A second engineer joins a vessel in Fos-sur-Mer that he has never seen before. The handover with the officer going home lasted four hours, bag already packed. In three days he will have to change the oil on number two generator. The procedure exists: it is in the head of a chief engineer who left the ship six months ago.
That is the whole difference between industrial and marine maintenance. Ashore, whoever carries out a procedure has already done it ten times, and the engineer who wrote it works two doors away. On board, the technical team changes completely several times a year, and the person doing the job may never meet the person who wrote it.
In that context, the maintenance job plan changes nature. It is no longer a quality tool meant to reduce variability between two permanent technicians. It is the only vehicle for transmitting know-how in an organisation whose people are replaced continuously. Anything that is not written down disappears with the first crew change. What remains is to decide what a job plan must contain to be usable by a multilingual crew, and how to keep it alive from one rotation to the next.
The job plan as the only vehicle for know-how
Standardisation does not serve the same purpose ashore and at sea. Ashore it serves productivity. On board it serves continuity first.
The person doing the job did not write the plan
Over a year, a merchant vessel sees several complete engine teams pass through. An engineer officer may discover an installation on the day he joins and be responsible for a critical operation the following week. He knows the trade and he knows the engine type, but he does not know this ship: its assembly quirks, the valve that was moved during the last dry docking, the awkward greasing point behind the manifold.
That local knowledge, which professional competence alone does not transfer, is exactly what a job plan has to capture. Familiarisation of newly assigned personnel is an explicit requirement of chapter 6 of the ISM Code, and a ship-specific job plan is the most concrete form that familiarisation can take.
What the absence of a written procedure costs
At sea, mistakes are not recovered the way they are ashore. No contractor to call, no store thirty minutes away, no expert available within the hour, and a spare part that sometimes only arrives at the next port. Variability in execution therefore costs far more than it does in a workshop. An injector refitted without respecting the tightening sequence, a sea water heat exchanger returned to service without a full vent, a fuel filter changed without a leak check: these deviations are paid for later, usually at the worst moment.
From individual skill to ship asset
Writing a job plan turns an individual skill into an asset of the vessel. The chief engineer who documents the emergency generator oil change is not writing for himself: he is writing for whoever replaces him in six months, and for the one after that.
This logic extends that of the preventive maintenance plan. The plan says what to do and when, the job plan says how to do it. A plan without job plans remains a list of intentions. To build that foundation, our guide to the preventive maintenance plan in four steps covers the upstream work.
Writing for a non-native reader
Crews are multilingual. A single engine team may bring together French, Filipino, Ukrainian and Indian officers, and the working language is often English, which is almost nobody's mother tongue on board. A job plan written in a literary style, with long sentences and shifting vocabulary, becomes unreadable as soon as it is read in a second or third language. And an ambiguous job plan is not merely inefficient: it is dangerous.
Drafting rules that work on board
- One action per line. Never two action verbs in the same sentence. "Close the inlet valve and vent the line" becomes two separately signed-off steps.
- Verb first. Close, remove, check, record, refit. The action is read before the object.
- Constant vocabulary. A component carries one name only, the name used in the ship's technical hierarchy. If the equipment is called DG2 in the CMMS, it never becomes "the port auxiliary diesel" halfway through the procedure.
- Short, positive sentences. Negative constructions translate badly in the reader's head. "Check that the valve is closed" is safer than "make sure the valve has not been left open".
- Explicit units and values. Always the unit, never the implicit. Thresholds come from the manufacturer's manual, not from the writer's memory.
- No idioms. "Tighten normally" or "as usual" means nothing to someone discovering the installation.
A photograph replaces a paragraph
A photograph taken on the ship itself is worth more than a three-line description. The mark on a greasing point, the orientation of an asymmetric gasket, the location of the drain plug: these things are shown, not narrated. An arrow on a photo crosses the language barrier instantly. It is also why a job plan should be read on a tablet at the equipment, not on a black and white printout crumpled in a boiler suit pocket.
The job plan carries safety, not a separate binder
In many organisations, work permits live in one binder, safety data sheets in another, technical procedures in a third. That separation is a design error: the moment an operator needs to know that an enclosed space permit is required is the moment he opens the job plan, not three days earlier in a meeting.
Permits built into the procedure
A shipboard job plan must state, in its header, the authorisations required before any work starts: enclosed space entry permit for a ballast tank or tank inspection, hot work permit for any welding or grinding, working at height permit, electrical and mechanical isolation for any equipment liable to start. These entries govern whether the job can begin, and they must be signed off before the first technical step becomes accessible. Isolation and certification of personnel are covered in detail in our article on maintenance safety, LOTO isolation and certifications.
Protective equipment named, not assumed
The list of personal protective equipment belongs in the job plan, exactly like the tooling. Oil-resistant gloves for an oil change, hearing protection in the engine room, eye protection for any work on a pressurised system, a harness for access at height. Naming the item removes guesswork, especially for someone who has just joined.
Hold points: where the job plan deliberately stops
A hold point is a step the operator cannot pass alone: it requires verification by a second person or the agreement of the duty engineer. On board, these points recur in the same places: before securing equipment liable to start automatically, before closing a crankcase or an enclosed space, before removing an isolation, and before returning equipment to service. Formalising them in the job plan, rather than leaving them to oral culture, is what separates a robust procedure from a task list, and what later allows a cross-check to be evidenced.
A job plan is a procedure under chapter 7
Chapter 7 of the ISM Code requires written procedures for key shipboard operations concerning safety and pollution prevention. Chapter 10 requires the ship and its equipment to be maintained in conformity with applicable rules, with inspections at appropriate intervals. A maintenance job plan sits precisely at the intersection of the two: it is the operational form that the documentary requirement takes.
Every job plan written is an audited promise
This is the point many owners discover late. A procedure written into the safety management system commits the ship. In an audit, the finding is not about what was never written: it is about what was written and not done.
The practical consequence is counter-intuitive. Six hundred job plans genuinely kept, carried out and recorded are worth more than two thousand theoretical ones, a third of which have never been applied. An oversized library does not strengthen compliance, it manufactures findings. Better to start with the critical scope, propulsion, power generation, emergency equipment and safety, then extend at the pace the ship can actually sustain.
Traceability as a by-product, not extra work
A job plan carried out in a CMMS produces its own evidence: who did what, when, against which version of the procedure, with which values recorded. The crew does not compile an audit file on top of the work, it generates the record by working. That is the logic of the digital engine room logbook, whose value lies not in convenience but in instant retrieval during an inspection. Our article on the ISM Code and the CMMS sets out the full compliance framework applicable to maintenance.
What a shipboard job plan contains
A job plan is not a list of actions. It is a structured document answering three questions: what has to be prepared beforehand, what exactly has to be done, and what proves it was done correctly.
The prerequisites
The header identifies the equipment by its hierarchy code, the type of intervention, its periodicity and the level of competence expected. Then come the required permits, the personal protective equipment, the tooling with any calibration requirements, and the parts and consumables with their references. That last list has particular value on board: it allows availability to be checked before the job starts, rather than once the cover is already off.
The work sequence
Each step is numbered, short and isolated. Hold points are flagged as such. Values to be recorded are given with their unit and the place to read them. Critical steps carry a photograph. An operator who has never performed the operation must be able to run it without interpreting anything.
Closing out
Return to service is subject to an explicit final check: covers refitted, tools recovered, area clear, function test carried out, isolation removed after verification. The operator then records the anomalies observed, the time actually spent and the final measurements.
| Section of the job plan | Information it holds | Why it matters on board |
|---|---|---|
| Identification | Equipment hierarchy code, type of intervention, periodicity, competence required | Planning and allocation within the engine team |
| Safety and permits | Required permits (enclosed space, hot work, height), isolation, protective equipment | The permit meets the technical task instead of sitting in a binder |
| Preparation | Parts and consumables with references, specific tooling, calibration requirements | Availability checked before dismantling, orders anticipated |
| Work sequence | Numbered steps, one action per line, ship photographs, hold points, values to record | Usable by an officer discovering the installation |
| Close-out | Final check, function test, report, measurements, time actually spent | Evidence of execution in audit and material for revision |
Example: generator oil change
Here is what a genuinely usable job plan looks like, for an operation every engineer knows but no two ships carry out in exactly the same way. Expected values are not shown here: they come from the engine manufacturer's manual and must be transferred as they stand into the ship's job plan.
