What this is
What is a condition monitoring route plan?
What is a condition monitoring route plan?
It is the standing document that sets which assets get condition monitoring, which technique is used on each, how often, and what alarm limit triggers action. It is written once, reviewed on a set interval, and referenced every time the actual monitoring round runs.
What does "criticality-based coverage" mean here?
It means the assets on the route are chosen by ranking failure consequence, not by which ones are physically easiest to reach with a sensor. The template scores Coverage Based On Criticality separately from the raw Critical Assets Covered Percent so a high percentage built on the wrong logic doesn't read as success.
Why does the template separate technique choice from alarm limits?
Choosing vibration, thermography or ultrasonic for an asset only works if the technique actually detects that asset's likely failure modes; setting an alarm limit only works if it's derived from that asset's own baseline. Getting one right without the other still produces a route that either watches the wrong thing or watches the right thing with the wrong threshold.
Scope
When is a condition monitoring route plan required?
This plan is one step in the Reliability and Predictive Maintenance programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on later.
Use this template when
- The condition monitoring programme for a site or asset class is being established, or its annual review is due
- An asset's criticality, technique assignment, alarm limit or access arrangement is being set or changed
- The workspace is being set up, or the route needs an asset added or retired
- You are running the Reliability and Predictive Maintenance programme and this plan is one of its steps
- A vibration, thermography or criticality record needs this plan to exist as a linked reference
Do not use it for
- Motor Current Signature Analysis, which analyses motor current to find rotor bar, air gap and load faults without stopping the machine.
- Alignment and Balance Record, which records shaft alignment or rotor balancing work, with before and after readings.
- Lubrication Route Record, which records the lubrication round, with what was applied where, how much, and any condition observed.
- Spares Criticality Review, when the question is spares stocking rather than monitoring coverage.
- Anything outside KnowMaintain, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 55001 cl.8.1 requirements does this satisfy?
The plan's sections separate three questions that are easy to blur into one: is the right asset on the route, is the right technique assigned to it, and is the alarm limit actually derived from that asset rather than borrowed from a catalogue.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| Route ownership and review cycle | The plan carries a version, issue date and next-review date so it doesn't quietly go stale between annual reviews. | Header |
| Coverage built from criticality | The percentage of critical assets covered, and the justification for any exclusion, is recorded rather than assumed from the asset list alone. | Coverage |
| Technique matched to failure mode | Vibration, thermography, ultrasonic and oil analysis are assigned against the failure modes they actually detect, with multiple techniques used where one alone would leave a gap. | Coverage |
| Baselines before alarms | Alarm limits are set from an established baseline reading on that specific asset, not a manufacturer default carried over unchanged. | Route entries |
| Access while running | Each route entry states whether the point is reachable with the machine running, with a permanent sensor as the answer where it isn't. | Route entries |
| Programme effectiveness | Failures predicted, failures missed and false alarms are tracked so the programme is judged on outcomes, not on route completion alone. | Programme health |
| Closure and follow-up | A result band and completeness percentage close the review, with any required action tied forward to a CAPA reference. | Result |
What it does not cover
- Coverage Based On Criticality marked "Convenience based" while Critical Assets Covered Percent still reads high, which means the two numbers are measuring different things.
- Limits Based On Data Not Defaults recorded as "Defaults" across most route entries, which turns every alarm into a guess dressed up as a threshold.
- Failure Modes Matched To Technique answered "No" while only one technique appears in Techniques In Use, which means most failure modes on the route are invisible by design.
- Accessible While Running marked "No" with Permanent Sensor Fitted left blank, which leaves a point that can only ever be read from a stopped machine.
- Failures Missed By The Programme greater than zero with no note against the affected route entry, which lets a genuine miss disappear into next year's average.
Global
Condition Monitoring Route Plan requirements by country
ISO 55001 sets the asset-management discipline this plan sits inside, but condition monitoring practice itself is governed by dedicated technical standards, and the machinery being watched is reachable through work-equipment and process-safety regulation as well.
ISO 17359 — Condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines, general guidelines
Sets out how to establish a condition monitoring programme, including selecting techniques and setting alarm criteria against actual machine condition.
It's the technical backbone behind why the plan scores technique-to-failure-mode matching and baseline-derived limits as separate, named fields rather than a single "monitored: yes" answer.
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, reg.5
Requires work equipment to be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
A monitoring route that can't reach a point while the machine is running, and has no permanent sensor as a fallback, weakens the ongoing maintenance evidence reg.5 assumes exists.
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119(j), Mechanical integrity
Applies to covered processes and requires inspection and testing activities appropriate to the equipment.
