What this is
What is a rate and OEE review?
What is a rate and OEE review?
It is a periodic review that breaks overall equipment effectiveness into its three components, availability, performance and quality, for one line over a stated period, and names which is losing the most. It exists to turn a single percentage into an actionable loss category with an owner.
What is OEE, and why review the components separately?
OEE is the product of availability, performance and quality rate, expressed as one percentage. Two lines can carry the same OEE for different reasons, one losing time to breakdowns and the other losing quality to rework, so the components have to be reviewed before the headline number means anything.
What counts as the dominant loss?
Whichever component, availability, performance or quality, is furthest below its target in the period reviewed. It is a category, not a number, and it is what the review is meant to produce, not the OEE percentage itself.
Scope
When is a rate and oee review required?
This review is one step in a larger programme. Using it for work belonging to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on later.
Use this template when
- The review interval has come round, weekly, on the fixed cycle this template runs to
- A trigger event calls for an out-of-cycle review, a step change in downtime, scrap or a rate-linked complaint
- The workspace is being set up, or the singleton register needs its record created or reissued
- You are running Production Control and this is the step that closes the loop on Downtime Log, Scrap Record and the Daily Production Report
- A linked record needs this one to exist, a Reliability Review or a Kaizen Record referencing a dominant loss or trend
Do not use it for
- Line Clearance Record, which confirms a line is clear of the previous product, its packaging and its paperwork before the next one starts.
- Production Order Record, which records the execution of a production order: quantities, materials consumed, yield and where it went.
- Changeover Record, which times and records a changeover from last good piece to first good piece, with what was done in between.
- Daily Production Report, which totals output, downtime and scrap for the day rather than judging a period's rate and loss trend.
- Anything outside KnowOps, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which SAE JA1011 requirements does this satisfy?
SAE JA1011 does not mention OEE. Its logic is what a defensible review borrows: state the standard of performance, name the failure mode behind each loss, and decide whether the response is a task or a default action.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| SAE JA1011 §5.1 | The function and desired standard of performance must be stated in measurable terms before a shortfall against it can be counted as a loss. | Header |
| SAE JA1011 §5.2 | A functional failure, running below the stated rate or outside the quality standard, must be defined before a loss can be attributed to it. | Losses |
| SAE JA1011 §5.3 | Each failure mode likely to cause a functional failure must be identified on its own terms, not folded into a single undifferentiated stoppage reason. | Data quality |
| SAE JA1011 §5.4 | The effect of each failure mode must be described, including how quickly it is detected and how long it takes to correct. | Losses |
| SAE JA1011 §5.6 | Where a proactive task won't reduce a failure's consequence to an acceptable level, a default action must be identified, owned and scheduled. | Action |
| SAE JA1011 §5.7 | The applicability of the tasks and data underpinning the review must be revisited as experience accumulates, not assumed to hold indefinitely. | Action |
| SAE JA1011 §5.9 | The interval between reviews must itself be justified and revisited, not fixed by convention alone. | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Downtime recorded consistently marked No, which means the availability figure cannot be trusted, whatever the review concludes about trend.
- Dominant loss not identified, which leaves the review with a percentage and no answer to the only question that matters, what to fix first.
- Largest loss without an owner, which means the finding will still be true next period because nobody was made accountable.
- Denominator not defined and stable, which lets the availability and performance percentages drift for reasons unrelated to the line.
- Trend read without checking the maintenance plan, which treats an improving OEE and an unadjusted plan as unrelated facts when they aren't.
Global
Rate and OEE Review requirements by country
OEE is calculated the same way on every line, but what the standard behind the review expects it to do with the number differs by origin.
ISO 22400-2
Defines OEE formally as the product of availability, performance and quality rate, with agreed definitions for planned production time and the events counted against each component.
A review using a plant-specific variant of any of the three rates cannot be benchmarked against another site, or a supplier's own reporting, without first reconciling the definitions.
SAE JA1011
Sets the criteria a reliability process must meet to be called RCM, starting with the requirement that a function's standard of performance be stated before a failure to meet it is counted.
Borrowed for an OEE review, this means the target line rate and quality standard must be fixed and cited before a shortfall is treated as a loss, not adjusted after the fact to flatter the trend.
BS EN 15341
Defines maintenance-specific key performance indicators, including a breakdown ratio, that sit alongside OEE rather than inside it.
A site relying on the OEE trend alone can show two stable quarters while its breakdown ratio, tracked under this standard, climbs underneath it.
