- \n
- Plan completion measures the effort, not the result.<\/li>\n
- The result indicator is unplanned stops on each machine, related to run time.<\/li>\n
- Planned downtime used by preventive work belongs in the balance.<\/li>\n
- A baseline and a stable list of causes make the comparison reliable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
What Tecnia Industries writes about the maintenance plan<\/h2>\n
Tecnia Industries, an industrial maintenance contractor based in Malay-le-Grand near Sens (Yonne, France), published the article Maintenance pr\u00e9ventive industrielle : construire et suivre un plan d’entretien<\/a> (“Industrial preventive maintenance: building and following a maintenance plan”, in French) on 20 July 2026. It sets out the starting definition: “La maintenance pr\u00e9ventive consiste \u00e0 intervenir avant la d\u00e9faillance, pour en r\u00e9duire la probabilit\u00e9” (preventive maintenance means acting before the failure, to reduce its probability).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Drawing on the NF EN 13306 standard, the article distinguishes time-based preventive maintenance, triggered at fixed intervals (operating hours, cycles or calendar), from condition-based preventive maintenance, triggered by the actual state of the equipment. Tecnia Industries then describes how a plan is built: an on-site assessment (machine criticality, breakdown history, manufacturer recommendations), followed by maintenance routines with intervals, checkpoints and wear parts to track. One point stands out: the interval set at the start is then adjusted based on the readings. This is where measurement comes in. To adjust a routine, you need to know what it has changed on the machine. This article adds that piece to the method: measuring, over time, the effect of the plan on downtime.<\/p>\n
Plan completion and plan effectiveness: two different indicators<\/h2>\n
The first indicator most plants track is the completion rate: how many scheduled routines were done on the scheduled date. It is useful, but it measures the effort, not the result. A plan can be fully completed without breakdowns going down, if the routines do not target the right failure modes. Conversely, a partly completed plan can already have a clear effect on the two or three most critical machines.<\/p>\n
The result indicator is the trend in unplanned stops on each machine covered by the plan: their number, their total duration and the mean time between failures (MTBF). Add one indicator that is often forgotten: the planned downtime consumed by the preventive work itself. In OEE, these interventions show up as planned stops. An effective plan saves more time on breakdowns than it uses for interventions. Tracking both on the same machine over the same period is the only honest way to strike that balance.<\/p>\n
![\"Four-step](\"https:\/\/teeptrak.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/teeptrak-tecnia-en.png\")
<\/figure>\nStep by step: tracking the effect of the plan machine by machine<\/h2>\n
- \n
- Freeze a baseline before the plan.<\/strong> Record the stops on each machine concerned over several weeks, with their duration and cause. Without a baseline, every later comparison relies on memory.<\/li>\n
- Separate three families of stops.<\/strong> Planned preventive interventions, breakdowns, and other stops (adjustments, changeovers, waiting). If a preventive intervention is logged as a breakdown, or a breakdown as an adjustment, the assessment is wrong from the start.<\/li>\n
- Date every intervention.<\/strong> For each routine carried out, note the machine, the date and the component. This is what lets you link a change in breakdowns to a specific intervention.<\/li>\n
- Compare at equivalent load.<\/strong> Relate breakdowns to actual run time, not to the calendar. A machine that ran half as much this month will break down less for that reason alone, whether or not the plan is working.<\/li>\n
- Look at the days after each intervention.<\/strong> Breakdowns or minor stops that appear right after a preventive visit often point to a reassembly, setting or restart problem.<\/li>\n
- Adjust the routine from the readings.<\/strong> At a fixed interval, for example every quarter, review the interval and checkpoints of each routine using the machine’s figures, with the maintenance team or the contractor who carries out the plan.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Five situations to recognize in the data<\/h2>\n
Once the measurements are in place, most machines fall into one of the following situations. These are general patterns, not results from a specific plant.<\/p>\n
- Separate three families of stops.<\/strong> Planned preventive interventions, breakdowns, and other stops (adjustments, changeovers, waiting). If a preventive intervention is logged as a breakdown, or a breakdown as an adjustment, the assessment is wrong from the start.<\/li>\n
- Freeze a baseline before the plan.<\/strong> Record the stops on each machine concerned over several weeks, with their duration and cause. Without a baseline, every later comparison relies on memory.<\/li>\n