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.
I appreciate your in-depth analysis and systematic approach. It creates a clear distinction on when to issue a formal job plan. However, one potential loophole that I notice is the predictability of certain jobs. Since your policy accommodates for jobs carried out less than twice a year, how would this apply to jobs that might be uncommon but dwell in a risk-based context, like those that may compromise safety if not thoroughly planned? Also, would there be different criteria for routine tasks and emergency repairs when it comes to time, cost, and design changes? Perhaps stirring a risk-based approach into your criteria might cover these possible discrepancies.
Your heuristic seems well thought out and comprehensive. However, I would suggest considering the risks involved in a job as another criteria for when a formal plan should be used. Some jobs, despite being infrequently carried out or not surpassing the 16-hour or $5,000 threshold, could still pose a significant risk to worker safety or equipment functionality and thus warrant a detailed plan. This could help ensure higher safety standards and mitigate potential issues that could crop up due to complicated or risky works, regardless of their frequency, duration, or cost. Otherwise, your system appears sound and flexible, suited to adapt to diverse maintenance tasks.
I think your criteria provide a solid foundation for establishing when a formal plan is necessary, especially by tying it to frequency and resource thresholds. One potential shortcoming might be in how flexible supervisors can be when it comes to rare jobs; they might feel pressured to go without a formal plan for efficiency’s sake, risking safety and accountability. It might be helpful to establish guidelines for assessing the complexity of the job even if it’s performed infrequently. Also, maybe consider including a review process after implementing it to see if any adjustments are needed as everyone gets used to the new system. It sounds like you’re on the right track to enhance clarity and safety!
Your criteria make a lot of sense and strike a good balance between efficiency and oversight, especially for less frequent tasks. One potential loophole to consider is what happens if a job unexpectedly escalates in complexity or cost; perhaps including a clause that allows for reevaluation of the need for a formal plan in those cases could help. Additionally, it might be beneficial to provide specific training or examples so that supervisors clearly understand what constitutes a job that requires a formal plan. This could help minimize any subjective judgment calls that might lead to inconsistencies. Overall, I think you're on the right track!
✅ 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.