What this is
What is a parts request?
What is a parts request?
A parts request is the record a technician or planner raises to ask stores for parts needed on a specific job, with a quantity and an urgency attached. It is not the stock movement itself — it is the ask that stock levels get checked against, and it carries the asset and work order reference forward so consumption is traceable.
What's the difference between a parts request and a purchase order?
A parts request only becomes a purchase action if stores confirms the part is not held. The Purchase Required field on this template flags that gap and captures the supplier and lead time, but the actual buying instrument sits outside this record. Most requests never touch a purchase order because the part is already in stock.
Why does a food-grade substitute need engineering sign-off?
A substitute part or lubricant that has not been confirmed as food-contact safe can migrate into product, and that is a contamination event rather than a paperwork gap. The template forces an engineering approval step precisely because a technician under time pressure will otherwise fit whatever is closest to hand.
Scope
When is a parts request required?
This record captures a request, not a stock movement or a work instruction. Using it for the wrong step in the parts cycle produces a stock register that looks accurate and isn't.
Use this template when
- A technician or planner has identified a part is needed for a specific job, planned or in progress
- A new record is needed; each one gets its own ID in the form PR-2026-000
- The part touches a food contact surface and the substitution needs a documented engineering decision
- Stock is confirmed unavailable and a purchase, lead time and supplier need capturing against the job
- A linked record needs this one to exist: links Parts, Work Order
Do not use it for
- Parts Issue and Return Record, which is the actual stock movement once stores picks and hands over the part — this template is the ask, that one is the fact.
- Spare Parts Register, which holds the master stock list and reorder levels this request checks against, not the individual ask.
- Maintenance Request, which asks maintenance to look at a problem or carry out a job, before any part has been identified.
- Work Order, which is the main record for the job itself, covering what, where, who and when — this template only covers the parts that job consumes.
- Critical Spares Review, which is the periodic look at whether minimum stock levels are set correctly, not a single job's request.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 55001 cl.8.2 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 55001 cl.8.2 covers operational control of activities needed to meet asset management objectives, which for a maintenance function includes making sure the right parts reach the right job without introducing new risk.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Requests are traceable to the asset and work order they support | Header |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Urgency is recorded so operational control can prioritise across competing requests | Header |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Stock availability is checked and quantity available captured before a purchase is triggered | Parts required |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Food-grade requirements are identified and substitutions are formally approved before use | Parts required |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Lead time and supplier are captured whenever a purchase is required, so delay risk is visible | Parts required |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | The impact of any parts shortfall on the job outcome is recorded, not assumed | Outcome |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Repeated stockouts trigger a review of whether minimum stock levels are correct | Outcome |
| ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | The request is closed with a requester and stores signature confirming what was actually resolved | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- A verbal or messaged request with no Parts Request record, which leaves stock consumption with no traceable link to the job or asset.
- A food-grade substitute fitted without an engineering approval on file, which turns an availability problem into an unmanaged contamination risk.
- An 'In Stock: Yes' answer with no stock location or quantity confirmed, which looks resolved but hasn't actually been checked against the shelf.
- A purchase-required part with no supplier or lead time captured, which hides the delay risk from whoever is scheduling the job.
- Repeated stockouts on the same part with 'Critical Spare Review Needed' left as No, which lets a wrong minimum stock level keep causing the same delay.
Global
Parts Request requirements by country
The parts themselves rarely change by geography, but what counts as acceptable evidence for a food-grade substitute does — and that is the point where this template intersects with law rather than internal process.
Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food
Any lubricant, gasket or seal that could contact food or a food contact surface must not transfer its constituents into food in quantities that endanger health or change composition unacceptably.
Certificate Available needs a document that actually speaks to food-contact suitability under this regulation, not a generic material data sheet — the two are frequently confused mid-substitution.
21 CFR 178.3570 (lubricants with incidental food contact)
Sets out which lubricant substances are permitted for incidental food contact use, at what conditions, and under what use limitations.
A substitute lubricant proposed under time pressure needs checking against this specific listing, not assumed acceptable because the previous lubricant was food-grade — formulations differ.
Retained EU law equivalent to Regulation (EC) 1935/2004, as implemented in domestic food contact materials regulations
Carries forward the same food-contact safety requirement post-EU exit, enforced through domestic food safety authorities rather than an EU body.
Sites supplying into both UK and EU markets should not assume a single certificate satisfies both regimes going forward without checking the domestic implementing instrument.
How to complete it
How to complete a parts request, step by step
Filling in every field is mechanical. The judgement calls below are what decide whether the record actually protects the business when someone checks it later.
In Stock: Partial can mean two units short of ten, or one available against an urgent single-part job. The urgency field and quantity available together decide whether this is a note or a call to the planner — treating every partial the same way either causes false alarms or misses the ones that matter.
A certificate naming the specific regulation, substance and use condition is evidence. A data sheet that just says 'food grade' with no citation is marketing language, and accepting it as Certificate Available quietly weakens the gate this field exists to enforce.
A like-for-like part from an approved alternate supplier is low risk. A different specification or material with no approval history is not, and rubber-stamping both the same way defeats the point of the Substitute Approved By Engineering field.
One stockout can be a one-off demand spike. A second stockout on the same part inside a short window is a pattern, and leaving the review flag at No past that point means the minimum stock level is known to be wrong and is being left wrong anyway.
