George Williams
Podcast Masterminds in Maintenance

Episode 10: Garbage Data In, Garbage Data Out with George Williams

Ryan Chan

This week on Masterminds in Maintenance, we hear from George Williams – CEO at ReliabilityX.  George has more than 15 years of experience in maintenance and asset management across different fortune 500 and pharmaceutical companies in the United States.

George argues that it takes an understanding of the value proposition of your equipment, your systems, and your people to conduct a complete audit of maintenance teams. He notes that often, people assume that only one of the three is valuable; however, he argues that all three are equally important for successful maintenance teams. Learn more in this episode of Masterminds in Maintenance!

Listen to this week’s episode online here or on Apple podcasts here! You can also watch this episode on YouTube here.

Connect with Ryan chan on Linkedin Here and George Williams on Linkedin here.


Got questions on maintenance & reliability? Looking for live advice?

Join our LIVE “Ask the Experts!” panel on November 12th, 11amPT/2pmET.

Ryan Chan, Masterminds in Maintenance

Robert Kalwarowsky, Rob’s Reliability Project

George Williams, ReliabilityX

Joe Anderson, ReliabilityX

Submit questions in advance here. Join us for our live conversation here.

Join the Masterminds in Maintenance Podcast!

Are you an industry leader in the fields of maintenance and reliability? We want to hear from you! If you would like to be featured as a guest on our podcast, please sign up here.

Stay tuned for more inspiring guests to come in future episodes!


00:06 Ryan Chan: Welcome to Masterminds in Maintenance, a podcast for those with new ideas of maintenance. I’m your host, Ryan, I’m the CEO and founder of Upkeep. Each week, I’ll be meeting with a guest who’s had an idea for how to shape things up in the maintenance and reliability industry. Sometimes their idea failed, sometimes they made their business more successful, and other times their idea revolutionized an entire industry. Today, I have with me George Williams, CEO at ReliabilityX. Welcome, George.

00:34 George Williams: Thanks Ryan, I really appreciate the time, and it’s really good that you’re following on have a failure on this.

00:40 RC: Alright, here we go. Well, it’s good to chat with you, it’s been a little while. Looking forward to learning more about your story and how you got into reliability and how you came to start ReliabilityX. Maybe we could start there. Could you start with sharing a little bit about more about your background, yourself, and how you came to the ReliabilityX?

01:02 GW: Yeah, sure, absolutely. My background, I went to a vo-tech high school in the inner city of Philadelphia, went to Drexel University for a couple of years, had a family young. And so, to support that family, I took positions in the maintenance field, dropped out of college. I ended up taking a position inside a Fortune 100 company that happened to be one of the best things I’ve ever done in my life, and I spent 15 years at a large pharmaceutical manufacturing facility, where I started out as a painter and left responsible for asset management globally, including being the business owner of their Maximo system, or their CMMS system at the time. And so, from there, we had great successes. One, an Uptime Award in 2015 for running best maintenance and reliability program, as a global entity, not just as single site. Won CMRP of year award in 2016. During that pathway, I’ve gotten my master’s degree in maintenance reliability from Monash University, and was among the first CRL Blackbelts as well. So, it’s been quite a journey, but then it transitioned to… I wanna help more organizations, and working for an individual organization is fantastic and nothing brought me more pleasure than being a practitioner, however, I think I can do a world of good by helping a broader base and a larger set of organizations. And so, we started ReliabilityX.

02:36 RC: That’s amazing, what a wonderful story. George, I gotta ask the question. You said that you guys won national awards for your guys as maintenance and reliability program. What was the cause of that? How did you guys get to that level?

02:50 GW: It’s all about people, Ryan. Your organization focuses on frontline personnel and all the things that I see you posting deal with frontline personnel, and that’s really how we ended up winning that award. Our focus, and many focuses of asset management and reliability implementations, focus on the equipment. We’re focused on standard application of how to do something, and you tell people what to do. And we chose to take a different path. What we did was empower people, we educated them, we give them options, we allowed them to prioritize what added value to them and what added value to the organization. And when we gave people that freedom, that freedom translated into higher levels of effort and higher levels of cultural evolution. I hate the term “cultural change” or “culture change”, it’s terrible term. What we focused on was evolving our culture to the next level, and as we continued to do that, we just continued to grow, and it became an amazing place, absolutely amazing place.

