I think part of the answer to this question depends how you define PM's. Some include corrective work in their PM definition. For example, you do condition monitoring on an AC motor and find that a bearing is going bad and change out the motor at some point. I my book, the change out is not a PM, it is (hopefully) a "planned and scheduled corrective work".
The reason not to include corrective work in PM is that there is an overlap with planned corrective, scheduled corrective, and planned and scheduled corrective. If you do, you can never get the KPI's right, and you will confuse the organization. You see how the above changes the answer quite a bit, and some include the repairs into PM's.
But, if PM's are inspection (including synonyms such as condition monitoring PdM) and fixed time, or fixed meter replacements only. You SHOULD have fixed PMs. Like you said the organization SHOULD do the PM's in time, but.... they can become a mess if you don't follow the schedule. For inspection routes (including look, listen feel, small, IR, VA etc), I think a fixed schedule for performing the inspections are reasonable to get done. The corrective work coming out from those routes are a technical decision and you should plan and schedule that work as need be.
For fixed time shutdown work... example, re-grease, change gaskets, align grid and gear couplings. I think they need to be work balanced over the year so you have the same work load in each shutdown. some of that work can be re-scheduled since they are not suber time sensitive +/- 3 months is usually OK.
From a philosophical and culture change stand point. By having "floating PM's" you set the tone for the company.... PM's is not THAT important, just a little important. Not enough people? You can always hire contractors and do overtime if you felt PM's were important (don't hire contractors for PM's , but for the other work). It is a question of short term or long term gains.
So, if I'm on my soapbox, I would say push for fixed time PM's, make sure they are done!!! Byt, being practical, i agree, keep some PM's floating until you get your arms around them, then move to fixed. For example, we do this with starting inspections, if someone inspect something 5 times and things are not fixed, they stop doing them, so perhaps good to start floating, then with 80% are fixed, do the inspection again.
------------------------------
Torbjorn Idhammar
President & CEO
IDCON, Inc.
http://www.idcon.comRaleigh NC
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2021 02:50 PM
From: Jason Weis
Subject: Fixed vs. Floating Schedule PMs
Hi folks -
The topic is Fixed vs. Floating schedule PMs!! I have a pretty good idea how each schedule type works however, I am interested in learning how your organization/you have used these PM schedule types.
Are your PMs predominately Fixed or Floating schedule? What % of each do you have?
If you are part of a more mature maintenance organization that realizes the importance of completing PMs by their due date and monitors them with KPIs is there a down side to most PMs being Fixed schedule?
Say 95% of your PMs were Fixed schedule and the outlying 5% were set up as Floating schedule. The Floating schedule PMs would only be PMs that could not be executed without an equipment outage. Those PM would be set up to generate WOs in a status of HOLDSD (hold for shut down). Folks would be able to find these WOs when needed and the scheduler knows not to schedule them by the assigned status.
How does your organization use Fixed vs. Floating schedule PMs? Is there set criteria or a guide that defines which to use based on the work?
Thanks in advance, I am excited to read and learn from your experience!!
------------------------------
Jason Weis
PMP, CMRP, CRL
Trainer, Pennsylvania
------------------------------