06_SAMM_Feedback_Process_Review,_EWI.pdf

Military Sealift Command Quality Management System

Procedures Manual N0711-103.10-W

Revision 1.1

Endorsed by the MRMS Steering Committee

Issued By: Date: 3/30/17

Kevin Baetsen COMSC Engineering Director

SSIC: 4731

ISO: 7.3

ISM: 10.4

SAMM System Feedback Process Review

1 PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to ensure consistency in reviewing, researching and approving maintenance changes to the Shipboard Automated Maintenance Management (SAMM) system scheduled maintenance and to implement the policy requirements of Reference 5.1.

2 BACKGROUND / OBJECTIVES / APPLICABILITY:

2.1 Background: The SAMM system encompasses maintenance actions developed for all ship platforms. A process must be maintained to ensure that the changes are consistent with MSC’s maintenance philosophy, Reference 5.2, based on the backfit-Reliability Centered Maintenance (b-RCM) principles and that the rationale for the change is documented. Changes are defined as improvements to maintenance tasks, implementation of new tasks, periodicity changes, narrative changes and task deletions. The feedback process is the only method to affect changes to the SAMM system maintenance tasks. Shipboard personnel can submit feedback through the shipboard SAMM application to initiate required/recommended changes/additions/deletions of ship specific, class or fleet wide scheduled maintenance. Changes as a result of the Transalt process, Maintenance Engineering Reviews (MERs), regulatory body requirements change, etc., shall also be enacted through the feedback system.

2.2 Objectives: All Feedback is processed in the “Data Maintenance” Module. This module can be accessed by going to any I-Navy MSC Portal page and selecting the “Logistics & Engineering Systems (LES)” link from the “Application” drop down box located in the ribbon. Once the LES application is open, select the “CMLS” link and then the “Data Maintenance” Tab.

2.3 Applicability: This Work Instruction applies to N711 and contractors tasked with processing SAMM Feedback.

MSC Quality Management System Procedures Manual N0711-103.10-W Revision 1.1

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 2 of 11

3 PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

3.1 SUBMITTING FEEDBACK: Feedback is submitted to N711 in

accordance with Reference 5.3.

3.2 INITIAL FEEDBACK REVIEW (Within 7 days from receiving

feedback):

3.2.1 All Feedback requests will first appear in the “contractor Work

Area” of the “Data Maintenance Module”. An initial review shall be performed to determine if the request is valid. Not all feedback will be valid. If the feedback request is not applicable to SAMM data (maintenance, equipment, etc) it may be recommended to be declined. For feedback applicable to the Help Call system, a help call reference (ticket number) must be included.

3.2.2 All feedback received should clearly identify the intent and present a valid reason for the requested change. Valid reasons include Operational experience that is driving the need for the change; the benefits of the recommended change on safety, regulatory requirements, mission and/or cost (both short term & long term); or the consequences if the recommended change is not incorporated.

3.2.3 For feedback that requires clarification, the originator shall be contacted for additional information. All information will be stored for future reference.

3.2.4 All e-mails concerning feedback shall meet the required format of paragraph 4.2.

3.2.5 If the feedback identifies a minor configuration change (i.e.

bearings, couplings, etc.), or a correction in the grammar of the narrative, then a change or update to the SAMM data shall be proposed.

3.3 RESEARCHING FEEDBACK

3.3.1 , Feedback research shall include a review of:

the existing maintenance plan feedback audit history system/equipment failure history OEM Technical Manual

CMLS (CLIP)

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 3 of 11

SAMM Audits and Maintenance Effectiveness Reviews (MERs)

The ships force and Port Engineer should only be consulted if all the above resources have been consulted first..

3.3.2 During the research phase, attention shall be given to ensure that critical risk factors, level of maintenance, Hierarchical Structural Code (HSC), equipment nomenclature, Manufacturer/Model/Serial # information, System, Description, Sub-Description, Location and maintenance procedure type appear to be accurate and, if not, updated as necessary. If associated equipment information should be updated, the change shall be included in the proposal.

