait; the Controller approves each part against carrying cost before purchase. | If spares spend exceeds the approved cap, freeze further purchases and require CMMS failure history to justify any added part. |
| The Controller is stretched thin and the parallel collections priority competes for the same bandwidth, so cash reconciliation slips. | Resource | High | Medium | High | Limit the Controller's role here to invoice coding and the monthly cash reconciliation (≤ 2 hrs/week); the Maintenance Lead owns all CMMS data entry. | If the Controller cannot sustain the monthly reconciliation, Bruce performs the cash valuation directly from CMMS exports. |
| The single Maintenance Lead is a one-person point of failure — if they are out, PM and the CMMS stall. | Resource | Medium | High | High | Assign each top-machine PM checklist to the operator who runs it most, so the knowledge isn't only in the Lead's head; the CMMS holds the failure history. | If the Maintenance Lead is unavailable, Shift Leads run the posted PM checklists and log to the CMMS until they return. |
| Standing up the CMMS pulls the Maintenance Lead off actual maintenance, so reactive repairs spike during the rollout — on a floor running two shifts hard. | Timeline | Medium | Medium | Medium | Phase the CMMS build one machine at a time and keep the existing reactive response running underneath, so coverage never drops during the transition. | If reactive downtime rises above the baseline for two weeks, pause new-machine onboarding until the cadence stabilizes. |
| Restoring uptime exposes a different constraint — changeovers and scrap also steal capacity — so shipped output, and therefore cash, lags the downtime gain. | Technical | Medium | Medium | Medium | Track parts out the door alongside downtime hours, so the next bottleneck shows up as soon as it appears. | If throughput doesn't rise with uptime, flag the changeover/scheduling finding (FN-03) as the next engagement rather than over-investing here. |
| Recovered cash gets absorbed by day-to-day operations instead of paying down the line of credit (drawn $480K, 64%, 1.9 weeks of headroom). | External | Medium | High | High | The Controller routes the valued downtime-recovery cash to the LOC monthly, tracked on the cash report — not left in the operating account where it gets spent. | If the LOC draw doesn't fall as cash is freed, Tom Hartwell and Bruce review operating outflows at the monthly summary and adjust. |
Bruce Kaufmann will confirm the engagement start date and send calendar invites for the Week 1 check-in within 24 hours of this plan being received.