Oscar,
The case that you present and others have responded to describes what I and others see as a "best practice". Taking advantage of an opportunity to perform Preventive Maintenance.
Your question seems to involve trying to capture three things, at least, that you may be trying to describe with one label.
The type of work activity that is taking place (Corrective, Preventive)
The schedule impact of the event (Priority) and
The nature of an "asset event" (Failure, Condition Assessment, Restoration)
In work I have done with a number of companies, when analyzing work history data to assess reliability or failure rates, we often have to infer the true asset event type from the other two.
The scheduled execution of a PM is generally assumed to be a Planned assessment or restoration event. It either confirms or alters the condition of the asset. It is executed within the definition of your planning and scheduling policies and practices. It is not necessarily Proactive (depending on your definition) and it is not Reactive.
In the case you describe, the "asset event" is an asset failure. A Breakdown of some kind. Historically failure events are seen by the creation of a Corrective work order. A corrective work order may be executed in a Planned fashion, generally reflected by the stated Priority of the work order (e.g. Must do Now, Must do in 24 hours, Do as Planned Work, Do when resources available, etc.). Depending on that priority the work is Planned or Reactive. The "failure event" implies that there was restoration work done and so the asset condition is, after replace or repair, better than before the event.
The execution of Preventive work, or taking credit for Preventive work, done during an unplanned opportunity window, whether the work is on the asset that actually failed or on another asset that is in the same "Planning Group" (i.e. Lock Out/Tag Out) is generally a "best practice" that potentially reduces the need for additional Planned Outage time. There needs to be a clearly defined practice within your organization for how the work done is documented. There are many ways that can work to produce "good data" for this case. Effective analysis of the data requires that a consistent means of recording be used.
------------------------------
Roger Shaw
Sr. Consultant
GE Digital
Salem CTGE Digital
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2019 11:14 AM
From: Oscar Ruiz
Subject: PM Work being executed reactively
Hello to everyone,
My colleagues and I have been having a discussion about how we should measure PM Work that gets executed reactively. To explain what I am saying, look at the following scenario:
One asset is offline because of X reason (not going to get into the discussion on the cause just yet). The maintenance organization decides to look into the maintenance plan for the asset and decides to use the opportunity to perform a PM WO that wasn't scheduled or planned at this moment. The WO has not been auto-generated just yet (e.g. a yearly overhaul for a pump that would take place in 3 months and not being auto-released until at least 1 month before the expected time of execution). Therefore, the WO is created with today's date and executed almost immediately and not being considered in the previous week's frozen schedule, hence a schedule breaker.
Should the PM Work Order confirmed hours be considered:
1. Proactive
2. Reactive
3. Proactive and Reactive at the same time (thus adding double hours to the confirmed hours total).
Your thoughts?
------------------------------
Oscar Ruiz
Houston TX
------------------------------