The plant was new and state-of-the-art, and it struggled immediately. In a remote location and a tight job market, qualified maintenance technicians were hard to find, and the talent that did come through the door often could not do the work. Leadership characterized the problem bluntly, describing electricians who could not wire up a motor. High turnover, running above 58%, turned the maintenance department into a constant cycle of hiring and training, with little time to build real capability.
A large-scale poultry processor cut maintenance spend 39.5% and lifted CMMS hours utilization 33.4% by rebuilding how maintenance was led, scheduled, and tracked, not by buying its way out with new equipment.
Large-Scale Poultry Processor
Results at a Glance
39.5%
Maintenance Spend Reduction
33.4%
CMMS Hours Utilization
22.6%
PM Completion
Executive Brief
A new, state-of-the-art plant could not hire or hold qualified maintenance talent in a remote, tight labor market, and the gaps ran deeper than headcount: supervisors who supervised for only a fraction of their day, abandoned startup and shutdown checklists despite heavy automation, managers promoted for wrench skill rather than leadership, and a negative culture rooted in poorly communicated goals while turnover ran above 58%. POWERS ran a discovery phase, then installed the leadership and operating system the plant lacked: a new Mission Statement and Key Tenets, a Robust Dialogue communication structure, more frequent supervisor check-ins with clear expectations, technician skills training, a new scheduling system, a dedicated weekend crew for preventive work, and a shift of maintenance spend from a reactive rear-view view to forward-planned purchase orders. Across six maintenance KPIs the improvement was decisive: maintenance spend improved 39.5%, CMMS hours as a share of paid hours improved 33.4%, PM completion improved 22.6%, and corrective work-order completion, safety-training compliance, and startup success all moved toward target.
The Situation
A brand-new, heavily automated plant was running its maintenance department on tribal knowledge, and the people meant to lead it had been chosen for their wrench skill, not their ability to lead.
The plant was new and state-of-the-art, and it struggled immediately. In a remote location and a tight job market, qualified maintenance technicians were hard to find, and the talent that did come through the door often could not do the work. Leadership characterized the problem bluntly, describing electricians who could not wire up a motor. High turnover, running above 58%, turned the maintenance department into a constant cycle of hiring and training, with little time to build real capability.
The deeper problem was not headcount, it was leadership and structure. Supervisors and managers had been promoted for their maintenance skill rather than their ability to manage, which left a gap in coaching and follow-up. Supervisors spent only 18% of their day actually supervising, so technicians self-managed their workloads with little feedback. Startup and shutdown checklists had been abandoned despite a major investment in automated equipment, and the plant ran on tribal knowledge instead of standard procedures.
Underneath it all sat a negative culture. The mission and goals had been communicated so ineffectively that technicians did what they each thought was best, with no shared understanding of the desired result, and some prioritized individual goals over the team. What the plant needed was not another round of hiring, but a system: a way to align the work to clear goals, give supervisors a real supervisory routine, restore standard procedures, and manage maintenance spend with foresight rather than hindsight.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
A talent pool that could not do the work
A remote location and tight job market made qualified maintenance technicians hard to hire, to the point leadership described electricians who could not wire up a motor, so the plant never had the bench it needed.
Supervisors who barely supervised
Supervisors spent only 18% of their day actually supervising, leaving technicians to self-manage their workloads with little feedback and no consistent follow-up.
Checklists abandoned, procedures unwritten
Startup and shutdown checklists were abandoned despite a major automated-equipment investment, leaving the plant running on tribal knowledge instead of standard procedures.
Leaders chosen for the wrong skill
Managers and supervisors were promoted for maintenance skill rather than management ability, creating a coaching and follow-up gap at exactly the level where execution is set.
A culture with no shared target
Ineffective communication of the mission and goals left technicians working to their own idea of best with no shared target, feeding a negative culture and turnover above 58%.
Maintenance spend managed in the rear-view mirror
Maintenance spend was managed reactively after the fact rather than planned forward against available resources, so cost control was always a step behind the work.
