Problem Statement
Follow‑up work orders are not reliably generated for failed inspection responses because the current design depends on manual user action during inspection completion. This leads to missed corrective maintenance, reduced reliability of Inspection Forms, and poor ease of use for technicians.
Current Behavior (MAS-Manage Product Gap)
In the current MAS Inspection Forms:
- Follow‑up work order creation depends on the user explicitly selecting a follow‑up option during inspection completion.
- If a user selects “Done” or completes the inspection without choosing the follow‑up option, no work order is created, even when one or more inspection questions are marked Failed / BAD.
- The system does not enforce follow‑up logic at the framework or backend level.
- Failed inspection findings can only be identified later through manual review of inspection results.
This behavior introduces a critical functional and usability gap in a core maintenance workflow.
Steps to Reproduce
- Open an Inspection Form with one or more questions configured to trigger follow‑up work orders on failure.
- Complete the inspection.
- Mark one or more inspection questions as Failed / BAD.
- Select “Done” (or complete the inspection without explicitly choosing the follow‑up work order option).
- Save and exit the inspection.
Actual Result
- No follow‑up work order is created.
- Failed inspection results do not automatically trigger corrective action.
- Failures may go unnoticed unless inspection results are manually reviewed later.
Expected / Desired Behavior
- Any failed inspection response must automatically generate a follow‑up work order.
- Follow‑up creation must occur regardless of how the inspection is completed (e.g., “Done”, “Complete”, navigation away).
- The behavior must be enforced in the backend or inspection framework, not dependent on UI selections.
- Users should not be required to make an additional decision to ensure corrective maintenance is created.
- The system should be fail‑safe by design, ensuring no failed inspection is closed without corrective action.
Why This Is a Core Product Issue (Not Customization)
- Inspections are a core MAS capability intended to standardize and automate maintenance follow‑up.
- Relying on manual UI decisions for critical corrective actions introduces:
- Human error
- Inconsistent outcomes
- Training dependency
- While automation scripts can work around this behavior, they:
- Increase maintenance risk
- Reduce upgrade safety
- Create inconsistent implementations across customers
This logic should be natively handled by the MAS product for consistency, supportability, and trust.
Business Impact
- Missed corrective work orders for failed inspections
- Increased risk of equipment failures and safety issues
- Reduced trust in Inspection Forms as a reliable maintenance tool
- Increased reliance on manual review and user training
- Poor ease of use for technicians performing inspections in the field
Inspection Forms are expected to simplify and automate maintenance follow‑up, not introduce manual steps that can be skipped unintentionally.
Usability & Design Concern
From a usability perspective:
- Technicians expect the system to automatically handle follow‑up logic.
- Requiring manual selection to generate corrective work contradicts intuitive inspection workflows.
- The current behavior increases cognitive load and error potential for end users, especially in mobile and field scenarios.
Suggested Product Enhancement
IBM should enhance MAS Inspection framework to:
- Detect failed inspection responses at inspection completion.
- Automatically invoke follow‑up work order creation in the background.
- Ensure this logic is enforced consistently across UI, mobile, and API‑based inspection completion.
- Optionally provide configuration to control follow‑up templates, but not whether follow‑up is created when failures exist.
Customer Value
- Ensures no failed inspection is closed without corrective action
- Improves safety, reliability, and compliance
- Reduces dependency on user training and manual review
- Increases confidence in Inspection Forms as a core MAS capability
- Aligns system behavior with real‑world maintenance expectations
