At SRCN, we are often asked whether we run wrench time or time-in-motion studies. We do not,
and that is by design.
This short article, the second in our wrench time series, is based on a simple question.
Why are these studies so unpopular, and what does that tell you?
Most of the resistance is not about the stopwatch. It is about what the stopwatch implies.
To the workforce, a wrench time study can feel intrusive, like Big Brother is watching. Someone standing nearby, recording movements, judging what counts as productive and what counts as waste. Even if the intent is improvement, the experience can feel like surveillance. It can also carry an unspoken message.
That is seldom the intention. It is frequently the interpretation. In maintenance and operations, most technicians already feel the pressure of backlogs, emergent failures, shifting priorities, and the daily reality of working around access, isolations, permits, and missing parts. When you then measure them as if the primary problem is effort, you instantly create defensiveness.
There is another point worth emphasising. These studies are almost always directed at the people in boiler suits, and rarely at those onshore or in the office.
Planning quality, materials management, isolation planning, permit workflow, prioritisation churn, and late changes to the weekly schedule. These are the factors that drive lost time offshore, yet they are seldom the focus of observation.
When scrutiny flows in only one direction, it feels less like improvement and more like blame. That perception quickly creates a them-and-us dynamic.
There is a final issue: credibility.
These studies are often seen as inaccurate because they simplify a complex job into tidy categories. Waiting for a permit looks like idle time. Walking to stores looks like wasted effort. Stopping to clarify the scope looks like inefficiency. In reality, those are often the inevitable activities that come from doing work.
Which is the real point.
If a wrenchtime study is unpopular, it is usually telling you something useful. It is telling you there is low trust, and that the workforce believes the organisation will use the result to simply push harder rather than fix the system.
If you want higher productivity, do not start by measuring effort. Start by removing friction.
In the next article in the series, we will cover why these studies often confirm what everyone
already knows and how you can spot the same issues using normal work management
data without creating a Big Brother atmosphere.
#SRCN/ARTICLES