What POWERS Did
Rebuilt maintenance leadership, communication, and proactive upkeep at a plant running on tribal knowledge.
POWERS started with a discovery phase that surfaced the supervisory-engagement deficit and the work-order-management issues, then tied the maintenance work to organizational goals and strategy through a leadership workshop. Out of that came a new Mission Statement and Key Tenets, giving technicians the shared target they had been missing, and a Robust Dialogue communication structure that emphasized team alignment and open conversation about difficult subjects.
On the floor, several changes ran in parallel. Supervisor check-ins with technicians became more frequent, job expectations and responsibilities were made clear, and additional training and support were provided to build technician skill sets. A new scheduling system improved resource allocation and streamlined work processes, and a dedicated weekend crew was put in place to own Preventative Work Orders so PM no longer competed with production for time.
POWERS also reset how the plant managed money. Maintenance spend shifted from a reactive, rear-view-mirror view to a forward-looking one, with open purchase orders in the coming months aligned to available resources. Together, the leadership reset, the restored procedures, the scheduling discipline, and the forward-planned spend turned a department running on tribal knowledge into one with a real operating rhythm, and the maintenance KPIs moved as a result.
The Full Result
Six maintenance metrics moved toward target, earned through better leadership and scheduling rather than new capital.
39.5%
Maintenance Spend Reduction
Maintenance spend improved toward a target of under $187,000 per week as the plant shifted from a reactive rear-view approach to forward-planned purchase orders aligned with available resources.
33.4%
CMMS Hours Utilization
CMMS hours as a share of paid hours improved toward a 60% target as the new scheduling system and supervisor follow-up put technician time onto real, tracked work.
22.6%
PM Completion
Preventive-maintenance completion improved toward an 80% target once a dedicated weekend crew owned Preventative Work Orders rather than letting them slip behind production.
17.0%
Corrective Work Order Completion
Corrective work-order completion improved toward a 60% target as work-order management and scheduling tightened around a defined routine.
9.1%
Safety Training Compliance
Safety-training compliance improved toward a 100% target as clear expectations and follow-up were built into the supervisor routine.
7%
Startup Success
Startup success improved toward a greater-than-90% target as the abandoned startup and shutdown checklists were restored and followed.
Ready to builddisciplined execution in your operation?
Every POWERS engagement starts with our intensive Discovery Process. We work with everyone on your team, identify the gaps in the five disciplines that hold execution back, and build the partnership that closes them. The results stay built long after we’re gone.
Stronger Execution. Stronger Performance.
Equipment Reliability · Frontline Leadership · MOS
A large-scale poultry processor cut maintenance spend 39.5% and lifted CMMS hours utilization 33.4% by rebuilding how maintenance was led, scheduled, and tracked, not by buying its way out with new equipment.
Large-Scale Poultry Processor
Executive Brief
A new, state-of-the-art plant could not hire or hold qualified maintenance talent in a remote, tight labor market, and the gaps ran deeper than headcount: supervisors who supervised for only a fraction of their day, abandoned startup and shutdown checklists despite heavy automation, managers promoted for wrench skill rather than leadership, and a negative culture rooted in poorly communicated goals while turnover ran above 58%. POWERS ran a discovery phase, then installed the leadership and operating system the plant lacked: a new Mission Statement and Key Tenets, a Robust Dialogue communication structure, more frequent supervisor check-ins with clear expectations, technician skills training, a new scheduling system, a dedicated weekend crew for preventive work, and a shift of maintenance spend from a reactive rear-view view to forward-planned purchase orders. Across six maintenance KPIs the improvement was decisive: maintenance spend improved 39.5%, CMMS hours as a share of paid hours improved 33.4%, PM completion improved 22.6%, and corrective work-order completion, safety-training compliance, and startup success all moved toward target.
Results at a Glance
39.5%
Maintenance Spend Reduction
33.4%
CMMS Hours Utilization
22.6%
PM Completion
The Situation
A brand-new, heavily automated plant was running its maintenance department on tribal knowledge, and the people meant to lead it had been chosen for their wrench skill, not their ability to lead.
