Are you looking to improve your facility maintenance work order prioritization system and work type definitions? Particularly for those in charge of facilities maintenance, categorizing and prioritizing work requests can be a challenge. Do you consider "emergency maintenance" as a work type or a priority? How many priority levels do you think are ideal? Our current system categorizes work orders into types such as Emergency, Corrective, Preventive, Predictive, and Project. Furthermore, we use a scale of 1-7 for "Equipment Priorities" to prioritize PM and PDM work, as well as "Work Order Priorities" to prioritize other tasks. However, this system might be too intricate and confusing, and I am seeking ways to enhance it. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Shelley
Shelly, I agree with you about the complexity of your system. With over three decades of experience in RCM and maintenance program development, I have a preference for simpler systems. While I am no longer involved in facilities work orders, in the past, we made an effort to keep our system as straightforward as possible. At a large campus like yours, we divided buildings into three categories (Mission critical, Economically critical, and Balance of Center) and equipment into three categories (Safety Critical, Economically mission critical, and Other). This approach helped reduce confusion and debates over prioritization. We established four work order priorities, with Number 1 being for mission essential outages that required immediate attention and authorized overtime. The remaining priorities were based on time urgency. Our setup included separate teams for preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance, which led to slight variations in the definitions of the priorities. - Ken Culverson
Hey Shelley, if you're looking for information on prioritizing work orders and determining asset criticality, try searching this forum. There are past discussions on these topics. I'm well-versed in the 5 levels of work order priority (ranked from 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest priority) and the 3 levels of asset criticality (typically denoted as ABC, with A signifying the most critical assets).
Hello Shelley, I came across an article that might be helpful for you. It discusses the priority of work orders and their relevance in today's maintenance practices. Although I wrote it a while back and would make some revisions now, the core principles remain valid. Feel free to check it out at http://www.reliabilityweb.com/articles/wo_priority.htm and let me know if you find it beneficial.
Dear Daryl, I find your system intriguing, although it appears more intricate than our current setup. I am wondering if you have ever deployed such a system in a large-scale facility. Our facility encompasses more than 6 million square feet and processes approximately 50,000 work orders annually. My goal is to streamline processes and reduce complexity. Thank you, Shelley.
Shelley, firstly, I want to clarify that the system in question is not mine but rather a representation of a criticality system designed to remove emotive decision-making from the process of prioritizing work. Secondly, I exclusively collaborate with large-scale organizations. This approach has been successfully implemented in prominent sectors such as water companies, rail infrastructure companies, a leading global hotel chain, and a few mining organizations (albeit smaller in scope compared to your current projects). I understand your apprehension, but perhaps there is a middle ground worth considering. In our industry, the danger lies in oversimplification, so it may be beneficial to evaluate the current system, its application, and implementation to ensure a smoother process.
Hi Shelley, I see the challenges you're having with your current maintenance work order system. In my perspective, "emergency maintenance" could be categorized both as a work type and a priority depending on the severity of the issue. For clarity, and ease of use, I'd suggest simplifying your priority system down to a scale of 1-4: Critical, high, medium, and low. Distinguishing the types of work order should remain as they are, but remember to refine the definitions of each so they don’t overlap. This should create a more streamlined, less confusing system. On the software side, consider a work order management tool that could help organize and automatically prioritize work orders, they can notify the correct department or person of what is a target for the day or week.
Hi Shelley, I think having work order types and priorities is certainly a good practice, but over-complicating it can indeed lead to confusion. In my experience, the key is simplicity and clarity. Instead of a 1-7 scale, consider a system like high, medium, and low for priority levels. Likewise for work order types, "Emergency" could be defined as a priority rather than a work type. The other types like corrective, preventive, predictive, and project seem clear and effective. Remember, every organization is unique and it's crucial that your system makes sense to your team specifically. A simpler approach might result in smoother operations.
Hi Shelley! Your approach to categorizing maintenance tasks is definitely thorough, but it does sound like it could benefit from some simplification. I think emergency maintenance should be treated as a priority rather than just a type, as it captures the urgency and impact of the situation. As for priority levels, maybe narrowing it down to three or four could keep things clear and manageable—something like Critical, High, Medium, and Low might help streamline decision-making. Additionally, involving your team in refining these categories could provide valuable insights and ensure everyone's on the same page! Good luck with your enhancements!
Hey Shelley! It sounds like you’ve got a solid framework, but I totally get how a complex system can lead to confusion. I think considering "emergency maintenance" more as a priority rather than a work type makes sense, as it really helps clarify its urgency. As for the number of priority levels, simplifying that scale could really enhance clarity—maybe narrowing it down to three or four levels could streamline the process while still maintaining effective prioritization. Also, involving the maintenance team in discussions about what's working and what's not could provide valuable insights and foster better buy-in for any changes you decide to implement. Good luck with your improvements!
Hi Shelley! Your current system sounds quite comprehensive, but I can see how it could get overwhelming with so many levels. I think it's great that you differentiate between "Emergency maintenance" as a priority, as it sets a clear expectation for response times. Maybe simplifying your priority levels to just three or four—like High, Medium, and Low—could streamline things without losing clarity. You could also consider using color-coding for urgency to make it visually easier to understand. Lastly, involving your team in the categorization process might uncover insights or nuances about what works best in practice. Good luck with your improvements!
Hey Shelley! It sounds like you’ve got a solid framework in place, but I totally understand how a complex system can get overwhelming. I think categorizing "emergency maintenance" as a priority rather than a distinct work type makes more sense because it helps to streamline urgent responses. As for priority levels, maybe consolidating to a 1-3 scale could simplify things without losing important distinctions—1 for emergencies, 2 for critical tasks, and 3 for routine issues. This might create clarity for your team and help improve response times. Have you considered gathering feedback from your team on the current system? Their insights could help pinpoint what’s working and what’s not!
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - To enhance your system, consider simplifying the categorization and prioritization process. Maybe streamline the number of priority levels and work types to reduce complexity and confusion.
Answer: - Categorizing "emergency maintenance" separately can ensure immediate attention to critical issues. Consider defining it as both a work type and a high priority level.
Answer: - The ideal number of priority levels may vary based on the complexity of your operations. Some organizations find success with a smaller number of priority levels to ensure clarity and efficiency.
Answer: - Consider revising your current scale of 1-7 for "Equipment Priorities" and "Work Order Priorities" to strike a balance between detailed prioritization and simplicity. Simplifying the system may lead to improved efficiency and clarity.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.