What auditors find
Most common parts request findings
The gaps that show up on audit are rarely missing fields — they are fields answered in a way that doesn't hold up against what actually happened on the floor.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Parts consumed on a job with no corresponding Parts Request in the system | ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Require the request before stores releases the part, or backfill within the same shift so the link to the work order isn't lost. |
| Food Grade Required answered Yes with Certificate Available left blank | ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Block sign-off on food-grade lines until a certificate is attached or the request is escalated to engineering. |
| Substitute Proposed marked Yes with no detail and no engineering approval recorded | ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Make Substitute Detail and the approval field mandatory together whenever a substitute is proposed, not optional companions. |
| Purchase Required Yes with Supplier and Lead Time Days both blank | ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Route any purchase-required line missing a lead time back to the requester before the job is scheduled around it. |
| Work Delayed By Parts marked No on a job that was visibly waiting on a part for hours | ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Cross-check this field against the labour log's delay reason for the same work order rather than taking it at face value. |
| Same part recurring across stockout requests within a month, Critical Spare Review Needed left No each time | ISO 55001 cl.8.2 | Flag a part number automatically when it recurs within a set window, rather than relying on the requester to notice. |
Case in point
Case in point: a gasket that looked close enough
A technician on nights needed a seal for a filling line pump and the exact part wasn't on the shelf. A visually similar gasket from the general workshop stock was fitted to keep the line running, with Substitute Proposed answered Yes but no detail entered and no engineering sign-off sought — the job needed to finish before the shift ended.
Three weeks later a routine hygiene audit traced the substitute back to this request and found no certificate on file for food contact suitability. The line had to be stopped for verification, the part replaced under supervision, and the incident logged as a near-miss — all traceable to a field that was answered but not actually completed.
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.
3 sections
- Reference
- MNT-009
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- PR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Not scored
- Direction
- n/a
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 55001 cl.8.2
- Links
- Links Parts, Work Order
- Tags
- Maintenance, Parts
- Sections
- 3
- Fields
- 36
- Follow up fields
- 10
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsRequest ID*
Auto sequence. Format PR-2026-0000.
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*
Raised By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Asset*
Asset ID*
Format AST-0000.
Links to FDN-002 Asset ID
Work Order ID
Links to MNT-002 Work Order ID
Urgency*
Parts required
Repeats15 fieldsPart Description*
Part Number
Quantity*
In Stock*
- Yes3 pts
- Partial1 pt
- No0 pts
Stock Location
Quantity Available
Food Grade Required*
Food Grade Confirmed
Non food grade lubricant or gasket in a food area is a contamination event.
- Yes3 pts
- Not required3 pts
- No0 pts
Certificate Available
Substitute Proposed
Substitute Detail
Substitute Approved By Engineering
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Purchase Required
Supplier
Lead Time Days
Outcome
9 fieldsAll Parts Available*
- Yes3 pts
- Most1 pt
- No0 pts
Work Delayed By Parts*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Delay Hours
Stock Level Triggered Reorder
Critical Spare Review Needed
Repeated stockouts on the same part means the min level is wrong.
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Requester*
Signature*
Stores*
Second Signature*
MNT-009 · record IDs look like PR-2026-000 · Links Parts, Work Order
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 stock levels honest, routing food-grade exceptions to the right approver, and holding the certificate evidence together is the work that actually slips.
Holds the parts request against the work order and asset it belongs to, and keeps stock consumption traceable back to the job that used it.
Tracks the supplier, lead time and purchase side of any request that stock can't cover, so a shortfall doesn't sit invisible until the job stalls.
Watches food-grade substitutions specifically, making sure a certificate is attached and an engineering approval exists before the part goes near a food contact surface.
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
Parts Request definitions and key terms
- Parts request
- A record of parts needed for a specific job, raised before or during the work, distinct from the stock movement that fulfils it.
- Stock location
- The physical shelf, bin or store area where a confirmed in-stock part is held, captured so stores doesn't have to search.
- Substitute
- A part offered in place of the one originally specified, which may need engineering approval depending on its function and material.
- Critical spare
- A part whose unavailability would stop production or a safety-critical function, usually held at a set minimum stock level for that reason.
- Lead time
- The number of days between placing an order with a supplier and the part arriving on site, used to judge whether a job can wait.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about parts request
What is the parts request template based on?+
It is built against ISO 55001 cl.8.2, operational control of activities needed to meet asset management objectives — including making sure parts reach a job without introducing new risk.
What sections does the parts request contain?+
There are 3 sections: Header, Parts required, Outcome. Together they hold 36 fields, 19 of which are required, with the parts-required block repeating for each part line.
Does this template replace the Spare Parts Register?+
No. The Spare Parts Register holds the master stock list and minimum levels; this template is a single job's request against that register, and its In Stock and Quantity Available fields only make sense read alongside it.
Why is there a separate approval field for food-grade substitutes?+
Because a substitute that looks equivalent may not be food-contact safe, and fitting it without a documented engineering decision turns a stock shortfall into a contamination risk the business can't easily see until an audit or incident surfaces it.
Who signs off a parts request?+
The requester and stores both sign, captured as Requester plus Signature and Stores plus Second Signature, so the record shows both what was asked for and what was actually resolved.
Can the parts request template be changed?+
Yes. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it. Most teams install it as it is, run it for a cycle, then adjust.
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 Work Orders
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
Work Order Closeout
Confirms the job is finished, the area is safe and the equipment is fit to run
Job Plan
Sets out the steps, parts, tools, permits and time needed for a repeatable job
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 — Asset management systems, Requirements, cl.8.2 Operational control
- Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 — Materials and articles intended to come into contact with food
- 21 CFR 178.3570 — Lubricants with incidental food contact
- UK retained EU law implementing Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 on food contact materials
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.