9.1 Work Identification, Validation & Approval

Work Identification, Validation & Approval

Quick Answer: Work identification creates a reliable entry point for defects, risks, and improvement needs. Define enough notification data to locate and understand the condition, screen duplicates and viability, give the originator status, and route approved work into prioritization and planning.

---

The Work Management Lifecycle & Entry Portal (SMRP BoK 5.1)

In asset-intensive industries, maintenance productivity and asset reliability are influenced well before a technician begins execution. The work-management process controls how a need becomes authorized, prepared, performed, and learned from. Under the Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals (SMRP) Body of Knowledge, Pillar 5 establishes an eight-stage closed-loop operational cycle:

$\text{Work Identification} \longrightarrow \text{Validation \& Gatekeeping} \longrightarrow \text{Prioritization} \longrightarrow \text{Planning} \longrightarrow \text{Scheduling} \longrightarrow \text{Execution} \longrightarrow \text{Documentation \& Closure} \longrightarrow \text{Reliability Analysis}$

Work identification represents the initial gateway. If this entry portal lacks strict quality controls, the downstream planning and scheduling processes inevitably break down. When ambiguous, redundant, or low-value requests penetrate the system, maintenance planners spend up to 40% of their working hours chasing down missing details, walking down false alarms, or deciphering illegible notifications like "pump making funny noise" or "conveyor broken."

The "Garbage In, Garbage Out" CMMS Syndrome

When facilities allow unrestricted, unvetted work request generation directly into the active schedule, several systemic pathologies emerge:

• Backlog Dilution: The CMMS backlog expands into thousands of obsolete or duplicate records, making true backlog management mathematically impossible.
• Wasted Planning Capacity: Planners are forced to act as administrative detectives rather than technical job designers, decreasing the volume of fully planned job packages ready for scheduling.
• Erosion of Operational Trust: Originators whose notifications languish unaddressed in the system assume their needs are ignored, prompting them to bypass formal channels and verbally lobby maintenance supervisors for immediate favors.

To prevent this breakdown, treat the work notification as a controlled request between the requester and work-management process.

---

The Five Primary Sources of Maintenance Work

Maintenance work does not originate exclusively from equipment breakdowns. In a proactive reliability culture, work identification is diversified across five structured operational channels:

[1. Operator Care & Autonomous Maintenance]
  │  • Frontline sensory inspections (abnormal heat, vibration, leaks, loose hardware)
  │  • Minor cleaning, lubrication, and adjustments during operating rounds
  ▼
[2. Predictive Maintenance (PdM) & Condition Monitoring]
  │  • Vibration spectral anomalies, ultrasonic friction spikes, infrared thermal deltas
  │  • Lubricating oil wear debris analysis, motor circuit analysis (MCA)
  ▼
[3. Preventive Maintenance (PM) Inspection Findings]
  │  • Emerging wear discovered during scheduled PM servicing or calibration
  │  • Replacement of degraded secondary components before functional failure
  ▼
[4. Management of Change (MOC) & Engineering Modifications]
  │  • Asset reliability redesigns, safety upgrades, piping/instrumentation re-routes
  │  • Capital project tie-ins and minor debottlenecking alterations
  ▼
[5. Reactive Breakdown & Run-to-Failure Events]
  │  • Unpredicted functional failures requiring immediate containment
  │  • Deliberate run-to-failure corrective work on low-criticality non-repairable assets

1. Operator Inspections & Autonomous Care (TPM)

Frontline operators spend eight to twelve hours per shift in direct contact with operating machinery. Under Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) Pillar 2 (Autonomous Maintenance), operators are trained to utilize basic human senses (sight, sound, smell, and tactile touch) to identify early defect signals. Catching an oil weep, an abnormal valve rattle, or an unseated belt guard before functional failure occurs represents the lowest-cost work identification mechanism in industrial manufacturing.