03:52 RC: That’s awesome. It sounds like you started in this industry coming out of high school and working as a painter. At what point did you realize that maintenance and reliability wasn’t just one more stepping stone but a pathway towards your career and what it is today?

04:14 GW: Yeah, so realistically, throughout high school, I worked as a mechanic on trucks in my father’s garage and he taught me an awful lot about making sure you do the job right and that you understand what it is you’re doing, and that you use the right tools. And I took a job as painter, quite frankly, it was pay cut to get my foot in the door at a Fortune 100 company. And I think, for all the things that I try to implement or that I try to educate people and it’s really about grounding yourself and understanding who you are, and I’ve never lost that, and I think my path forward has just always been to try to continually improve. And inside that organization, that Fortune 100 company organization, I just happened to be given opportunities to demonstrate my value and continue to learn. They gave me opportunities to learn and opportunities to demonstrate value. And as long as I continued to do that, I was able to move up. And certainly, there are a number of people who aren’t really interested in moving up that are in the maintenance reliability space, and that is commendable. The folks that wanna turn wrenches and they do this every day, have a passion for it because they like to step back from what they did and feel really good about it, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But the people that do wanna advance, the advice is: Keep learning and applying that learning.

05:41 RC: Absolutely. Was there one tip or piece of advice that you give other people in the maintenance and reliability space that wanna move up in the career? Is there one thing, one piece of learning that stuck out to you that really shaped and informed your career path?

06:01 GW: Wow, I’d say two things, One, don’t ever assume you know anything. You don’t know any… I know nothing, I know absolutely nothing. I surround myself with people that teach me things every day, and I teach at the University of Wisconsin so that I can engage people in a broader audience and learn from them. It’s so much more for me than it is for them. It’s a terrible thing to say, but it really is. And as long as you continue to strive to learn and be humble, understanding you don’t know anything, and put yourself in the process of asking questions to better understand things. And then, just the second piece of that is, stop being afraid and stop providing yourself limits. Apply what you learn, take risks, be okay if they fail, and keep moving forward.

06:58 RC: Awesome. Well, George, you know a whole lot more than I do about maintenance and reliability, I will admit that. And this idea of not being afraid to fail, I believe that’s what led you to start ReliabilityX. So, let’s dig in there, I’m curious… Now, you’ve got your own company now, you guys focus on consulting for best practices and maintenance and reliability. What’s the most common reason for people and businesses to come out and reach out to you and ReliabilityX?

07:32 GW: I think there’s two pieces to that, Ryan. One is, asset management reliability for the sake of asset management reliability. People have a much better understanding at higher levels of the organization, that maintaining their equipment is good for their bottom line. And I think there’s a whole piece of reliability for the sake of the asset and what that does to the organization. The second piece, and what’s really unique about ReliabilityX, is that we focus on what we call holistic reliability. We bridge the gap between operations and maintenance, and focus on how, as a maintenance organization and our understanding and our expertise of the manufacturing equipment level can bridge the gap to improve operations. And typically, what happens is operations blames maintenance for all the downtime, but downtime is made up of an awful lot of things, and most of those are not parts breaking. Most of those are minor stuff, bad materials going into the process. There’s thousands of reasons why the machine stops, and only a few of those are because the part broke. And so, maintenance gets blamed for all that downtime. And what we focus on in holistic reliability is a true understanding of where the value losses are and how you go about regaining those.

08:53 RC: Yeah, absolutely. People think of downtime, again, I see it all the time that it’s always the first thought that comes to mind as parts breaking, component breaks, but it doesn’t encompass the other 99 problems that could have occurred.

09:10 GW: Which make up about 85% or 95% of the actual issues that they’re seeing every day.

