Recording Compliance in SAP PM (Electrical)

[Former Member]

Hi Experts,

I'm looking for some options for how to record electrical compliance for SAP maintenance order/operations.  We have a new regulatory requirement to capture that any electrical equipment is 'safe to use' once any work has been performed on it and need a place to record this.

Detail required will include information from HR (e.g. employee name, number), asset details, work order details and some options to enter compliance information.  The user should be notified of what they are signing off on by form of some pop up message.

I've considered using CATS as it compiles much of this info together, but I don't think this is the best place for the data to reside permanently.  Could it be posted back to PM somehow?

The other option is recording activitie against the operation, but we can't get operation detail by reporting on this. 

Is there any other SAP standard option?

Thanks

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Maikel,

We have a similar requirement for safe to operate. We have added permits to the workorders that are identified to fill this requirement. We use the maintenance activity type on the maintenance item to
automatically assign permits to the system generated workorders. Only a central group of users have authorisation to issues this permit and the permit rejects the system status Technical Completion.

The authorised users check for time confirmations and that only people qualified to carry out the work have done so, attach all compliance certificates to the notification for history and create
any new documents within the DMS for compliance, assigning these documents to
the technical object (functional location or equipment).

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Tavis,

Can you please explain what the 'permit' is?  Are you talking about WCM functionality?

Would be great if you could explain a little how the permit works.

Cheers

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Maikel,

     Have a read of this :

http://scn.sap.com/community/eam/blog/2012/12/07/usage-of-permits-in-sap-plant-maintenance

We have ours set up via workorder type and maintenance activity type.

Tavis

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

thats an excellent post, thanks for that.  This only appears to work at order header level though, and we require it at operation level.  Any thoughts around that?

[former_member214626 · Accepted solution]

Hi ,

for operation you can use some user status and can control the further processing on order with help of these user status .

As you dont want to use WCM bcz WCM is used generally for operation level  .

Also other option I can think abt your requirement is :

1) Use a caliberatio order . Prepare few User status for the equipment and then on the basis of the calibration results you can change the status on equipment .

Regards

[peter_atkin]

Maikel,

Some questions:

• Is this reporting required at operation level
• Are the orders and/or operations specific to Electrical work
• When does this data need to be entered
• Could the data be added to a notification
• Exactly what data needs to be stored
• What are the data reporting requirements

PeteA

[Former Member]

Hi Pete

Sorry for the delay in replying to you here. Answers to your questions below:

• Is this reporting required at operation level - YES
• Are the orders and/or operations specific to Electrical work - YES
• When does this data need to be entered - When work order is TECO (or at time entry)
• Could the data be added to a notification - I was considering whether we could use the notification activities catalogue, but how do we link this to a specific operation in the work order?  Plus we need to report on the HR data from the user (e.g. employee number).
• Exactly what data needs to be stored - See below
• What are the data reporting requirements - Based on the data below

Requirements:

1. Statement or statuatory declaration that equipment is safe to use, to be acknowledged by user.

2. Clearly state whether the electrical safety certificate relates to the whole of the installation or just to specified parts of it

3.  identify the location of the installation or part installation to which it relates

4. give the date on which the connection was done

5.  be signed and dated by the person who did the connection (electronic is ok)

6. give the name and registration number of the person who did the connection

The reason we have considered CATS is that most of this info will be available from the W/O operations and HR data.  However, we need to include a declaration to be acknowledged  and a good place for permanent storage of data.  I don't think CATS is the right place.

Cheers,

[peter_atkin]

Maikel,

Permits seems a little heavy handed for me, especially if you are not using it now, and you would need to implement WCM to get permits at operation level.

You could still use confirmations (possibly via CATS) and utilise the CONFPM* user-exits (see TCode SMOD) to obtain additional info for the compliance data.

One benefit of this process is that its done at work completion, not at the onset of work as in permits.

A negative side of this is that you would need to write customer-specific report(s) to extract this new data.

PeteA

[Former Member]

thanks Pete, yes we need operation level so was wondering about how we could get to that level with permits.  WCM isn't an option at present.

So you like the CATS idea?  Do you think we could do anything with notification activities?  This is obviously not associated with the operation so may not be worth considering.

[peter_atkin]

Maikel,

The options at operation level (without using WCM) are:

• User statuses
• User fields (operation enhancement sub-tab)
• Develop a solution using IWO10018 (header enhancement tab)
• Develop s solution in the confirmation
• Develop a solution external from the order

PeteA

[Former Member]

I dont think SAP will provide this type of functionality.. you can connect through PLC/SCADA and then recording you can copy to SAP

[Former Member]

Why not use WCM functionality. Tag in - Tag out functionality is available for assets which are under maintenance.

You can isolate technical object when it is under maintenance and when it is available for use you can tag out same technical object.

You will get history details where it is safe to use or not.

[sebastian_lenartowicz]

Greetings Yogesh,

I can imagine using WCAs to for this process, even though it's not ideal. However, I'm not usre the added complexity of tagging/untagging process is what Maikel needs here, as his query is more pertinent to recording inspection reasult and certifying safety standards comliance, not ensuring work area safety, if I understood correctly. It is to be determined whether a WCM process ir equired as well.

Greetings Maikel,

You could look at the following:

- I imagine compliance testing, certification etc. is to be done as a (planned) Work Order. Therefore you could record some compliance information on the Order or the Notification

- You could look into Partner Functions to capture the employee name (against transactional or Equipment data

- You could consider QM module functionality - to create your electrical maintenance Orders with inspection lots by setting them up with task lists that have Equpments assigned as inspection points, and record your compliance requirements as results and usage decisions in QM. This will allow you to integrate the Quality Management process for Compliance.

See this topic for more info: http://help.sap.com/saphelp_46c/helpdata/en/ec/de3154e56f11d4b3820050da4ceab0/content.htm

[Former Member]

Hi Sebastian,

Yes you are on the right track.  We aren't ready for a full WCM implementation and that would be overkill for this requirement.

Yes we could record some compliance information, but we need to be able to record an acknowledgment of this data (statement that the person issuing it is satisfied that the installation or part installation is connected to a power supply and is safe to use ).

Are you able to please explain more how we could use partner functions to achieve this?  We currently don't use them at all and not sure how this would work.

QM is not a bad idea, we are just in the process of implementing that.

Cheers,