Series Summary: Five Ways Top Companies Master Work Management

More than 20 years of progressive experience advising organizations is the foundation of the five-part series on work management.

Work management is the backbone of reliable operations and sustainable performance. The best organizations master work management not by overcomplicating systems but by applying disciplined practices that make work easier, safer, and more effective. This series highlights five proven approaches—planning and scheduling, preventive maintenance, documentation, asset data, and trend analysis—that provide a roadmap for reducing risk, improving reliability, and building trust across utilities, manufacturing, and public works.

Work Management 1: Planning and Scheduling

Work management isn’t about fancy spreadsheets or overcomplicating things—it’s about making work easier and more efficient. With proper planning and scheduling, you can turn chaos into clarity, reduce stress, and get more done with fewer headaches. Take a step back, plan ahead, and set yourself up for success. Your future self will thank you!

More Tips and Insights

https://www.jdsolomonsolutions.com/post/work-management-best-practices-in-planning-and-scheduling-the-work

Work Management 2: Preventive Maintenance

Preventive maintenance reduces downtime, extends equipment lifespan, and ensures regulatory compliance. Organizations can optimize operations and enhance long-term reliability by balancing PM with corrective and planned maintenance. A structured PM program, combined with CMMS technology and skilled personnel, is essential for sustainable maintenance management.

More Tips and Insights

https://www.jdsolomonsolutions.com/post/are-you-using-these-key-approaches-for-improving-preventative-maintenance

Work Management 3: Work Documentation

Good work documentation is a strategic tool. It helps justify staffing, supports safety and compliance, improves planning, and saves money. Whether you're in a water utility, a factory, or a public works department, clear and consistent documentation makes your maintenance and reliability efforts more effective. In short, the effort makes your job easier in the long run.

More Tips and Insights

https://www.jdsolomonsolutions.com/post/why-work-documentation-in-maintenance-and-reliability-matters

Work Management 4: Asset Data and Drawings

Maintaining asset data and drawings may not seem urgent until something breaks or an inspector arrives. However, waiting until there's a crisis means missing opportunities, incurring increased costs, and taking on unnecessary risks. Treating inventory and drawing management as a key part of work management, and you’ll lay the groundwork for a safer, more efficient, and future-ready operation.

More Tips and Insights

https://www.jdsolomonsolutions.com/post/work-management-part-4-maintaining-asset-inventory-data-and-drawings

Work Management 5: Trend Analysis

Maintenance isn’t just about fixing things when they break. It's about using data to predict problems and improve performance before issues arise. That’s where trend analysis and preventive maintenance (PM) optimization come into play. At the same time, effective trend analysis is akin to a blissful state that most organizations never achieve. The key is to start simple and lean on your criticality analysis. Here's why.

Trend analysis and PM optimization are not just buzzwords. They’re powerful tools to make your operation more efficient, reliable, and effective. Utilize the resources you have and prioritize the aspects that matter most to frontline staff. Whether you’re a planner, technician, or analyst, everyone can play a role in this effort. Start simple, but don't stop there.

More Tips and Insights

https://www.jdsolomonsolutions.com/post/how-to-master-trend-analysis-and-preventive-maintenance-optimization

Mastering Work Management

Mastering work management is about steady progress in the fundamentals that strengthen the entire organization. Top companies focus on consistency, discipline, and data-driven decisions. By embracing these five approaches and committing to applying them consistently, organizations can move beyond compliance to achieve operations that are reliable and trusted by their customers.

---

JD Solomon Inc. provides solutions for program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment.

---

JD Solomon is the founder of JD Solomon, Inc., the creator of the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram®, and the co-creator of the SOAP criticality method^©. He is the author of Communicating Reliability, Risk & Resiliency to Decision Makers: How to Get Your Boss’s Boss to Understand and Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions.

We Describe Environmental Risk in Ways That Don’t Match How People Think

Environmental risk must be communicated effectively and meaningfully.

Environmental decisions fail because people hear the same risk described in completely different ways and walk away with entirely different understandings of what’s at stake. Before we ever get to the data, the conversation is already shaped by how risk is framed, who is doing the framing, and what the audience brings to the table. To address these issues, we first need to examine how we describe risk—and explore what we can do to fix it.

