Performance Catalyst®CASE STUDY

Creating a Reliability Culture

The High Cost of UNreliability If you run a complex physical operation—such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, utility, hospital, transportation company, etc.—you must trust your facilities and equipment to run steadily, 24/7/365. Your whole enterprise is built upon the solid foundation of reliability.

The cost of UNreliabilty is very high. UNreliability means that you and your company will pay the price in lost opportunity, safety incidents, excessive maintenance, trouble meeting commitments, flagging client confidence, skeptical shareholders, a nervous Board, and endless management stress.

A Top-Ten Oil Refinery Needed Help A vast and aging Gulf Coast refinery was slipping. Its reliability performance had declined, and millions in production were being lost.

The refinery made capital improvements to help, but they also needed a change in the refinery’s culture—a change in employee behavior to improve reliability. So they engaged behavior experts from CLG to help.

The solution was to use CLG’s proprietary Performance Catalyst®, which links behavior to results. Three areas were identified where employee behavior was critical to improving reliability. CLG applied its trademarked DCOM® assessment to evaluate the situation and to develop metrics and feedback for guiding the behavior change.

Results AchievedThe refinery’s reliability has steadily improved year-over-year. The headlines:

• Dramatic decline in expensive unplanned refinery shutdowns• Tripling of average days between unplanned shutdowns• Plummeting of lost-profit opportunity cost

Today, the successful reliability program is fully owned and managed by the client.Please see inside for the full story . . .

“Performance Catalyst® is a powerful leadership system for driving high-impact work behaviors to rapidly reach targeted results.”

2

A Refinery Is Like a UtilityThe Bayou Rico Refinery (as we’ll call it for this case study) is among America’s largest. It is a high-performance Gulf Coast facility owned and operated by a Fortune 10 petroleum company.

Refining is a heavily capitalized business—a vast maze of piping, tanks, pumps, buildings, and people. Each day at Bayou Rico, several thousand employees and contractors refine millions of gallons of crude oil into gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and many other products.

Machinery and piping valued in the billions operates in a tough environment of extreme temperatures, high pressures, and corrosive fluids—plus occasional Gulf Coast hurricanes and floods. The refinery gets no vacation: it must run safely and reliably 24/7/365.

Bayou Rico is so large and productive that its steady, reliable operation is strategically important to the United States. A few years ago, the U.S. Vice President phoned the refinery to check on its health.

A refinery is like a utility: it must run reliably, all the time. That’s easier said than done, considering the miles of pipe, hundreds of pumps, and hostile temperatures and pressures that are part of every refinery.

For these reasons, Bayou Rico requires world-class engineering, processes, equipment, operations, employees—and above all, reliability.

Reliability simply means to keep the refinery running as hard as it needs to, safely and without interruption. Achieving this can be reduced to four rules:

• Design and build it right• Run it right• Maintain it right• Improve it continuously

UNreliability Has a Steep PriceReliability would seem to be a natural priority for a refinery, because unreliability has such a high cost:

• Safety: operating unreliably means people can get hurt. Unplanned events create potentially unsafe work environments

• Net cash margin: at Bayou Rico, each 1% of availability is worth $15–25 million• Repair cost: breakdowns take time and money to fix• Meeting commitments: breakdowns can slow or halt production, jeopardizing

contract commitments, leading to penalties and strained customer relations

Despite the critical importance of reliability, Bayou Rico’s reliability performance had become uncompetitive with other refineries, and millions of dollars in production were being lost.

The reason was understandable, although not acceptable: in the days when product demand was much lower, reliability was a lesser concern. Keeping production rolling was more profitable than taking time to shut down for preventive maintenance. When a potential failure was spotted, the typical response was “we’ll fix it when it breaks” or “we’ll do a temporary fix.”

That led to some poor results:

• During the year prior preceding the intervention, Bayou Rico endured 30 unscheduled shutdowns due to equipment or human failure. These occurred an average of 10 days apart, with a total cost of $80 million.

