© 2007 Management Controls, Inc.The information contained herein is subject to change without notice.

Track Optimization Workshops

2

Purpose:To deliver a structured process enabling

optimized value from Track

New Customers

Existing Clients

3

Because there is more to Track than meets the eye.

Why Bother?

4

The “Potential” Problem

Existing Clients and New Customers• Track was or will be implemented without full

functionality or without a goal of 100% of the contractors engaged

• Project vs. process approach• Limited implementation scope • Timing• Resource availability• Narrowed focus for the initiative• Limited continuous growth planning

5

Where is the Proofthat there is

additional value to be realized with Track

functionality?

6

1-25%11%

25-50%19%

51-75%22%

76-99%30%

100%19%

Percentage of Plant Contractors

Using Track

Total Survey = 31

30% of the respondents

have less than 50% of their

contractors in Track

7

2544%

1424%

14 25%

4 7%

What Functions are Tied to Track?

Gates

Financial

Contracting

Maintenance Mgt

8

Site personnel provided training

Track Software trainers

On-the-job trainers

No training0

5

10

15

20

25

18

14 14

0

21

7

16

0

Training MethodologyCompany Personnel

Contractor Personnel

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

9

Within thePlant

External to the Plant

0

10

20

30

4

24

Does the Contractor Work Entirely within the Plant?

Re

spo

nd

en

t C

t.

Yes No05

1015202530

1410

Are Gate Readers at Remote Locations?

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

Yes No05

1015202530

9

15

Contractor Trailers Located Off-Site

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

10

Grace Period Always Applied0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

11

7

14

18

Grace Period Provided?Yes No

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

11

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 More than 15 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

6 6

10

2

How Much Grace Period is Allowed?

Minutes

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

12

Yes No0

4

8

12

16

1213

Equipment in Track

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

Daily Weekly Monthly Other02468

10121416

13

8

13

5

Rental types

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 75-99% 100%02468

10121416

13

3 35

1

% Equipment in Track

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

13

Yes No02468

1012141618

9

16

Material Handled in TrackRe

spon

dent

Ct.

0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 75-99% 100%02468

1012141618 16

5

02 2

0

% Material Handled in Track

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

14

4.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.20

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

5

1

Software within Track

Version Being Run

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

4.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.20

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 1

3

0 0

3rd Party Software

Version Being Run

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

4.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.20

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

1

3

4 4

1

In- House

Version Being Run

Resp

onde

nt C

t.

Measurement of Contractor Activities

15

The Optimization Workshop Process

16

Gap Analysis

Focused Workshops

PlanningDeploym

ent

Measurement

The Optimization Workshop Process

17

The Optimization Workshop Process

Gap Analysis

Focused Workshops

PlanningDeploym

ent

Measurement

Goals vs. Current Level of Use

• SLT• Maint.• T/A• Projects• Matl.

Mgt• Finance

Gap Closure

Execution per Plan

TrackingSuccess

18

The Process

Full Functionality

Contractors at 100%

SeniorLeadership

Maintenance

TurnaroundsOutages

Projects

MaterialsManagement

FinanceA/P

Workshops

19