What this is
What does schedule compliance actually measure?
What does schedule compliance actually measure?
It is the share of jobs on the published weekly schedule that were completed in that week, expressed as a percentage. It is not the same as PM compliance, which measures whether preventive tasks ran within their due window regardless of which week they were scheduled in. A site can carry good PM compliance and poor schedule compliance at once, which usually means the schedule itself is being rewritten mid-week.
What counts as 'not completed' for this review?
Any job on the week's published schedule that was not closed by the end of that week counts against compliance, whether it was deferred, cancelled, or simply carried forward. Jobs added mid-week that were never on the original schedule are tracked separately and should not be folded into the denominator, or the figure stops meaning anything.
How is this different from the Maintenance Backlog Review?
This review is a weekly pulse on execution against a single week's plan. The Backlog Review is a slower, ageing-based look at everything still open regardless of which week it was scheduled for. A job can fail this review once and still not appear as a backlog problem if it gets closed the following week; it only becomes a backlog concern once it ages past the review's thresholds.
Scope
When is a schedule compliance review required?
This review sits downstream of the weekly schedule and upstream of the backlog. Using it to record individual job outcomes, or to argue capacity cases without the schedule and backlog data behind it, produces a number nobody can act on.
Use this template when
- The review week has closed and the planner has the completed and outstanding job list in hand
- The workspace is being set up and this weekly cadence needs a first baseline record
- You are running the Planned Maintenance programme and this is the checkpoint between the weekly schedule and the backlog review
- A linked record needs this one to exist, such as the weekly schedule it is measuring against
- Compliance has moved sharply and the maintenance manager needs the reason codes, not just the percentage
Do not use it for
- Weekly Maintenance Schedule, which sets the coming week of planned work against labour, parts and access windows — this review looks backward at that same week, not forward.
- Maintenance Backlog Review, which reviews everything still open by age and criticality regardless of week — use it once a missed job has aged past this week's window.
- PM Compliance Review, which tracks whether preventive tasks ran inside their due date irrespective of which week's schedule they sat on.
- Production Access Agreement, which records the specific access window negotiated for one job — cite its reference here rather than re-describing the negotiation.
- Anything outside KnowMaintain, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 55001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 55001 cl.9.1 requires monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation of asset management performance. This template applies that requirement to the single most visible planning metric a maintenance function produces.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Determine what needs to be monitored and measured | Performance |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Determine the methods for monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation needed to ensure valid results | Header |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Analyse and evaluate asset management performance | Analysis |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Retain documented information as evidence of monitoring and measurement results | Result |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Determine when results from monitoring and measurement are to be analysed and evaluated | Why work did not happen |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Evaluate the asset management performance and the effectiveness of the asset management system | Result |
| ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Determine the extent to which planned activities are being achieved | Performance |
What it does not cover
- Dominant Reason, which is left as 'None dominant' while five of eight logged jobs share the same cause.
- Trend Versus Recent Weeks, which is marked 'Stable' against last week's figure rather than a rolling baseline.
- Production Access Honoured, which is scored 'Yes' while the reason column for the week lists 'No production access' twice.
- Action Required, which is marked 'No' despite compliance sitting below the site's own threshold for three consecutive weeks.
- Estimating Accuracy, which is left blank because nobody compared logged hours to the job plan's original estimate.
Global
Schedule Compliance Review requirements by country
ISO 55001 is voluntary and international, but what schedule compliance is used for changes sharply with the regulatory weight sitting on the assets being scheduled.
29 CFR 1910.119 mechanical integrity provisions; Seveso III Directive safety management system requirements
Schedule compliance for safety-critical and statutory PM becomes evidence an inspector can ask for directly, not just an internal KPI
A dominant reason of 'no production access' against safety-critical work needs an escalation trail, because 'we couldn't get to it' is not a defensible answer to a regulator
ISO 55001:2014 cl.9.1 and cl.10
The record is retained as objective evidence for surveillance and recertification audits, and auditors specifically look for whether poor results triggered corrective action
A pattern of low compliance with no Action Required or CAPA reference is itself a nonconformity, independent of the compliance figure
No external mandate — an internal reliability KPI
Used mainly to negotiate capacity and production access rather than to satisfy an outside party
Rigour here is a management choice; the risk is that without external pressure, chronic low compliance quietly becomes accepted as normal
How to complete it
How to complete a schedule compliance review, step by step
The fields that decide whether this record is defensible are the ones that require a judgement call rather than a lookup.
