In many organizations, the people who know the most about spare parts are easy to identify.
They are the people others call when a part cannot be found, when a stocking decision seems questionable or when a supplier fails to deliver.
They often know which catalogue descriptions are unreliable, which equipment has been modified and which parts are held for reasons that were never recorded.
This knowledge may have been accumulated over many years.
It is enormously valuable.
It also represents a significant organizational risk.
When an organization depends on one or two people to interpret information, challenge questionable decisions and remember why inventory is held, the capability does not really belong to the organization.
It belongs to those individuals.
This is rarely deliberate.
People develop knowledge as they solve problems. They learn which suppliers can be trusted, which parts are interchangeable and which apparent anomalies in the inventory system have legitimate explanations.
Over time, others naturally rely on them.
The problem becomes visible when the experienced person:
• retires;
• takes another role;
• moves to another site;
• becomes unavailable;
• no longer has time to support everyone who needs assistance.
The organization then discovers that much of its spare parts management system existed in someone’s memory.
The obvious response is to document more information.
That is useful, but it is not enough.
A procedure can explain the required steps without helping someone interpret an unusual situation.
A spreadsheet can contain the correct formula while concealing assumptions that only its creator understands.
A policy can state what should happen without providing enough practical guidance for people to apply it consistently.
People must understand:
• why the process exists;
• what information matters;
• how the information influences the decision;
• when standard rules do not apply;
• who else should be involved;
• how the reasoning should be recorded.
This is why spare parts capability cannot be developed through documentation alone.
It requires shared understanding.
Building organizational capability does not diminish the importance of experienced people.
In fact, they are essential.
The difference is in how their knowledge is used.
Instead of repeatedly solving the same problems for others, experienced people can help the organization establish:
• practical policies;
• agreed definitions;
• repeatable decision processes;
• examples of good and poor decisions;
• guidance for unusual situations;
• clear escalation pathways.
Their knowledge becomes a foundation on which others can build.
The objective is not to remove professional judgment from spare parts management.
It is to ensure that professional judgment does not disappear when one person leaves.
Spare parts outcomes are not produced by one department.
Maintenance identifies operational requirements.
Engineering contributes technical knowledge.
Procurement manages suppliers and commercial arrangements.
Stores manages identification, handling and inventory accuracy.
Finance considers working capital and financial control.
Each function holds part of the information required to make a good decision.
This means that spare parts capability cannot sit only with the inventory team.
The organization needs a shared language and an agreed way to combine these different perspectives.
Not everyone needs to become a spare parts specialist.
But everyone who influences the outcome needs to understand their role in the decision.
A useful test is to ask:
What would happen if our two most knowledgeable spare parts people left tomorrow?
Would the organization continue to make decisions using agreed policies, accessible knowledge and a consistent framework?
Or would others be forced to reconstruct years of experience through trial and error?
The answer reveals whether the organization possesses spare parts capability—or simply has access to a few capable individuals.
It should make specialist knowledge available across functions and locations, support the application of common decision processes and reduce dependence on individual memory.
That is not simply training more people.
It is building an organizational capability that can survive changes in personnel, structure and operating conditions.
Posted by: Phillip Slater