Maintenance UntangledMaintenance Untangled
Work Management Process · Phase 1 · MU-WMP-001

Identify Work

Capture, validate, classify and approve every maintenance requirement before it enters the planning pipeline.

Six-phase framework
IdentifyPlanSchedulePerformRecordAnalyse
Score your site →

Purpose

The Identify Work phase ensures every maintenance requirement is captured, screened, prioritised and approved before it becomes a planned work order. Without a disciplined intake process, planners are overwhelmed by noise, priorities are set by whoever shouts loudest, and reliability data becomes unusable.

Scope

  • All safety, corrective, preventive, predictive and improvement maintenance work
  • All asset types and criticality levels
  • All maintenance, operations, engineering and reliability personnel
  • Work-request creation, screening, classification and approval

RCM Foundation

Reliability-Centred Maintenance is built on seven questions about each asset — from functions and functional failures through to consequences and default actions. Only about 11% of failures are age-related (Patterns A and B). The other 89% are random or infant-mortality patterns (C–F). That means intake cannot be biased toward time-based work — condition monitoring, operator care and defect elimination all need first-class channels into the work request system.

Process Steps

  1. 01

    Capture the work request

    Intent

    Get the maintenance need out of someone's head and into the CMMS the same shift it is observed, with enough information for the next person in the chain to act on it.

    Inputs
    • Observed defect, alarm, condition-monitoring result, RCM/FMEA action, operator care finding or inspection finding
    • Asset register with functional locations and equipment IDs
    • Standard damage / cause / activity code catalogues
    Actions
    • Originator raises a work request in the CMMS against the correct functional location (never at plant or area level)
    • Enter a specific problem description — what, where, when, symptoms, effect on production or safety
    • Attach photos, readings, alarm logs or inspection sheets
    • Flag safety implications, environmental impact and any active isolations
    • Set the initial priority estimate — this is a suggestion, not the final call
    People

    Anyone on site can raise a request — operators, tradespeople, engineers, contractors, HSE. Frontline supervisors coach requesters on quality. Nobody is allowed to bypass the CMMS by phoning or emailing a request in.

    Process

    One standard work-request template. Mandatory fields enforced at entry. Verbal or informal requests are politely refused and redirected to the CMMS — every time.

    Technology

    CMMS mobile capture on tablets and phones on the floor. Direct feeds from condition-monitoring platforms create work requests automatically when alarms breach action limits.

    What Good Looks Like
    • Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
    • The opposite of: verbal 'can you have a look at this' bypassing the CMMS
    • The opposite of: requests raised at plant level with no functional location
    • The opposite of: description reads 'pump broken'
    What Bad Looks Like
    • Verbal 'can you have a look at this' bypassing the CMMS — history is lost
    • Requests raised at plant level with no functional location — reliability analysis is impossible
    • Description reads 'pump broken' — planner has to walk the job just to understand it
    Outputs
    • New work request in the CMMS in status Open / Awaiting Review
    • Automatic alert to the Operations Leader and Maintenance Leader
  2. 02

    Initial content review

    Intent

    Filter noise out of the intake queue within 24 hours so planners spend their time on real work, not on cleaning up bad requests.

    Inputs
    • New work requests raised in the last 24 hours
    • Existing open backlog (for duplicate detection)
    Actions
    • Operations Leader (or delegate) opens each new request and verifies asset, description and safety flags
    • Check for duplicates against the open backlog — link and close, don't silently delete
    • Return incomplete requests to the originator with a specific reason and a coaching note
    • Confirm the request belongs to maintenance — not projects, capital or facilities
    People

    Operations Leader is accountable. Maintenance Leader is consulted for technical calls. The Planner is not in this loop yet — this is production leadership triage.

    Process

    Fixed 15-minute review window at a set time each day. Standard reject reasons (no functional location, insufficient description, duplicate, out of scope) so requesters get consistent feedback.

    Technology

    CMMS 'Awaiting Review' queue with automatic aging flags. Duplicate-detection query on functional location + damage code within a rolling 30-day window.

    What Good Looks Like
    • Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
    • The opposite of: review skipped during shutdowns and busy weeks
    • The opposite of: silent rejection
    • The opposite of: duplicates left open
    What Bad Looks Like
    • Review skipped during shutdowns and busy weeks — backlog rots for a fortnight then everything is 'urgent'
    • Silent rejection — the requester never learns why, and the same bad requests keep coming
    • Duplicates left open — three work orders written, three crews mobilised, only one job done
    Outputs
    • Requests moved to status Reviewed / Ready for Screening
    • Rejected requests returned with reason code
    • Duplicates closed with reference to the parent work request
  3. 03

    Define Job Safety Management

    Intent

    Identify the safety, permit and environmental requirements at intake — before planning starts — so the plan is built around the safety envelope, not bolted on at the end.

