I am seeking advice on a situation regarding a 30-day PM inspection focusing on component wear. If the technician identifies some wear that may last through several more inspection cycles, should they issue a work order immediately or wait until the component is on the verge of failure? While it may seem that the inspection frequency is too high, the potential consequences of failure may warrant a more proactive approach. Additionally, our work order priorities are ranked as follows: 1-emergency, 2-next 48 hours, 3-next weekend, 4-next 3 weeks, 5-low priority, and 7-next major shutdown. It is worth noting that our CMMS does not provide a warning if a user is about to create a duplicate work order already in the system.
Monitoring the wear and failure rates of machine parts is crucial for efficient maintenance practices. By consistently checking for wear every 30 days and tracking measurements, you can anticipate when a part may fail and plan for shutdown work accordingly. Updating work orders with new measurements allows you to see trends and make informed decisions about maintenance frequency. However, excessive wear may require more frequent monitoring and adjustments to avoid unexpected failures. Understanding the historical wear patterns can help optimize maintenance schedules and prevent disruptions. Remember, unforeseen outliers can always occur, so staying vigilant is key to effective maintenance planning.
Hello Dave! Currently, we are documenting and prioritizing tasks during inspections. A common issue arises when a different technician conducts the next inspection and notices the same problem has not been addressed yet. This results in duplicate work orders, as our current CMMS system does not provide warnings about potential duplications. Without a history of previous work orders, resolving this issue becomes challenging. Our team is now focused on improving data entry into the CMMS to prevent such duplicates in the future.
Hello Rick, it seems that your legacy data presents two challenges: unreliable data and an outdated Priority System. Solving these issues requires a well-thought-out plan and dedication. Addressing the issue of unreliable data will require the support of the entire organization, including management, supervision, quality assurance, planning, crafts, and operations. As for the Priority System, it lacks the ability to input a secondary priority number, unlike modern Asset Management Systems like Maximo. By using a combined priority number based on work order priority, location, and asset priority, planners can schedule work more efficiently. It's crucial to update the priority system to reflect the urgency of tasks accurately. Additionally, dealing with duplicate work orders can be resolved through either technology solutions or training for technicians to identify and report duplicate work orders. Feel free to reach out for a more in-depth discussion on how to address these issues effectively. Good Luck, Roger.
Hello Rick, another important point I neglected to mention is that when technicians are actively engaged in analyzing the data, it accelerates the process of discovering the root cause of a failure and finding a long-term solution related to design, maintenance procedures, or materials used for maintenance. Best of luck, Roger.
Hey there, I recommend that you generate a failure report and keep an eye on it for the next 48 hours. Here's why it's important: When you create a notification based on the function location in SAP PM, it provides valuable insight into past failures and inspections in that specific area. If you don't create this notification, how will you know if there has been a failure or inspection? Be sure to check for any issues within the next 48 hours, especially if the plant still requires this particular function location to be operational. Remember, predictive maintenance is different from preventive maintenance. Have you identified any symptoms indicating why your equipment is failing? Take proactive measures to prevent any future failures.
It sounds like you've got a tricky situation on your hands! In my experience, if the technician believes the wear could lead to failure before the next inspection cycle, it's better to err on the side of caution and issue a work order as soon as possible. Waiting can increase the risk of an unexpected breakdown, which could escalate costs and downtime—plus, it might make the next inspection more complicated if the wear worsens. Given your prioritization system, you might consider categorizing this situation at least as a "next 48 hours" priority. Keeping track of wear proactively can save headaches later on, especially when your CMMS doesn’t flag duplicates; establishing a clear communication protocol about ongoing issues might help mitigate that risk, too.
✅ 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: Answer: It may be advisable to adopt a more proactive approach and issue work orders immediately, considering the potential consequences of component failure despite the inspection frequency.
Answer: Answer: Work order priorities can be ranked based on urgency, such as emergency, next 48 hours, next weekend, next 3 weeks, low priority, and next major shutdown, to ensure timely and efficient maintenance activities.
Answer: Answer: The CMMS system being used does not provide warnings if a user is about to create a duplicate work order already in the system, emphasizing the importance of thorough review before issuing new work orders.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.