• Nearly half of the shutdowns resulted from “human error,” which behavioral scientists view as “the wrong behavior on someone’s part.”

“Prove to me that I have to do something about reliability.”

3

In today’s economy, such performance is unacceptable. Equipment downtime has a huge impact on profitability. With equipment failure creating profit losses approaching $3 million a day, reliability had grown critical.

A Reliable Refinery Is a Safer RefineryFurther, recognition was growing that reliability and safety go hand-in-hand. Equipment that is improperly maintained, malfunctioning, or operating outside its design limits exposes employees to risk. Workers may unexpectedly confront high pressures and temperatures, toxic or corrosive chemicals, intense vibration, or even an explosive situation. So, reliability is important from a safety perspective as well as financial.

Bayou Rico refinery’s new focus on reliability began at a time when management was already working hard to improve safety. When reliability was added as a top priority, people quickly understood the relationship: a reliable refinery is a safer refinery.

Who Is Responsible for Reliability?Like safety, reliability is everyone’s responsibility. A refinery is a giant system of interlocking, interacting units. So a glitch anywhere can slow or halt a local process, and maybe cascade to affect a broader area of the refinery—or even the entire facility.

As Bayou Rico focused on reliability, it became clear just how much the responsibility for reliability permeates the entire workforce, top to bottom. Design engineers, equipment operators, maintenance mechanics, quality and safety personnel, supervisors—all play a part. The leadership clearly saw that. But did the employees?

At that time, many employees viewed reliability as a job for specialists: “I just run the equipment. Talk to the guy in charge of Reliability.”

In the safety program, Bayou Rico’s leadership had successfully engaged employees’ hearts and minds. Each one could say, “Today, here are five things I am going to do to keep this refinery safe.” The leadership defined rules and procedures, held meetings to study data, implemented safety steps, and gave people feedback.

But when it came to reliability, employees couldn’t say, “Today, here are five things I am going to do to keep this refinery reliable.”

Clearly, Bayou Rico refinery needed to promote “reliability awareness” and engage employees in a reliability culture, just as they had created a safety culture. The culture change required getting everyone to see how they all contribute to reliability, and then achieving improved results.

This meant a critical focus on peoples’ behaviors. Bayou Rico’s leadership sought assistance from CLG, a behavioral-science consultancy with a long history of successful culture change in Fortune 500 companies.

Applying Behavioral ScienceRecognizing that human performance is critical to reliability, the leadership applied behavior science expertise from CLG to improve refinery reliability. They identified three basic but critical areas where behavior change could make a significant improvement in reliability:

1. Getting Operators to conduct their daily rounds, using new handheld technology to properly record equipment performance data, and getting leaders to sign off on the data

2. Getting Mechanics to perform scheduled preventive maintenance consistently and on time

3. Getting Engineers to monitor and take action on “critical reliability variables”

“We don’t see every supervisor asking, ‘What can I do to address reliability?”

“CLG’s perseverance and consistency are driving us forward, and the pace is picking up. The deeper we drive this into the culture, the harder it will be to uproot. This is absolutely the right thing for the refinery. Your work is much appreciated by me and everyone in the refinery (they just don’t know it yet).”

—Team Leader, Reliability Engineering

4

They used CLG’s trademarked DCOM® assessment to evaluate the Direction, Competence, Opportunity, and Motivation of the organization. From this, they developed predictive metrics and used coaching and feedback to guide the behavior change. The results:

• Unplanned refinery shutdowns per year dropped dramatically• Average days between unplanned shutdowns tripled• Lost-profit opportunity cost plummeted• Reliability clock resets per year decreased sharply

The refinery’s results derived from a combination of capital improvements to replace equipment, robust management and decision-making, and culture change. CLG’s contribution was to achieve culture change through applying behavioral science to get results.

