Current QMS has machine preventive maintenance as a "core process". The QMS has a procedure that details the entire PM system, machine by machine. This has sparked some debate on the staff here. Some say that equipment preventive maintenance should really be a work instruction, not a procedure. The old guard contends that the standard requires, under Section 6.3, a procedure detailing the PM system is a requirement. I welcome your thoughts, comments, etc.

Current QMS has machine preventive maintenance as a "core process". The QMS has a procedure that details the entire PM system, machine by machine. This has sparked some debate on the staff here. Some say that equipment preventive maintenance should really be a work instruction, not a procedure. The old guard contends that the standard requires, under Section 6.3, a procedure detailing the PM system is a requirement. I welcome your thoughts, comments, etc.

Call it what you want because as long as everyone knows what it is it doesn't matter.........Tell folks to get past the dribble

For what it matters you can call the stuff that tells you how to do PM "The Stuff That Tells Us How To Do PM"

A rose by any other name........

Call it what you want because as long as everyone knows what it is it doesn't matter.........Tell folks to get past the dribble

For what it matters you can call the stuff that tells you how to do PM "The Stuff That Tells Us How To Do PM"

A rose by any other name........

Yesiree-- We seem to be seeing a lot of this lately. As long as you have a written thing that tells what needs to be done, it makes no difference what it's called.

Current QMS has machine preventive maintenance as a "core process". The QMS has a procedure that details the entire PM system, machine by machine. This has sparked some debate on the staff here. Some say that equipment preventive maintenance should really be a work instruction, not a procedure. The old guard contends that the standard requires, under Section 6.3, a procedure detailing the PM system is a requirement. I welcome your thoughts, comments, etc.

A document is a document is a document...SOP, Procedure, WI...it really does not matter what you call it.

Call it what you want because as long as everyone knows what it is it doesn't matter.........Tell folks to get past the dribble

For what it matters you can call the stuff that tells you how to do PM "The Stuff That Tells Us How To Do PM"

A rose by any other name........

Yesiree-- We seem to be seeing a lot of this lately. As long as you have a written thing that tells what needs to be done, it makes no difference what it's called.

A document is a document is a document...SOP, Procedure, WI...it really does not matter what you call it.


Quoting "What's in a name?", would definitely take my agreement for casual discussions, however in this scenario, pardon my disagreement. I would not call myself by any other human name simply because the other is a human beings name. I have my personality associated with my name! Similarly,

Procedure - a specified way to conduct an activity or process

Work Instruction - step-by-step actions taken to complete a specific task.

Both differ in definition; I would not call a procedure a work instruction or vice-versa. Furthermore, WI's are generally more detailed and specific than procedures, specifying only how a task is performed and are generally, actions related to one department. Procedures may or may not involve other departments. There is a distinct difference between the two. However, ofcourse, both precisely do the tasks they are meant for, as long as they are meant for!

Current QMS has machine preventive maintenance as a "core process". The QMS has a procedure that details the entire PM system, machine by machine. This has sparked some debate on the staff here. Some say that equipment preventive maintenance should really be a work instruction, not a procedure. The old guard contends that the standard requires, under Section 6.3, a procedure detailing the PM system is a requirement. I welcome your thoughts, comments, etc.

If your PM is detailing machine-specific tasks (how factor) that need to be performed by an operator/mechanic on that machine only, (and where they do not indicate the Who, What, When factor) then this should be called Work Instruction.

Again, yes, both procedures and work instructions do their repective jobs, however, clearly differentiating them gives clarity and meaning to a healthy QMS.

Current QMS has machine preventive maintenance as a "core process". The QMS has a procedure that details the entire PM system, machine by machine. This has sparked some debate on the staff here. Some say that equipment preventive maintenance should really be a work instruction, not a procedure. The old guard contends that the standard requires, under Section 6.3, a procedure detailing the PM system is a requirement. I welcome your thoughts, comments, etc.
What Sam says is more on your documentation structure and levels that has been established in your QMS. This is very logical and will not only aid an employee, but it will also become a tool for new employee training. Go ahead the Sam way, good luck ......

An alternative view would be that you don't have to have a documented procedure/instruction for preventive maintenance - just have control over the process. :)

An alternative view would be that you don't have to have a documented procedure/instruction for preventive maintenance - just have control over the process. :)

Some organizations committed to the Preventive Maintenance process have a computerized or manual PM schedule. That would provide (some) control of the process.

Stijloor.

Quoting "What's in a name?", would definitely take my agreement for casual discussions, however in this scenario, pardon my disagreement. I would not call myself by any other human name simply because the other is a human beings name. I have my personality associated with my name! Similarly,

Procedure - a specified way to conduct an activity or process

Work Instruction - step-by-step actions taken to complete a specific task.

Both differ in definition; I would not call a procedure a work instruction or vice-versa. Furthermore, WI's are generally more detailed and specific than procedures, specifying only how a task is performed and are generally, actions related to one department. Procedures may or may not involve other departments. There is a distinct difference between the two. However, ofcourse, both precisely do the tasks they are meant for, as long as they are meant for!



If your PM is detailing machine-specific tasks (how factor) that need to be performed by an operator/mechanic on that machine only, (and where they do not indicate the Who, What, When factor) then this should be called Work Instruction.

Again, yes, both procedures and work instructions do their respective jobs, however, clearly differentiating them gives clarity and meaning to a healthy QMS.

You have made valid points here. I think the issue that was being raised is the merit to having a discussion about what the name is. Simply put: Who cares?:)

Naming and such needs to be consistent, and if it seems to fit some rationale, then by all means, change it. But way more important to me, apart from what name it will be referred, is what's in it, not what is in the title.



Is it readable?
Is it helpful?
Is there a clear PM schedule set?
Is there a risk-based approach to determine what should be PM'd?
Does it allow for appropriate training to perform PM?
Are there quality objectives to the program? How are they measured?

Those are a few to come to mind. That should be the core of the QMS discussions, IMHO, than whether it should be a procedure or work instruction.

Just for fun, let me toss in this TC 176 interpretation. The standard requires that you determine, provide, and maintain the infrastructure . . .

How you do that is really up to you. The standard is silent. How many of you believe that maintenance records are required?

http://www.tc176.org/pdf/rfi003_final6_3.pdf

Originally Posted by Big Jim http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=302854#post302854)

Just for fun, let me toss in this TC 176 interpretation. The standard requires that you determine, provide, and maintain the infrastructure . . .

How you do that is really up to you. The standard is silent. How many of you believe that maintenance records are required?

http://www.tc176.org/pdf/rfi003_final6_3.pdf
I think this topic should already be part of the following discussion thread 'What should be changed in ISO 9001:2014 standard':
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=30496

Because, I firmly believe that records of maintenance need to be maintained, whether required by the standards or not! This gives a history of the actions taken on that 'infrastructure' (building, EVM, IT, etc) thus enabling to construe the future course of action.

Precisely, the same reason all of us have to maintain our medical history.
Good health maintenance!

Ciao. :agree1:

_________________________
Sincerely, SAM

"""To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"""

An alternative view would be that you don't have to have a documented procedure/instruction for preventive maintenance - just have control over the process. :)
we are finding that we need to have more detail on preventative maintenance in our systems because of Factory Production Control (FPC) requirements in EU's CE Marking - Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC and Singapore's Building Construction Authority's BC 1: 2008 - hence it just makes sense to build them into our original ISO 9001 QMS documentation - 1 system to cover the 3 certifications

also it will help with our EU Reach requirements :o