09:17 RC: Absolutely. So, you come in, you step in, trying to bridge the gap between maintenance and operations. What’s the most common mistake that you see your clients making when you first step into their business and run that audit?

09:32 GW: I think there’s two things. The first one is, we design equipment to achieve X, and our outputs are typically some Y at some level, and in between are all the reasons we’re not seeing the value of the asset, and some of those are: Procurement needs to save a penny, so they give us sub-standard supplies to operate with, and maintenance is being told to reduce costs, so they’re reducing the number of PMs, and we don’t have operational standards. And there’s this huge gap. What tends to happen in industries, they start lowering their targets to meet the delta not trying to reduce the delta. So, I think one of the biggest issues are, they’re not consistently trying to achieve design reliability of the equipment, they’re trying to achieve their understood reliability of the equipment, and they’re two different things. I think the second thing that people make mistakes about is thinking that reliability is a program, that is a project plan with a start and end date. You’ve got a alter how you do business if you wanna truly achieve reliability. You gotta understand the value proposition of your asset and understand how to achieve it.

10:45 GW: And that’s a lot of work, that’s a ton of work, and cannot be overstated how much work that is. But what happens is they think it’s a project plan, they’re gonna come in and run something for 12 months and suddenly things are gonna be glorious. And that’s not how this works.

11:02 RC: Right. It’s a lot about a culture shift within an organization. It’s people and process and the way that they run their operations every single day for the rest of that company’s life. So, I’m curious, what are some mistakes that we could learn from other of your clients? You stepping in there, running that audit, helping them out. What are some common mistakes that we can all learn from, from them?

11:36 GW: So, I think so… Oh, that’s a big, giant, loaded question. [chuckle] Some of the mistakes folks make, like I said, are, that this is a project, and it’s not a project. This has to become an evolution of your culture and an extension of how you do business. And the more you focus there, the better off you’ll be, because true success comes from people. The second part of this is an understanding of the value proposition of your equipment, your systems and your people. And it takes all three of those. It’s not really just one. You can have great people and good processes, but if you don’t give them systems to operate within, you become talent reliant. If you don’t have great people that are pushing a boulder uphill and you don’t give them systems, it’s their brute force that makes success. So, it’s really all three of those things. And they’ve found for different reasons for each one of those. And so. A focus on people is number one. Don’t make that mistake, your people drive success, nothing else drives success in totality like people. You can succeed without good processes and systems; you cannot succeed without people. And so, I think the other thing that we make big mistakes, totally from an industry perspective, is not trying to achieve at a higher level. We try to push the equipment with its current poor practices, not fix those practices, and we don’t truly understand them.

13:11 GW: The issue is this: You can take some training classes and you can get certified and all kinds of things, whether it’s an OpEx and you can get your Green and Black Belt, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but to have folks that can remove root causes and improve plant performance, is a lot different than trying to create efficiencies in those bad practices. And we try to focus on all of those things. There’s not really a recipe here, Ryan, and I know you want me to say, “Well, what are all the mistakes?” and if we can say the mistakes, you can be successful. There’s no one recipe. If there was, I’d write the book, and I’d be a millionaire. There’s no one recipe.

13:49 RC: So, let’s move to people, because that seems to always be at the core of every single discussion, the core of every problem, the core to every single solution. How do you know if you have the right people and how do you… Any tips, advice for breeding the right culture that speaks reliability and cares about root cause versus patching a problem?

14:13 GW: The right people. There’s a couple of things here. One, they have to be a cultural fit, that’s the highest priority. If they are either already know everything, completely unwilling to learn, don’t focus your efforts there. There are a number of people that are gonna be straight and on board and can’t wait to succeed, there’s gonna be a number of people that are on the fence and you’ve gotta tip them one way or the other, and then there’s gonna be a bottom of the barrel that are just completely anti-this. And while I completely understand that they’re going through the change curve, you can’t focus on the people that are way down in the depression part of that change curve. You’ve gotta focus on the people that are going to be your champions and focus on educating the people, that you have an opportunity to lower the dip in the change curve, If you’re thinking about the Kubler-Ross Change Curve, as long as those people are not dipping too low, you’ve got a chance to save them through education and empowerment. And if they’re really low, you can tend to spend all of your focus there and ignore the people that are salivating for learning. And so, don’t focus heavily on the folks that are at the bottom of that change curve.

15:27 RC: Yeah, yeah, and sometimes you guys just have to make the hard decisions as well.

15:33 GW: Absolutely, 100%.

15:35 RC: Got it.

15:35 GW: This is work. If you want a friend, buy a dog.

15:39 RC: [laughter] Alright. So George, let’s pivot a little bit into software and technology now. I see advocating for CMMS and technology quite a bit. What do you see as the role of a CMMS in maintenance and reliability?

15:55 GW: Wow, so this is an interesting question for me, Ryan. Just like any other asset that you acquire, the role of the CMMS to add value. And what typically happens is we buy the CMMS, or it’s an IT project, and the focus is on its implementation. Not even its correct population, but just the fact that it exists on a server. And the fact that it exists on a server adds no value to the organization. The organization has to understand what they expect out of the CMMS for it to be successful. So, I think that the biggest issue I see with implementations of CMMS is not the vendor, it’s not the design, it’s not anything to do with anything other than understanding what you expect out of it, and then driving towards that. People buy a CMMS and they say, “We wanna reduce downtime,” but then they don’t require downtime to be tracked anywhere, in the CMMS. So, you don’t have the information to drive the results you’re asking for. The disc, and we’ll use that metaphorically, adds no value. What adds value is its utilization and an understanding of the value you want out of it. You can make a CMMS manage a lot of things, including just your IT ticket calls. And so, the value proposition of it is based on your definition as an organization, and it doesn’t matter how well it’s implemented, if you have not defined value, it’s gonna be very difficult for it to provide that value.

17:25 RC: Absolutely. So George, what is that value that you see companies and your clients getting the most value out of a CMMS?

17:34 GW: I think the biggest potential value out of the CMMS is to improve plant performance. The lack of information that typically gets populated in the CMMS makes that relatively impossible. And so, there’s two real big value propositions of the CMMS. One is the efficiency of the workforce. So, it’s about the planning the work, it’s understanding your backlog, managing it well, scheduling it well. Do I have all the materials ready so I can dispatch? And can a technician effectively utilize it in the field and document what happened without it being clunky and cumbersome, and force them to non-adoption? And that’s where your organization focuses heavily, and that’s a whole value proposition in and of itself. The other value proposition is in actually getting the value from the asset that sits on the floor, and that’s a whole different world, that’s… Do you have the right PMs? Are they effective when they are implemented? And in order to know that, you’ve gotta get data out of that CMS, you’ve gotta be able to correlate what tasks you’re doing to what failures you’re seeing.

18:45 GW: And until you can create the CMMS that does those things and the organization that populates that well, they’re gonna be missing all of that, and you gonna come as efficient as you wanted, the wrong things. It’s not gonna create reliably at the plant’s floor. And so, you’ve got to balance both of those things when you think of the value of the CMMS and when you design how you will implement and utilize the CMMS.

19:10 RC: Right. Would you say that most of your clients are focused more on workforce productivity versus asset performance, or the other way around?

19:21 GW: I would say that most organizations focus on efficiency, not only in the CMMS side, with planning and scheduling, but across the whole plant. And we tend to try to be very efficient at doing the wrong things.


19:34 GW: And the reason… Look, and I’m gonna give you an analogy that makes it really simple. It’s easy to be a critic, it’s easy to critique something and say, “You’re not doing it right, or “You shouldn’t do this step, take this step.” It’s real easy to look at a process and be a critic. It’s really hard to be effective. So, it’s less work to try to become efficient. The other piece of that is some organizations, and many into this category, don’t have the resources that can focus on effective. And so, they say, “Well, we don’t have enough technicians, we can’t hire a planner, we just don’t have the people.” And you can create efficiencies that allow you to barter resources. If you can do planning and scheduling well, instead of 20 technicians, maybe you only need 16, and I can create one of those positions as a planner and a scheduler, and I can make one a reliability engineer and still give the company back one position. And so, you’ve now created a more effective organization, or an organization that becomes more effective without adding any head count, and so, it’s about growing flat, you’re trying to grow flat. So, if you’re in an organization that can’t just add those resources, you almost have to become efficient first.

20:46 RC: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. So, we always talk about a CMMS and we always talk about garbage data in as garbage data out. I read one of your posts recently and it had to do with asset classification and why that’s the fundamentals to getting the correct data into the system. I’m curious, what do you see most businesses getting wrong regarding asset classification? Again, what can we learn from all of the mistakes that you’ve seen? [chuckle]

21:19 GW: Well, I think in the way that I see how this operates, and certainly this could be completely off in 20 minutes from now, somebody could post something that’s an aha moment for me. But the way I see it is this, the classification of equipment drives a couple of things. You have one branch where it’s the equipment class and those sub-classes that drive down to attribute level. And so, if we think about pumps and motors and we get down to motors and the classification attributes of a motor, it’s horse power, frame size, service factor, RPM, all those things. That drives one branch of the CMMS, and that allows you as a planner to order parts effectively, it allows you to create very clean descriptions inside your inventory. “It’s a motor, AC, 1780 RPM,” and that’s all the same, and no longer we just have something that says, “Bearing” 8,000 times in your inventory.


22:19 GW: And so, you have a classification list there. You can also have unique classification uses such as in locations. If you’re in a facilities-related organization you can create a classification for a rule that lists, “Primary paint color, secondary paint color, ceiling tile grid size, ceiling tile number.” And so, without leaving your desk, you can effectively plan work inside those spaces. The other branch of classifications drives the failure class higher argument, or the problem-cause-remedy, or if you’re in a different… The different CMMSs call it different things. But how do you drive down to, “It’s a pump, it leaks, it leaked because I had a seal failure and I need to replace the seal.” That data resides, not only on the work order. And here’s the one place that, as you’re developing your CMMS you might wanna put on your road map. But it belongs at the job plan task level. On the PM. What is this PM design to mitigate? And so, if I inspect… In this case, I use this seal, which is a terrible example, you’re not gonna open a seal and inspect it. BUt let’s say you have job plan test that says, “Inspect seal.” It should be associated with that failure mode. The reason you do that is, I can then look in the CMMS and say, “Show me all the times I’ve seen this value code, but I don’t have a task to address it.”

23:42 GW: What are the things that I see the most, yet I don’t have tasks in my PM strategy to address those. And vice versa. “Show me how many times I’m inspecting for a leak at a pump and I never find a leak. What am I looking for a leak for?” People go in a room, they’ll find a leak when it’s leaking. If you’re a 5S and things are clean and things are in order, then when you walk through a room and see a leak, it’s blatantly obvious there’s a problem. You shouldn’t need that task. But the data should be telling you that. The only way to do that, in my opinion, correctly, is have a clean classification system for both the attributes and the failure hierarchy.

24:21 RC: Yeah. Again, I think what it all comes down to is being able to pull reports on your data. We have a CMMS so that ultimately, we can look back on it and make better business level decisions. When you don’t have that kind of classification, it’s impossible to run reports and look back and say, “This is what the root cause was.” I read another one of your articles, George, about long-form text and why that could be the death of a CMMS. And I think, my gut, it sounds like it’s the same reasoning and logic. You have long form text, there’s no way to filter on it, there’s no way to classify, there’s no way to run reports on long form text.

25:09 GW: Yeah, I think people misuse those memo fields that exist inside. They don’t truly understand, number one, that most CMMS systems dump that all into one table. And so, if you’re not very astute in SQL query, you’re not getting to it. And the other piece of that is, it’s too easy to misspell things, to not put a way to articulate information that you can then pull out of the system. And so, that’s why fields exist, that’s why data… If long form text was successful, we would only have Word documents.


25:46 GW: It would never be a database. There’s a database for a reason. There’s a reason you have fields, there’s a reason you have tables that relate to one another, there’s a reason you have field types. It’s because writing a memo doesn’t work.

26:00 RC: That’s so interesting. It’s such a simple thing, George, it’s like, “Hey, we wanna classify. We wanna run a report and filter on this specific asset failure mode.” You can’t do that with a long form text. Very, very interesting. Something that I think all of us can just look back into our CMMS and just ask ourselves, “Is this a place where we should be using a field for it, or does this actually work along for a field text?”

26:33 GW: Yeah, I think there’s two big pieces here. One is, you have to collect data, so if you have no option, put it in a long form text. You can always choose not to use data you’ve collected, you can never choose to use data you didn’t collect. So, collect what you can. But you’re right, the second piece of that is, it’s gotta be retrievable, and if it’s something you are consistently putting in a long form text it probably deserves a field.

27:01 RC: Absolutely. Alright, well, George, what’s something you wish more people knew about in the maintenance and reliability industry?

27:13 GW: Business.


27:17 GW: And I say that for a huge reason. A lot of folks that are in maintenance and reliability, even if they started out as technicians but eventually become the maintenance manager, they’ve got no formal training how to supervise somebody when they became a supervisor. They got no formal training in how to create a budget and became the maintenance manager. They don’t understand business and they don’t understand business value and they don’t understand that you’re gonna learn about effectiveness and efficiency as two entities of what you do as a manager. And they don’t get that education. And so, what happens is we go to the engineering meetings and we say, “This thing’s a piece of crap.” And as maintenance people, we know emphatically it’s a piece of crap. But we’re sitting in a room full of bean counters and engineers and we’re bringing an opinion, so it doesn’t matter what it is, and it’s not their fault that we don’t get the money, it’s ours, because we’re not speaking the right language. So, my biggest advice is to start reading up on business, start reading up on how budgets are put together, understand that you are now, as maintenance and reliability professionals, part of the organization.

28:27 GW: We are treated as the step-child, or however you wanna term that, for a reason, because we don’t fit in. And we add value, but we don’t know how to articulate it, we don’t know how to justify it, we don’t know how to develop an ROI. We’ve gotta have much more training on the business aspects of our industry in order for us to be able to truly provide value.

28:53 RC: Yeah, absolutely. So George, let’s call… I am early on in my career in this industry of maintenance and reliability. What do you think I should do early on in my career to make sure that I set myself up for this long-term career of success?

29:13 GW: Just listen. You just have to listen, Ryan. If you put your… And I’m a talker. Look, I’ll be the first one to tell you, when there’s a room full of people, I tend to dominate that room and it’s probably not the greatest thing. And I’ve spent a lot of time in my career actively reminding myself to listen more, and it has served me well. But especially in the position you are in and the position I’m in, we’re trying to service a customer. And we may think we’ve created the cat’s meow, but it doesn’t get adopted if it doesn’t fit their needs. And it has to fit their needs, and there’s only one way you’re gonna know what their needs are, and it’s not by you talking.

29:58 RC: Yeah. So, focus on the business, understand multiple different languages, almost. And realize that, hey, there’s still a lot for us all to learn outside of just what we know we’re good at it, even if we are the best within the space of maintenance and reliability. There’s so many different people, personalities in the room that we can always, always learn from.

30:22 GW: Yeah, no doubt. And don’t get overwhelmed. I think the last piece of advice would be, don’t get overwhelmed. ‘Cause when you look at how much work this is, this can become overwhelming to people very quickly. Just don’t get overwhelmed.

30:36 RC: Alright. So George, what are you most excited about for the future of this industry, maintenance and reliability?

30:43 GW: Well, I think this is the hardest question to answer. There’s all this technology stuff that’s happening in IoT and regressive analytics and predictive analytics. All these things are really exciting. Meanwhile, we still can’t fix a sandwich. We’ve gotta improve our skill sets at the shop floor level, because the folks that are coming up are not being trained the way the previous generation was being trained. And I think they’re… What I’m excited for, is the day that we learn how to bridge the gap between technology and skill sets. Because you can put all the sensors you want in, if we’re putting in bad product or somebody has altered the settings on a machine, a lot of times those sensors don’t pick those things up, they just say, “Machine fault, stop. Machine fault, stop.” You still need good troubleshooting, you still need people with technical skill sets, that’s not going away. And the more you automate, the higher low skill sets need to be. And so, we’ve gotta heavily focus on bringing the skill sets of the next generation up, so that that technology can add value. It’s nice that it’s there, it can do amazing things, but if the skill sets don’t come up, it’s not going to matter much.

