AI System for Drafting Maintenance Work Orders from Fault Reports

The problem

When fault reports, equipment records and previous work orders are held in separate sources, their fields must be matched by hand before a maintenance work order draft can be prepared.

The maintenance planner must compare every suggestion in the maintenance work order draft with its source record; missing or conflicting evidence must not replace the final decision.

If a symptom that may have an electrical or mechanical cause is not set aside for review, the wrong team could be selected or a safety step could be missed; the record must not proceed without a human decision.

What we set out to improve

• Time taken for a maintenance work order draft and its supporting evidence to reach the maintenance planner for review
• How records set aside for human review because the same symptom may have an electrical or mechanical cause are resolved
• Number of suggestions corrected after identifying a risk that the wrong team could be selected or a safety step missed

How the system works

1. 01 Retrieve the fault report, equipment record and previous work orders from permitted sources using the record identifier
2. 02 Link source, date and version information to the shared work record
3. 03 Validate fields and units
4. 04 Prepare the maintenance work order draft with its supporting evidence
5. 05 Check for an exception: the same symptom may have an electrical or mechanical cause
6. 06 Have the maintenance planner accept, revise or reject the suggestion
7. 07 Record the approved decision and its source in the processing log

Methods we used

• A source-identified common data schema for the fault report, equipment record and previous work orders
• A decision structure that separates deterministic rules from AI suggestions
• A review screen showing the maintenance work order draft alongside the underlying source evidence
• A mandatory human review queue when the same symptom may have an electrical or mechanical cause
• An event identifier that prevents duplicate processing

Where people stay involved

Data and security

Only the fields required for this decision should be processed from the fault report, equipment record and previous work orders. Access to the source systems must be authorised separately from the maintenance planner role, and personal data, commercial information and technical secrets must not be passed into the model context unnecessarily. Reading, suggestions and human decisions must be logged separately.

Who this suits

Frequently asked questions