The challenge: “How do you engage 1,200 people in a facility on a common focus and make it real and tangible to them?” CLG helped the refinery’s leaders influence people to perform the right behaviors.

Measuring ReliabilityBayou Rico uses these metrics to assess reliability:

• Number of unplanned shutdowns per quarter and per year. An unplanned shutdown is the halting of production due to unexpected equipment failure.

• Average number of days between unplanned shutdowns. An increasing length of time between one unplanned shutdown and the next is a good indicator that equipment reliability is improving. Related to this is the Reliability Clock, which shows the number of days that pass without an unplanned shutdown. After an unplanned shutdown, they reset the clock.

• Lost profit opportunity. This number tracks profit that the refinery would have generated, but lost due to unplanned shutdowns.

The challenge was to identify the critical behaviors that drive each of these metrics, and then implement behavior change plans to drive the metrics toward improvement.

Pinpointing Where Behavior Change Could Improve ReliabilityThe refinery leadership commissioned a new reliability team to spearhead the initiative. But where to begin? With hundreds of processes and thousands of employees, they had to start with critical areas that had a high probability of success and could serve as a model for future culture change.

Three Critical AreasWorking with the refinery leadership, CLG defined three critical areas where behavior change would clearly improve reliability:

1. Getting Operators to conduct their daily rounds, using new handheld technology to properly record equipment performance data, and getting leaders to take action on exceptions (indicators of potential equipment failure)

2. Getting Mechanics to perform scheduled preventive maintenance consistently and on time

3. Getting Engineers to monitor and take action on “critical reliability variables” (CRVs)

CLG interviewed more than a hundred employees and discovered the obstacles to improving reliability:

• Exactly who should perform what behaviors had not been studied systematically to ensure better reliability in all three areas.

• Leaders offered little direction to employees on how their behavior would help reliability.

5

• Very limited training was provided on new procedures and technologies. Many long-time employees were not even computer-literate.

• The consequences for employees’ behaviors were not aligned with desired results to encourage consistent use of new processes or technologies.

• Employees received no performance feedback.

To drive the right behaviors, the consequences had to change. CLG pinpointed the critical behaviors, who performed them, who had the strongest influence over the performers, and what the consequences needed to be to drive behavior in the right direction.

Implementing the Reliability CultureCLG’s first step was to make the “case for change” at the top, gaining sponsorship and buy-in from leaders in operations, maintenance, reliability, and technical services. The goal was to create a roadmap for a new standard of expectations on refinery reliability performance from all employees.

Working with refinery management, CLG asked employees to perform new behaviors: properly record data, react to it, give feedback, and take action to fix problems. But it was not easy, because these major changes were being imposed upon very busy people.

CLG’s DCOM® AssessmentCLG employed its trademarked DCOM® assessment, which evaluates Direction, Competence, Opportunity, and Motivation in organizations.

If all four parameters are robust, the organization is high-performing—see the top row of checkmarks in Figure 1. But if any parameter is weak, an organization will get the results shown in the other rows. Lack of Direction (D) generates chaos. Lack of Competence (C) can lead to bankruptcy. Absence of Opportunity (O) causes frustration. And missing Motivation (M) signals lethargy and poor productivity.

Figure 1. Model for a DCOM® assessment. The ideal organization “hits on all four” (D,C,O,M), resulting in overall high performance.

Based on interviews, CLG consultants helped define issues with using handheld equipment monitoring devices, performing preventive maintenance, and taking action on out-of-range critical reliability variables. This enabled identification of key gaps in Direction (lack of clarity), Competency (insufficient training), Opportunity (inadequate tools and processes), and Motivation (too little feedback, which drives motivation).

