Building Operations

7 easy steps to choosing the right CMMS tool for your team

Learn how to choose the right work order system for your facilities management team as spreadsheets and shared tools stop scaling

Jessica Wyman

Originally Published: May 23, 2020

Contents

Updated:