How to complete it
How to complete a rate and oee review, step by step
None of these are filled in wrong. They are judgement calls a review has to make before the trend or the dominant loss can be trusted.
The Losses section asks whether the dominant loss is identified, but the Outcome section's free-text Dominant Loss field is where it actually gets named. The two need reconciling against the Availability, Performance and Quality percentages in the Header, or the review has named the loss category everyone was already talking about rather than the one the numbers point to.
Denominator Defined And Stable is one Yes/No answer among many, easy to tick without checking. If planned run time, shift pattern or product mix changed inside the period, the percentages aren't comparable with the last review's, whatever Trend Versus Last Period says.
Short Stops Captured is a data-quality question, not an outcome question, but a No here means Performance Percent understates the real loss, folding uncounted micro-stops into apparent running time.
Downtime Log ID, Scrap Record ID and Quality Scrap Record ID exist so the percentages can be checked against source records, not just referenced. Filling these fields without reconciling the totals documents a link, it doesn't verify one.
What auditors find
Most common rate and oee review findings
Findings a reviewer should expect to raise, tied to the SAE JA1011 logic the review borrows and the field where each shows up.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| OEE reported as one percentage with no dominant loss named | SAE JA1011 §5.2 | Require the Dominant Loss text field to cite a category from the Losses section before Status can move to Complete. |
| Downtime Recorded Consistently marked No, review still concludes a trend | SAE JA1011 §5.7 | Block Trend Versus Last Period from a defensible answer until the data-quality block scores clean, or flag the trend as provisional. |
| Largest loss has no owner two reviews running | SAE JA1011 §5.6 | Escalate to the next Production Control step, raise a CAPA, rather than carrying the same open finding forward unchanged. |
| Short stops not captured, so the performance figure understates real loss | SAE JA1011 §5.3 | Fix short-stop capture on the Downtime Log before the next period, and flag the current Performance Percent as provisional. |
| Maintenance plan not adjusted despite a breakdown-category dominant loss | SAE JA1011 §5.6 | Route a maintenance plan change the day the dominant loss is confirmed as breakdown-related, not at the next scheduled planning cycle. |
| Next Review Due left blank or already in the past | SAE JA1011 §5.9 | Set the field from the review interval when Status moves to Complete, not left for whoever opens the record next. |
Case in point
Case in point: the OEE that improved because the plan changed
A line's OEE climbed six points over a month. Availability was up, and Trend Versus Last Period was marked Improving without objection. What had actually changed was planned run time: a slow sales period had cut a shift, so the line was scheduled for less time and lost less of it. The losses hadn't moved.
Denominator Defined And Stable had been ticked Yes on the same review that recorded the shift change, because the question reads as whether the definition is consistent, not whether it has moved lately. Nobody cross-checked Period Reviewed against the shift pattern. JA1011's own logic, state the standard before counting a failure against it, would have caught this.
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
- OPS-013
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- OEE-2026-000
- Scoring
- Overall effectiveness
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- SAE JA1011
- Links
- Links Downtime Log, Scrap Record, Reliability
- Tags
- Production, OEE, Performance
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 56
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 7
Header
16 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format OEE-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
Line*
Period Reviewed*
Reviewed By*
Availability Percent*
Performance Percent*
Quality Percent*
Overall Effectiveness*
Versus Target*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Trend Versus Last Period*
- Improving3 pts
- Stable2 pts
- Worsening0 pts
A Number With No Loss Behind It
Overall equipment effectiveness reported as a single percentage is a number nobody can act on. The value is entirely in which of the three components is losing and why.
Data quality
6 fieldsDowntime Recorded Consistently*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Short Stops Captured*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Planned And Unplanned Separated*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Rate Loss Measured Not Assumed*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Quality Losses Include Rework*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Denominator Defined And Stable*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Losses
6 fieldsDominant Loss Identified*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Breakdown Losses Reducing*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Changeover Losses Reducing*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Minor Stop Losses Reducing*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Speed Losses Understood*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Start Up Losses Understood*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Action
6 fieldsLargest Loss Has An Owner*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Improvement Actions Raised*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Maintenance Plan Adjusted*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Standard Work Reviewed*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Operators Involved In The Analysis*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Progress Since Last Review*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Related records
3 fieldsDowntime Log ID
Downtime behind the availability figure.
Links to OPS-010 Log ID
Scrap Record ID
Waste behind the quality figure.
Links to OPS-011 Record ID
Quality Scrap Record ID
Quality scrap in the period.
