You make the call! (pretend you are an ISO auditor)

During an audit, it is observed that about 3% of the scheduled PM's (preventive maintenance procedures) were cancelled. The maintenance manager states that he needs a certain amount of overtime each month to meet the schedule, but OT has been cut the last few months, accounting for the cancelled PM's.

A nonconformance on the audit is generated, and as part of the corrective action, the maintenance manager rewrites his procedures to allow for cancelled PM's in the event of a lack of resources. Before submitting this as his final corrective action, he calls YOU for guidance on what would be considered an "acceptable" level of cancelled PM's due to resource issues.

What is your call?

See 5.1 e) as far as resources. What does your PM say? Some companies PM is the monthly cleaning of the machine. Do you go by manufacturies guidelines? What kind of data do you have to extend the timeline between scheduled PM?

You make the call! (pretend you are an ISO auditor)

During an audit, it is observed that about 3% of the scheduled PM's (preventive maintenance procedures) were cancelled. The maintenance manager states that he needs a certain amount of overtime each month to meet the schedule, but OT has been cut the last few months, accounting for the cancelled PM's.

A nonconformance on the audit is generated, and as part of the corrective action, the maintenance manager rewrites his procedures to allow for cancelled PM's in the event of a lack of resources. Before submitting this as his final corrective action, he calls YOU for guidance on what would be considered an "acceptable" level of cancelled PM's due to resource issues.

What is your call?

Norman:

It would seem to me that PM is usually considered a part of the Quality Management System in that the absence of PREVENTION, can usually result in adverse effects on quality (i.e. missed shipping deadlines, if nothing else). Therefore, ISO 9001:2000, section 6.1 a (...implement and maintain) would apply. As far as "exceptions" go, are the PM activities important, or aren't they? If they are important enough to be scheduled, then they are important enough to do, no?

Just my opinion. Good question, and I am very interested to see how the more experienced among us interpret this.

Craig

Sorry, gpainter, we must have posting at the same time. If I remember correctly, you, too, have more audit experience than I.

Well ISO aside for a moment,
We do montly PM checks on all our production machines.
This is to make sure they are in good working order AND to comply with OSHA requirements. If we miss a PM, our procedure is to LOCK-OUT the machine until the PM is completed.
Our PM's are more for saftey than quality.

Depending on WHY you are doing PMs, and HOW the schedule is determined, you have to ask CAN you delay PMs? As far as re-writting a procedure go ahead if it's in the best interest of the company, and missed PMs is not a saftey or quality problem...

What is your call?
One would asume that a good track record, Delivery times kept and quality targets acomplished would permit some leeway altering the QMS so that it fits into the big business picture. If when analyzed one would find it not so, then it would be an issue!

Cheeers.

You make the call! (pretend you are an ISO auditor)

During an audit, it is observed that about 3% of the scheduled PM's (preventive maintenance procedures) were cancelled. The maintenance manager states that he needs a certain amount of overtime each month to meet the schedule, but OT has been cut the last few months, accounting for the cancelled PM's.

A nonconformance on the audit is generated, and as part of the corrective action, the maintenance manager rewrites his procedures to allow for cancelled PM's in the event of a lack of resources. Before submitting this as his final corrective action, he calls YOU for guidance on what would be considered an "acceptable" level of cancelled PM's due to resource issues.

What is your call?

Cancelled PM's due to resource issue would not fly with me. As was stated previously is the PM based on the manufacturers guidelines?

Do you have supporting information that would allow you to extend the time between PM?

Would it be possible for the operators of the machine to perform some of the PM? If they need OT every month to complete the PM is it possible they are lacking in staff?

Rather that re-writting the procedure to allow for cancelled PM's, you should be lloking at the big picture not just throwing band-aid on the problem. Address the root cause don't just stop the bleeding. JMHO

Cancelled PM's due to resource issue would not fly with me. As was stated previously is the PM based on the manufacturers guidelines?

Do you have supporting information that would allow you to extend the time between PM?

Would it be possible for the operators of the machine to perform some of the PM? If they need OT every month to complete the PM is it possible they are lacking in staff?

Rather that re-writting the procedure to allow for cancelled PM's, you should be lloking at the big picture not just throwing band-aid on the problem. Address the root cause don't just stop the bleeding. JMHO

I agree that the root cause may not be the OT...
and 4.1.d "ensure the availability of resources... necessary to support the operation..." applies
BUT
in real life NO over time and lack of resources may be a problem regardless of ISO and a QMS.
The band-aid may not fix the problem, but it may fix the audit non-conformance.