3.3.3 Feedback shall be researched using the following guidelines:

a. Regulatory: If the proposed changes pertain to regulatory requirements, a clear and concise statement of the requirement shall be provided and supported with referenced documents to gain approval. Providing URLs for referenced documents is considered the same as providing the document and is the preferred method. M-Codes containing the regulatory requirement shall contain a note with a footnote designation (i.e. (2) ) applied to both the note and the applicable regulatory reference (document and PDF page #).

b. Maintenance addition: When additional maintenance is proposed a discussion shall be presented to justify the additional maintenance in accordance with the principles of b-RCM methodology.

c. Maintenance periodicity change: The maintenance periodicity may be changed if there is supporting evidence (in the machinery history module, PM compliance or other sources) taking into account the failure modes associated with a maintenance action, the probability of failure and consequences of failure. In either case, increased or decreased periodicity, the proposal shall explain how the risk, probability and/or consequences, posture will improve.

The principles of b-RCM shall be applied.

d. Maintenance task deletion: If it is determined that the maintenance action is ineffective in protecting against dominant failures, both evident and hidden, or if the consequences of the failure are acceptable, the maintenance action could be recommended for deletion. The principles of b-RCM shall be applied.

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 4 of 11

e. Maintenance narrative: Changes to the text within the maintenance task shall be accompanied by an explanation unless it is an obvious grammatical error. If ship’s force submits feedback to add a best practice, then it should be added to the narrative or notes section.

f. Delete/add equipment: Equipment can be deleted from the users view in SAMM by the process of deactivation.

Deactivated equipment can include equipment removed from the ship or equipment that has been permanently disabled aboard the ship. See paragraph 3.4.5 for addition information requirements. The deactivated equipment including its history is still available in the SAMM database.

Additionally, equipment can be added if there is a need to store machinery history. When adding equipment the following information should be obtained, or determined when submitting a proposal:

Equipment Functional Description Manufacturer Model Location (Deck Number – Frame Number – Relation to

Centerline) or space name Serial Number

HSC

System, Description, Sub-Description Critical Risk Factors (CRF) Equipment Criticality Levels (L1-L4) Maintenance Procedure Type

3.3.4 For each new M-Code the “Maintenance Procedure Type” shall either be “MSC” for O-Level tasks or “PMIA” for Industrial Assistance tasks. The billet selected for O-Level (MSC) tasks shall be the Chief Engineer (new tasks only) and the billet for PMIA tasks shall be the “Port Engineer”. This change can be conducted in the MML - M-Code report in the MML-QA module.

The following is provided as guidance in determining the maintenance type designation. Maintenance type changes shall be confirmed with the Port Engineer or Chief Engineer.

a. O-Level (MSC) Task Designation Guidance:

Task Titles containing Key Words: adjust, visual, inspect, check, clean, tighten, sample, grease, lubricate, test (not specialized), measure, megger, change and;

The periodicity is usually less than 3 years or less than 6,000 hours or is Y99.

b. Industrial Assistance (PMIA) task Designation Guidance:

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 5 of 11

Tasks titles containing Key words such as: refurbish, replace, disassemble, remove, service, calibrate, certify, detach, overhaul, dismantle, test, measure, strip, change and;

The periodicity will likely be equal to or greater than 3 years or 6,000 hours.

3.4 FEEDBACK PROPOSAL (Within 35 days from receiving feedback):

3.4.1 The feedback proposal is submitted within the SAMM feedback system using the format outlined in Appendix A. All proposed data field changes shall meet the format requirements of Reference 5.4.

3.4.2 The proposal shall include a clear and concise

explanation/discussion of the issue, the actions conducted to acquire the information necessary to form a conclusion, the basis for the conclusion and the final resolution The incorporation of the principles of b-RCM shall be applied. The recommended change shall include all supporting documentation (i.e. machinery history/ PM details history, technical manuals, crew input, as well as any email correspondence). The feedback recommendations, comments and supporting material shall serve as an audit trail.

3.4.3 Feedback proposals affecting maintenance shall be applicable to the entire class of ships unless there is evidence to exclude specific ships that would need to be addressed in the proposal.

When this situation occurs, the affected ships shall be sent a notification of the change per paragraph 3.6.

3.4.4 Feedback proposals affecting equipment configuration changes (i.e. sealed bearings) shall only be applicable to the originating ship unless there is evidence to include other ships within the class. If there is evidence to include additional ships within the class, the affected ships shall be sent a notification of the change per paragraph 3.6.1.

3.4.5 Feedback proposals affecting ship configuration changes (i.e.

equipment make and model changes or additions) shall contain an explanation of applicability or the lack of applicability to the other ships in the class. If there is evidence to include additional ships within the class, the affected ships shall be sent a notification of the change per paragraph 3.6.1.

3.4.6 The proposal must state the equipment and ships affected by the change. The “affected” tool button in MML can be used to check that a change to an M-Code or maintenance plan does

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 6 of 11 not have any unintended consequences. If the change will affect additional ships or equipment for which the change is not intended, a new M-Code or maintenance plan must be created or selected from existing M-codes/plans.

3.4.7 The Criticality Levels applied to equipment are separate and distinct from its maintenance. After initial SAMM development, the four Equipment Criticality Levels (L1-L4) within a plan will contain the same maintenance scheme. When a maintenance plan is changed, all four Equipment Criticality Levels must be addressed to maintain consistency. Separately, Equipment Criticality Levels can be changed if justification is provided.

3.4.8 If a new MML Plan is created, the plan title name shall be in the format as shown in Appendix F of Reference 5.4. the M-Codes, frequencies and operating statuses must be contained in the feedback proposal. MML plans are class specific and follow a rigid format.

3.4.9 If the maintenance change is a result of a Maintenance

Effectiveness Review (MER) or SAMM audit then this fact shall be stated. For a MER, the appropriate page from the MER shall be attached.

3.5 DISPOSITION (Within 42 days from receiving feedback):

3.5.1 All recommended feedback proposals shall be reviewed by MSC N711 for final disposition. All feedback will either be approved or disapproved. Approved feedback proposals are returned for implementation. Disapproved feedback proposals will be returned with a statement concerning issues that need to be addressed prior to resubmission.

3.5.2 Disapproved feedback proposals shall be resolved and

resubmitted within 10 days.

3.6 PROCESSING CHANGES: MASTER WORK LIST (Within 60 days

from receiving feedback):

3.6.1 Prior to implementing approved feedback changes the N711 and

PM POC’s along with the Chief Engineer of each affected ship shall be sent an e-mail notification defining the change(s) to maintenance and man-hours along with a statement that the change will go into effect ten (10) business days from the date of the e-mail. All responses to the notifications shall be forwarded to the MSC N711 TPOC for resolution. After the 10 business days pass, the change shall be implemented via the SAMM MML module. See e-mail format requirements of paragraph 4.2.

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 7 of 11

3.6.2 All Approved feedback shall be implemented via the SAMM

MML module or script.

4 RECORDS & REPORTS:

4.1 SAMM Feedback received via the SAMM System: Example types of feedback and required information include:

4.1.1 Regulatory: Changes to meet regulatory requirements shall be accompanied with a reference to the regulatory agency’s document, page number and paragraph, as necessary to clearly identify the regulatory body requirement.

4.1.2 Maintenance additions/revisions: New maintenance

requirements shall be developed IAW Appendix F of Reference

5.4. Revisions to existing maintenance shall be accompanied

by operational experience or technical direction. Operational experience should include a description of the problem, failure mode, failure history, probability of failure (i.e. does the failure actually occur in service) and consequences of failure.

Consequences of failure should be related to the direct impact on the ship mission, safety of personnel, regulatory requirements and/or cost. Technical direction may come from an OEM bulletin or a root cause analysis report.

4.1.3 Maintenance deletion/periodicity changes: Deletions should be requested if the maintenance is ineffective in mitigating dominant failure modes, both evident and hidden Periodicity changes should be requested if an ineffective maintenance action could be made effective by a change in periodicity. In all cases the consequences associated with failure should be taken into account when requesting deletions or periodicity extensions.

Requests should contain a reason/explanation in the context of the RCM principles of degradation, applicability and effectiveness.

4.1.4 Maintenance narrative: Requests for narrative changes should be accompanied by an explanation for the need to affect the change with supporting documentation or operational history, excluding grammatical errors. Best practices should be captured and added to the “User Notes” section in the PM module.

4.1.5 Adding equipment: Only equipment requiring maintenance

should be added to the SAMM database. However, additional equipment can be added when corrective maintenance related information is deemed important to capture. CMLS should be consulted in defining the correct HSC. At a minimum, the following information is required to add equipment:

Equipment Functional Description

HSC

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 8 of 11

System, Description, Sub-Description Manufacturer Model Serial Number Location (Deck Number – Frame Number – Relation to

Centerline) or space name Critical Risk Factors (CRF) Equipment Criticality Levels (L1-L4) Maintenance Procedure Type

4.1.6 Deactivating equipment: Equipment is not deleted but

deactivated so the equipment history is preserved. Equipment can only be deactivated if the equipment isn’t being replaced.

