IATF16949 8.5.1.5 Total Productive Maintenance

kylerf

Involved In Discussions
#1
I am running through the IATF standard in preparation for our certification audit and was wondering, how will we satisfy this requirement? what will the auditor be looking for?

IATF16949:2016 8.5.1.5- "The organization shall develop, implement, and maintain a documented total productive maintenance system."
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#3
The standard defines as following
total productive maintenance
a system of maintaining and improving the integrity of production and quality systems through machines, equipment processes, and employees that add value to the organization
The audit will look at these requirements and should always go back to this definition
 

jack770214

Involved In Discussions
#4
The standard defines as following

The audit will look at these requirements and should always go back to this definition
The standard is straightforward in what its asking for. The only thing debatable with the auditor is which metrics you choose. My equipment folks feel MTBF is fairly passe I believe they use OEE where mtbf is one part of the equation. But you can also default to the standard and you wont be wrong.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
 
#5
Standard asks for documented system, which can be a documented procedure / flow diagram. I prefer a documented procedure.

In comparison to ISO/TS16949, only major changes are addition of requirement of periodic overhaul and maintenance objectives.

Jack, I don't feel there should be any debate. Its up-to the organization about which metrics to choose, as long as it is relevant. Standard has just given examples of metrics such MTTR, MTBF, OEE.
 

jack770214

Involved In Discussions
#6
Standard asks for documented system, which can be a documented procedure / flow diagram. I prefer a documented procedure.

In comparison to ISO/TS16949, only major changes are addition of requirement of periodic overhaul and maintenance objectives.

Jack, I don't feel there should be any debate. Its up-to the organization about which metrics to choose, as long as it is relevant. Standard has just given examples of metrics such MTTR, MTBF, OEE.
Key words relevant. We have had our share of CB auditors that felt a particularly metric was not suitable. That said we have had zero finding for TPM. So yes I agree no worries there. There are much more nebulous parts to the standard such as connection between context of the organisation, interested parties and risks and opportunities. Bump to another thread. ;)

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
 

AndyN

A problem shared...
Staff member
Super Moderator
#7
We have had our share of CB auditors that felt a particularly metric was not suitable.
Not their's to debate. It's simply a case of what you do being measured against an objective to demonstrate effectiveness. What's so difficult that an auditor has to pass comment on "suitability"? When was the last time they ran a maintenance program?
 

jack770214

Involved In Discussions
#8
Not their's to debate. It's simply a case of what you do being measured against an objective to demonstrate effectiveness. What's so difficult that an auditor has to pass comment on "suitability"? When was the last time they ran a maintenance program?
Evidently your company has not had our auditors. My experiences so far...Asian, American, Indian (from India) auditors no issues. German and Netherland auditors debate suitability and have been a pain in the ass. I agree not theirs to debate...evidently they don't here you.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
 

AndyN

A problem shared...
Staff member
Super Moderator
#9
Evidently your company has not had our auditors. My experiences so far...Asian, American, Indian (from India) auditors no issues. German and Netherland auditors debate suitability and have been a pain in the ass. I agree not theirs to debate...evidently they don't here you.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
Not my company, no. From the perspective of working in and around certification for 30 years, yes. Take a look at ISO 19011. Nothing in there about being a member of the high-school debating society...
 

Top Bottom