Our corporate document management team has outlined a policy to retain maintenance records for five years before disposal. As a reliability expert, I believe that discarding maintenance history older than five years could have significant implications. I believe that a machine's history should be preserved for the duration of its lifespan and even for similar machines. Are there established guidelines or standards that address this issue? I aim to present strong evidence to support my stance to our document management team and convince them to reconsider their retention policy. Changes are unlikely to be made based solely on my recommendation.
I am unable to provide specific guidelines or standards for this situation. In a previous role, my company implemented a corporate policy regarding document retention which may be similar to your current situation. It is important to consider how data is electronically stored in the CMMS system. When closing Maintenance Orders, do you input the comments written by technicians on the hardcopy orders? This practice ensures all information is accurately recorded and easily accessible.
Our maintenance technicians input their comments directly into the CMMS system, which then becomes a permanent part of the electronic equipment record when work orders are closed. The topic arose earlier today when I overheard our designated "document manager" discussing the CMMS and its five-year data retention policy.
The concept of retaining records for a period of 5 years is commonly seen in industries handling non-technical (financial) documentation. In certain banking and institutional settings, this practice is mandated by law due to the high volume of paperwork being processed daily. For instance, if a business has 50,000 clients and needs to create paperwork for numerous transactions such as address changes and debt payments, the volume of paperwork can be overwhelming. However, when managing a smaller number of assets, the amount of paperwork generated is significantly reduced. In my view, it is more efficient to dispose of paperwork once the corresponding asset is no longer in use. If the asset is sold, it is advisable to transfer all documentation including parts and manuals to the new owner. It is crucial to question the rationale behind destroying maintenance records. If the reason provided is simply "corporate policy" or compliance with ISO standards, one should inquire about the benefits of this practice. In industries like nuclear or chemical plants, the consequences of destroying evidence of mandatory inspections due to arbitrary time frames can be severe. It is important to consider the long-term implications of such actions and the potential headaches that may arise as a result.
One concern to consider is whether you will be able to electronically transfer your maintenance history to a new CMMS if it changes next year.
I concur with your viewpoint, Steven, on the importance of retaining these records for as long as we possess the machine. Regarding the CMMS background, I am employed at the North American branch of a global corporation. A few years back, there was a push from the corporate level for all North American facilities to adopt a unified commercial CMMS system. Although this was supposed to be a three-year initiative, in the meantime, we created a custom web-based CMMS. However, the corporate project did not come to fruition, so now we are left with our temporary solution for the foreseeable future. Despite the circumstances, we are in a better position now than before. It was crucial for our homegrown system to have data portability since it was only a temporary measure. I have reservations about our electronic document management software, which automatically deletes documents that surpass their retention period. While this software has not yet been implemented on the CMMS database, it will impact other important documents like reports from regular PdM inspections (both internal and outsourced). Additionally, I am uneasy about non-technical personnel dictating when we should dispose of maintenance records.
I believe it is crucial to retain records for the lifespan of the equipment type for various reasons. One recent incident that highlights this importance was a court case where hard copies of work orders were needed as evidence for a compensation claim. Unfortunately, the company was unable to provide these documents, which caused significant issues. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is also a concern about changing CMMS packages. I have witnessed situations where software changes resulted in the loss of historical data, either due to constraints in the contract or the inability to transfer the information. Retrieving this data from the old system proved to be a costly endeavor to convert it into a usable format.
quote: I am alarmed by the fact that our electronic document management system automatically deletes documents that surpass their retention period. While this system has not yet been implemented in the CMMS database, it will impact other important documents, like reports from routine PdM inspections. It is troubling that individuals without technical expertise are dictating when maintenance records should be discarded. I was hesitant to accept this notion and I can only hope that your viewpoint will prevail in the end. For instance, just last year, I had to refer back to files from the 80s to troubleshoot and fix a machine. It usually takes 2 to 5 years to fully understand and fix issues with new equipment, making records from this period invaluable. These records often become more valuable over time and should not be discarded after an arbitrary 5-year period without reason. Keeping this hard-earned knowledge is essential for improving equipment performance and reducing failure rates in the long run.
Why is the standard maintenance data retention period set at 5 years? Why not 3 or even 1 year? The importance of this timeframe lies in the varying degradation periods of machinery components. For example, clutch plates may degrade in mere months, while welds may take 5-20 years to deteriorate. Pipelines may corrode over a 10-30 year lifespan, while concrete degradation can occur over 15-30 years. Keeping records for at least as long as the normal degradation period is crucial to knowing when to replace components, a decision that impacts capital investment and should be closely monitored by financial experts. Maintenance not only ensures the longevity of machinery but also contributes to increased production capacity, ultimately driving profitability. Predicting available capacity requires analyzing failure data, with failures expected to occur on average not more than once in 2-5 years. To effectively track and analyze failures, a minimum of 5 failure points are needed, taking into account potential data censoring or discarding. Therefore, multiple years of data, potentially up to 15 years, may be required for a single item. Moreover, legal obligations mandate data retention for compliance and transparency. In the event of a fatality or environmental incident, regulators may request historical records beyond the 5-year mark. Failure to comply with state and national laws regarding data retention can have serious repercussions. Additionally, in the context of mergers and acquisitions, thorough inspection and maintenance records are vital for due diligence and maintaining a strong commercial position. In conclusion, the 5-year data retention period serves multiple purposes, from ensuring operational efficiency and profitability to legal compliance and commercial viability. The sheriff's inquiry into this timeframe may indeed be a test of the waters, but it underscores the importance of adhering to established data retention practices for the overall success of the business.
Answer: - Preserving maintenance history for the lifespan of machines is crucial because it provides valuable insights into the machine's performance, reliability, and potential issues over time. This information is essential for making informed decisions regarding maintenance, repairs, and replacements.
Answer: - Discarding maintenance history older than five years can result in the loss of valuable data that could help in identifying patterns, trends, and critical information about the machine's history and maintenance needs. This could lead to increased downtime, unexpected failures, and higher maintenance costs.
Answer: - Yes, there are established guidelines and standards, such as those outlined in reliability engineering practices and industry-specific regulations, that emphasize the importance of preserving maintenance history for the lifespan of machines. These guidelines often recommend retaining maintenance records for the entire lifespan of the equipment for analysis and reference.
Answer: - To convince the document management team to reconsider their retention policy, you can compile case studies, industry best practices, and data demonstrating the benefits of retaining maintenance history for the lifespan of machines. You can also highlight the potential risks and costs associated with discarding valuable maintenance information. Collaborating with reliability experts and referencing established guidelines can strengthen your argument