6

Metrics and BehaviorsThe next step was to determine how to measure progress—what would success look like? It would look like this:

• Each operator would make his/her rounds, using the new handheld equipment monitors

• Active exceptions (data out-of-range) would be counted and tracked• Data would be collected on preventive maintenance (PMs)• Mechanics would know clearly which PMs were critical and which were not• The organization would track which PMs were performed, by area • Leaders and supervisors would have the data needed to monitor and manage

performance

Once metrics were established, the question was what specific behaviors would drive improvement on the metrics: What should supervisors, operators, head operators, mechanics, and others be doing? It was a massive exercise that pinpointed the critical behaviors for each role.

The RolloutFor the rollout, a compelling message was crafted to set expectations. When the reliability program went live, supervisors told frontline employees, “we need a push on reliability. Here’s your contribution—here’s how you’ll make the difference. And here’s the data I’m going to review with you regularly.”

CLG’s consultants worked with hundreds of supervisors to help them deliver the compelling message, use data in the reports, and coach employees with feedback. They coached the supervisors intensively, and met monthly with key managers to present progress.

The whole thing was about sharing data, using it in coaching, reframing expectations, removing obstacles, providing training, and getting feedback.

Changing Behavior for Success in All Three Critical AreasThe strategy and principles for achieving culture change in the three critical areas were the same. Their stories follow.

Critical Area #1 Behavior: Getting Operators to Record Equipment Data on Handheld Computers

Every component in the refinery is engineered to perform within a specific range of temperature, pressure, speed, vibration, etc. Anything out-of-range alerts the operator to potential failure.

Equipment operators do a “round” of their areas twice daily to record this data. They note any leaks, odd sounds, telltale odors, or abnormal vibration.

For years, operators had recorded these data by pencil on check sheets. This antiquated method led to inaccuracies, slowed review by engineers, and thus delayed maintenance to out-of-spec equipment.

So, a corporate-wide initiative introduced handheld computers for recording the data. At the start of a shift, an operator was to make his round, enter readings on the handheld, return to his workstation, and upload readings into the database. Engineers viewing the database could spot anything out of range. This was critical for tracking trends and predicting equipment failure.

Obviously, this was a huge improvement, and it was assumed that everyone would automatically embrace it.

“It’s hard to see the connection between making our rounds and reliability . . .”

“I wish that CLG had been involved when we began using the handhelds. That would have helped people accept them much quicker.”

—Coker Crew member

7

Performance Prior to Behavioral InterventionHowever, baseline data on use of the new handhelds revealed some dismaying performance levels:

• Only 78% of rounds were completed using the new handheld devices (22% not done)

• Only 59% of those rounds were reviewed and approved by Head Operators (41% not approved)

• Across the refinery, there were 4,323 “active exceptions”—items out-of-range in any given week (like excessive pressure or temperature)

Why was the new system not working completely and smoothly? CLG’s DCOM® assessment and behavioral interviews disclosed several reasons:

• Insufficient resources: there were not enough handhelds for everyone, plus they often broke and took long to repair

• Dysfunctional software: handhelds frequently froze up and lost data• Inadequate training: employees received only a 15-minute orientation. Many had

worked there for decades and lacked prior computer experience• Legacy method not removed: use of paper-and-pencil data was permitted to

continue• Wrong behavioral reinforcement: using the handhelds was not reinforced, nor

was the legacy paper-and-pencil method discouraged. Thus, the “comfortable habit” and natural consequence of “ease of use” rewarded people for using the old pencil method, and did not encourage use of the handhelds

To the leadership, the benefits of switching to handhelds were so obvious that they underestimated the power of habit and comfort to the operators and provided minimal training and promotion of the new method. To get the desired results, CLG’s analysis disclosed critical-path behaviors that needed to be performed by three groups of people:

• Frontline Operator behavior: complete your rounds twice daily• Head Operator behavior: review and approve each round and report data that is

out of range (“active exceptions”) • Supervisor behavior: give feedback to Head Operator and Frontline Operators on

their performance

Getting these behaviors to happen consistently would let the refinery focus on what was really critical to reliability—the “active exceptions.”

Coaching and FeedbackOnce the performers and behaviors were identified, the hard part began. Old routines and habits die hard. Getting people to do what is needed, consistently, is the challenge.

