Skip to main content

At the facility

Work Management

Risk-based planning and scheduling, standardized work-order flows inside the CMMS you already own, and reporting that closes on evidence of the work rather than on a status field. It is a planning function, not a headcount.

Talk to an operatorAll disciplines
What goes wrong

Nobody decided the order.

A maintenance team that is 70% reactive is not a team with a staffing problem. It is a team without a planning function. The work arrives the same way either way; what changes is whether anyone decided the order.

The day is set by whoever escalated last.

Every morning the list is whatever broke overnight plus whatever a stakeholder chased. Planned work slides because it can, and it slides again tomorrow. Nobody is being negligent. There is simply no mechanism that makes deferring a task cost anything, so the work that shouts wins the technician.

  • Planned maintenance deferred with no record that it was deferred
  • Technicians dispatched by whoever escalated, never by risk
  • A backlog growing faster than any crew size can absorb

Closed on a status field, not on evidence.

A closed order proves somebody changed a dropdown. It does not say which asset was touched, what was found, or what the reading was. Two years of that and the maintenance history cannot support a single decision: not an interval, not a replacement, not a defense at audit.

  • No readings, no findings and no parts against the asset
  • Intervals still set by the manual because nothing else exists
  • Nothing that stands up when a regulator asks for evidence
How we run it

How we build the planning function.

The operating discipline here is written down, audited and followed, because a program that lives in someone's head is one resignation from gone. That is the standard this runs to. Nothing in it depends on a person remembering, and every move leaves a record behind it.

  1. 01

    Rank every asset by consequence

    Criticality comes off what the asset actually carries, never off what it cost. Every asset in the register takes a rank, and from that point, the rank is what sets both the interval and the priority.

    RegisterEvery asset is ranked by what it carries
  2. 02

    Derive the intervals from the rank

    We build preventive intervals and predictive triggers from criticality and condition rather than from the equipment manual, so the schedule reflects your building instead of a vendor's default assumptions.

    Maintenance strategyWe set intervals and triggers per asset class
  3. 03

    Rebuild the work-order flow in your own CMMS

    We shape one flow, inside the system you already own, around how the crew actually moves through the building. A flow they have to work around is a flow they will work around every shift.

    In your own CMMSWe configure and field-test one work-order flow
  4. 04

    Close on evidence, then report on it

    An order closes on the reading, the finding and the part, never on a status field. That record supplies the data that shapes the SLA report and determines the tuning of next quarter's intervals.

    ReportingSLA reporting closes on evidence, not status
Work Management

What we run, day to day.

We embed with the team you have. The planning function, the flow, and the reporting come from us; the crew and the building stay with you.

Talk to an operator
  • Risk-based planning and schedulingCriticality sets the interval and the priority, so deferral is a decision with a written down consequence.
  • Preventive and predictive maintenance frameworksWe derive both preventive intervals and predictive triggers from the asset register rather than the manual.
  • Standardized work-order flows in your CMMSWe build one work-order flow the crew can actually follow inside the CMMS you already own.
  • Real-time work tracking and SLA reportingWe ensure live tracking and SLA reporting, closed on evidence of the work rather than on a status field.
Measured outcomes

What moves and how long it takes.

The planning function is standing inside a few weeks. The reactive-to-planned ratio takes two to three quarters because it is limited by how fast the asset data becomes true rather than by anyone's intent. The figures here are from client portfolios, not from a brochure.

50%less unplanned downtime

on a client portfolio after risk-based planning and a standardized work-order flow went in

30%

Maintenance cost saved

Weeks

To stand up the planning function

Benchmarked toISONFPASMRP
Straight answers

What operators ask us first.

These questions come up on every first call with a team that is running hot, and none of the honest answers is to hire more people.

Our team is almost entirely reactive. Where do you start?

We start with the planning function, not with headcount. A team at 70% reactive is not short-staffed, it is deciding the order of work at the moment the work arrives. We put risk-based planning in front of the queue first, because every other improvement compounds off that one.

Do we need a new CMMS before we can fix work management?

No. Work management is the flow, and we can standardize the flow inside the system you already own. If the system genuinely cannot carry it, that is an EAM and CMMS optimization conversation, and it is a separate piece of work with its own case to make.

What does risk-based maintenance planning mean in practice?

Every asset carries a criticality, and criticality sets the interval and the priority rather than the calendar or the loudest request. The result is that the work you defer is work you chose to defer, with the consequence written down.

How long before the reactive-to-planned ratio improves?

The planning function is in place in weeks; the ratio moves over two to three quarters, because it is limited by asset data quality rather than by intent. On one portfolio engagement the sequence cut unplanned downtime by half over the same window.

How do you report the work you actually completed?

Real-time work tracking and SLA reporting from the CMMS, closed on evidence rather than on a status field. A work order that is closed without a record of the completed work is a data problem waiting to become a maintenance problem.

Not the question you have? Send it over, and one of the people who would actually run your site will answer it.

Ask an operator
Related disciplines

What this runs alongside.

Work management is where the standard shows up daily. These three are what it leans on and what it feeds.

See all eight disciplines
Where to start

Start where your sites actually are.

Both paths end in the same place: a planning function your own crew runs. What differs is how much of the asset data we have to make true first.

We own a CMMS. The crew runs a whiteboard.

We audit the flow against how the crew moves through the building, rank the assets already in the register, and rebuild the work-order path inside the system you have, without migration or a second tool.

Book an operational assessment

The register was accurate on export day.

Planning is capped by data quality, so this route starts on the floor, asset by asset. It is the slower of the two and it is the only one where the intervals mean something at the end of it.

Start with a data verification