What this is
What counts as an asset at risk of obsolescence?
What counts as an asset at risk of obsolescence?
An asset or component is at risk once its supplier has announced end of sale or end of support, or the part is no longer available at all. Being merely old does not put it on this list — being unsupported does. The review tracks status against that supported/unsupported line, not against age.
What is the difference between an alternative source and reverse engineering?
An alternative source means a different supplier can provide an equivalent part today, so cover exists without the OEM. Reverse engineering means no supplier exists yet, but the part could be measured, drawn and manufactured to order if the need became urgent. The two lower risk very differently — one is cover now, the other is a project that hasn't started.
Why does this review sit separate from the Critical Spares Review?
Critical Spares Review asks whether the store holds enough stock of parts already known to be critical. Obsolescence Review asks a forward-looking question: which of those parts, critical or not, is running out of manufacturer support, and what happens when the shelf runs dry. One is a stock check, the other is a market check.
Scope
When is an obsolescence review required?
Obsolescence Review is one step in the Planned Maintenance programme. Using it to log a single breakdown or to count stock produces records that don't answer the question the review exists to answer: what happens when this part runs out.
Use this template when
- The annual review interval has come round, or a supplier has issued an end-of-sale or end-of-support notice
- A critical spare's last unit is close to being consumed and no replacement source is confirmed
- You are running the Planned Maintenance programme and this is one of its scheduled steps
- A linked record needs this one to exist: Spare Parts, Criticality
- Capital planning needs a defensible list of assets that justify a strategic spares purchase or a replacement project
Do not use it for
- Critical Spares Review, which checks that stock levels for parts already known to be critical are being held, not whether the part is still manufactured.
- Spare Parts Register, which is the master list of parts and stock quantities that this review draws its stock-held figures from.
- Parts Issue and Return Record, which records parts issued to a job and any returned unused.
- Parts Receipt Inspection, which inspects incoming spare parts for correct part number, damage, certification and food grade compliance.
- Storeroom Condition Inspection, which checks storage conditions, segregation, shelf life and preservation of held spares.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 55001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 55001 cl.9.1 requires monitoring and evaluation of asset performance and condition; obsolescence risk is one of the inputs that evaluation has to cover if the standard is going to mean anything for physical assets.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Monitor asset and component condition, including supply availability, against what the plan assumes | Items at risk |
| ISO 55001 cl.6.1 | Identify and evaluate risks to achieving the asset management objectives | Particular exposures |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.1 | Control the operational risk created by an asset or component that can no longer be sourced | Items at risk |
| ISO 55001 cl.7.5 | Retain documented information demonstrating the review was carried out and by whom | Header |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Evaluate whether existing spares cover remains adequate against the assessed risk | Summary |
| ISO 55001 cl.10.1 | Raise and track corrective action where cover has already run out | Result |
| ISO 55001 cl.6.1 | Feed confirmed exposures into capital and spares planning decisions | Summary |
What it does not cover
- Obsolescence Status, which is left at Supported for a part the supplier has already announced end of sale for, because nobody checked the supplier bulletin before completing the row.
- Estimated Years Of Cover, which is filled in as a guess against stock held rather than calculated from actual consumption rate.
- Alternative Source Exists marked Yes with no supplier named anywhere in the record, so the claim can't be tested when the part actually runs out.
- Action Plan Agreed marked Yes for a critical asset with no target date and no owner entered against it.
- Control Systems At Risk, which is scored None while the site is still running a control platform the vendor stopped supporting years ago.
Global
Obsolescence Review requirements by country
ISO 55001 is a voluntary international standard, so what makes an obsolescence review consequential varies by who is reading it — a certification auditor, a regulator overseeing critical infrastructure, or a directive that treats a like-for-like control system swap as something more than maintenance.
ISO 55001 certification audits
A stale or missing obsolescence review is treated as an open nonconformity against cl.9.1 monitoring, not as a documentation gap.
Certification bodies expect to see the review run to its stated interval with evidence of follow-up on flagged items, not just a template that exists.
Regulated infrastructure price controls (for example Ofgem RIIO, ORR periodic review)
Regulated utilities and rail infrastructure operators are expected to hold and evidence an obsolescence management approach as part of asset management maturity assessments.
A weak obsolescence review can show up in a regulatory maturity score, not just in an internal audit finding.
Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC (recast (EU) 2023/1230)
Replacing an obsolete control system is not automatically a like-for-like swap under the directive; a substantial modification to safety functions can trigger a fresh conformity assessment.
The replacement option identified for a control system needs a compliance check attached, not just a sourcing check.
How to complete it
How to complete an obsolescence review, step by step
Filling in the fields is mechanical. Deciding what the answers actually mean for cover is where the review either holds up or doesn't.
Possibly is scored as partial cover, but it hides two very different situations: a supplier who has been asked and hasn't confirmed, versus a supplier who has been approached and quoted a two-year lead time. Treat 'possibly' as requiring a named next step and a date, not as a resting state.
The form doesn't set a pass line for Estimated Years Of Cover, and it shouldn't — a slow-moving critical spare with two years of stock is a different risk to a fast-moving one with the same figure. The judgement call is to set that threshold per asset criticality, not as one number across the register.
Software Licences Secured looks like an IT question, but an unrenewable licence on a control system is functionally the same obsolescence risk as a part that's stopped being made — it just fails on a renewal date instead of a stock count. Score it with the same seriousness as a hardware gap.
Refrigerant Phase Out Affecting Plant scored as 'Some' is easy to leave sitting at that score indefinitely. The judgement call is whether a phase-out with a published cut-off date should force Action Plan Agreed regardless of how the rest of the row scores.
What auditors find
Most common obsolescence review findings
These are the gaps that show up most often when an obsolescence review is checked against what's actually happening in the storeroom and on the plant.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Obsolescence Status shows Supported for an asset whose vendor bulletin already announced end of sale. | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Cross-check status against actual supplier bulletins at the review interval, not against last year's answer carried forward. |
| Alternative Source Exists is Yes with no supplier record or quote attached anywhere in the system. | ISO 55001 cl.8.1 | Require a supplier name or quote reference before Yes is accepted; otherwise mark it Possibly. |
| Critical assets carry an Action Plan Agreed of No with no Target Date or Owner populated. | ISO 55001 cl.10.1 | Force Target Date and Owner as required whenever Action Plan Agreed is anything other than Yes for a Critical asset. |
| Control Systems At Risk and Operating Systems Unsupported are scored None without a platform inventory to check them against. | ISO 55001 cl.6.1 | Pull the control platform list from the asset register before scoring this section, rather than scoring from memory. |
| Strategic Spares Purchase Recommended is Yes with no Business Case Raised and no CAPA reference. | ISO 55001 cl.10.1 | Link the business case or CAPA record at the point the purchase is recommended, not after the fact. |
| Next Review Due is left as a rolled-forward date rather than recalculated from the actual review completion date. | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Calculate Next Review Due from the signed completion date, not from a template default. |
Case in point
Case in point: a control system found unsupported the week it failed
A site's obsolescence review had scored Control Systems At Risk as None for two consecutive years because the field was carried forward rather than re-checked against the vendor's actual support bulletins. The PLC platform running a line's safety interlocks had, in fact, been end-of-support for fourteen months.
When the PLC failed, the sourcing search that should have happened during the review instead happened with the line down, at a fraction of the notice and several times the cost, because the finding surfaced in a rebuild rather than in a review with time to plan the replacement.
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.
6 sections
- Reference
- MNT-098
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- OBS-2026-000
- Scoring
- Assets at risk
- Direction
- Low is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 55001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Spare parts, Criticality
- Tags
- Storeroom, Obsolescence
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 50
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
10 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format OBS-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
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Discovered During A Breakdown, It Is A Rebuild
Obsolescence found in a planned review is a project. The same obsolescence found at three in the morning with the line down is a crisis.
Period Reviewed*
Reviewed By*
Assets Assessed*
Items at risk
Repeats14 fieldsAsset
Asset ID
Format AST-0000.
Links to FDN-002 Asset ID
Component Or System*
Obsolescence Status*
Supported, end of sale announced, end of support announced, or no longer available.
- Supported3 pts
- End of sale announced1 pt
- End of support announced0 pts
- No longer available0 pts
Criticality*
Stock Held
Estimated Years Of Cover*
Alternative Source Exists*
- Yes3 pts
- Possibly1 pt
- No0 pts
Reverse Engineering Feasible
- Yes3 pts
- Possibly1 pt
- No0 pts
Replacement Option Identified*
- Yes3 pts
- Being explored1 pt
- No0 pts
Estimated Replacement Cost
Action Plan Agreed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Target Date
Owner*
Particular exposures
6 fieldsControl Systems At Risk*
Controls become obsolete far faster than the machines they run, and are the hardest to substitute.
