A PMS must make maintenance plannable, keep criticality visible and provide evidence for class and flag. This sounds obvious but is frequently not fulfilled in practice. Many PMS installations contain hundreds of jobs without clear prioritisation, incomplete equipment structures and maintenance records that would not withstand a class audit.
A functioning PMS fulfils three core functions: it makes visible what is due when (planning function). It documents what was done (evidence function). And it enables prioritisation by criticality (risk management). ISM Code Section 10 explicitly requires a system for identifying critical equipment and its maintenance – the PMS is the central tool for this.
A good PMS differs from a poor one not by the software but by the data maintenance. The best system is useless if job descriptions are outdated, intervals do not match the operating profile and close-out records contain only “done” rather than a meaningful condition description.
A clear hierarchy of system, equipment, component and job is practical and effective. The top level comprises the main systems: main propulsion, auxiliary machinery, deck machinery, safety systems, electrical plant, hull and outfitting. Below follow the individual equipment units (e.g. auxiliary diesel No. 1), then components (e.g. turbocharger, cooling water pump) and finally the maintenance jobs (e.g. “bearing inspection every 8,000 rh”).
Equipment coding is decisive. Every item must be uniquely identifiable – ideally with a system-based code containing vessel, system, equipment and position. This simplifies spare parts allocation, survey preparation and fleet comparison. An operator running three identical vessels but using different coding in each PMS cannot perform cross-fleet evaluation.
Job descriptions should be specific: not “check pump” but “seal integrity check, measure bearing temperature, check vibration, compare pressure performance against specification.” This gives the on-board technician a clear instruction and the superintendent a robust evidence trail.
A PMS often fails not on board but due to a lack of oversight ashore. The superintendent bears responsibility for system quality: are intervals current? Are critical jobs actually being completed? Is the evidence robust? Without regular review from shore, the PMS becomes self-running – and that typically means quality loss.
Best practice is a monthly PMS review by the superintendent: overview of overdue jobs, quality check of close-out records for critical assets and alignment with survey schedules. This review takes 2–3 hours per vessel and prevents problems from accumulating.
A critical aspect is crew change handover. If the outgoing Chief Engineer does not cleanly hand over open jobs and current condition assessments, his successor starts from zero. The PMS should have a handover function – or at a minimum a standardised handover protocol summarising the key open items, running trends and upcoming deadlines.
Typical deficiencies include overloaded job lists, missing close-out records and unclear responsibilities. The most common weakness is “job list inflation”: over the years, more and more jobs are added – following manufacturer recommendations, class findings, insurance requirements – but nobody cleans out outdated or redundant entries. The result is a PMS with 2,000+ jobs, many of which are irrelevant or duplicated.
Missing or poor-quality close-out records are the second largest problem. “Done” or “carried out as per plan” is worthless as evidence. A class surveyor or PSC inspector expects: what was found? What was done? What is the current condition? Were there deviations? This information is also valuable internally – it forms the basis for trend analysis and interval optimisation.
A third common deficiency: no clear distinction between mandatory jobs (class, flag, manufacturer) and optional jobs (best practice, internal standards). In a resource-constrained situation, the Chief Engineer must know which jobs cannot be postponed – and this must be visible in the PMS, not only in the superintendent’s head.
Criticality assessment is the backbone of a robust PMS. Each equipment item is evaluated across two dimensions: failure probability and failure consequences. Consequences encompass safety (personal injury, environment), operations (off-hire, performance loss) and cost (repair, consequential damage). A simple 3x3 matrix (high/medium/low) is sufficient for most fleets.
For critical assets (result: high/high), tighter intervals, higher documentation requirements and potentially condition-based supplements apply. For non-critical assets (low/low), intervals can be extended or switched to breakdown maintenance – provided this is documented and justified.
Interval determination should consider three sources: manufacturer requirements (minimum requirement), class requirements (where applicable) and operational experience (own history and fleet comparison). IMO Resolution A.1120(30) on Surveys and Certification provides the regulatory framework, while IACS Rec. 74 enables condition-based adjustment.
A frequently neglected point is interval harmonisation. If the main engine requires a cylinder inspection every 8,000 hours and the turbocharger requires an overhaul every 12,000 hours, it should be examined whether both can be aligned to a common interval (e.g. every 12,000 hours with an intermediate inspection at 6,000) – to use port calls more efficiently.
For fleets with an organically grown, uncleaned PMS, the following approach is recommended: First – review and clean the equipment tree. Remove duplicates, add missing assets, standardise coding. Second – carry out criticality assessment. Classify each equipment item by failure consequences and probability. Third – reconcile the job list against manufacturer and class requirements. Remove redundancies, close gaps.
Fourth – update job descriptions. Every job needs a clear instruction and defined documentation requirements. Fifth – evaluate and work through overdue jobs. Plan critical overdue jobs immediately, close non-critical ones with justification where appropriate.
This process typically takes 3–5 working days per vessel for an experienced superintendent. The investment is worthwhile: a cleaned PMS saves working time in the long run, reduces survey risks and considerably improves spare parts planning.
A multi-purpose carrier with 15 years of operation was approaching its third Special Survey. The PMS contained over 1,800 jobs, of which 340 were overdue. During preparation, the superintendent found that many overdue jobs related to equipment already removed, outdated manufacturer requirements or duplicates.
In a one-week clean-up, 420 jobs were deleted or merged, overdue jobs were reduced to 85 actually relevant ones and criticality classification was carried out for all remaining 1,380 jobs. The Special Survey proceeded without any PMS-related findings – a marked difference from the predecessor survey, where the surveyor had issued several findings for inconsistent PMS records.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting