Why PMS Problems Persist Onboard
PMS trouble rarely shows up as a single dramatic failure. It creeps in quietly: tasks pile up after a port state blitz, records are scattered across laptops and lockers, and inspectors start asking the questions no one wants to hear. If your planned maintenance system for ships is producing more noise than signal, the fix isn’t a one‑off “catch‑up weekend.” It’s a tighter system that stops problems from recurring.
This troubleshooting guide targets three recurring trouble zones: backlogs, non‑conformities (NCs), and closure quality. Work through them in order, and you’ll cut risk, restore credibility, and move toward audit readiness without burning out the crew.
>> See the full Ship Planned Maintenance: Complete Guide to a Reliable PMS Onboard
The Record Chain — Where Most PMS Breakdowns Begin
When auditors find holes, they usually trace back to a broken record chain. A single missing link is enough to trigger findings.
Task → Permit/LOTO → Job Card → Evidence → Verification → Filing
Each step answers a different question:
- Task: What exactly needed to be done (and by when)?
- Permit/LOTO: Was the work made safe before starting?
- Job Card: Who did what, using which method and spares?
- Evidence: Is there credible proof the task was done as specified?
- Verification: Did the responsible officer confirm compliance and quality?
- Filing: Can we find the record instantly during an inspection?
Common Record Weak Points
| Weak Point | Result | Typical Finding |
| Missing Job Card | No traceability | “Task done but not recorded.” |
| Incomplete Evidence | Low credibility | “No proof of maintenance.” |
| No Verification Sign‑off | NC under ISM 10 | “Unverified task closure.” |
| Wrong Evidence Mapping | Misleading trail | “Photos don’t match the task/equipment.” |
| Uncontrolled File Names | Lost records | “Cannot locate evidence during audit.” |
Tip: Map one evidence set to one job card. If multiple tasks share photos, duplicate and label them so each task is fully self‑contained.
Spotting Systemic PMS Issues
Not all problems are visible from the task list. Use pattern‑spotting to uncover systemic failures.
Backlog Clustering
A healthy PMS shows a balanced mix of due/overdue tasks across departments. Clusters—for example, 60% of overdue tasks under Deck, or recurring slips in steering gear checks—signal structural issues like poor scheduling alignment, understaffing, or missing spares.
How to see it fast
- Export overdue tasks and pivot by Department, System, and Interval.
- Add conditional formatting to highlight repeats older than 30/60/90 days.
- Plot a weekly Overdue % chart and watch for plateaus (stuck) vs. step‑downs (improving).
Tip: If one department’s backlog spikes during coastal runs, your plan ignores voyage realities. Rebalance by window of opportunity, not by calendar only.
Rushed or Bulk Closures
“Closed on the same day” entries look tidy but trigger red flags. Inspectors read them as record‑first, work‑later behavior.
What to check
- Timestamps that show many tasks closed within minutes.
- Evidence captured at obviously different times or locations yet attached to a single day.
- Identical narratives repeatedly pasted across different tasks.
Better practice
- Stagger closure to the actual completion time.
- Require unique evidence sets per task; use a short checklist (below) to gate closure.
Note: Bulk closure is a control weakness, even when the work was truly done. The record must reflect reality, not the logbook’s convenience.
Missing or Unverifiable Evidence
Typical problems include blurry photos, missing serial plates, unsigned job cards, and file names that mean nothing in a hurry (e.g., IMG_4321.jpg).
Department Evidence Checklist (quick gate)
- Clear, well‑lit photos; include nameplate close‑up and context shot.
- Job card signed by performer and verifier; date/time filled.
- File naming: YYYY‑MM‑DD_Equipment_Task_JobCardNo.
- If evidence is a measurement, include limits, tool used, and calibration validity.
Root‑Cause Analysis — Finding the Real Problem
You can’t fix what you don’t name. Start with the obvious symptom, then drill down until the cause is actionable.