| Step | Action | Hold point or permit | Value to record |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirm the generator is stopped and not on standby for automatic start | Agreement of the duty engineer | Generator running hours |
| 2 | Isolate the automatic start and the control supply, fit the lock and the tag | Hold point: isolation verified by a second person | Lock number |
| 3 | Isolate the starting air and vent the line | Valid isolation permit | Residual pressure after venting |
| 4 | Position the drip tray and the deck protection | Oil-resistant gloves, eye protection, hearing protection | Not applicable |
| 5 | Open the drain plug and collect the used oil | Oil still hot, burn hazard | Volume drained in litres |
| 6 | Take an oil sample in the analysis bottle and label it (ship, engine, hours) | Not applicable | Sample reference |
| 7 | Remove the oil filters and inspect the filter elements | Hold point if metal particles are found: inform the chief engineer | Condition of elements, presence of particles |
| 8 | Fit new filters with new oiled seals, tighten as marked on the filter | References matching the equipment parts list | References and batches fitted |
| 9 | Refit the drain plug with a new seal, torque as per the manufacturer's manual | Not applicable | Torque applied |
| 10 | Fill with the specified oil grade up to the upper dipstick mark | Not applicable | Quantity added in litres |
| 11 | Check the area: tools recovered, tray removed, no foreign objects | Hold point: cross-check before removing the isolation | Not applicable |
| 12 | Remove the isolation, start locally and check for leaks | Agreement of the duty engineer | Oil pressure and temperature when warm |
| 13 | Confirm no leaks after ten minutes running, then return the generator to automatic | Hold point: return to automatic confirmed at the engine control room | Observations after the test |
| 14 | Transfer the used oil according to the ship's procedure and close the job in the CMMS | Not applicable | Quantity transferred, time actually spent |
The same structure transfers directly to replacing an injector, cleaning a sea water heat exchanger, checking a fuel filter, the weekly emergency generator test or testing emergency equipment. Only the permits required and the values recorded change, not the logic of the document.
The sister ship effect
This is the economic argument that makes the effort bearable for a mid-sized owner. A job plan written once applies to a whole series of identical or near-identical vessels. Writing the generator oil change for one ship means writing it for all five in the series.
On one condition: a common hierarchy and coding
Sharing only works if the vessels use the same technical hierarchy and the same equipment coding. If number two generator is called DG2 on one ship and AUX-02 on its sister, no job plan is reusable and each vessel rebuilds its own library. Harmonisation is therefore a prerequisite, not a refinement, and it is work to be done once at fleet level before job plans start being written.
What changes at fleet level
Once the hierarchy is unified, a job plan revision approved ashore propagates to every vessel concerned, comparisons between ships become meaningful, and an officer moving within the series finds the same procedures. Multi-vessel management then comes into its own, as described on our page on fleet management.
Keeping job plans alive from one rotation to the next
A job plan written and never reviewed becomes wrong. The installation evolves, a valve is moved, a component is replaced by a different model during a dry docking. Without an update mechanism the document drifts and the crew stops trusting it. A job plan nobody believes in any more is worse than none: it provides false assurance.
Execution feedback as raw material
Every execution produces usable information. A step that consistently takes longer than planned points to poorly described access. A repeated anomaly suggests reviewing the interval. A value drifting slowly signals degradation better handled before failure. These signals only exist if values are recorded job after job, in a comparable format.
Who revises, and when
The simplest rule is also the most effective: revision happens straight away, by the person who has just carried out the job. The officer reports the gap between the plan and reality, the chief engineer decides, the technical department ashore approves and issues the new version to the vessels concerned. Version control must stay visible: a job plan carries a version number and a date, and the execution history refers to the version actually applied. It is essential in audit, and it explains why two jobs with the same title did not produce the same result.
Start small and hold the line
The classic trap is trying to document the entire ship in one campaign. The opposite approach works better: identify the critical equipment and the operations most often picked up by a newly joined officer, write those job plans properly, have them carried out, correct them, then extend. A small, reliable library is more useful than an exhaustive dead one, and far easier to defend in an audit.
Conclusion
On board, the maintenance job plan is not only about doing the work well: it is about the work remaining possible when the team changes. It is the technical memory of the vessel, the operational form of the ISM Code requirements, the support that makes the work permit inseparable from the task, and the only mechanism that lets an owner build capability across a series of ships rather than around one individual. In exchange for a little drafting discipline, every properly documented job becomes an asset that outlives the next crew change.
To review how to structure your fleet's job plans and make them usable on board, talk to the Smart Sailors team.
.png){kind=small}
