Why do you guys think ISO 9001 doesn't ask specifically for preventive maintenance?

Graciel

Involved In Discussions
Hi.
Although the majority of companies who has machines perform preventive maintenance, ISO 9001 doesn't ask for it with this words. It leaves it open.Ehy do you guys think about it? Would it be better if it did?
 

ScottK

Not out of the crisis
Leader
Super Moderator
Look at 7.1.3 a,b,c,d
"...determine, provide, and maintain...
that's the clause the requires some sort of maintenance program... whether it's called Preventive Maintenance or something else.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Hi.
Although the majority of companies who has machines perform preventive maintenance, ISO 9001 doesn't ask for it with this words. It leaves it open.Why do you guys think about it? Would it be better if it did?
How is preventive maintenance different from maintenance?
 

ScottK

Not out of the crisis
Leader
Super Moderator
"or something else" that's my point.

No. It's just words. If there are other words that describe the process then that's fine. If ISO specifies "preventive maintenance" then it ties our hands. Leave that for the more specific standards like automotive and aerospace.
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Leader
Super Moderator
I will say - sometimes management makes the decision to "run to failure" (do nothing but fix it when it breaks, if it can be fixed). They hope to save money on preventive/predictive maintenance. Sometimes it is the optimal decision - say I have a very old automobile and just say - next time it breaks, I'm getting a new car. Most times it isn't a very good decision in the long run. BUT I think it a good thing the ISO only refers to doing maintenance - then you can decide what the optimal policy is. Me, I'm getting my 2004 and 2014 automobiles in for service regularly - with the current availability and cost of new cars, I want to keep these two (a Honda CIvic and an Accord) running as long as I can. But eventually reliability (stranding me someplace) or a very expensive failure may force to to change my maintenance policy.
 

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
Light bulbs are a good example of RTF. We let them run to failure because a preventive maintenance approach to ensuring a light bulb never fails would not make financial sense.

Prevention of failure is generally required if our management system is to deliver confidence that requirements will be fulfilled (see our shared definition of QA).

Now we’ve specified risk-based thinking to try to make this omni-requirement clearer!
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Leader
Super Moderator
A good example John. Though I can offer a risk-based counter example. On the control panels in the "maneuvering room" (plant control area) on a nuclear submarine (at least when I was in the Navy many years ago), all of the alarm indicator lights had TWO light bulbs. Every watch, the operator is to hit a test button and be sure both light bulbs lit. If one was out, it is replaced with a new one.

Edit - Late thought - an irony here is this practice will DECREASE the life of the incandescent bulbs since usually they fail on the heat up stress of being turned on. Not so much a concern now with LEDs. But to ensure the alarm light will light, we are actually going through more bulbs than if we let them remain off until needed.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom