There are hundreds of books written about leadership, and each one has some valuable point to make. Frequently, though, the description is of individual leadership, and often charismatic leadership. Leadership in the plant setting is creating consistency of purpose and action. Production is a large set of complex and interrelated systems of marketing, technology, finance, human resources, execution functions and equipment. Physical Asset Management then must take all of these into account. Putting things as simply as we can into the SAM model, the LEAD element consists of the Managing System, Strategic Planning and Information Management.

Four functional areas exist in any production environment. These arenas are the typical focus of leadership. If done well, they lead to functional excellence.

• Capacity Development is usually considered to be the Design Engineering and Project management functions in an organization. This function consumes $100's of millions in what are often risky bets made on optimum market assumptions. A thoughtful and disciplined method to assure excellence in the assumptions, design, construction and preparation for production can be a valuable tool.

• Production Management. Everyone in the plant believes with good reason that production is the reason we are all here. And indeed this is the vehicle for value creation.

• Logistics include materials management, purchasing and movements of people and materials. This function can make or break the Production and Asset Healthcare Management functions.

• Asset Healthcare Management. Is this just another term for maintenance and reliability? Perhaps at some levels it is. But it is concerned with optimizing and integrating all parts of the business based on risk and value, and so goes beyond the traditional boundaries of maintenance and reliability.

These 4 functional areas make up the sides of The SAMI Pyramid. Click here to learn more about The SAMI Pyramid.

Plant personnel know their jobs are tied to production and plant reliability. So their view of change is to ignore corporate directives until they evaporate from lack of momentum and commitment. Their approach is well-rewarded; most programs do indeed get replaced by the next wave of "best practice" from corporate. In our experience the only change that lasts in the plant are those things that make sense to the guy on the plant floor. Safety, for instance, is in his best interest. It may have taken a decade or more of emphasis on safety, but everywhere we go we see good results and lasting change.

Some criteria for change of any kind to take hold in the plant are:

1. Intellectually it makes sense to the plant population. That sense means that improved productivity will likely result from such a program.
2. The plant population has a major say in how it will happen in their environment. They have the power, collectively, to determine whether it will proceed, and how it will proceed.
3. They see true commitment to the results. That means a number of things:

• Some executive's future is tied to making this happen
• It has worked somewhere else that is similar enough to their environment
• The leadership team are all on board, no quibbling or sidebars
• Results are measured and posted at visible locations in the plant
• Valuable line people are assigned to the job, taken from other important tasks