Work order types are how a CMMS knows what kind of work is happening. They drive who gets notified, which SLAs apply, how costs are allocated, and which KPIs measure performance. Most implementations fail to differentiate them properly, and then wonder why their reporting is a mess.
Why work order types matter
If every job in your CMMS is tagged "Maintenance," you cannot answer basic questions. How much are we spending on reactive vs planned work? Are our technicians spending more time on inspections or repairs? Are we hitting SLAs on end-user requests? Which work is chargeable to the client and which is internal?
Work order types solve this by giving each job a classification that determines its lifecycle rules. A good classification framework has 7-10 types. Fewer and you lose granularity; more and users start picking the wrong one.
The nine core work order types
Here is the classification I use on enterprise deployments, covering CMMS, CAFM, and EAM implementations:
1. PPM: Preventive Planned Maintenance
Scheduled, calendar-based preventive activity. Inspections, testing, routine servicing. Auto-generated from PM plans.
- Generation: Auto from PM schedules
- SLA: No · KPI: Yes · Deduction: No
- Asset coverage: Multiple assets per PM allowed
- Examples: Monthly AHU inspection, quarterly fire pump test
2. PPM-R: Preventive Maintenance with Consumables
Same as PPM but involves consumables or spare parts. Configured for one asset per work order so material costs allocate correctly.
- Generation: Auto from PM schedules
- SLA: No · KPI: Yes · Deduction: No
- Asset coverage: One asset only
- Examples: Pump lubrication, filter replacement, oil change
3. RM: Reactive Maintenance
Work triggered by end-user service requests or helpdesk tickets. The bread-and-butter SLA-driven work in any facility operation.
- Generation: From service requests / helpdesk
- SLA: Yes · KPI: Yes · Deduction: Yes (contract-dependent)
- Examples: AC not cooling, lighting failure, plumbing leak
4. CM: Corrective Maintenance
Work generated internally to fix defects found during inspections or PPM activities. Not triggered by user complaints.
- Generation: Technicians, supervisors, or PPM findings
- SLA: No · KPI: Yes · Deduction: No
- Examples: Pump vibration correction found during PPM
5. MO: Modification
Upgrades or improvements to existing systems. Not fixing what's broken, changing what works.
- Generation: Internal engineering request
- SLA: No · KPI: Optional · Deduction: No
- Examples: Adding electrical outlets, BMS logic upgrade
6. ADW: Additional Works
Client-requested activities that are within contract scope but not part of the routine maintenance schedule.
- Generation: Client or management request
- SLA: Usually No · KPI: Optional · Deduction: No
- Examples: Extra cleaning, minor rearrangements
7. OSW: Out of Scope Works
Tasks outside the defined contract scope. Require separate approval or billing. Critical for FM service providers to track correctly.
- Generation: Client request with management approval
- SLA: No · KPI: No · Deduction: No
- Examples: Major refurbishment, tenant fit-out
8. INS: Inspection
Testing or compliance verification activities that do not necessarily involve maintenance work.
- Generation: PM schedule or compliance requirement
- SLA: No · KPI: Yes · Deduction: No
- Examples: Fire extinguisher inspection, safety walks, compliance audits
9. WAR: Warranty Work
Work on assets still under vendor or manufacturer warranty. Typically executed by supplier, not internal team. Key for cost-avoidance reporting.
- Generation: Internal request
- SLA: No · KPI: Optional · Deduction: No
- Examples: Warranty repair of newly installed equipment
Quick-reference summary
| Code | Type | SLA | KPI | Deduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPM | Preventive Planned Maintenance | No | Yes | No |
| PPM-R | PM with Consumables | No | Yes | No |
| RM | Reactive Maintenance | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CM | Corrective Maintenance | No | Yes | No |
| MO | Modification | No | Opt | No |
| ADW | Additional Works | No | Opt | No |
| OSW | Out of Scope Works | No | No | No |
| INS | Inspection | No | Yes | No |
| WAR | Warranty Work | No | Opt | No |
Key distinctions that trip people up
RM vs CM, the most confused pair
Reactive Maintenance (RM) is triggered by external users. Corrective Maintenance (CM) is triggered internally. RM has an SLA clock because someone is waiting. CM does not because the team found it themselves. Same physical work, different business meaning.
ADW vs OSW, contract boundary matters
Additional Works is inside contract scope; Out of Scope is outside. Misclassifying OSW as ADW loses the provider billable revenue. Misclassifying ADW as OSW creates unnecessary client friction.
PPM vs PPM-R, asset coverage
PPM allows multiple assets per work order (efficient for bulk inspections). PPM-R requires one asset per WO because material costs must allocate to a single asset for accurate costing. Mixing them breaks your per-asset maintenance cost reports.
Implementation guidance
- Configure SLA behaviour at the type level. The CMMS should automatically start SLA timers on RM and not start them on CM.
- Make type a mandatory field on creation. Users will default to whatever's easiest if you let them.
- Lock down who can create OSW. Out-of-scope work has billing implications, restrict creation to supervisors or engineers.
- Train technicians on RM vs CM. This is the distinction they will get wrong most often.
- Report by type monthly. The ratio between types tells you a lot: high RM = reactive team, high PPM = mature operation, high OSW = scope-creep problem.
Conclusion
Work order types are a small classification decision with big downstream consequences. Get them right and your KPIs, SLAs, costing, and contract management all become cleaner. Get them wrong and your CMMS becomes a black box that nobody trusts.
The nine types above are not arbitrary, they are the set I have refined across dozens of implementations. Start with these, adjust based on your contract and reporting needs, and keep the list tight. Every new type you add is another decision your technicians have to get right.
Written by Muhammad Abbas
Enterprise integration specialist. Designed work order classification frameworks for CMMS, CAFM, and EAM implementations across utilities, facilities, and multi-site operations.
Work with me