Intelligent Maintenance does work – Proven!

Just for info – a small but very interesting piece of data base interrogation by my colleague  looked at LR classed vessels over the last 5 years to see if there was a measurable benefit of meeting and achieving the requirements of PMS(Planned Maintenance System) and CM(Condition Monitoring) descriptive notes over adopting a conventional survey strategy based upon CSM (Continuous Survey Method).

PMS means that the chief is able to perform certain machinery surveys credit when machines are offline or being otherwise made available.

CM means that the chief can do same based upon CM activities – i.e. no invasive survey

Lloyd’s Surveyor will credit at annual survey

Group

Meaning

Total number of Ships

Number of failures

Failures per ship

CSM

No maintenance related descriptive note applied continuous survey regime

9720

12376

0.7854

With CMJ DNote

Has an Approved Planned Maintenance System in place

1552

3741

0.4149

CMJ + CMK

As above but done in conjunction with approved Condition Monitoring

202

594

0.3401

CMJ and CMK are internal descriptors with no direct meaning hence the description above should make it clear!

This is very supportive and can be used to show why we support intelligence lead maintenance and also why targeting minimal invasion via CM leads to significant improvements in safety, reliability and operational availability.

In short this shows that;

Ships with Machinery PMS are statistically proven to have 47% fewer failures

Ships with Machinery PMS and Machinery CM have 57% fewer failures

IN addition moving from Machinery PMS to Machinery CM the likelihood of machinery failure reduces by a further 18%

Even with a conservative and pessimistic view of statistics this is a clear indication that these best practice approaches offer real and tangible benefits.

Subscribe for new post updates

2 thoughts on “Intelligent Maintenance does work – Proven!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *