Record Work

Purpose

The Record Work phase captures what actually happened during execution and formally closes the work order. Without accurate, timely recording, the entire work management feedback loop breaks — planners can't improve estimates, reliability engineers can't do failure analysis, and the same problems repeat indefinitely.

Scope

Time confirmation, history recording, documentation and formal close-out
Failure code capture, cause and effect analysis
Variance review and continuous improvement feedback to planning
Sub-segmented by work type — reactive, PM, PdM, shutdown, contractor

RCM Foundation

RCM is a data-driven methodology. Every RCM decision — task selection, interval setting, consequence assessment — depends on accurate failure and maintenance history. Missing failure codes make failure-mode analysis impossible. Missing condition data means the P-F interval can never be validated. Missing root causes means bad actors consume resources forever.

Process Steps

01
Confirm time and materials
Intent
Capture actual hours and materials at the operation level, in near-real time, so estimates and costs mean something.
Inputs
- Executed job pack
- Materials issued and returned
- Sub-work request for any extra scope
Actions
- Post actual hours per craft per operation from mobile at the asset
- Return unused materials to store against the work order
- Attribute extra materials to the sub-work request, never to the parent
- Reconcile variances greater than the threshold with the Planner
People
Tradesperson posts. Maintenance Supervisor validates. Planner receives variance data for estimate feedback.
Process
Same-shift posting is mandatory. Standard variance threshold documented. Sub-work request is the only channel for extra scope.
Technology
Mobile CMMS time and materials capture. Variance report generated automatically.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: bulk time entered Friday afternoon
- The opposite of: extras absorbed into the parent
- The opposite of: materials not returned
What Bad Looks Like
- Bulk time entered Friday afternoon — accuracy destroyed
- Extras absorbed into the parent — parent job looks over budget, sub-issue never visible
- Materials not returned — inventory drifts and stock-outs follow
Outputs
- Actual hours and materials posted against operations
- Variance flags for review
02
Record history
Intent
Leave a narrative that the next person can act on — what was found, what was done, what was left, with evidence attached.
Inputs
- Executed work and inspection findings
- Photos, readings, test results
- Original job pack for context
Actions
- Write a structured narrative: found / did / left / recommend
- Attach photos of critical stages, wear patterns, damage
- Attach vibration, thermography, alignment or performance readings
- Note any deviations from the plan and why
People
Tradesperson writes. Maintenance Supervisor coaches quality. Reliability Engineer consumes for trending.
Process
Minimum history standard published and audited. Standard narrative template.
Technology
Mobile CMMS narrative and photo attachment at the asset — no re-typing at the desk.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: history reads 'complete'
- The opposite of: photos taken on phone, never uploaded
- The opposite of: narrative written days later
What Bad Looks Like
- History reads 'complete' — the next crew starts blind
- Photos taken on phone, never uploaded — evidence lost
- Narrative written days later — detail gone, quality drops
Outputs
- History record on the work order meeting the minimum standard
- Evidence attachments linked to the work order
03
Capture failure codes
Intent
Provide the coded data that reliability analysis depends on — damage, cause and object-part codes on every corrective work order.
Inputs
- Failure observed at the asset
- Standard damage, cause and object-part catalogues
- Failure-mode catalogue where FMEA exists
Actions
- Select damage code from the standard catalogue — no free text
- Select cause code — root cause where identifiable, else contributory
- Select object-part code identifying the failed component
- Add failure-mode code where the FMEA is in place
- Flag repeat failures for the Reliability Engineer
People
Tradesperson selects. Maintenance Supervisor validates. Reliability Engineer owns the catalogue and repeat-failure review.
Process
Codes are a mandatory field on close-out for corrective work. Catalogues reviewed annually.
Technology
CMMS drop-down codes only. Free text disabled on failure fields.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: codes selected by pattern-matching (always the first item)
- The opposite of: free text allowed on failure fields
- The opposite of: repeat failures buried in different codes
What Bad Looks Like
- Codes selected by pattern-matching (always the first item) — reliability analysis is guesswork
- Free text allowed on failure fields — catalogue becomes noise
- Repeat failures buried in different codes — bad actors invisible
Outputs
- Complete coded failure record on the work order
- Repeat-failure flag where applicable
04
Raise follow-up work request
Intent
Capture every defect, drawing gap, BOM error or Standard Job Plan improvement observed during execution — now, or never.
Inputs
- Defects found but not fixed within this job
- Drawing / BOM / Standard Job Plan inconsistencies noticed
- Improvement ideas from the crew
Actions
- Raise a new work request for each defect not fixed in this scope
- Raise a document-update request for drawing / BOM / Standard Job Plan corrections
- Note improvement ideas against the Standard Job Plan for the Planner's next revision
- Link every follow-up to the parent work order for traceability
People
Tradesperson raises. Maintenance Supervisor prompts at close-out. Planner receives Standard Job Plan feedback.
Process
Follow-up capture is a mandatory question at close-out. Follow-up rate is trended as a proactive-culture indicator.
Technology
One-click 'raise follow-up' from the parent work order in the mobile CMMS.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: defects observed and forgotten
- The opposite of: drawings stay wrong for years because nobody raises the request
- The opposite of: standard Job Plan feedback dies at the crew
What Bad Looks Like
- Defects observed and forgotten — same failure returns weeks later
- Drawings stay wrong for years because nobody raises the request
- Standard Job Plan feedback dies at the crew — planner never improves the plan
Outputs
- Follow-up work request in the intake queue
- Document / Standard Job Plan update requests routed to the owner
05
Technically complete
Intent
Mark the physical work verified and the data captured — the trigger for close-out review.
Inputs
- Time, materials, history, codes and follow-ups posted
- Commissioning and acceptance signatures
Actions
- Maintenance Supervisor verifies physical work is complete and evidence attached
- Confirm mandatory fields (codes, hours, materials, narrative) are populated
- Set the work order status to Technically Complete
People
Maintenance Supervisor accountable. Planner is not the gatekeeper.
Process
Technically Complete is a hard status with defined data completeness criteria.
Technology
CMMS status transition blocks incomplete data at the click.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: set complete with mandatory fields blank
- The opposite of: supervisor delegates to the planner
What Bad Looks Like
- Set complete with mandatory fields blank — the CMMS lets it through and data quality dies
- Supervisor delegates to the planner — accountability drifts away from the work
Outputs
- Work order in status Technically Complete
06
Maintenance Leader close-out
Intent
Formally close the work order at the leader level — the last quality gate on the data that will feed reliability for years.
Inputs
- Work orders in status Technically Complete
- Variance and follow-up reports for the batch
Actions
- Review a sample of Technically Complete work orders for history and code quality
- Return sub-standard records for correction — do not close over the top
- Close the work order formally with a named signature
- Feed patterns back to Supervisors as coaching, not blame
People
Maintenance Leader accountable. Planning Leader consulted on estimate variance patterns. Reliability Engineer consulted on code quality.
Process
Weekly close-out review at a fixed time. Sample size documented. Close-out authority sits with Maintenance Leaders, not planners.
Technology
CMMS close-out queue with named approver signature and rejection reasons.
What Good Looks Like
- Every crew member can point to where this step lives in the CMMS — no shadow spreadsheets.
- The opposite of: bulk close at month-end to clear KPIs
- The opposite of: planner closes on behalf of the crew
- The opposite of: sub-standard records closed to keep the number clean
What Bad Looks Like
- Bulk close at month-end to clear KPIs — history and codes fabricated
- Planner closes on behalf of the crew — accountability lost
- Sub-standard records closed to keep the number clean — reliability data corrupted
Outputs
- Formally closed work orders in the history record
- Coaching feedback to Supervisors

Key Performance Indicators

KPI	Why It Matters	How To Measure	World Class	Benchmark	Typical
Work orders closed within 5 working days	Open work orders are open questions — parts still committed, cost centres still charging, and reliability history not yet written.	Work orders reaching status ‘Technically Complete’ within 5 working days of job finish ÷ total work orders closed in the period.	≥ 98%	≥ 95%	50–70%
Failure codes complete on closed Work Orders	Without failure, cause and action codes there is no RCM engine — every bad-actor review starts from zero and turns into opinion.	Closed work orders with all three code fields populated from the standard catalogue ÷ total closed corrective work orders.	≥ 99%	≥ 95%	20–40%
Time confirmations accurate (variance < 20%)	Accurate time on the operation line is the only trustworthy source for estimating, costing and shutdown normalisation.	Closed operations where \|confirmed hours − planned hours\| ÷ planned hours < 20% ÷ total confirmed operations.	≥ 95%	≥ 90%	40–60%
Follow-up work request from every closed Work Order	Follow-up requests are the proactive-culture signature — a crew that raises defects on the way past is a crew that owns reliability.	Count of follow-up work requests linked back to a parent closed work order ÷ total closed corrective work orders per crew per month.	Rising trend then plateau	Trended, not targeted	Near-zero — defects observed but never raised
History narrative meets minimum standard	‘Fixed as per work order’ is not history — narrative quality decides whether the next planner and the next RCM review learn anything.	Sampled audit of closed work orders against a documented narrative rubric (what was found, what was done, what was left) ÷ sample size.	≥ 95%	≥ 90%	30–50%

Best Practices

Close-out authority sits with Maintenance Leaders — closest to the work, accountable for the data
Failure codes selected from standard catalogues — never free-text
Weekly review of variances and repeat failures — feed the RCM engine
Photos and readings attached — narrative alone loses evidence
Follow-up work request are treated as a leading indicator of proactive culture, not a nuisance