Links to QUA-005 Scrap ID
Outcome
19 fieldsImproving*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Dominant Loss
Action Owner
Reliability Review ID
Links to MNT-051 Review ID
Kaizen Record ID
Links to OPS-033 Event ID
Next Review Due*
Items 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 2
Production Manager*
Signature*
Engineering*
Second Signature*
OPS-013 · record IDs look like OEE-2026-000 · Links Downtime Log, Scrap Record, Reliability
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form captures a percentage. Turning it into a loss category with an owner, and keeping the maintenance plan and downtime log in step, is the work that slips between review cycles.
Holds the OEE review against the Downtime Log, Scrap Record and Daily Production Report it draws from, and flags a dominant loss carrying no linked action.
Picks up the maintenance plan adjustment and the Reliability Review this template points to, turning a breakdown-driven loss into a scheduled task rather than a repeated finding.
Keeps the Quality Scrap Record and quality percentage aligned with the review, so a quality-driven loss isn't quietly absorbed into the availability figure.
Coordinates the crew across the linked records, rolls the dominant loss and its owner into one view, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowOps — frontline execution. Shift handover, production control, daily management, worker lifecycle and improvement.
Meet KnowOps→Glossary
Rate and OEE Review definitions and key terms
- OEE
- Overall equipment effectiveness, the product of availability, performance and quality rate for a line over a period, expressed as one percentage.
- Availability
- The proportion of planned production time the line was actually running, after unplanned and planned stops are removed.
- Performance rate
- How fast the line ran while running, against its rated speed. Short stops and minor speed loss hide here if not captured separately from availability.
- Quality rate
- The proportion of output that was good first time, with rework and scrap both counted against it.
- Dominant loss
- Whichever of availability, performance or quality is losing the most in the period, the category the review exists to name, not just the percentage it produces.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about rate and oee review
What is the rate and OEE review template based on?+
It follows SAE JA1011's reliability-centred maintenance logic: state the standard of performance, identify the failure mode behind a loss, and decide whether the response is a scheduled task or a default action. JA1011 is written for RCM programmes rather than OEE, but the same discipline applies; an OEE review that skips straight to a percentage has skipped the diagnostic step.
What sections does the rate and OEE review contain?+
Six: Header, Data quality, Losses, Action, Related records and Outcome. Together they hold 56 fields, 45 of them required.
Why does the template check data quality before it checks losses?+
Because an availability, performance or quality percentage built on inconsistent downtime recording, uncaptured short stops or an unstable denominator is not comparable period to period, whatever the Losses section concludes.
How many rate and OEE review records should exist?+
One per line, per period, but the template itself is a singleton at workspace level, set up once and run on the review interval. Reliability Review and Kaizen Record entries reference back to it rather than duplicating its fields.
How is a rate and OEE review scored?+
The headline score is overall effectiveness, where high is good, but most fields beneath it are scored too. A high overall score sitting on a No in Denominator Defined And Stable or Downtime Recorded Consistently is not high, it's unreliable.
Can the rate and OEE review template be changed?+
Yes. The Line picklist, the fields in the Losses section, and the scoring on every single-choice field are all editable, and the links to Downtime Log, Scrap Record and Reliability Review travel with them. Most teams install it as-is and adjust after a cycle.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Production Control
Work Order
The main record for a planned maintenance job, covering what, where, who and when
Line Clearance Record
Confirms a line is clear of the previous product, its packaging and its paperwork before the next one starts
Production Order Record
Records the execution of a production order, covering quantities, materials consumed, yield and where it went
Changeover Record
Times and records a changeover from last good piece to first good piece, with what was done in between
Downtime Log
Records every stop, how long it lasted and what caused it, by reason code
Scrap and Waste Record
Records material scrapped or wasted, at which step, why, and what it was worth
More in Production Control
Line Clearance Record
Confirms a line is clear of the previous product, its packaging and its paperwork before the next one starts
Production Order Record
Records the execution of a production order, covering quantities, materials consumed, yield and where it went
Changeover Record
Times and records a changeover from last good piece to first good piece, with what was done in between
Downtime Log
Records every stop, how long it lasted and what caused it, by reason code
Scrap and Waste Record
Records material scrapped or wasted, at which step, why, and what it was worth
Daily Production Report
Summarises the day across lines: output, attainment, losses, quality and the issues carried forward
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:
- SAE JA1011 — Evaluation criteria for RCM processes
- SAE — Society of Automotive Engineers
- ISO 22400-2 — Key performance indicators for manufacturing operations management
- BS EN 15341 — Maintenance key performance indicators
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.