Condition monitoring on covered process equipment can satisfy the inspection element, provided the technique and limits are actually appropriate to it.
How to complete it
How to complete a condition monitoring route plan, step by step
Four judgement calls decide whether the plan actually protects the assets it lists, rather than just producing a route that completes on schedule.
A high Critical Assets Covered Percent built on convenience access is a worse position than a lower percentage built strictly from the criticality ranking, because the first quietly excludes whichever critical asset is hardest to reach. The judgement call is whether Coverage Based On Criticality gets read as a qualifier on the percentage, not a footnote to it.
Limits Based On Data Not Defaults exists precisely because a manufacturer default is a starting point, not evidence that the asset's normal operating signature has been established. Treating "Defaults" as an acceptable answer for more than a transition period defeats the point of running a baseline at all.
Vibration alone won't catch what thermography catches, and neither catches early bearing wear the way ultrasonic does. Multiple Techniques Where Justified is the field that forces a decision on whether one technique is genuinely sufficient for that asset's failure modes, rather than the default because it's the only kit on hand.
The template's own help text says this directly. The judgement call is whether that number gets investigated per asset, or left as an aggregate that looks acceptable next to Failures Predicted Successfully.
What auditors find
Most common condition monitoring route plan findings
These are the patterns that show up in condition monitoring route audits often enough to name, along with the clause they sit against and the fix that actually closes them.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Critical Assets Covered Percent is high while Coverage Based On Criticality reads "Convenience based". | Coverage | Rebuild the route from the criticality ranking outward; treat convenience-driven inclusions as separate, justified additions, not the basis for the whole route. |
| Limits Based On Data Not Defaults reads "Defaults" for assets running for years. | Route entries | Schedule a baseline capture programme and update alarm limits per asset, rather than leaving factory defaults in place indefinitely. |
| Only one technique appears against assets with multiple known failure modes. | Techniques In Use / Failure Modes Matched To Technique | Add the technique that covers the failure mode the first one can't detect, rather than accepting partial coverage as full. |
| Accessible While Running reads "No" with Permanent Sensor Fitted left blank. | Route entries | Fit a permanent sensor or reroute the point; an entry only readable on a stopped machine isn't monitoring running condition. |
| Failures Missed By The Programme is nonzero with no linked investigation into which entry missed it. | Programme health | Trace each miss back to the specific asset and technique, and correct that entry's limit or technique assignment. |
| False Alarms accumulate at the same route entry without the limit being revisited. | Programme health | Treat a repeat false alarm as evidence the limit needs recalculating, not a reason to ignore that asset's alerts. |
Case in point
Case in point: the motor covered by the wrong technique
A conveyor drive motor sat on the condition monitoring route for two years, covered by vibration analysis on a monthly interval. It failed from a developing insulation fault that vibration monitoring was never going to catch. Route completion for that asset had been 100% throughout.
The plan's own Failure Modes Matched To Technique field, reviewed after the fact, had been answered "Partly" for that asset class for both annual cycles, with no note explaining what the gap was. Thermography would have caught the insulation fault months earlier; it had never been added because vibration was already assigned and the route looked covered. The fix was adding the second technique, not tightening the vibration interval.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- MNT-088
- Archetype
- Plan
- Record ID
- CMR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Route coverage
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 55001 cl.8.1
- Links
- Links Vibration, Thermography, Criticality
- Tags
- Predictive, Route
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 48
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 3
Header
13 fieldsRoute Plan ID*
Auto sequence. Format CMR-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Version*
Issue Date*
Next Review Due*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Owner*
Approved By*
Built By Criticality, Not Convenience
Routes assembled around what is easy to reach monitor the wrong machines very thoroughly. Start from the criticality ranking and work outwards.
Techniques In Use*
Assets On Route*
Analyst Resource Available*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Coverage
6 fieldsCritical Assets Covered Percent*
Coverage Based On Criticality*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- Convenience based0 pts
Assets Excluded Justified*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Failure Modes Matched To Technique*
Vibration finds mechanical faults, thermography finds electrical and insulation, ultrasonic finds leaks and early bearing wear. Using one for everything misses most of it.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Multiple Techniques Where Justified*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Baselines Established*
- All3 pts
- Some1 pt
- None0 pts
Route entries
Repeats10 fieldsAsset
Asset ID
Format AST-0000.