Replacement equipment would need to be defined and may require maintenance.

4.2 E-mail correspondence is used to obtain feedback information and alert ships and interested parties of pending changes. E-mails concerning feedback shall contain the name of the originating ship (if applicable), the feedback number and feedback subject (i.e. USNS MARTIN feedback #103 – sewage system) in the subject line of the e-mail. As a minimum, the N711 and Program office TPOC shall be copied.

4.3 Feedback Proposals are prepared and submitted in accordance with paragraph3.4 and evaluated in accordance with paragraph 3.5.

5 REFERENCES:

5.1 COMSCINST 4790.4, Military Sealift Command's Ashore Maintenance

Management Policy

5.2 COMSCINST 4700.1 - Military Sealift Command's Technical Authority, Maintenance Philosophy, And Maintenance And Repair Management System (MRMS).

5.3 N0711-103.00-Q, SAMM System Feedback Process

5.4 N0711-103.20-W– SAMM Maintenance Development

5.5 N0731-001.20-P, Definitions that Apply to Maintenance and Repair Management System (MRMS) Documents.

6 DEFINITIONS:

6.1 Failure Mode - The specific condition causing a functional failure (often best described by the condition after failure).

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 9 of 11

6.2 Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) - A method that identifies applicable and effective maintenance tasks needed to maintain the inherent reliability of systems or equipment at minimum cost. RCM provides the methodology for determining appropriate objective evidence of need. Using RCM principles ensures that a maintenance task is both “applicable” and “effective”. An RCM-effective maintenance task “pays for itself” in terms of specific failure consequences, safety of personnel, protection of the environment, preservation of mission capability, or minimum life cycle cost.

6.3 Additional definitions can be found in MRMS N0731-001.20-P, Reference 5.4.

7 PROCESS MANAGEMENT:

7.1 Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR): MSC N711

7.2 Interfaces: Input and output from all ships

7.3 Performance Indicators (All days are calendar days):

The initial review (paragraph 3.2) of all feedback should be conducted within the first 7 days of receiving the feedback request.

Proposals (paragraph 3.4) should be submitted within 35 days of receiving the feedback request. If the proposal requires additional time the TPOC must be notified of the reason prior to the 35 days.

The MSC TPOC should provide a disposition (paragraph 3.5) within 42 days of receiving the feedback request.

Disapproved feedback should be resubmitted for approval within 10 days of it being disapproved.

All Feedback should be resolved and implemented within 60 days.

8 REVISIONS

Original 11/25/14

Revision 1 3/30/2017. Updated portal reference in Obj to be inavy portal.

Added valid reasons for updating feedback to 3.2.2. Moved requirement to CC MSC on feedback request to section 4. More extensive listing of research review sources. Added system description and location to factors that should be considered during research. Removed M-Code requirement for regulatory body approval. Added formatting requirement for feedback proposal. Added a requirement to address applicability of other ships within the class to feedback proposals. Added MML Plan title format requirements. Added implementing email notification format requirements. Expanded Location Requirements and added CRF, criticality level and maintenance procedure type to list of information that is required for adding equipment in section 4.1.

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 10 of 11

Updated feedback format to include background section and expanded proposal section. Change bars used to show all changes.

Revision 1.1 6/26/2017 Cross reference typos corrected. Hyperlinks corrected. Change bars not used.

Appendix A: Feedback Proposal Format – to be submitted via SAMM

SAMM System Feedback Process Review Page 11 of 11

Title: (i.e. Maintenance Frequency Change) References: (list of references which should be called out in the discussion) Attachments: (list of attachments) Background: An interpretation or explanation of the feedback originators intention or perceived intention or clarification based on additional communication.

Discussion: (A summary of the problem, the research conducted and the thought process to arrive at a solution and the changes required) Proposal: state the specific changes to be implemented in SAMM, affected equipment and affected shipsIn this section all changes shall be defined and each of the following fields shall be addressed:

Affected Equipment Nomenclature:

HSC:

Manufacture Model Serial # M-Code M-Code Title M-Code Narrative M-Code Source/References Frequencies Man-Hours Next/First Due Date Billet Maintenance Plan Title Maintenance Plan Description Maintenance PlanSub-Description Location System Description Sub-Description Operational Status Affected Ships/Class Maintenance Type CRF’s, LOM’s