Do you have an employee that does some things really well but other things horrible? I call such employees 50/50.
Question, is it worth keeping such an employee on staff? Do employees like this provide value to a team or are they more trouble than they are worth?
Example, you have an employee that is a great technologist. When there is a fire he is the first one in and resolves the issue. When there are no fires, he struggles or most times does not provide the mundane information to monitor the environment. For example, documentation diagrams, KPIs, etc. So other employees have to pick up the slack.
There have been various methods used to tell this employee what is expected. From goal settings, to individual one-to-one meetings, to plain this is how it needs to be done. Yet very little improvement.
So this begs the question, does this employee’s value in a crisis outweigh his value overall to the team and department?
A CIO's Voice 
The employee needs to understand that his job security is not based on being indispensible during times of crises, but in properly avoiding the crises and spreading the knowledge. The mundane you describe is essential to that end. Give the employee an appropriate amount of time to correct this, if unsuccessful he needs to be reassigned or let go.
For your example, you probably need to keep these people because you do need great trouble shooters, but don’t reward them as heros. The real heros are the ones who get the day-to-day running as non-events.
Thanks for the comment.