    Inputs
    • Site hazard register and permit matrix
    • Isolation register and lock-out procedures for the asset
    • SDS and environmental controls list
    Actions
    • Identify hazards: energy sources, chemicals, working at height, confined space, hot work, mobile plant, lifting
    • Determine required permits (hot work, confined space entry, isolation, working at height, excavation)
    • Flag whether a formal risk assessment (JSA / SWMS) is required beyond the standard permit
    • Note environmental controls: spill kits, bunding, emissions, waste disposal
    • Flag whether operator support (isolation, standby, hold-back) is required
    People

    Originator makes an initial call; Operations Leader confirms it. Maintenance Supervisor is consulted for isolation complexity. HSE is consulted for anything unusual.

    Process

    Job Safety Management is a mandatory field on the work request, not an optional add-on. Standard hazard checklist. No work request progresses without a completed safety flag set.

    Technology

    CMMS permit matrix linked to functional location, so hot-work and confined-space assets auto-flag their permit requirements. Digital isolation register updated live.

    What Good Looks Like
    • Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
    • The opposite of: safety identified only at execution
    • The opposite of: standard hazards missed because the field is free text instead of a checklist
    • The opposite of: environmental controls forgotten until after a spill
    What Bad Looks Like
    • Safety identified only at execution — job stops on the day waiting for a permit
    • Standard hazards missed because the field is free text instead of a checklist
    • Environmental controls forgotten until after a spill
    Outputs
    • Safety requirements tagged on the work request — permit types, isolations, JSA required yes/no
    • Environmental controls listed on the work request
  4. 04

    Priority classification

    Intent

    Set a consistent, defensible response clock on every work request so the schedule reflects business risk, not who shouts loudest.

    Inputs
    • Standard priority matrix (P1 Emergency, P2 Urgent, P3 High, P4 Normal, P5 Low)
    • Asset criticality rating from the criticality register
    • Current production plan and constraint list
    Actions
    • Apply the priority matrix — safety, environmental and production consequence drive the P-code
    • Overlay asset criticality — a P3 on a critical asset outranks a P2 on a redundant unit
    • Confirm the response target: P1 < 4 hours, P2 < 24 hours, P3 < 1 week, P4 2–4 weeks, P5 next scheduled window
    • For condition-based work, calculate the P-F interval deadline and record it as the must-complete-by date
    • Document the priority rationale in the work request — one line, referring to the consequence category
    People

    Maintenance Leader is accountable. Operations Leader concurs on production impact. Reliability Engineer sets P-F interval deadlines. Planner takes what they are given.

    Process

    Single site-wide priority matrix — printed, laminated, on the wall. Monthly audit of priority distribution: P1+P2 combined should be under 20%, or the matrix is being gamed.

    Technology

    CMMS enforces P-code from a controlled list — no free text. Criticality field pre-populated from the asset register. Priority-distribution dashboard published weekly.

    What Good Looks Like
    • Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
    • The opposite of: everything gets flagged P2 to guarantee a fast response
    • The opposite of: priority based on who raised the request, not the consequence
    • The opposite of: p-F interval deadlines ignored
    What Bad Looks Like
    • Everything gets flagged P2 to guarantee a fast response — P2 becomes meaningless
    • Priority based on who raised the request, not the consequence
    • P-F interval deadlines ignored — condition-based finds turn into functional failures
    Outputs
    • Work request with confirmed priority and response target
    • Must-complete-by date for condition-based work
  5. 05

    Work request approval

    Intent

    Convert reviewed, prioritised requests into approved backlog with the right routing decisions (MOC, shutdown, duplicate) taken up-front.

    Inputs
    • Reviewed work requests with priority and safety flags set
    • MOC (Management of Change) register
    • Shutdown / outage list
    Actions
    • Maintenance Leader (or Planning Leader) confirms priority is appropriate for the scope
    • Confirm no duplicate exists in the backlog
    • Determine if a plant modification / MOC is required — if yes, route to Engineering
    • Determine if the work must wait for a shutdown — if yes, tag for shutdown planning
    • Approve for planning, or reject with reason
    People

    Maintenance Leader accountable. Planning Leader consulted. Engineering consulted for MOCs. Reliability Engineer consulted for anything that touches the maintenance strategy.

    Process

    Approval is a specific status change with a named approver, not an implicit step. MOC and shutdown routing rules are written down and reviewed quarterly.

    Technology

    CMMS status workflow with mandatory approver signature. Automatic routing rules for MOC and shutdown tags.

    What Good Looks Like
    • Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
    • The opposite of: approval by silence
    • The opposite of: mOCs missed
    • The opposite of: shutdown work bleeds into daily schedule and displaces routine PMs
    What Bad Looks Like
    • Approval by silence — requests drift into planning without anyone checking them
    • MOCs missed — modifications executed without engineering review, drawings never updated
    • Shutdown work bleeds into daily schedule and displaces routine PMs
    Outputs
    • Approved work request in status Ready for Planning
    • MOC-tagged requests routed to Engineering
    • Shutdown-tagged requests parked on the shutdown master list
  6. 06

    Daily work-request review meeting

    Intent

    Give leadership 15–20 minutes each morning to align on new requests, adjust priorities against the day's reality, and commit response.