Preventable versus not preventable is scored, and the honest answer is often 'partly' — a part was out of stock, but only because nobody had reordered it. Marking everything 'No' to avoid blame produces a record that can't distinguish planning failure from genuine external cause.
When causes are mixed across the week's misses, picking a single dominant reason forces a judgement about which failure mode is actually driving the number, rather than whichever cause happened to be logged most often on the day the form was filled in.
Trend versus recent weeks has no fixed comparator built into the form. Deciding whether to compare against last week, a four-week average, or the same week last quarter changes the answer, and the choice should be fixed once and used consistently, not picked per submission.
Action Required is a binary field sitting on top of a continuous compliance percentage. Someone has to decide, in advance, the number below which the answer is always 'Yes' — leaving it to the submitter's discretion each week is how three consecutive bad weeks pass without escalation.
What auditors find
Most common schedule compliance review findings
Patterns that show up across these reviews when the reason codes are checked against the scores recorded alongside them.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| The same dominant reason appears for four or more consecutive weeks with no CAPA raised | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Raise a CAPA the second time the same dominant reason repeats, referencing the two prior review IDs, rather than waiting for a fixed count. |
| Trend is marked 'Stable' while the compliance percentage has fallen for three straight weeks | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Fix the trend comparator to a rolling average before the field is completed, and require the planner to note the actual percentage delta. |
| Jobs logged with 'Job plan wrong' as the reason are also marked 'Preventable: No' | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Treat 'Job plan wrong' as preventable by definition — the plan is the maintenance function's own document — and correct the scoring guidance. |
| Hours On Unplanned Work is high but Estimating Accuracy is left blank or marked 'Good' | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Require Estimating Accuracy to be reconciled against Hours Scheduled versus Hours Delivered before the record can move to Complete. |
| Action Required is 'Yes' with the CAPA ID field left empty | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Block submission of Action Required 'Yes' without a CAPA ID, or require it within a fixed number of days. |
| Production Access Honoured is scored 'Yes' in the same week 'No production access' is logged as a reason for a missed job | ISO 55001 cl.9.1 | Derive Production Access Honoured from the reason codes logged that week rather than treating it as an independent judgement. |
Case in point
Case in point: the compliance figure that never moved
A site ran this review for eleven straight weeks with compliance sitting between 58% and 64%, trend marked 'Stable' every time because each week was compared only to the one before it. The dominant reason column alternated between 'no production access' and 'resource diverted to breakdown', but Action Required stayed 'No' throughout because no single week crossed whatever informal line the planner was using in their head.
When the maintenance manager finally pulled all eleven records side by side, the pattern was obvious: production access was the true constraint in seven of the eleven weeks, and every one of those weeks also showed elevated breakdown hours, because deferred planned work was itself causing the breakdowns. The fix was a renegotiated access window, not a headcount increase — but it took eleven weeks of unactioned data to see it, because the review had been treated as a number to log rather than a diagnosis to run.
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-080
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- SCR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Compliance percent
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 55001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Weekly schedule, Backlog
- Tags
- Planning
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 43
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 3
Header
10 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format SCR-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
Chronic Low Compliance Means The Schedule Is Fiction
If half the plan never happens, the problem is planning, capacity or production access. Blaming the technicians produces the same number next week.
Week Reviewed*
Schedule ID
Links to MNT-079 Schedule ID
Reviewed By*
Performance
9 fieldsJobs Scheduled*
Jobs Completed*
Schedule Compliance Percent*
Hours Scheduled*
Hours Delivered*
Hours On Unplanned Work*
Jobs Deferred*
Jobs Cancelled*
Jobs Added During The Week*
Why work did not happen
Repeats5 fieldsWork Order ID*
Reason Not Completed*
No production access, parts not available, resource diverted to breakdown, skill not available, or job plan wrong.
