In a way the KPI issue is managed by the regulator in that they assess at regular intervals, the progress of the operators maintenance management system in accordance with their stated objectives in their Safety Case.

When the regulator finds any significant backlog of maintenance issues during their regular inspections these are raised with the operator and noted in the exit report. It is then managed by the operator in the knowledge that it will be followed up by the inspector to ensure compliance.

It has been my experience with two separate operators that when an item is raised by a NOPSA Inspector, the operator applies pressure to their maintenance team to get their maintenance up to date within a reasonable time.

Your point about an industry standard is well put and as far as I can tell there is no process other than the regulators records that brings these issues out into the open in any way which would allow the application of a KPI that reflects the relative performance of any operator.

My question is, what would be the value of a KPI that wasn't a comparitive analysis between operators? In other words, would the comparison of relative positions of the operators against a KPI bring about meaningful and positive change? And, is there any value in making these comparisons public?

My guess is that the competative situation between operators would bring about two results.

1. A desire to acheive a high rating against the KPI. 2. A potential to fudge the result by "managing" the figures in the reporting system.

I am aware that one of the two systems that I have personally worked with is quite able to be manipulated in terms of the backlog.

Interesting discussion and I would love to see some more opinions.

Yoda