Perform Work

Purpose

The Perform Work phase is where all upstream investment either delivers value or is wasted. It is the disciplined application of planned methods, safety controls and quality standards under frontline supervision. Poor execution of the right task is worse than no task at all.

Scope

Routine daily execution, shutdown execution and contractor-performed work
Safety management: permits, isolations, risk controls, JSA
Quality management: hold points, commissioning, acceptance testing
Coordination between maintenance, operations and contractors during execution

RCM Foundation

Pattern F failures account for around 68% of the total — components are most likely to fail immediately after maintenance intervention. Every maintenance touch is therefore a reliability risk. Precision Maintenance mitigates this: follow the plan exactly, use calibrated tools and correct specifications, work to cleanliness standards, verify before closing up, commission after every intervention, and record what was found and done.

Process Steps

01
Shift handover
Intent
Start every shift with a shared, accurate picture of live jobs, hazards and priorities — no gaps, no assumptions.
Inputs
- Previous shift's log, live isolations, permits in force
- Today's committed schedule
- Any overnight break-ins or safety events
Actions
- Off-going and on-coming supervisors walk the log together
- Confirm live isolations, permits and their expiry
- Walk today's schedule crew-by-crew, confirm resourcing
- Raise safety alerts, near-misses and equipment status from the shift
People
Off-going and on-coming Maintenance Supervisors accountable. Operations Supervisor joins for cross-functional jobs.
Process
Fixed 15-minute handover at shift change. Standard log template. No verbal-only handovers.
Technology
Digital shift log linked to the CMMS — live jobs, isolations and permits pulled automatically.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: verbal-only handover
- The opposite of: isolations left in place with no receiver
- The opposite of: handover skipped on weekends
What Bad Looks Like
- Verbal-only handover — key detail lost between shifts
- Isolations left in place with no receiver — a live hazard is orphaned
- Handover skipped on weekends — Monday starts blind
Outputs
- Handover log signed by off-going and on-coming supervisors
- Crew assignments confirmed for the day
02
Pre-job pack review
Intent
Before the crew mobilises, they walk the pack together — plan, safety, hold points and quality standard — and resolve every question up-front.
Inputs
- Job pack from Plan Work
- Live site conditions (weather, adjacent work, isolations)
Actions
- Supervisor briefs the crew from the pack, not from memory
- Confirm scope, sequence, hold points and quality standard
- Walk the safety pack: isolations, permits, PPE, JSA
- Raise questions and stop the job until answered — pack updates fed back to Planning
People
Maintenance Supervisor leads. Crew is accountable to challenge. Planner accepts feedback.
Process
Pre-job brief is mandatory — no exceptions for 'routine' work. Standard brief template.
Technology
Mobile job pack viewable at the asset. Digital sign-on for the brief.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: supervisor briefs from memory
- The opposite of: crew signs off without reading
- The opposite of: pack gaps found but never fed back
What Bad Looks Like
- Supervisor briefs from memory — key hold points missed
- Crew signs off without reading — the brief becomes theatre
- Pack gaps found but never fed back — the same gap next job
Outputs
- Pre-job brief signed by every crew member
- Pack corrections logged and returned to Planning
03
Isolate and permit
Intent
Establish and verify the safety boundary at the asset before any tool is picked up — permit signed on site, by name.
Inputs
- Isolation list and permit(s) from the pack
- Lock-out / tag-out kit
- Live plant status
Actions
- Physically isolate each energy source in sequence
- Test for dead — prove absence of energy at every isolation point
- Permit holder and permit receiver sign the permit on site
- Attach personal locks and tags; log against the work order
- Brief the crew on the boundary and re-energisation controls
People
Permit holder (Operations) and permit receiver (Maintenance Supervisor) accountable. Every crew member locks on personally.
Process
No permit → no work, applied without exception. Isolation sequence never varied without a formal change.
Technology
Digital permit and isolation register — live status visible plant-wide.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: permit signed off-site
- The opposite of: test-for-dead skipped 'because it's obvious'
- The opposite of: personal locks not applied
What Bad Looks Like
- Permit signed off-site — the whole safety system fails
- Test-for-dead skipped 'because it's obvious'
- Personal locks not applied — crew relies on someone else's isolation
Outputs
- Signed permit in force at the asset
- Isolation register updated with locks and tags
04
Execute to plan
Intent
Follow the job plan exactly — Precision Maintenance mitigates the Pattern F risk that every intervention creates.
Inputs
- Job pack, procedures and Standard Job Plans
- Calibrated tools and correct materials
- Quality standards and hold points
Actions
- Work the operations in the sequence and to the standard defined
- Use calibrated tools and correct torques / cleanliness / alignment specs
- Stop at hold points for independent verification before proceeding
- Raise a sub-work request for any additional scope discovered — never silently expand the parent
- Photograph and record readings as evidence of standard met
People
Tradesperson executes. Maintenance Supervisor verifies at hold points. Reliability Engineer consulted on precision-critical work.
Process
Precision Maintenance standards published and audited. Sub-work request is the only path for scope growth.
Technology
Mobile CMMS to record readings, photos and hold-point sign-offs at the asset.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: improvising instead of following the plan
- The opposite of: scope silently expanded into the parent
- The opposite of: hold points skipped 'to save time'
What Bad Looks Like
- Improvising instead of following the plan — reliability data becomes unusable
- Scope silently expanded into the parent — history and costs corrupted
- Hold points skipped 'to save time' — infant-mortality failures follow
Outputs
- Work performed to plan with evidence attached
- Sub-work request for any emergent scope
05
Verify and commission
Intent
Prove the asset is fit to return to service before guards go back on — commissioning is part of the job, not an afterthought.
Inputs
- Completed physical work
- Commissioning and functional test procedures
- Acceptance criteria
Actions
- Inspect internals before guards / covers reinstated
- Reinstate isolations in reverse sequence
- Perform functional / commissioning tests to the acceptance criteria
- Record readings, vibration baseline, thermography or performance data
- Formal acceptance sign-off with Operations before return to service
People
Maintenance Supervisor accountable. Operations Supervisor accepts. Reliability Engineer receives baseline data.
Process
Commissioning steps are part of the plan, not optional. Standard acceptance criteria per equipment class.
Technology
CMMS commissioning module with attached readings. Vibration / thermography feeds baselined at handback.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: commissioning skipped to hit the schedule
- The opposite of: acceptance verbal
- The opposite of: baseline readings never taken
What Bad Looks Like
- Commissioning skipped to hit the schedule — infant-mortality failures follow within days
- Acceptance verbal — Operations later disputes the handback
- Baseline readings never taken — future trending has no reference
Outputs
- Commissioning record and baseline readings attached to the work order
- Operations acceptance signature
06
Time confirmation and handback
Intent
Close the physical shift cleanly — hours confirmed, permits removed, asset formally handed back to Operations.
Inputs
- Actual hours per craft per operation
- Active permits and isolations
Actions
- Confirm hours against the operation they were spent on — not lumped on the header
- Return unused materials to store against the work order
- Remove personal locks; permit receiver hands the permit back
- Formal handback to Operations with a clear status statement
- Close the site — housekeeping, tool return, waste disposal
People
Tradesperson confirms hours. Maintenance Supervisor validates. Operations receives the asset.
Process
Time confirmations posted same shift — never back-filled at week-end. Housekeeping is part of the job.
Technology
Mobile time confirmation at the asset. Digital permit close-out linked to the work order.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: time confirmations back-filled Friday afternoon
- The opposite of: permits left open
- The opposite of: housekeeping deferred
What Bad Looks Like
- Time confirmations back-filled Friday afternoon — accuracy destroyed
- Permits left open — next shift can't confirm asset status
- Housekeeping deferred — the next crew inherits the mess
Outputs
- Time confirmations posted same shift
- Permit closed, isolations lifted, asset handed back

