Folks,
I have a requirement to write maintenance procedures. I am looking for smart templates that I can show the managers. The procedures are going to cover corrective maintenance and deep level inspections and overhauls.

If anyone has what they consider to be a good layout or template, I would be grateful if they would share this with me.

I'm not sure if this what you are asking for, but here it is.
----
Cover page:
* Company logo or letterhead
* SOP Identification (number / title),
* Effective Date, Review Date,
* Approvals: Name/ Signature/ Job Title/ Date
*** SOP Originator
*** Maintenance Management
*** Operations Management?
*** Safety, Health, Environmental Compliance?
*** QA Department?
Define appropriate management level required for approval.
---
Procedure Body:
1. Purpose (one paragraph)
2. Scope (affected equipment, employees, areas)
3. Definitions
* Include special terms that could be obvious for you, but not for all users of this procedure
* Include definitions for acronysm used, like PM = Preventive Maintenance
4. Responsibilities
* From technician up to management
* From requestor up to maintenance
* Who is responsible to do what
* Who must be consulted on what before do what
* Who must be informed of what after it is done
* Who is accountable for what
5. SHE (Safety / Health / Environmental) Precautions
* Provide copy of draft procedure to SHE representatives for their feedback
6. Procedure
* List tools / materials required
* Preparations before start job
* Job instructions / Documentation required
* What to do if anything was wrong
* What have to be done after job completion
7. References List
* Other procedures, commpany policies
* Regulations
* Manuals
---
Appendices
* Sample Forms (with instructions on how to fill them)
* Tables, Ilustrations, Diagrams

Please feedback if you like a sample in MS Word.

Thanks Eugene... this looks pretty comprehensive.
Can you attach a sample to the site here. That would be great.

Sorry for the delay, this could be a sample to start.

Procedure_sample.doc (36 Kb, 92 downloads) Procedure Sample

Thanks mate!!
This is good stuff.
Sincerely
Steve

Steve,
My cynical view: Procedures in text tend to be wordy,are usually out of date, and mostly used for self protection. Regulators love them, auditors breathe them, workmen tend not to have sighted them!
But, we need them; yes we do, but not always in legalese.
I suggest we use process flow charts to explain procedures to workmen, preferably available at worksites rather than in manuals. They should have photographs or sketches, preferably 3-d showing the steps. Dimensional proptocols should be in tables, with sketches. The more 'thumbed' the charts look, the better. Of course we need some standard words to go with them, but the fewer the words the better. It will make sure people actually read them AND follow them

There, I have got it off my chest. My 2c.

Do you have any example of the process flow charts?

One ISO9000 consultant uses the term business process maps for writing ISO9000 procedures. But it has been argued in another post that the business process maps or perhaps your process flow charts may not contain sufficient details.

In ISO9000, we have 3 levels of documentation: Manuals, Procedures & Instructions. Is it still suitable to use process flow charts for maintenance instructions eg lube oil sampling?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josh,

Vee, agree; however I'm in a highly regulated industry and as you said regulators love them. Process / flow charts, exploded diagrams, and/or photos shuold be included as appendices to ease procedure understanding.

Darth,
Even your industry cant be as highly regulated as the Airlines. I have visited an engine repair (GE) workshop and an Avionics repair facility (BA), both of which use process charts extensively to help their workers. And their manuals are well 'thumbed'. They do have some text, but lots of sketches. Both are ISO 9000 + CAA + FAA + (God knows how many other agencies) accredited, extensively audited and re-certified every few months. You have to come up with different reason!

Having a reasonable amount of experience in aviation and pharmaceuticals, there is no comparison between the two. The pharmaceutical industry has much stricter regulations than any overhaul shop has. Any time you are dealing with the medical industry, you are off in never-never land. I found it difficult to grasp the extent of regulation when I moved from developing procedures for aircraft systems to developing procedures for systems that had a direct effect on the human body.

There is a totally different mindset at work both from the point of view of the regulator and the regulated. In an engine overhaul facility, the final QA takes place in the test cell. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, the final QA takes place in the patient. A process flaw that would cause an FAA auditor to issue a correction notice would, most likely, cause a pharmaceutical plant to be shut down until the procedure had been corrected, the corrected process to be validated (try 3-6 months) and a reexamination by the FDA.

Ken Culverson

Thanks Ken, my experience before pharmaceutical industry was limited to the electronic manufacturing where the major regulatory concerns was OSHA and EPA since we handled mercury in the thermostats we manufactured, so I was not prepared to answer Vee.

Process flowcharts, diagrams, photos; any visual/graphical aid, are welcomed at procedures as appendices (or as figures between the paragraphs, similar to textbooks); to ease understanding, however regardless the old proverb "a drawing is better than 1000 words", pharma SOPs will have lot of text, at least until the FDA change its mind.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Eugene,

Eugene,

I agree with the use of flowcharts, diagrams, etc. I found the regulatory atmosphere rather stifling as I was supposed to modify the maintenance program from the old reactive to one that was much more proactive. No longer there but it was interesting.

Ken Culverson

Steve, just curious:
* In which industry you (your clients?) are?
* Which regulatory agencies impact the procedures contents?

The ASME BPV code used a higher safety factor than the German AD Merblatter/TRD/EN codes. But it was then reduced to be equivalent and competetive. It was also reduced during the wars to save materials.

Any porposed change to the ASME code will be considered a Code Case for evaluation by a committee.

Ken, Darth,
Good points Ken, and I can see the thrust of your comments.

In my view procedures are written for two reasons
1. To protect yourself from prosecution, esp. in highly regulated industries.
2. To help workers do their jobs correctly.
Sometimes, but not often, the two are the same. Depending on your objective, you can choose the text route or the flow chart route. Obviously there is a mix of both in each case, but the bias differs. In my view, you can make the flow chart route as good as with text, but much easier to understand, verify and QA.

In a world ruled by lawyers, the first takes precedence. It is a pity, but a fact of life.

Josh,

quote:

ASME BPV code used a higher safety factor

Josh, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code was based on an Ultimate Tensile Strength design crterion. In Europe, starting with the old Bristish Standard (BS1515), the design basis moved to Yield Strength. It is this better understanding of the failure process that led to the use of YS rather than UTS. This resulted in thinner walls, so equipment became lighter and cheaper.
In a similar vein, the UK was the first to move away from a 'prescriptive' to a 'goal-setting' set of Regulations. In the US, most (or all?) States use prescriptive regulations (they tell you what to do). After Piper Alpha, the UK decided to ditch prescriptive regulations, setting goals or targets instead, and allowing Companies some freedom in choosing the right way to achieve them.