The answer: performers needed to receive the right feedback from the right person. CLG assigned coaches to those who needed to give the feedback—the Operations Supervisors and Head Operators.

The coaches reviewed performance metrics, developed feedback messages for delivery to the supervisor’s direct reports, and discussed what the feedback providers faced.

The coaches then observed supervisors as they gave employees feedback, and shared the impact that they saw on employees.

“Handheld data revealed a pump with escalating vibration. We repaired the pump. Had it failed, it would have shut down our entire plant.”

—Shift Team Leader

8

ResultsFigure 2 shows that, following coaching, metrics improved dramatically refinery-wide:

• 99.8% of rounds were completed in Years 3 and 4• 99.6% of rounds were reviewed and approved in years 3 and 4• Active exceptions plummeted by 78%

Figure 2. Coaching the right behaviors achieved significant increase in completion of operator rounds and a sharp reduction in active exceptions. Continuing success is demonstrated by the fact that in Year 6, for the refinery overall, completed rounds stayed between 99.3% and 100%, and rounds approved remained between 99.1% and 99.9%. Critical Area #2 Behavior: Getting Mechanics to Consistently Perform Preventive MaintenanceA refinery has thousands of pumps, motors, valves, and tanks, plus many miles of piping. Each component requires periodic maintenance of some type: cleaning, lubrication, adjustment, and monitoring for wear, corrosion, noise, and vibration that might signal a potential breakdown.

These actions collectively are called preventive maintenance (PM), and they obviously are essential to reliability.

An everyday example of PM is giving your car scheduled oil changes. If the manual calls for this PM every 7,500 miles or 12 months, that defines your needed behavior: get the oil changed every 7,500 miles or 12 months.

There is a good reason: lubricating oil decays and absorbs dirt, reducing its lubricating qualities and increasing engine wear. The hefty pumps and motors in refineries are no different; they need oil changes too.

Because equipment criticality varies, there are critical PMs and noncritical PMs. All are scheduled to be performed by specific dates. Refinery data revealed that some scheduled PMs were not being done by their prescribed date.

Performance Prior to Behavioral InterventionTwo quotes from plant workers summarized the problem: “Why are we doing a preventive maintenance when we have a piece of equipment that’s broken?” and “Troubleshooting and saving the plant is more sexy than doing PMs.”

“This month, all three areas had 100% rounds completed and approved—a first!”

“The emphasis on PMs is not as great as it used to be. The importance of PMs has slipped.”

Operator Rounds

Active Exceptions Per Week

9

With such demotivating thoughts, it was not surprising that baseline data on PMs showed these performance levels:

• Only 28% of critical preventive maintenance jobs were completed by due date• 37% of critical preventive maintenance jobs were past due by more than 30 days• Only 42.99% of preventive maintenance jobs had completed history briefs

What the DCOM® Assessment RevealedCLG’s interviews were guided by the DCOM® model, a powerful tool for pinpointing why systems are not working. Here is what was discovered:

Direction: Most employees agreed that PMs would help reliability. But Operators and Mechanics heard conflicting messages—“PMs are important, but continuing production is more so.”

Competence: Although mechanics were skilled on PMs, some thought that Operators should be performing them. Some managers were trained in one specialty, but had to manage three.

Opportunity: Some questioned the content and frequency of PMs, and it wasn’t always clear who should update the PM database.

Motivation: PM metrics were not publicly reported, and employees noted that leaders were not providing consequences for PMs that were missed.

CLG defined three critical-path behaviors that would affect performance:

• Maintenance Coordinator: schedule PM work• Mechanic: perform and document PM work• Maintenance Supervisor: Provide feedback on completion of PM work.

ResultsFollowing coaching, metrics dramatically improved refinery-wide:

• 81% of critical PMs were completed by due date (three times the Year 1 number)—Figure 3

• 82% of noncritical PMs were completed on time (nearly three times the Year 1 number)—Figure 4

• By Year 5, 0% of critical PM jobs were overdue more than 30 days• 78.5% of PM jobs had completed history briefs

Figure 3. Critical PM performance improved by 304%.

“The improvements we’ve seen in PMs this past year have had a positive impact on reliability . . . we have fewer equipment failures.”— Operations Assistant

Critical PM Performance

10

Figure 4. Noncritical PM performance improved by 284%.

Critical Area #3 Behavior: Getting Engineers to Consistently Monitor “Critical Reliability Variables” (CRVs) and Take ActionIn a refinery, many equipment failures can be forecast through monitoring of critical reliability variables (CRVs). As the name says, these are parameters that are critical to reliability, including temperature, pressure, vibration, and thickness of corrosion-prone pipe walls.

CRV data warn operators and engineers when equipment enters the “risk zone”—when something goes far enough out-of-spec that trouble may loom. CRV data reveal conditions that can lead to a burst pipe, furnace rupture, valve failure, or even fire.

Bayou Rico refinery encompasses six business units, each with hundreds of CRVs to monitor. Yet, there was no standardized CRV list for the entire refinery. Also, many variables existed in safety, environmental emissions/spills, and process efficiency/profitability. Clearly, it was essential to monitor CRVs.

The refinery’s leadership agreed that a computer monitoring system run by operators would improve reporting of potential equipment failure. Regular review of the monitoring system by a cross-functional team would help predict failure. To help monitor these variables, Bayou Rico incorporated a new condition monitoring software/database called DAT-AWARE. Baseline data on CRVs confirmed the poor performance levels:

• Only 3 of 32 areas with CRVs were being monitored• 70% was the average time that variables exceeded the recommended range

Performance Prior to Behavioral InterventionCLG’s interviews disclosed numerous reasons why the prior system wasn’t working:

• Database hard to use: with so many items (sometimes exceeding 2,000), people had to look for out-of-range data buried in thousands of numbers, like searching for needles in a haystack—so they didn’t use the system

• Roles and responsibilities unclear: no one explained to operators and engi-neers who was to do what and when, and who was responsible

• No clear value-add: operators and engineers didn’t see the system’s benefit

“As a result of doing PMs, we have identified many potential failures. Had these PMs not been done, the equipment would likely have caused an unplanned shutdown.”

—Team Leader

Noncritical PM Performance

11

• Slow or no response: engineers often took weeks to respond to issues—and sometimes didn’t respond at all

• Little communication between cross-functional teams: often it was occasional emails

• No feedback: none was given, either to encourage using the system or not to use it

CLG’s analysis revealed the critical path behaviors needed to make the system work, and who performed them:

• Head Operators: review CRVs daily, respond promptly to those out of range, and communicate actions to the Shift Team Leader

• Shift Team Leader: notify engineering and attend the weekly meeting to discuss out-of-range items

• Engineers: review reports of out-of-range items and present proposed actions at weekly meeting

• Operations Technical Experts: give individuals feedback on attending the weekly meeting and bringing solutions

Getting CRV Monitoring to Work—ConsistentlyUsing DCOM®, CLG helped the refinery focus hard on Direction (D). For each business unit, process engineering and operations experts were teamed to choose the best critical variables for improving reliability. They asked employees, “What things, if you don’t monitor them, will come back to bite?”

Next, they reached consensus on the range for each variable: what was normal, and what was extreme? These variables were loaded into a new database, keeping several IT people busy. CLG’s role was to nudge the project forward.

Once a plant was addressing the CRVs and ranges, the team asked, “What critical behaviors are needed for monitoring to be done consistently?”

In addition to reviewing CRV data daily and holding weekly CRV meetings, it was important for them to review data prior to the meeting. In the past, they would meet, realize they had a problem, and close with no problem-solving accomplished—meaning a week was lost. That was changed to “review before you arrive—come prepared to discuss and problem-solve.”

