70% of PM tasks generating CBM orders seems high.

I try to make many solution for this task

One solution of mine, after inspection from PdM program detect failure, he or she create new notification, MN type separated from routine maintenance and other program.

I have many type of notification allocated failure finding type basis.


Thank you for suggestion.

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene:
70% of PM tasks generating CBM orders seems high.

I think the aim would be to minimise total downtime ( planned + unplanned breakdowns ) so if the %age is <30% then maybe the plant is being overmaintained so you look at decreasing the frequency of the PM to reduce planned downtime, on the other hand if you are getting >70% then maybe there is a need to do some re engineering to improve the reliability of the parts that need the frequent maintenance so you can reduce planned downtime without risking an increase in breakdowns, in between PM's

Suborder should be created for corrective/preventive (CP) jobs found by PM work orders to maintain the link.

It's necessary to use another type of work order ie CP to distinguish corrective/preventive works from ad-hocly found corrective maintenance works.

In practice, people dislikes using CP suborder because the main work order cannot be closed before the CP suborder is closed first. This should be avoided to register the origin of the CP work via its link to the main work order and to serve as a reminder that there is an outstanding CP issue to be resolved before the PM work order can be closed.

Josh,

Consider the use of Maintenance Activity Type (MAT) field to make this distinction. Using a separate order type you are relying on the originator to make the right choice the first time, whereas the MAT field is easily changed if a correcetion is required.

Yes, can consider MAT to be able to change it later because work type cannot be changed once saved. However, what would be the work type, still CM? What is your list of MATs?

In our case, we have Repair as one of the MATs. If I add CPA (Corrective/Preventive Action) into the MAT field, users can still choose wrongly ie Repair or CPA.

In my SAP implementation only the Maintenance Planners and the Maintenance Engineers/Supervisors can create/modify orders, not the clients. Clients only can create maintenance notifications that after approval are evaluated/planned by the Maintenance Planners. With that limited audience and good training there should be minimal mistakes in orders creation.

Josh,

Guide to Maintenance Activity Types used at out company is attached (note, I do not claim thhis to be a perfect set although they are pretty good).

In general we classify our condition monitoring tasks as Predictive tasks. If this predictive task, eg. vibration monitoring of a bearing, indicates bearing replacement is required then the task to replace the bearing is also considered to be predictive maintenance. If the person doing the monitoring tasks sees a problem unrelated to the monitoring task, maybe a pressure gauge is broken, then the rectification task is designated as a repair.

Preventive tasks are time based tasks which are conducted at a prescribed interval irregardless of equipment condition. An example maybe greasing the bearings of a pump. Any corrective tasks from observations made when performing this task would be classifed as repairs.

Thge definitions we use are consistent with Ron Moore's "Making Common Sense Common Practice" book which devotes a fair bit of discussion in this area. However, I have read other authors who classify only the condition montioring task as Predictve and then any follow-up item is a repair. I think it just depends which school you went to, the main thing is to be consistent.

A preventive task is

Maintenance_Activity_Types.pdf (54 Kb, 32 downloads) Maintenance Activity Types

Those appear too many & rather complicated. What are the benefits of having these many MATs eg for data analysis?

A bit complex in my opinion too. David, are your employees assigning them correctly/consistently at your plant?

Yes, admit they look daunting at first but when you use them regularly it is not that bad.

The main benefits for us are in scheduling and backlog control. Method used makes it very easy for us to distinguish preventive maintenance (PM) tasks which have a SHE driver from the non-SHE PMs. The status of those with a SHE driver being controlled a lot more rigourously and monitored by senior management.

For analysis purposes it is often only necessary for us to use the first character of the MAT. However, for other analysis such as maintenance cost as a percentage of plant replacement value (%PRV)which our company benchmarks our performance we would use more of the code.

Maintenance cost in %PRV does not include operations support tasks such as clearing a blockage in a line even though the task is performed by the maintenance group. Our structure makes it easy for us to easily identify these costs.

Our maintenance, only maintenance planner can create MO and another can raise the MN.

Suppose, PM task detect the failure, they inspector can raise MN some type separate from another detect method.

Conclusion. I separate by MN type for method of observation.