2. Predictive Maintenance (PdM) & Condition Monitoring

Condition-based maintenance tools identify mechanical, electrical, and structural degradation along the P-F Curve (the interval between Potential Failure and Functional Failure). Work generated from vibration analysis, acoustic ultrasound, thermography, and oil ferrography represents high-value proactive work. Because PdM alerts identify the specific failing sub-component (e.g., "inner race bearing defect on motor inboard bearing, estimated 45 days to functional failure"), planners can scope and kit the job weeks before an operational outage is required.

3. Preventive Maintenance (PM) Inspection Findings & Follow-ups

A healthy PM program should act as a defect generator. When technicians perform time-based or cycle-based PM inspections, they frequently uncover secondary wear—such as cracked v-belts, leaking mechanical seals, worn brake linings, or corroded electrical conduit. A site should define when a defect found during PM can be corrected within the existing scope and when it requires a linked corrective order. Separating material added scope preserves PM compliance, labor history, authorization, risk review, and follow-up without forcing a duplicate record for every minor adjustment.

4. Management of Change (MOC) & Engineering Modifications

Engineering modifications, environmental compliance retrofits, and equipment debottlenecking initiatives must enter the work management stream through formal MOC procedures. This ensures safety reviews, piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) updates, pressure vessel approvals, and vendor drawings are linked to the work order before craft technicians begin physical fabrication or tie-ins.

5. Reactive Breakdown Work

Even high-reliability organizations experience unexpected failures. When equipment suffers functional failure (or when low-criticality assets operated under an intentional run-to-failure strategy finally stop), the work request must capture the precise operating mode, process upset conditions, and immediate physical damage to facilitate both rapid repair and subsequent root cause analysis.

---

Work Request Initiation and Example Required Fields

To ensure work requests can be processed rapidly and objectively without administrative back-and-forth, the facility should define the minimum data needed at submission and configure validation appropriate to requester role and risk. Critical identifiers may block submission, while other information can be completed during screening.

Example Work Notification Data Standard

1. Unique Asset Tag / Equipment Identification Number: The specific serial number or equipment tag (e.g., PUMP-201-A) linked to the enterprise asset hierarchy. Generalized references such as "the packaging room" or "acid pump" are rejected.
2. Functional Location (FLOC): The hierarchical physical or process location within the plant layout (e.g., AREA-02 / DISTILLATION / REBOILER-TRAIN-B). This defines operational ownership, environmental conditions, and accounting cost centers.
3. Objective Defect Description & Symptoms: A factual description of what is occurring versus what should be occurring. Originators must describe observable symptoms: "Fluid leaking from mechanical seal gland at approximately 20 drops per minute under 45 psi head pressure; product temperature 140°F." Subjective opinions or directive solutions like "replace pump" or "fix machine" are unacceptable.
4. Operating Conditions at Time of Observation: Was the asset operating at full load, idling, starting up, shutting down, or offline? Did the failure coincide with a specific product recipe change, ambient temperature extreme, or raw material variation?
5. Initial Failure Mode Classification: Categorization of the observed symptom (e.g., excessive vibration, overheating, external fluid leakage, electrical trip, structural cracking, calibration drift).
6. Originator Contact Details & Department: Full name, employee badge number, shift assignment, and contact phone/radio channel to allow the gatekeeper or planner to conduct immediate follow-up walkdowns.
7. Initial Operational Urgency Assessment: Originator's assessment of operational consequence (e.g., safety hazard, environmental permit breach, imminent line stop, quality defect, or deferrable routine observation).

---

The Gatekeeping Process: Screening, Filtering & Approval

The gatekeeping process is the administrative filter that separates raw operational noise from genuine, actionable maintenance work. In high-performing facilities, gatekeeping is conducted during a disciplined, daily 15-to-20-minute standing meeting between the Maintenance Gatekeeper (typically a dedicated Lead Planner, Maintenance Coordinator, or Planning Supervisor) and the Operations Area Coordinator (or Production Shift Supervisor).

