Abstract
Over the past two to three decades, maintenance management has undergone a paradigm shift; it is no longer seen as a necessary evil, but as an integral part of the business process that creates value for the organisation. The next step in the evolution of maintenance management is a maintenance performance measurement that includes human factors. The human factors in maintenance are well- known in the aviation industry, as it gained momentum in the early 1990s after a series of serious aviation accidents. Other industries, however, have been slow to integrate the human factor in their maintenance performance measurements. This paper discusses the results of a research project that investigated the use and importance of maintenance management performance measurements that focus specifically on human factors as part of the overall performance management system. From the research presented in this paper, ‘motivation’ and ‘competence’ were identified as the most important human performance factors in the maintenance of electricity transmission systems.
Highlights
1.1 BackgroundOver 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]
This paper focuses on maintenance human factors that influence the maintenance function’s performance within the electricity transmission environment
Summary
Over the past two to three decades, human factors in the maintenance environment of the aviation industry have been well-researched. Other industries have been slow to include human factor awareness, procedures, and measurements in maintenance, irrespective of their applicability. Skills, abilities, and personal characteristics (KSAPs) are known as the ‘elements of competence’, and appear in many different definitions of competence. This is 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”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
