Is your company or maintenance department clear on when a formal plan is necessary for a job? I am considering implementing the following criteria: "If the job is not performed more than twice a year." Approval: Supervisor unless the job exceeds 16 man hours, costs over $5,000 in parts, or involves a system design change. In such cases, department manager approval is required. This heuristic is simple and adaptable for jobs of any size. A straightforward rule is crucial to ensure that employees understand when it is applicable. For instance, if supervisors allow electricians to work without a required plan, the policy becomes ineffective. If a procedure is already in place for a rare job (e.g. on the PM form), following that procedure is sufficient - no additional plan is needed. For jobs involving equipment modifications, an engineering change permit is necessary for review and documentation. It is important to differentiate between an engineering change permit and a job plan. Do you have similar experiences or thoughts on this topic? I welcome feedback on any potential loopholes or shortcomings in my criteria before officially implementing it as policy.
During my time working at a paper mill, we implemented standardized job plans for tasks that were completed regularly, whether weekly or annually. These detailed plans outlined the necessary tools, parts, procedures, and any required post-job testing. The goal was to enable any trained mechanic with the right tools to successfully complete the task, even if it was their first time working on that specific equipment. By incorporating job plans, consistency in workflow and results can be achieved.
I appreciate your approach towards enforcing a system of regulations for handling projects. This kind of formalization can indeed go a long way in clarifying expectations and procedures. Your breakdown of criteria for special instances makes sense. However, you might want to consider adding a stipulation for unexpected roadblocks or complications that could extend a job beyond its initially expected scope. In those cases, even if a job isn't technically in the categories you listed, a plan might be necessary to manage new challenges efficiently. This would be a kind of "unexpected complexity" clause, if you will. Also, depending on company culture, obtain input from the people doing the hands-on work before implementing the policy; their perspective could bring to light potential problems or room for flexibility. Overall, though, I think your system is a great starting point.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - According to the proposed criteria, a formal plan is necessary for a job if it is not performed more than twice a year, or if the job exceeds 16 man hours, costs over $5,000 in parts, or involves a system design change.
Answer: - A supervisor can approve a formal plan unless the job exceeds the specified criteria, in which case department manager approval is required.
Answer: - Yes, if a procedure is already in place for a rare job or if the job involves equipment modifications, an engineering change permit is necessary for review and documentation instead of a formal plan.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.