04 · Operational Review
Operational issues raised after go-live that could have been identified and resolved during comprehensive client UAT and pre-go-live validation.
15 issues recorded
| # | Issue | Detailed Observation | Impact / Consequence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 52-Week Maintenance Calendar | The 52-week maintenance calendar is currently not available for the required planning view. As a result, maintenance plans are being added on an ad-hoc basis rather than being managed through a consolidated annual planning view. | Limits long-term visibility of planned maintenance, making it more difficult to review maintenance coverage, identify scheduling gaps, and proactively manage the annual maintenance plan. | — |
| 2 | Critical Asset Grouping in Preventive Maintenance | Multiple critical assets are currently being grouped under a single Preventive Maintenance (PM) programme. For effective tracking and control, each critical asset should have an individual PM programme aligned to its specific maintenance requirements and schedule. | Reduces asset-level visibility and traceability of preventive maintenance activities and can make it difficult to independently monitor compliance, scheduling, execution, and maintenance history for each critical asset. | — |
| 3 | Incorrect PM Creation and Configuration | PM Programs were created incorrectly by the Syntys team, including incorrect configuration and maintenance-plan setup. These issues were identified only after the PMs had already been created in Production. | Incorrect PMs had to be reviewed, identified, and removed, creating avoidable Production cleanup and additional support effort. | — |
| 4 | Incorrect Work Order Type Selection | In some cases, the wrong Work Order Type was selected during Work Order creation. After the Work Order had already been created, Syntys/QSP requested that the Work Order Type be changed. | Resulted in post-creation correction requests. The appropriate Work Order Type should ideally be selected and validated before the Work Order is created. | 14 Jul 2026 |
| 5 | Approximately 50 Incorrect PMs Created in Production | Approximately 50 PM Programs were incorrectly created in Production and later identified as incorrect. Syntys requested that these PMs be removed from Production. | Required investigation, validation, deletion activities, and ClariSync support. It also introduced unnecessary risk to Production data integrity. | 22 Jul 2026 |
| 6 | Work Orders Generated from Incorrect PMs Also Required Removal | The incorrectly created PMs had already generated Work Orders. Removing the PMs alone was therefore insufficient; the generated Work Orders also had to be identified and removed. | Created a second level of Production cleanup and increased the rework and intervention required from Clarisync. | — |
| 7 | Large Volume of Month-End Work Orders Requiring Bypass Processing | For two consecutive months, approximately 600 Work Orders per month were generated around month-end. A subsequent request was made to close these Work Orders and process the required authorization. | Approximately 1,200 Work Orders required additional operational handling. This could ideally have been avoided through appropriate PM configuration and planning. | 29 Jul 2026 / 25 Aug 2026 |
| 8 | Incorrect Asset Selection in PM Configuration | Incorrect assets were selected or linked while creating PM Programs. These incorrect asset associations were identified later, resulting in requests to change the assets against the PMs. | Incorrect asset mapping can affect PM execution, maintenance history, asset-level records, reporting, and future maintenance planning. | — |
| 9 | Removal of Date Validations and Introduction of Backdated/Editable Dates | Existing validations for Due Date, Planned Start Date, and Planned End Date were requested to be removed. A further request was made to allow manual editing of Actual Start Date and Actual End Date, despite these being system-generated based on Work Order status transitions. | Weakens scheduling governance, data integrity, and auditability. Manual changes can make the actual execution timeline difficult to establish and may result in historically inaccurate or misleading records. | — |
| 10 | Failure to Utilize Long-Term Maintenance Planning Capability | CAMS supports maintenance planning for five years and beyond. Despite this capability, Syntys continues to create PMs month-by-month. PMs have currently only been created for September rather than using a longer planning horizon. | Creates repetitive administrative work and increases the likelihood of human error, incorrect asset selection, triggers, frequencies, and inconsistent PM configuration. | — |
| 11 | Month-by-Month PM Creation Provides No Meaningful Effort Saving | PM configuration requires assets, triggers, frequencies, activities, scheduling rules, work packages, and other configuration details. The underlying effort is largely the same whether configured for one month or a long-term cycle. | Recreating PMs every month unnecessarily repeats configuration effort. A long-term PM plan would improve consistency and reduce configuration errors. | — |
| 12 | Repeated Corrections After Production Creation | A recurring pattern has been observed where PMs, Work Orders, asset mappings, Work Order Types, and scheduling information are corrected only after records have already been created in Production. | Shifts effort from upfront validation to repeated Production cleanup and corrective activities, increasing data-integrity risk and ClariSync support workload. | — |
| 13 | Insufficient Validation Before Production Activities | Several issues could have been identified through appropriate review and validation before creating or generating Production records. Instead, issues were identified after PMs and Work Orders had already been created. | Post-creation correction is significantly more time-consuming and introduces unnecessary Production data-management risks. | — |
| 14 | Backdated PM Scheduling Requirement Introduced After Initial Configuration | After PM scheduling and configuration had already been established, a requirement was introduced to support backdated PM scheduling. This required the existing approach and system behaviour to be revisited. | Created additional rework, complexity, and implementation effort and increased the risk of inconsistent or historically inaccurate PM records. | — |
| 15 | Offline Mobile Execution Limitations | It was communicated that only one device will be used per Work Order by the entire team. Combined with offline execution and individual technician accounts, this creates challenges because each technician must log in and complete verification activities that cannot be bypassed due to audit and work-responsibility requirements. | The combined workflow requirements cannot be adequately addressed through standard/off-the-shelf configuration alone. A tailored mobile solution aligned with the Syntys workflow would be required. | — |