    Inputs
    • Overnight and 24-hour work-request queue
    • Outstanding requests awaiting approval
    • Current production plan and resource availability
    Actions
    • Walk the 24-hour queue on-screen together
    • Confirm or adjust priority for each new request
    • Assign immediate-response requests to a crew there and then
    • Age-check the awaiting-approval queue — nothing sits longer than 7 days
    • Flag emerging patterns (repeat failures, spikes on one asset) to the Reliability Engineer
    People

    Standing attendees: Operations Leader, Maintenance Leader, Planning Leader. Reliability Engineer as needed. Same people, same time, every day.

    Process

    Fixed 15–20 minute stand-up at a set time. Standard agenda. Decisions only — no problem-solving in the meeting (that's a follow-up).

    Technology

    CMMS dashboard projected on the wall or shared on screen. Queue filtered to last-24-hours and awaiting-approval views.

    What Good Looks Like
    • Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
    • The opposite of: meeting stretches to an hour
    • The opposite of: meeting cancelled during shutdowns
    • The opposite of: meeting becomes a status update instead of a decision forum
    What Bad Looks Like
    • Meeting stretches to an hour — people stop attending
    • Meeting cancelled during shutdowns — backlog goes feral for a fortnight
    • Meeting becomes a status update instead of a decision forum
    Outputs
    • Daily meeting minutes (short — decisions only)
    • Updated priorities and assignments in the CMMS
    • Escalations to reliability, engineering or shutdown
  7. 07

    Create the work order

    Intent

    Convert the approved work request into a fully-attributed work order that is ready for the Plan Work phase.

    Inputs
    • Approved work request
    • Cost centre / WBS structure
    • Craft/trade list and skill matrix
    Actions
    • Convert to work order with the correct work-order type (Corrective, Preventive, Predictive, Improvement, Modification)
    • Link cost centre / WBS element and any capital project number
    • Set the initial craft/trade requirements (mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, contractor)
    • Set target completion date from the priority and P-F deadline
    • Move status to Ready for Planning and hand off to the Planner
    People

    Planning Leader (or delegate) creates the work order. Maintenance Leader owns the outcome. Reliability Engineer notified for anything that changes the strategy.

    Process

    Work-order types are a controlled list. Cost-centre and craft-code catalogues are locked. Every work order carries the originating work-request ID for lifetime traceability.

    Technology

    CMMS conversion routine that carries description, safety flags, priority and asset from the work request into the work order — no re-keying.

    What Good Looks Like
    • Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
    • The opposite of: free-text work-order types
    • The opposite of: craft requirements guessed rather than assigned
    • The opposite of: work request archived without a work order
    What Bad Looks Like
    • Free-text work-order types — reporting is meaningless
    • Craft requirements guessed rather than assigned — scheduler can't level-load
    • Work request archived without a work order — the trail is broken and history is lost
    Outputs
    • Work Order in status Ready for Planning
    • Traceable link back to the originating work request

Key Performance Indicators

KPIWhy It MattersHow To MeasureWorld ClassBenchmarkTypical
Work requests reviewed within 24 hoursThe floor learns within a shift whether the CMMS is worth using. Miss this and requests go verbal — history and reliability data vanish.Count of work requests moved out of ‘Awaiting Review’ within 24 hrs of creation ÷ total requests raised in the period.≥ 98%≥ 95%60–80%
Work request quality (all mandatory fields complete)Incomplete requests force planners to walk the job just to understand it, doubling the cost of every intake and poisoning failure analysis.Automated CMMS check: records with functional location, description, priority, safety flags, damage code all populated ÷ total records.≥ 99%≥ 95%50–70%
Duplicate work requestsDuplicates burn planner and crew capacity and rot backlog trust — three crews mobilised for one job.Duplicates linked/closed on the rolling 30-day window ÷ total work requests raised in the same window.< 1%< 2%5–10%
Average work request age (open, unapproved)Aging intake signals a broken screening cadence — the backlog becomes a graveyard and the schedule is built on stale data.Median age of records in status ‘Awaiting Review’ or ‘Ready for Screening’, measured at week-end.≤ 3 days≤ 7 days14–30 days
Priority distribution (P1+P2 combined)If everything is urgent, nothing is urgent — the schedule breaks down and PMs are the first to be deferred.Rolling 3-month share of P1+P2 work orders ÷ total work orders released.< 10%< 20%40–60%

Best Practices

  • Standard catalogues for damage, cause and activity codes — no free-text priorities
  • Work-request templates for common failure modes speed capture and improve quality
  • Feed condition-monitoring alarms directly into the CMMS as work request
  • Coach requesters — poor work request are a training issue, not a filtering issue
  • Repeat work request signal an inadequate maintenance strategy — escalate to RCM review

Common Pitfalls

  • Verbal work requests bypassing the CMMS — history is lost
  • Everything defaulting to P2 — priority becomes meaningless
  • Silent rejection of poor work request — the requester learns nothing
  • No daily review — the backlog becomes a graveyard
Next phase →
Phase 2 · Plan Work