The Problem: We Describe Risk in Ways That Don’t Match How People Think

Risk is typically expressed in technical terms as the likelihood multiplied by the consequence. It’s clean, rational, and mathematically simple (usually too simple). In human health, risk is often expressed in more nuanced ways — through exposure pathways, dose–response relationships, uncertainty factors, and the vulnerability of specific populations.

People don’t respond to risk based on probability curves. They respond based on trust, control, fairness, and personal relevance. When our communication doesn’t account for that, even the best science falls flat.

Risk Matrices

Through hundreds of projects, I’ve seen five dominant ways we describe environmental risk. Each has strengths, weaknesses, and predictable human reactions.

1. Scientific Risk

Foundation: Probabilities, exceedances, recurrence intervals, and dose–response curves.

Strength: Accurate and comparable.

Weakness: Emotionally meaningless to most stakeholders.

Typical reaction: Underestimation of slow-moving risks and overreaction to visible ones.

Monte Carlo Analysis

2. Regulatory Risk

Foundation: Thresholds, standards, attainment, impairment.

Strength: Clear compliance boundaries.

Weakness: Creates a false binary: “below the limit = safe.”

Typical reaction: Complacency or confusion when standards change.

Risk Frameworks & PFAS

3. Economic Risk

Foundation: Costs, avoided costs, ROI, lifecycle impacts.

Strength: Resonates with decision-makers.

Weakness: Can appear cold or disconnected from community values.

Typical reaction: Acceptance from executives, skepticism from the public.

4. Social or Perceived Risk

Foundation: Fairness, equity, control, and community identity.

Strength: Captures what people actually care about.

Weakness: Often dismissed as “emotional” or “non-technical.”

Typical reaction: Strong engagement — or strong resistance.

Rare Events

5. Narrative or Emotional Risk

Foundation: “This threatens our way of life.”

Strength: Mobilizes action.

Weakness: Easily misused or politicized.

Typical reaction: Rapid alignment or rapid polarization.

Precautionary Principle

Environmental decisions are consistently hindered when the five risk lenses diverge. Without alignment, progress stalls and conflict grows, making decisions unnecessarily difficult and divisive.

The FINESSE Perspective

The FINESSE framework emphasizes clarity, transparency, and trust. Applied to environmental risk, it pushes us to do a handful of things exceptionally well.

Frame the issue clearly.

Stakeholders need to know what the risk actually is — not just the metric used to measure or express it.

What does it affect? Who feels it first? What changes if we act or don’t act?

How to Frame

Acknowledge uncertainty honestly.

Uncertainty isn’t a weakness. It’s a reality. Trust increases when we name uncertainty, quantify it, and explain what we’re doing about it.

Force Uncertainty to Respond

Simplify without distorting.

The goal isn’t to “dumb down” the science. It’s to make the science useful.

One Shot at Credibility

Engage stakeholders early.

People support what they help shape. Risk communication is not a broadcast; it’s a dialogue.

How to Listen

Show the tradeoffs.

Every environmental decision has winners, losers, and timing implications. Transparency about tradeoffs builds credibility.

Environmental Decision Challenges

Explain the path forward.

Risk without action is noise. Risk with a plan is leadership.

Guiding Graphics

So, Is Risk in the Eye of the Beholder?

When we describe risk only through technical lenses, we lose the audience.

When we describe risk only through emotional lenses, we lose the rigor.

Our job is to bridge the two. The sweet spot — the FINESSE sweet spot — is where clarity, honesty, and relevance meet.

Environmental risk is not only to be measured—it must be communicated effectively and meaningfully, especially across human concerns. Bridging communication is the overlooked step where sound decisions start.

---

JD Solomon Inc. provides solutions for program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment. Visit our Environmental page for more information.

---

JD Solomon writes and speaks on decision-making, reliability, risk, and communication for leaders and technical professionals. His work connects technical disciplines with human understanding to help people make better decisions and build stronger systems. Learn more at www.jdsolomonsolutions.com and www.communicatingwithfinesse.com.