Core Responsibilities of the Maintenance Gatekeeper

The Gatekeeper serves as the guardian of the planning backlog. Their primary duty is to protect dedicated maintenance planners from administrative clutter, ensuring planners only invest time scoping viable, authorized, and fully defined work.

[Incoming Work Notification Submitted to CMMS]
                     │
                     ▼
        [Daily Cross-Functional Gatekeeping Review]
        (Maintenance Gatekeeper + Operations Supervisor)
                     │
       ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐
       ▼                           ▼
[Validation Check: Fails]   [Validation Check: Passes]
  • Duplicate?                • Clear defect scope
  • Non-maintenance?          • Valid asset tag
  • Unviable / Trivial?       • Economically justified
  • Capital project?          • Operations approves outage
       │                           │
       ▼                           ▼
[Formally Rejected / Rerouted]  [Converted to CMMS Work Order]
  • Clear reason logged in CMMS    • Priority tier assigned
  • Originator notified            • Enters Planning Backlog

Screening Out Invalid Work Categories

During the daily screening session, all newly submitted notifications are systematically vetted against four non-viable categories:

1. Duplicate Work Requests: Multiple operators on different shifts frequently log the same visible defect (e.g., a leaking valve stem or a loose safety guard). The gatekeeper cross-references existing open notifications and active work orders on that asset tag. Duplicates are linked to the primary work order and closed with an explanatory notation, preventing multiple craft dispatches for a single defect.
2. Non-Maintenance Tasks: Requests often involve tasks outside the maintenance charter—such as janitorial cleaning, moving furniture, hanging bulletin boards, installing convenience shelving, or clearing standard production line material jams. These requests are redirected to facility services, housekeeping, or operations autonomous teams.
3. Trivial or Unviable Work: Minor cosmetic requests (e.g., scratch on non-corrosive handrail, repainting a structurally sound steel support) that offer zero return on investment and no reliability impact are formally rejected to keep resources focused on high-consequence failure modes.
4. Capital Projects & Major Alterations: Large-scale engineering redesigns or physical equipment expansions exceeding pre-established financial or labor thresholds (e.g., > $10,000 or > 40 labor hours) must not be slipped into maintenance operating expense (OPEX) budgets. The gatekeeper reroutes these to the Plant Capital Engineering Committee for formal Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) project justification.

The Feedback Loop: Dignified Request Rejection

A critical rule of maintenance leadership is that no work notification should ever disappear into a "black hole." If an operator takes the initiative to submit a work request and it is rejected or cancelled without explanation, the operator will become cynical, stop inspecting equipment, and cease submitting future notifications. When a request is rejected or redirected, the CMMS must automatically notify the originator with a clear, professional explanation logged in the system notes (e.g., "Rejected: Duplicate of active Work Order 450982, currently kitted in storeroom for execution during Thursday's planned line sanitation window.").

---

Work Request Vetting & Gatekeeping Checklist

The following checklist governs the daily cross-functional review before any work notification can be approved for planning:

---

Work Order Initiation Workflow Table (Request to Approved Order)

The progression of maintenance work from raw operational identification to an approved, plannable work order follows a standardized, gated lifecycle:

---

Qualifying Work for the Planning Backlog

Once a work request passes gatekeeping and is converted into a formal Work Order (APRV), it officially enters the Unplanned Backlog (also termed the Planning Backlog). It is now under the ownership of the dedicated Maintenance Planner.

To qualify for advance planning, the work order must represent non-emergency work that can tolerate a forward-looking planning horizon (typically 1 to 4 weeks out). True emergency breakdown work does not enter the planning backlog; it is dispatched immediately under emergency protocols to stabilize the asset. By filtering out emergencies and non-viable requests at the gatekeeping interface, the organization preserves the planner's capacity to build comprehensive, high-quality job packages that maximize technician wrench time.