Keep in mind that ISO 9001 is the most versatile of the standards because it can be applied to virtually any organization and to do so it provides the lightest and most flexible of requirements.
Why do you guys think ISO 9001 doesn't ask specifically for preventive maintenance?
- Thread starter Graciel
- Start date
Keep in mind that ISO 9001 is the most versatile of the standards because it can be applied to virtually any organization and to do so it provides the lightest and most flexible of requirements.
qualitymanagerTT
Involved In Discussions
In some parts of the world, companies may not have the money and/or competent persons to manage preventive maintenance systems. Also, I've seen quite a few companies which have equipment old enough that manuals have been lost, and manufacturers went out of business - not all of them will do scientific studies to create appropriate preventive maintenance programs.
mattador78
Quite Involved in Discussions
Covid played havoc with our preventative maintenance here. Usually we would shut down our lines one at Christmas one at Easter to perform their routine inspection and repair. When the pandemic hit our shifts were cut to one due to no staff so the lines could never stop during normal working hours due to our demands we tried plan it for weekends but the weekends got filled my production to catch up what was missed in the week and the normal maintenance what we have to get done anyway just to produce. In the end it rolled over until Christmas with both together which meant some of us where then working over Christmas in stead of getting our usual break. Is only now that we have managed to split them again with one having it done last week, but the fact that twice we have stretched it out for 18 months not 12 has show how much extra wear appears to the machinery and how critical the schedule is. The last six months have seen more and more niggles from one plant which from the frequency and the error logs were showing that we didn't normally have, simple ones such as sensors catching on flag as the wheels had worn down a few millimeters more, therefore requiring us to adjust the sensors to compensate. All the little things which we wouldn't normally have had to do.
I'm sure an ongoing discussion could be had with respect to whether "maintenance" is a quality aspect and how much (and to what extent) it should be included in the quality standards.
But properly managed maintenance is good business and if done correctly, can save a lot of money.
One of the decisions to be made is the variance costs between preventive versus corrective maintenance.
For example, the good example given for a light bulb. Unless there is one bulb providing light in a pitch dark area (which I can't imagine), there is little risk to letting the bulb go out. Bulb out... replace... done. There is really no differential in preventive/corrective maintenance costs.
However, many systems are much more complex and involve more decisions. Many organizations "run till it breaks" not out of an analysis between corrective/ preventive maintenance; but rather a lack of acknowledging the value of any preventive maintenance. They run machine, it breaks, management runs around yelling at the clouds and everybody underneath them to get it going... parts may not even be available... downtime.
I have seen many "preventive" maintenance checklists that were... OK. But there were probably other critical parameters that should have been verified that wasn't.
I would suggest that the general phrases in the current standard are there to assure management at least addresses the maintenance of the equipment. If they don't, the organization could find itself without product to ship, causing all kinds of Supply Chain issues.
But properly managed maintenance is good business and if done correctly, can save a lot of money.
One of the decisions to be made is the variance costs between preventive versus corrective maintenance.
For example, the good example given for a light bulb. Unless there is one bulb providing light in a pitch dark area (which I can't imagine), there is little risk to letting the bulb go out. Bulb out... replace... done. There is really no differential in preventive/corrective maintenance costs.
However, many systems are much more complex and involve more decisions. Many organizations "run till it breaks" not out of an analysis between corrective/ preventive maintenance; but rather a lack of acknowledging the value of any preventive maintenance. They run machine, it breaks, management runs around yelling at the clouds and everybody underneath them to get it going... parts may not even be available... downtime.
I have seen many "preventive" maintenance checklists that were... OK. But there were probably other critical parameters that should have been verified that wasn't.
I would suggest that the general phrases in the current standard are there to assure management at least addresses the maintenance of the equipment. If they don't, the organization could find itself without product to ship, causing all kinds of Supply Chain issues.
"Corrective" maintenance isn't maintenance. It's repair.
Randy
Super Moderator
Seriously?
If your PM plan says maintain every 12 months but you go to 18 months, are you not open to a NC unless you somehow revised the schedule?
Randy
Super Moderator
Yep, you betcha...Also probably some pretty sad equipment
I think it already does. The standard requires that the organization determine, provide, and maintain the infrastructure necessary for the operation of its processes and to achieve conformity of products and services. It is up to the organization to determine just how far to go with it based on the circumstances. Since there is a solid shall here, and auditor could write a nonconformance when it is evident that maintenance isn't being performed.