Rescheduled Date
Preventable*
- No2 pts
- Partly1 pt
- Yes0 pts
Owner Of The Cause
Analysis
6 fieldsDominant Reason*
Trend Versus Recent Weeks*
- Improving3 pts
- Stable2 pts
- Worsening0 pts
Estimating Accuracy*
Jobs consistently taking twice the estimate is a planning problem that looks like a resource problem.
- Good3 pts
- Fair1 pt
- Poor0 pts
Production Access Honoured*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Parts Availability Acceptable*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Critical Work Completed*
- All3 pts
- Most1 pt
- No0 pts
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
Planner*
Signature*
Maintenance Manager*
Second Signature*
MNT-080 · record IDs look like SCR-2026-000 · Links Weekly schedule, Backlog
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 the reason codes honest, spotting the repeat pattern across weeks, and pushing the escalation before it becomes a quarter of accepted underperformance is the work that actually slips.
Holds the review against the weekly schedule and backlog it measures, and flags when a dominant reason repeats across consecutive submissions before a human would notice the pattern.
Surfaces whether 'parts not available' reason codes correlate with actual stock-out records, so a planning excuse can be checked against the storeroom rather than taken on trust.
Cross-checks 'skill not available' and 'resource diverted to breakdown' reasons against the roster and open emergency work orders for the same week.
Rolls the week's compliance, reason codes and trend into one view for the maintenance manager, drafts the CAPA when a repeat pattern crosses the threshold, and holds every write for approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowMaintain — asset maintenance. Work orders, planned maintenance, calibration, reliability and shutdowns.
Meet KnowMaintain→Glossary
Schedule Compliance Review definitions and key terms
- Schedule compliance
- The percentage of jobs on a given week's published schedule that were actually completed within that week.
- Dominant reason
- The single most common cause behind a week's missed jobs, chosen deliberately rather than left to whichever cause was logged last.
- Estimating accuracy
- How closely actual hours delivered on a job matched the hours estimated in its job plan; consistently poor accuracy masks a planning defect as a resource shortage.
- Production access window
- The agreed period during which production releases an asset to maintenance; access not honoured is one of the most common reasons planned work is missed.
- Backlog in weeks of capacity
- The volume of open work expressed as how many weeks it would take the current crew to clear it, used to judge whether a low compliance week reflects a genuine capacity gap.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about schedule compliance review
Does a low compliance week always mean maintenance underperformed?+
No. The review exists specifically to separate that assumption from the actual cause. A week can show 55% compliance entirely because production withheld access, in which case the fix sits with production and planning, not with the technicians.
How often should this review run?+
Weekly, tied to the same cycle as the Weekly Maintenance Schedule it measures against. Running it less often lets several weeks of the same root cause pass before anyone reacts.
What is the difference between this and the PM Compliance Review?+
This review measures whether the week's published schedule was executed. PM Compliance measures whether preventive tasks ran inside their due window, which is a longer and separately tracked cycle.
Who signs this record off?+
The planner completes it and the maintenance manager countersigns, reflecting that the record's conclusions — particularly the dominant reason and any escalation — need a second, more senior read before they're accepted.
What happens to jobs added mid-week?+
They are tracked in a separate field and should not be counted against the original schedule's compliance percentage, or the metric conflates poor planning with legitimate reactive work.
Should every missed job get its own CAPA?+
No. A CAPA is for a pattern, not a single miss. Raising one against every isolated deferral drowns the genuine repeat causes in noise.
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 Planning and Scheduling
Weekly Maintenance Schedule
Sets the coming week of planned work against available labour, parts and access windows
Maintenance Backlog Review
Reviews outstanding work by age, priority and asset criticality
Production Access Agreement
Records the access window agreed with production for a job, and what happens if it overruns
Maintenance Cost Review
Reviews maintenance spend by asset, type and category over a period
Contractor Maintenance Work Order
Covers a maintenance job carried out by a contractor, holding the scope, permits, supervision and handback
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 55000:2014 — Asset management: overview, principles and terminology
- 29 CFR 1910.119 — Process safety management, mechanical integrity
- Seveso III Directive 2012/18/EU — Safety management system requirements
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.