I didn’t fight it because the auditor was correct in their assessment as there was “no evidence” that it was being performed. But the 9001:2015 standard does not require that an organization retain records documented evidence concerning infrastructure, only “...shall determine, provide & maintain...”.
I think the auditor should be querying you:
how do you know that the maintenance is being carried out as planned, if you do not maintain records of it?
That is, it seem correct for the auditor to probe for compliance with 7.1.3, but should have placed the burden on you to demonstrate how the organization can assure the auditor of compliance rather than inventing a requirement for records.
This, I think, is a general weakness in the standard: whereby on one hand compliance must be demonstrable (if auditing is going to be at all meaningful), while on the other hand the standard attempts to be flexible by not specifying the acceptable form(s) of demonstrability.
The lack of any kind of a PM record or other feedback mechanism might be considered a risk: if, say, the experienced person who currently performs PM on machine X leaves, how do you know that a new person replacing him is performing that PM? Also, what happens if a person goes on vacation or is sick - how do you know PM is still getting done? From an RBT perspective (A.4, 6.1), it seems worthy of being addressed.
Would the actuality that the lights are on, the machinery is functioning as intended and operators are operating them, be evidence that the organization has determined, provided and maintained the equipment?
Perhaps, if a lack of PM would inevitably and immediately cause the machinery to fail in a detectable way. But that's a pretty weak approach to quality.
Could an auditor request evidence of how an organization “determined” it needed a particular piece of equipment? (I know its a stretch, but asking hypothetically...for a friend...who is not here right now...)
I think the evidence of compliance with 'determined' is the end product: the list of machines that need PM, types of PM, frequency, etc. I don't think there is a requirement to "show your work", as to how you developed that list.
That said, it could certainly be useful and practical to maintain justifications (e..g., mfr PM schedule recommendation documents) for future reference. The person(s) who determined the PM schedule might change and that reference material is organizational knowledge (7.1.6) that could get lost in the mists of time.