- None3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Several0 pts
Operating Systems Unsupported*
- None3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Several0 pts
Software Licences Secured*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Single Source Suppliers*
Suppliers At Risk Of Ceasing*
- None3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Several0 pts
Refrigerant Phase Out Affecting Plant*
- No3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Summary
6 fieldsAssets With No Cover*
Critical Assets At Risk*
Feeds Capital Planning*
Strategic Spares Purchase Recommended*
- Not needed3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Business Case Raised
Next Review Due*
Related records
1 fieldIssue Record ID
Issue history used to judge obsolescence.
Links to MNT-095 Record ID
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-098 · record IDs look like OBS-2026-000 · Links Spare parts, 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. Keeping it current, routing it to the right owner and holding the evidence together is the work that actually slips.
Holds the obsolescence review against the asset and spare parts registers, and flags items whose status hasn't been re-checked since the last supplier bulletin.
Places the review inside the wider PM schedule so an overdue obsolescence check shows up next to overdue PMs, rather than in a separate list nobody watches.
Connects stock-held and estimated years of cover back to real consumption data, so the cover figure isn't a guess against a shelf count.
Coordinates the crew, rolls completion and exceptions 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
Obsolescence Review definitions and key terms
- Obsolescence
- The state of a part, component or system no longer being manufactured or supported by its original supplier, regardless of whether the asset using it still works.
- End of sale / end of support
- Two separate supplier milestones — end of sale means new units stop being sold, end of support means the supplier stops providing spares, updates or technical assistance for units already in service.
- Reverse engineering
- Recreating a part from measurement and drawing rather than sourcing it from the original manufacturer, used when no supported alternative exists.
- Strategic spares purchase
- A deliberate, often bulk, purchase of an obsolete part while it can still be found, made to extend cover ahead of a planned replacement project.
- Rebuild
- Unplanned corrective work triggered when an asset fails and the parts needed to restore it are not readily available — the outcome this review exists to prevent.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about obsolescence review
How is Obsolescence Review different from a breakdown rebuild?+
A rebuild is what happens after an unavailable part causes a failure; the review is what's meant to catch that gap beforehand. If obsolescence is discovered during a breakdown, it should be logged as a rebuild, and the review updated separately.
Who should carry out the review?+
Reliability, working with stores, because the assessment needs both the failure-mode judgement reliability brings and the stock and supplier visibility that stores holds.
Does every asset need to appear in the register every year?+
No — the Items at risk section is meant for assets with a live obsolescence question, not a full re-assessment of every asset each cycle.
What triggers an off-cycle review?+
A supplier end-of-sale or end-of-support notice, a refrigerant phase-out announcement, or a single-source supplier signalling it may cease trading are all reasons to open a review before the annual date.
How does this connect to the Critical Spares Review?+
Obsolescence Review identifies which parts have a market problem; Critical Spares Review checks whether stock is held against parts already known to be critical. A part can fail either check independently of the other.
Can the scoring weights be changed?+
Yes. Every option and score in this template is editable, including the weighting on control systems, alternative source and replacement option — most teams run a cycle before adjusting.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Planned Maintenance
Asset Register
Holds every piece of equipment, machine, vehicle and tool you track
Tool and Equipment Register
Holds portable tools, gauges, lifting accessories and small equipment that sit below asset level but still need control
Maintenance Request
Asks maintenance to look at a problem or carry out a job
Work Order
The main record for a planned maintenance job, covering what, where, who and when
Corrective Work Order
Covers a repair to fix something that has already failed or degraded
Emergency Work Order
Covers urgent work where equipment has stopped or become unsafe
More in Storeroom
Parts Issue and Return Record
Records parts issued to a job and any returned unused
Parts Receipt Inspection
Inspects incoming spare parts for correct part number, damage, certification and food grade compliance
Storeroom Condition Inspection
Checks storage conditions, segregation, shelf life and preservation of held spares
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 55001:2014 cl.9.1 — Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
- ISO 55001:2014 cl.6.1 — Actions to address risks and opportunities
- ISO 55001:2014 cl.10.1 — Nonconformity and corrective action
- Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC (recast (EU) 2023/1230)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.