Also read my above post about what type of PM and why do you have a PM schedule. What is the risk of a late/missed PM?
Risk vs. Need?

I am a PM freak, for sound PM's, in my world, have yielded phenomenal results. That aside, to answer your question, in the auditors eyes, my response is:

I cannot, in no way, no how, tell any company what is an acceptable level of missed PM's for them or anyone else. It's not my job and I do not have the information necessary to make that call. Period. End phone call.

I agree, that if they are important enough to be scheduled, they should be important enough to be completed on time. Yet, even I understand that is only a perfect world. Anyone knows at the flip of a swtich on any given day that people can be cut, resources rearranged and only direct labor hours (folks making sellable product) are permitted OT. And, if an ISO auditor claims a noncompliance that in his/her opinion is related to a lack of resources, when there is a bad economic situation, well, then get ready for a call to the registrar.

The moral of the story is this in my opinion: Maint Mgr determines what the PM frequency is. That is his job. Write the PM procedure very flexible, create usable, but, not anal-retentive tracking mechanisms. Then, here is where I have found the payback: heavily rely on process and product data, and other indicators, to show you whether or not PM activity is sound. Good root cause investigations steer you easily to this. Let's say in a foundry, that if pins and bushings and patterns are all good, but you still have .175" shift on castings, then your table is out of alignment. Increase the line-up PM to a suitable frequency. Institute an operator measurement to show how the table drifts over time to detetmine the best frequency, if not known. Also, you can justify the OT, if needed, because I could easily scrap up to $ 5,000 in castings for shift---and the PM only costs me $ 500. End ramble. Have a day ! :thedeal:

I agree that the root cause may not be the OT...
and 4.1.d "ensure the availability of resources... necessary to support the operation..." applies
BUT
in real life NO over time and lack of resources may be a problem regardless of ISO and a QMS.
The band-aid may not fix the problem, but it may fix the audit non-conformance.

Also read my above post about what type of PM and why do you have a PM schedule. What is the risk of a late/missed PM?
Risk vs. Need?

Bob as my post stated it was JMHO= Just my humble opinon. Now, lets look at what you said- "The band-aid may not fix the problem, but it may fix the audit non-conformance." Would I accept that response, no (no remember this is my opinion), I would not becuase they did not address the Root Cause.

I did read your post above, did you read mine? I asked is there anyway the operators could do some of the PM and not leave it up to maintenance. I also asked if they have supporting documentation to extend the PM schedule for some of the equipment. I agree that you need to look at the risk of a late/missed PM, but I also do not think (again my opinon) you should write it into your procedure that you are allowed to miss 3% of scheduled PM (that is the easy way out), you need to look at your system and figure out what you can do to prevent missed PM's. :bigwave:

Bob as my post stated it was JMHO= Just my humble opinon. Now, lets look at what you said- "The band-aid may not fix the problem, but it may fix the audit non-conformance." Would I accept that response, no (no remember this is my opinion), I would not becuase they did not address the Root Cause.

I did read your post above, did you read mine? I asked is there anyway the operators could do some of the PM and not leave it up to maintenance. I also asked if they have supporting documentation to extend the PM schedule for some of the equipment. I agree that you need to look at the risk of a late/missed PM, but I also do not think (again my opinon) you should write it into your procedure that you are allowed to miss 3% of scheduled PM (that is the easy way out), you need to look at your system and figure out what you can do to prevent missed PM's. :bigwave:

Sounds GOOD :truce:

If you have a resource issue you have a resource issue.

Raise the NC on lack of resource, or maybe lack of top management commitment if you want to give it real weight (and a fight).

Allowance in a procedure to miss a percentage of anything due to lack of resource is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Could we apply the same rule to missing audits, or maybe design review, or possibly calibration, or maybe training, or inspection, etc, etc

As others suggest, take a critical look at what you perform PM on, look at the risk, look at the history, take a judgment - then resource adequately.

Out of interest how do you determine what requires PM, and what the PM actually needs to be ?

As an auditor, you would still need to assess the effectiveness of the corrective action. Did it eliminate the cause? If the problem identified was "the maintenance schedule wasn't being followed," the CA may be OK. If the problem was "the equipment wasn't properly maintained" then there's a whole lot more to be done.

You will need to evaluate 6.3b (and maybe 7.5.1c). If they're OK long-term, then what they did was OK.