The deeper problem was not headcount, it was leadership and structure. Supervisors and managers had been promoted for their maintenance skill rather than their ability to manage, which left a gap in coaching and follow-up. Supervisors spent only 18% of their day actually supervising, so technicians self-managed their workloads with little feedback. Startup and shutdown checklists had been abandoned despite a major investment in automated equipment, and the plant ran on tribal knowledge instead of standard procedures.
Underneath it all sat a negative culture. The mission and goals had been communicated so ineffectively that technicians did what they each thought was best, with no shared understanding of the desired result, and some prioritized individual goals over the team. What the plant needed was not another round of hiring, but a system: a way to align the work to clear goals, give supervisors a real supervisory routine, restore standard procedures, and manage maintenance spend with foresight rather than hindsight.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
A talent pool that could not do the work
A remote location and tight job market made qualified maintenance technicians hard to hire, to the point leadership described electricians who could not wire up a motor, so the plant never had the bench it needed.
Supervisors who barely supervised
Supervisors spent only 18% of their day actually supervising, leaving technicians to self-manage their workloads with little feedback and no consistent follow-up.
Checklists abandoned, procedures unwritten
Startup and shutdown checklists were abandoned despite a major automated-equipment investment, leaving the plant running on tribal knowledge instead of standard procedures.
Leaders chosen for the wrong skill
Managers and supervisors were promoted for maintenance skill rather than management ability, creating a coaching and follow-up gap at exactly the level where execution is set.
A culture with no shared target
Ineffective communication of the mission and goals left technicians working to their own idea of best with no shared target, feeding a negative culture and turnover above 58%.
Maintenance spend managed in the rear-view mirror
Maintenance spend was managed reactively after the fact rather than planned forward against available resources, so cost control was always a step behind the work.
What POWERS Did
Rebuilt maintenance leadership, communication, and proactive upkeep at a plant running on tribal knowledge.
POWERS started with a discovery phase that surfaced the supervisory-engagement deficit and the work-order-management issues, then tied the maintenance work to organizational goals and strategy through a leadership workshop. Out of that came a new Mission Statement and Key Tenets, giving technicians the shared target they had been missing, and a Robust Dialogue communication structure that emphasized team alignment and open conversation about difficult subjects.
On the floor, several changes ran in parallel. Supervisor check-ins with technicians became more frequent, job expectations and responsibilities were made clear, and additional training and support were provided to build technician skill sets. A new scheduling system improved resource allocation and streamlined work processes, and a dedicated weekend crew was put in place to own Preventative Work Orders so PM no longer competed with production for time.
POWERS also reset how the plant managed money. Maintenance spend shifted from a reactive, rear-view-mirror view to a forward-looking one, with open purchase orders in the coming months aligned to available resources. Together, the leadership reset, the restored procedures, the scheduling discipline, and the forward-planned spend turned a department running on tribal knowledge into one with a real operating rhythm, and the maintenance KPIs moved as a result.
The Full Result
39.5%
Maintenance Spend Reduction
Maintenance spend improved toward a target of under $187,000 per week as the plant shifted from a reactive rear-view approach to forward-planned purchase orders aligned with available resources.
33.4%
CMMS Hours Utilization
CMMS hours as a share of paid hours improved toward a 60% target as the new scheduling system and supervisor follow-up put technician time onto real, tracked work.
22.6%
PM Completion
Preventive-maintenance completion improved toward an 80% target once a dedicated weekend crew owned Preventative Work Orders rather than letting them slip behind production.
17.0%
Corrective Work Order Completion
Corrective work-order completion improved toward a 60% target as work-order management and scheduling tightened around a defined routine.
9.1%
Safety Training Compliance
Safety-training compliance improved toward a 100% target as clear expectations and follow-up were built into the supervisor routine.
7%
Startup Success
Startup success improved toward a greater-than-90% target as the abandoned startup and shutdown checklists were restored and followed.
POWERS|+1 678-971-4711|info@thepowerscompany.com|1801 Peachtree St NE, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 303091 / 1