A PMS holds years of evidence about how a fleet is maintained, but that evidence is rarely used. Reports are run when an inspection is due, and the questions that matter, which ships are falling behind, which equipment fails repeatedly and whether the database still matches class requirements, go unanswered.
Analysis we provide
- Maintenance KPIs. Schedule compliance, overdue ratio, planned versus corrective work, backlog and postponements, per vessel and across the fleet, with agreed definitions so the numbers mean the same on every ship.
- Overdue and postponed work. Which jobs are overdue, how long they have been postponed, whether postponements were approved, and which involve critical equipment.
- Class and statutory coverage. Whether continuous survey items and other class requirements are present and linked to the right equipment and jobs.
- Critical equipment. Whether critical equipment and its jobs are flagged and kept up to date as your safety management system requires.
- Failure and spares patterns. Recurring defects, equipment with high corrective work, and spares consumption, as input to reliability and stocking decisions.
Compliance evidence
Port state control, flag, class and vetting inspections increasingly look at the PMS itself, not just at the ship. Inspectors commonly check that the system is in use, that jobs come from the makers' documentation, that critical equipment is covered and that overdue work is controlled. We prepare the evidence ahead of time and show you where the gaps are, so they can be closed before an inspector finds them.
From data to decisions
Good analysis depends on clean, consistent data. Where the database is not yet fit for analysis, we combine this service with a health check or data structuring. Our white paper on ship maintenance KPIs sets out the indicators and their formulas.
We can work from exports of your PMS, so your live system is not touched.