Why Asset Criticality and Risk Are Not Important in Validating a Capital Plan

Without accurate inventories, condition scores, and replacement values, the capital plan is built on a shaky foundation.

Asset criticality and risk are essential for prioritizing projects, but they are not relevant when validating asset data for a capital plan. The initial plan development should focus on the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of asset records—not on ranking which projects should come first.

Why Are Asset Criticality and Risk Not Important in Validating Asset Data for the Capital Plan?

When organizations embark on developing a capital improvement plan (CIP), one of the first hurdles they face is ensuring that their asset data is reliable. Without accurate inventories, condition scores, and replacement values, the plan itself risks being built on shaky foundations. A deliberate choice is to exclude criticality and risk scoring from the discussion of data validation. This intentional omission allows you to focus on the core data.

Validate Asset Data with Capital Plans

Data Validation vs. Project Prioritization

Data validation is the process of confirming that the information in your asset management system is correct, consistent, and usable. It asks questions like:

• Do we have the right number of assets in the inventory?

• Are condition scores applied consistently across asset classes?

• Is replacement asset value (RAV) calculated using a defensible method?

By contrast, criticality and risk scoring are tools for prioritization. They help decision makers determine which projects should be funded first, based on the potential consequences of failure, service impacts, or safety concerns. These are vital for investment decisions, but they do not tell us whether the underlying data is accurate.

Why Criticality Doesn’t Validate Data

Criticality measures how important an asset is to system performance or organizational objectives. For example, a water treatment plant may be deemed more critical than a small pump station. But this ranking does not confirm whether the pump station’s install date is correct, whether its condition score is reliable, or whether its replacement cost is accurate.

In other words, criticality is a lens for prioritization, not a test of accuracy. A highly critical asset can still have poor or incomplete data. Conversely, a low-criticality asset may have pristine records. Validation must focus on the quality of the data itself, not the importance of the asset.

Why Risk Scoring Doesn’t Validate Data

Risk scoring typically combines condition, criticality, and consequence of failure into a matrix that guides investment decisions. While powerful for prioritization, risk scoring assumes that the underlying data is already valid. If condition scores are inconsistent or replacement values are inflated, the risk matrix will produce misleading results.

Asset Criticality with SOAP

This is why my approach emphasizes condition and asset replacement value as the key dimensions for data validation. These are measurable, verifiable, and directly tied to the accuracy of asset records. Risk scoring, by contrast, is a derivative process—it depends on validated data to function properly.

The Danger of Mixing Validation with Prioritization

Organizations sometimes conflate validation with prioritization, believing that if they can rank projects, their data must be sound. This is a dangerous assumption. A risk matrix built on flawed data can create a false sense of confidence, leading to misallocated funds and missed opportunities.

By separating the two processes, planners can ensure that:

• Validation establishes a trustworthy foundation of asset data.

• Prioritization applies criticality and risk scoring to the validated data to guide investment decisions.

Ask the Experts: Prioritization

Practical Implications for Capital Planning

For practitioners, the takeaway is clear:

1. Focus validation efforts on condition and value. These are the most direct indicators of data quality.

2. Use criticality and risk only after validation. They are powerful tools for prioritization, but criticality and risk cannot be a substitute for accurate data.

3. Communicate the distinction to stakeholders. Decision makers often conflate these concepts; clarifying the distinction builds trust and ensures better outcomes.

Communicating Asset Data

Validating Asset Data through the Capital Plan

Leaving out criticality and risk from asset data collection and validation highlights the key difference between validating data and prioritizing projects. For a sound capital plan, focus validation on asset lists, condition, and value; use criticality and risk only in prioritization.

---

JD Solomon is the founder of JD Solomon, Inc., the creator of the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram®, and the co-creator of the SOAP criticality method^©. He is the author of Communicating Reliability, Risk & Resiliency to Decision Makers: How to Get Your Boss’s Boss to Understand and Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions.

---

JD Solomon Inc. provides solutions for program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment. Visit our Asset Management page for more information related to reliability, risk management, data analytics, and other asset management services.