Typical Root‑Cause Categories
| Category | Example | Corrective Strategy |
| Scheduling | Checks clash with port operations; crew can’t access equipment underway | Rebalance by department and voyage plan; shift to lay‑by windows |
| Spares | Part pending; task repeatedly postponed | Tag tasks as Awaiting Spare; escalate procurement lead times |
| Training | New crew unfamiliar with PMS workflow | Run 20‑minute PMS familiarization per sign‑on; keep a one‑page quick guide |
| Documentation | Confusing task names; wrong folders | Issue a naming SOP and folder map; add a “Where to File” cheat sheet |
| Ownership | No one follows up after evidence upload | Assign a responsible officer per section with a weekly sign‑off target |
Conducting a Quick Onboard RCA
Pick a problem cluster (e.g., expired lifeboat fall checks). Try a 5‑Why:
- Why overdue? → Port calls left no safe window.
- Why wasn’t it rescheduled? → PMS interval fixed to calendar, not voyage.
- Why no voyage alignment? → Department schedules not reviewed weekly.
- Why no review? → No ritual; competing priorities.
- Why competing priorities win? → No KPI ownership for overdue %.
Make it formal enough to learn:
- Log the problem, the root cause, and the corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) in a shipboard register.
- Assign owners and due dates; verify effectiveness at the next review.
- If safety‑critical, escalate to shore management immediately.
>> See the full Ship Planned Maintenance: Complete Guide to a Reliable PMS Onboard
Backlog Reduction Plan
Backlogs drift toward entropy unless you introduce a time‑boxed catch‑up with ruthless prioritization.
Prioritize by Risk and Criticality
Group tasks as High / Medium / Low based on safety, regulatory impact, and operational risk.
- High: Steering gear tests, fire‑fighting equipment, propulsion critical items.
- Medium: Auxiliary machinery checks that affect efficiency and wear.
- Low: Cosmetic or comfort‑level items with no safety/regulatory effect.
Rule of thumb: Clear all High items before touching Low. If capacity is tight, freeze new Low entries for a defined period.
Create a Realistic Catch‑Up Cycle
Avoid the “all or nothing” sprint. Build a ladder you can actually climb.
Example 6‑week cycle
- Week 1–2: Propulsion and steering—clear Highs, then Mediums.
- Week 3–4: Fire/safety systems—dampers, detectors, extinguishers, LSAs.
- Week 5: Deck systems—mooring gear, windlass, hatch covers.
- Week 6: Auxiliary/house systems—HVAC, freshwater, galley exhaust.
Tip: Publish a one‑pager with weekly targets on the mess room board; update completion % daily.
Documentation of Catch‑Up Work
If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen. Use a dedicated Backlog Clearance Form so catch‑up isn’t lost among routine closures.
Backlog Clearance mini‑template
| Date | Task | Cause | Verified By | Remarks |
| 2025‑10‑05 | Port L.O. test – P/S winches | Awaiting spare; rescheduled post‑dry‑dock | C/E Sato | Evidence uploaded; OK |
| 2025‑10‑06 | CO2 room inspection | Schedule clash with cargo ops | 2/E Reyes | Photo set with gauge readings |
| 2025‑10‑07 | Steering gear alarm check | Voyage plan misalignment | C/O Tanaka | Verified during sea trial |
Note: Keep a separate index of backlog clearances. Auditors appreciate a transparent trail that distinguishes remedial from routine work.
Preventing Repeat NCs (Non‑Conformities)
Your first job is to close the gap. Your second job—the one that keeps reputations intact—is to make sure it doesn’t reopen.
Establish a CAPA Routine
- Corrective Action: Fix the immediate defect (e.g., complete the missed test, upload evidence, update the job card).
- Preventive Action: Fix the system that allowed it (e.g., add a pre‑arrival checklist item, introduce an “awaiting spare” tag, change the review cadence).
- Assignment & Deadline: Every CAPA needs an owner and a date.