32:09 RC: I love it. I really like that perspective, George, because so many people are focused so much on the shiny, cool new thing, but then not really taking a step back and saying, “Hey, where are we right now?” And I think your perspective, George, is all about bringing people and technology closer. It’s not about the shiny, new thing, it’s about taking what’s out there right now and making it more effective.

32:35 GW: Every time there is a technological breakthrough, it’s because we’ve tried to make something that’s an extension of the human brain. When we think about, whether it’s smartphones, those things became an extension of what we needed to get done every day, and we just consolidated them and made them prettier, and all those things, but it wasn’t, “We’re gonna shake your day up and it’s gone.” It has to become an extension of who we are and same thing with IoT. It’s gotta add value to who we are, and there has to be a pathway to get the human element to interface with that technology to add value to the organization. The technology is great, but if we don’t act on it, or if it doesn’t add value in the human experience, it’s not going to have a lot of adoption, and not be very successful.

33:28 RC: Absolutely. So George, where do you go to continue to learn about this industry, get better? Where do you go for educational content?

33:38 GW: There’s an awful lot of places that that happens. Like I said earlier in the conversation, I teach at the University of Wisconsin, and I do that for just that purpose, not only to share some of the two brain cells that I have, but so that I can gain knowledge from the people that are in the room. We post things, whether we’re creating a video and posting it like some of the items you were mentioning earlier, is so we can get some feedback. Join the conversation, tell me I’m wrong, help me learn so that I can get better as well. Not everything we’re gonna post is gonna be very popular things. People are not gonna like those. There’s a reason for that and it’s not just, “I want my face on a video.” I want people to create a conversation and a dialogue. And then, the other piece is, continue to go to conferences, and network. Make your network as big as you possibly can, because you never know what type of expertise you might need, and there are folks that are experts in a variety of things. There’s not an individual that… There’s folks on this plant and every one of them knows more than I do about something.

34:46 GW: And so, the bigger you make your network, you never know what information you’re gonna need in the future and you’ll have a network that you can reach out to and ask questions to. When you think about earlier in your career, maybe, in coding, and I know early in my career, creating databases, you didn’t know a question, you just went on the Internet, you said, “I don’t know how to do this,” and three seconds later a 1,000 responses come by with exactly how to code it. That’s not any different in a maintenance and reliability space. There are really good people that are absolutely willing to share thousands and thousands of them. So, create a network and reach out to people and learn.

35:22 RC: Can you share with all of our listeners all the different ways they can connect with you?

35:26 GW: Yeah, sure, absolutely. Certainly, on LinkedIn. You can just search George Williams on LinkedIn. He’s the guy with the flat top, and you can’t miss that. You can follow on Twitter. There’s a couple of different handles you can follow, you can follow @reliabilityx, you can also follow @captainunreliability. If you’re not sure who that is, Captain Unreliability is an article and plant services magazine every month. And you can also reach out to us on… Let’s see, so you can watch our videos on YouTube, under The Reliability Experience, and we have a podcast called Practical Reliability that you can get off Anchor or any other platform. I think Anchor just got bought by Spotify two days ago, so… So, you’ll have to go to Spotify now, I think, for that. So yeah, we’re out all over the place. And certainly you can visit our website at or ask us a question at [email protected]

36:25 RC: Amazing, thank you again, George, for joining us, and thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to today’s Masterminds in Maintenance. My name is Ryan Chan, I’m the CEO and founder at UpKeep. You can connect with me on LinkedIn, and also directly at [email protected] Until next time. Thanks so much, George.

36:42 GW: Thanks Ryan. It was a pleasure being here.

Please enter a valid email address