A meeting scorecard was added to track key behaviors:

1. “Did everyone show up?”

2. “Was everyone prepared?”

3. “Did everyone participate and solve problems?”

4. “Were assignments made and followed up?”

This really helped. Business unit managers said, “Wow, my people are catching things before they become problems.”

ResultsAfter coaching of employees, metrics dramatically improved refinery-wide (Figure 5):

• 32 of 32 areas were reviewing variables daily and weekly, a near-100% improvement

• Average time out-of-range decreased from 70% to less than 33%

12

Figure 5. The number of areas actively using the DAT-AWARE computer monitoring system increased from just 1 to all 32 areas, following CLG’s behavioral intervention.

Figure 6. Daily access of the system by engineers rose sharply during the behavioral intervention.

Daily DAT-AWARE Access

Operating Plants Using DAT-AWARE

13

Figure 7. The five business units with areas using DAT-AWARE enjoyed reductions in the percentage of time that equipment was exposed to degrading conditions.

The Impact on ReliabilityThe refinery’s hard work has paid off. The impact of the three programs has been substantial on the metrics that Bayou Rico uses to assess reliability:

• Number of unplanned shutdowns per year—halting of production due to unexpected equipment failure. Unplanned shutdowns plummeted to 0 in Year 4, and only 2 in Year 5 (Figure 8).

• Average number of days between unplanned shutdowns—increasing time between unplanned shutdowns indicates improving equipment reliability. Year 4 saw no unplanned shutdowns (Figure 8).

• Lost profit opportunity—tracks profit that the refinery lost due to unplanned shutdowns (Figure 9).

• Number of reliability clock resets per year—the clock is reset after each shutdown, so fewer resets indicate improving reliability (Figure 10).

Figure 8. Unplanned shutdowns dropped dramatically, and average days between shutdowns nearly tripled.

Percent of Time CRVs Exceeded Limits

Unplanned Shutdowns **

**

Unplanned Shutdown* No unplanned shutdown

Average days between Unplanned Shutdowns* No unplanned shutdown

** 122 days

14

Figure 9. Lost profit opportunity cost plummeted.

Figure 10. The number of annual resets of the reliability clock decreased sharply.

“In discussing an item in our weekly meeting, we discovered some thin piping that would have resulted in an unplanned shutdown at an estimated cost of $1 million a day for 2 weeks.”—Area Business Leader

Lost Profit Opportunity

Annual Clock Resets

15

CLG’s Contribution to Refinery ReliabilityThe refinery’s results derive from a mixture of capital improvements to replace equipment, robust management and decision-making, and culture change. CLG’s contribution was to the culture change, to applying behavioral science techniques to achieve results that depend entirely on what people do every day.

The challenge was “How do you engage 1,200 people in a facility on a common focus and make it real and tangible to them?” CLG helped the refinery’s leaders influence people to perform the right behaviors—to catch problems before failure occurs.

Today, the reliability program is fully owned and managed by the client. The refinery’s results compelled its leaders to request continued support from CLG with other strategic initiatives.

“There is a very compelling story, as each area has developed discipline in operator surveillance. Many areas are seeing exceptions fall off to a manageable level. This sets a strong foundation for our reliability efforts.

—Operations Manager”

Performance Catalyst®CASE STUDY

CLG • 500 Cherrington Parkway • Suite 350 • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15108 • 412.269.7240

www.clg.com

© 2010 CLG

About CLG

CLG is a worldwide leader of behavior-based strategy execution and per-formance improvement consulting that enables companies to achieve lasting results consistently, with speed, precision, and control.

Whether your goal is increased growth, reduced costs, better asset utili-zation, higher customer satisfaction, better use of technology, or overall culture change, CLG can customize a solution based on your specific requirements. We’ll then transfer our behavior-based tools and method-ologies to you, so you can continue using them to improve performance long after our engagement is completed.