- Documentation: Record CAPA in a centralized log (ship + shore) with links to the related job cards.
Verification of Effectiveness
Don’t assume the fix worked. Test it.
- Compare Overdue % and NC recurrence rates before vs. after the CAPA.
- Spot‑check a sample of recent closures for evidence quality and sign‑offs.
- Interview the owner: Is the new step practical under real voyage conditions?
Effectiveness Review Log (sample line)
| Date | NC/CAPA Ref | Measure Before | Measure After | Result | Next Check |
| 2025‑10‑10 | NC‑PMS‑024 | 42% overdue (Deck) | 18% overdue (Deck) | Effective (−24pp) | 2025‑11‑10 |
Integration with SMS and Internal Audit
- Cross‑reference your PMS checks with SMS procedures and internal audit checklists so the same gap can’t hide under different paperwork.
- Feed CAPA results into company KPIs (e.g., Overdue %, Closure Quality Index, Evidence Gate Pass Rate).
- Ensure the Master’s review minutes reflect PMS status and key decisions, not just routine notes.
Continuous Improvement and Review Rituals
Sustained performance comes from small, predictable meetings that force decisions.
Onboard (weekly, 20–30 minutes)
- Review Overdue %, new NCs, and evidence gate failures.
- Confirm next week’s high‑risk targets and who owns them.
- Capture one Lesson Learned (what tripped us this week, how we’ll avoid it).
Ashore (monthly, 30–45 minutes)
- Compare vessel dashboards: backlog trends, closure quality, and audit outcomes.
- Challenge outliers and provide targeted support (spares, training, or manning).
- Decide on one system change to test across the fleet.
Simple dashboard to keep you honest
- Overdue % (by department and system)
- Closure Quality Index (share of closures that pass the evidence gate on first review)
- Evidence Gap Count (missing/blurred/unclear; target: zero)
Lessons Learned Log (example line)
| Date | Observation | Action Taken | Lesson Learned | Next Review Date |
| 2025‑10‑03 | Bulk same‑day closures flagged | Introduced evidence gate; staggered sign‑off | Bulk closure hides real timing—gate first, sign later | 2025‑11‑03 |
>> See the full Ship Planned Maintenance: Complete Guide to a Reliable PMS Onboard
Example Fixes and Before/After Snapshots
Before: 120 overdue tasks, 70% under Deck. Evidence quality inconsistent; many unsigned job cards. Vetting pre‑check warns of likely NCs.
Interventions: Weekly onboard review, “awaiting spare” tagging, evidence gate, and a 6‑week catch‑up cycle.
After (3 weeks): Overdue down to 45; Deck backlog halved; closure quality improves (90% pass gate on first review). External inspection closes with observations only and no NCs.
Quick Reference: Issues → Cause → Fix
| Issue | Likely Cause | Practical Fix |
| Missing records | Uncontrolled folder structure | Publish a folder map and naming SOP; train on where to file |
| Repeated NCs | Weak CAPA loop | Add effectiveness reviews and owners; sample closures monthly |
| High overdue rate | Calendar‑only scheduling | Rebuild around voyage windows; weekly re‑prioritization |
| Evidence not credible | Poor photos; no serial/limits | Introduce evidence gate; add template with required shots/data |
| Bulk closures | Admin convenience | Enforce staggered sign‑off to actual completion time |
| Tasks “done but not recorded” | No job cards raised | Mandate job card for every maintenance event; spot‑check by Chief |
Tip: Keep a laminated “Evidence Gate” card near the PMS terminal. If evidence fails any item, the task can’t be closed.
Summary — Turning PMS Weakness into Strength
Troubleshooting a PMS is not a single project; it’s a cycle: Detect → Diagnose → Correct → Verify → Improve. By repairing the record chain, prioritizing smart catch‑up, and institutionalizing CAPA and review rituals, you reduce risk, avoid repeat NCs, and present a ship that’s inspection‑ready any day of the week.