Links to FDN-002 Asset ID
Technique*
Interval*
Criticality*
Measurement Points Defined*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Alarm Limits Set*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Limits Based On Data Not Defaults*
- Yes3 pts
- Mixed1 pt
- Defaults0 pts
Accessible While Running*
Condition monitoring on a stopped machine tells you very little. Permanent sensors are the answer where access is unsafe.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Permanent Sensor Fitted
Programme health
6 fieldsRoute Completion Percent*
Alarms Raised In Period*
Alarms Actioned*
Failures Predicted Successfully*
Failures Missed By The Programme*
A failure on a monitored asset that the route did not see is a finding about the route, not bad luck.
False Alarms
Result
13 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Reliability*
Signature*
Engineering Manager*
Second Signature*
MNT-088 · record IDs look like CMR-2026-000 · Links Vibration, Thermography, Criticality
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form is the easy part. Catching a route that's built around convenience rather than criticality, and pushing a stale alarm limit toward a real baseline, is the work that actually slips.
Holds the plan against the asset and criticality registers, flags route entries still running on default alarm limits, and keeps technique assignments visible against known failure modes.
Tracks route completion, false alarms and missed failures across shifts, so a programme that looks fine on paper but keeps missing failures gets surfaced early.
Treats the annual review cycle as its own control point, so a plan that's quietly gone past its Next Review Due doesn't sit unnoticed until an audit finds it.
Coordinates the crew across the route, rolls coverage gaps and stale baselines into one view, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowMaintain — asset maintenance. Work orders, planned maintenance, calibration, reliability and shutdowns.
Meet KnowMaintain→Glossary
Condition Monitoring Route Plan definitions and key terms
- Condition monitoring
- Measuring an asset's operating condition on a set technique and interval to detect developing faults before they cause failure, as distinct from time-based preventive maintenance.
- Baseline reading
- A measurement taken on a specific asset in known-good condition, used to set that asset's own alarm limits rather than relying on a generic default.
- Alarm limit
- The threshold at which a monitored reading is treated as abnormal and triggers investigation or action; only meaningful when derived from the asset's own baseline.
- Criticality ranking
- An ordering of assets by the consequence of their failure, used to decide which assets receive monitoring coverage and at what priority.
- False alarm
- An alarm triggered by the monitoring programme that does not correspond to a real developing fault, usually a sign the alarm limit needs recalculating.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about condition monitoring route plan
Does a condition monitoring route plan replace the individual monitoring records it schedules?+
No. This plan sets which assets, techniques, intervals and alarm limits apply; the individual vibration, thermography or oil analysis records are separate linked templates that capture each actual reading against this plan.
How often should the plan itself be reviewed?+
The template is written once and reviewed yearly by default, tracked through Issue Date and Next Review Due. A significant change to the asset list, criticality ranking or available techniques is a reason to review it early rather than wait for the anniversary.
What should happen when an asset can't be monitored while running?+
Accessible While Running should be marked accordingly, and Permanent Sensor Fitted addressed directly rather than left blank. A route entry that can only be read on a stopped machine is telling you almost nothing about the condition that matters.
Is a single technique ever enough for a critical asset?+
Sometimes, if that technique genuinely covers the asset's dominant failure modes. Multiple Techniques Where Justified exists so that decision is recorded explicitly rather than defaulted to whatever equipment happens to be available.
Who signs off the condition monitoring route plan?+
The reliability owner signs first, with a second signature from the engineering manager. Where Action Required is Yes, a CAPA reference and action owner are expected before the plan is treated as closed for that cycle.
How is the programme judged if the route itself always completes on schedule?+
Through Programme health: Failures Predicted Successfully against Failures Missed By The Programme and False Alarms. A route that always completes but consistently misses developing failures is a failing programme regardless of its completion rate.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Reliability and Predictive Maintenance
Root Cause Analysis
Finds out why something happened rather than who was involved
Equipment Failure Report
Records that an asset has failed and stopped or degraded production
Failure Mode Record
Records how an asset failed, using standard failure mode codes rather than free text
Repair Record
Records what was actually done to fix the asset, including parts replaced and settings changed
Temporary Repair Record
Records a repair that is not permanent, with an expiry date and a plan for the proper fix
Repeat Failure Review
Reviews an asset that has failed the same way more than once
More in Predictive Maintenance
Motor Current Signature Analysis
Analyses motor current to find rotor bar, air gap and load faults without stopping the machine
Alignment and Balance Record
Records shaft alignment or rotor balancing work, with before and after readings
Lubrication Route Record
Records the lubrication round, with what was applied where, how much, and any condition observed
Sensor and IoT Data Review
Reviews continuous sensor data for drift, alarms and anomalies, and whether anybody acted on them
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 55001 cl.8.1 — Operational planning and control
- ISO 17359 — Condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines, general guidelines
- Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, reg.5
- OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119(j) — Mechanical integrity
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.