Resolver status
unsupported
No matching entry exists in the governed resolver catalog.
For plant managers and maintenance directors
Give every work request an owner before it becomes downtime.
Forklift scopes a work-order control queue around the CMMS and processes you already use. This is a design-partner candidate; no industrial connector or autonomous dispatch capability exists today.
Evidence before claims
What this page is—and is not—promising
Design goal: reduce preventable downtime through visible priority, ownership, parts readiness, and verified closeout.
Data boundary
Operational data without personal or regulated records.
Economic buyer
Plant manager, VP Operations, or maintenance director
Why now
The conditions that make the workflow worth examining
These are discovery signals, not proof that Forklift has delivered the outcome for a customer.
Common triggers
- Maintenance is predominantly reactive
- Work orders age without escalation
- Preventive maintenance slips
- The same assets fail repeatedly
Observable symptoms
- Requests arrive by radio, text, and hallway conversation
- Work stalls for parts that appeared to be in stock
- Closeout records completion but not verification
- No owner can explain the risk in the current backlog
First artifact
Work-Order Control Queue
Target first deliverable: four weeks after approved scoping
- A mapped intake path for current request channels
- Triage rules with asset context and accountable ownership
- Preventive-maintenance exceptions against recorded completion
- Parts-readiness checks before proposed assignment
- Evidence requirements for verified closeout
Governed progression
Prove the control loop before increasing authority
Every engagement progresses through explicit gates. Natural language expresses intent; it never grants production authority.
1. Diagnose
Confirm the repeated problem, owner, systems, data, decision rights, baseline, and economics.
2. Observe
Use interviews, fixtures, or controlled exports before requesting a read-only connector.
3. Control exceptions
Give bounded exceptions owners, deadlines, approvals, and reconciliation evidence.
4. Prove
Measure the agreed result against the approved baseline and preserve provenance.
5. Automate selectively
Permit only cataloged, tested, reversible actions under the exact approved plan.
6. Operate or stop
Monitor cost, health, incidents, recovery, upgrades, and exit—or record why the hypothesis failed.
Proof metrics
Agree on the baseline before claiming improvement
A metric becomes evidence only when its definition, source, window, owner, and comparison baseline are approved.
Preventive-maintenance compliance
Backlog age
Mean time to repair
Repeat failures per asset
Unplanned downtime hours
Maintenance cost per asset
Hard boundary
What remains outside this engagement
These exclusions are commitments. Changing one requires a new classification, plan, review, and approval—not an expanded prompt.
- Lockout, tagout, isolation, and return-to-service decisions
- Production-control systems
- Overriding qualified technician judgment
- Committing supplier spend without named approval
Commercial entry
Design-partner build
A design-partner proposal states scope, evidence, staffing, cost, and support terms before commitment.
No unmeasured agent price is published.
The first written proposal identifies the work, evidence, operating obligation, and commercial terms before authorization.
Questions
What buyers usually need clarified first
Does this replace our CMMS?
No. The CMMS remains authoritative. The proposed capability coordinates bounded exceptions around it.
Can it dispatch technicians automatically?
No current catalog capability does that. Any future proposal must preserve certifications, labor rules, safety limits, and human dispatch authority.
How are price and timing determined?
The design-partner scoping call produces a written estimate; the four-week target is not a commitment until that plan is approved.
Adjacent outcomes
Scope the next problem without inventing a page
Unpublished outcomes route to Open Flow. They do not produce a broken page or an implied implementation claim.