Key Performance Indicators

KPI	Why It Matters	How To Measure	World Class	Benchmark	Typical
Safety incidents on maintenance work	Safety is non-negotiable — an incident on maintenance work always traces back to a planning, permit or supervision gap that the process must close.	Count of recordable maintenance-related incidents in the period; complement with leading indicator of near-miss reports per crew.	Zero, with ≥ 1 near-miss reported per crew per month	Zero	1–3 recordables per year per 100 tradespeople
% jobs executed to plan (no scope change)	Scope creep on the tools is the visible edge of poor planning — every silent scope change destroys the reliability data the plan was built to capture.	Closed work orders with no post-start scope amendment ÷ total closed work orders in the period.	≥ 95%	≥ 90%	50–70%
Time confirmations completed same shift	Time booked the next week is fiction — same-shift confirmations are the only way labour data supports estimating and cost analysis.	Work-order time entries with entry_date = work_date ÷ total time entries in the period.	100% at end-of-shift	100%	40–70%, mostly back-filled
Wrench time (tools-on-task)	Wrench time is the acid test of the whole process — plan, schedule and execution all show up in one number at the tool.	Sampled work-face study or badge/tool data: direct hands-on-tool minutes ÷ paid crew minutes across the shift.	≥ 65%	≥ 55%	25–35%
Rework rate	Rework is a double cost — the original crew hours, plus the follow-up. Chronic rework points at commissioning, quality or spare-part gaps.	Work orders raised within 30 days on the same functional location for the same failure mode ÷ total work orders closed in the base period.	< 1%	< 3%	8–15%

Best Practices

Toolbox talk on the pack every day — the pack is the plan, the pack is the safety brief
Sub-work request for scope creep — never expand a parent work order in silence
Hold points on critical work require independent verification before proceeding
Commissioning is part of the job, not an afterthought — allow time in the plan
Time confirmations spread across the operations they were spent on, not lumped on the header