B. Benomar, Contributing Editor, Ottawa, Canada
The purpose of a preventive maintenance
(PM) plan is to sustain the functionality or condition of an asset based on
pre-established job plans with tasks to be executed at regular operating hours,
elapsed time periods or work cycles. The effectiveness of any job plan is
assessed by the end results it achieves in terms of improved asset uptime and
This article details the
review and improvement of a PM job plan from four different perspectives:
The primary objective of
this article is to frame this PM improvement process to attain what the author
terms “Job Plan 2.0,”1 which is characterized by consistency and
completeness of information to ensure that PM tasks are carried out safely, efficiently
and in a trouble-free manner throughout the entire process (i.e., from the start
to the handover of the asset to operations). Organizations can adapt this
approach to suit their requirements and the specificities of their facilities.
Job plan review opportunity. Whoever initiates the PM job plan improvement review
process within the organization should find the right opportunity and a driver
to trigger a business case for the improvement project. What follows is not an
exhaustive list but rather some opportunities experienced throughout the author’s career that can call
for such a review (FIG. 1):
BUILDING A BUSINESS CASE AND A ROAD MAP
Once an opportunity is
acknowledged, the first step is
to set up a business case before proceeding to a PM job plan improvement review.
A business case is
necessary to develop a deep understanding of the challenges involved and to obtain
the required support of both management and stakeholders. The business case must
be self-explanatory and stand on its own merits with the results plainly stated
and presented with clear expectations and objectives. Do not underestimate any
potential resistance and be prepared to confront challenges regarding the
necessity and practicality of having job plans with so many details.
The following points should be
considered in the business case and the review roadmap.
Why is this improvement initiative
needed now? Raising such a question at the outset essentially
provides an opportunity and triggering point for the launch of a PM job plans review,
as mentioned previously. It can be supplemented by historical data (e.g., failure
rates, production loss, problematic turnarounds) that flagged the job plan
deficiencies as the root or underlying causes of the problem.
Where to start? The recommended approach is to plan the review in
two phases: a pilot Phase 1 followed by Phase 2. First, begin a pilot Phase 1
and target a group of assets or packages based on:
How can in-house resources or outsourcing
be used? The following options should
Budget. Whatever option is selected, the reliability
engineer must estimate a budget for the review.
Milestones. Reasonable milestones are to be set for the pilot Phase
1 and the complete review for Phase 2 for assets not included in the pilot
Process. Develop a review process for both phases of the job
plan that involves all stakeholders, including the reliability engineer,
maintenance supervisor, planner, craftsperson, and the inspection, operations, safety
and logistics (lifting, scaffolds, insulation and workshop) supervisors. Experience
has shown that any new improvement scheme introduced without a system to
maintain the process will be susceptible to failure.
Type of job plan: Specific or generic? The
tenets of both types of job plans—generic and specific—must include complete
and consistent information needed to perform the tasks. Any omission of information on how to perform a task is
likely to result in a weakened job plan and PM plan. The type of job plan selected for a given asset must consider:
In general, 15%–25% of the total assets
in oil and gas facilities fall into the category of specific job plans.
Specific PM job plan
tasks are determined using:
The use of a generic job plan is attractive as it allows for the standardization
and optimization of time and resources. The tasks are determined using manufacturer
instructions and/or regulatory and non-regulatory requirements for
identical/similar assets operating under comparable operating conditions and
Generic job plans can
be used under the following conditions:
Generic job plans are highly recommended for PM routine tasks for:
In general, 75%–85%
of the assets in an oil and gas facility fall into this category of generic job
Both generic and specific job plans can be used for a single asset, depending
on the type of asset and PM frequency and intervals used. For example, a given
asset can have monthly, quarterly or yearly PM maintenance routine tasks
covered by both a generic job plan and a specific job plan to cover maintenance
tasks conducted once every 3 yr–4 yr.
Job Plan 2.0 and “Job Pack 2.0.” In many cases, PM job plans are intrusive and
parts replacement at predetermined running hours or elapsed time, and function tests
intended to return assets to design condition—to find problems, preempt failures through
reporting visual findings and data (dimensions, clearances, readings, photos, etc.),
and extend the life of the asset.
The job plan is one of the pillars of the PM plan (in
addition to manpower, materials and tools) that will ensure that the PM
maintenance work is done efficiently and trouble-free from start to finish. FIG. 2 provides
an overview of the five PM goals: prevent, detect, predict, delay, prolong
Subsequently, the perfect job pack—whether in a physical or
each PM job is characterized by:
To determine what should be included
in the job plan pack, a checklist should be developed (or adapted from an
existing one) to ensure that the job plan pack requirements are fully covered.
The checklist, like the one shown in TABLE 1, provides such detailed requirements.
The review should be carried out by:
The reliability engineer will be the owner of the process and will liaise
with all parties until the completed review or development of the new job plan is
uploaded onto the CMMS or generated as a hard copy. FIG. 3 shows a typical process that can
be used for the review. Organizations can adapt this approach and process to suit their own
requirements and needs.
responsibilities. The roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders involved in the review
process are further summarized below:
Takeaways. In this
article, an integrated approach has been proposed for the improvement and
development of “Job Plan 2.0,” which can be utilized by organizations seeking
to achieve PM continuous improvement and benefit from its associated advantages.
When deciding to approve the initiative, management must consider the
organization’s readiness to commit time, resources and the involvement and
participation of those concerned.
This job plan is a radical change in the way PMs are planned and managed—if
carried out successfully, the return and benefits can be significant in terms
of PM safety, efficiency, increased asset uptime and cost savings. HP
BENOURINE BENOMAR has more than 35 yr of experience in projects, maintenance management
and reliability of LNG, LPG and offshore oil production facilities. He has
worked with major oil companies like SONATRACH (Algeria), ADNOC Group (UAE) and
Technical Consultant EP2C Energy (Ireland). Presently, Benourine is a freelance
consultant. He earned his Bsc. degree in mechanical engineering from Plymouth
Polytechnic (UK) and an MBA from Nancy2 University (France).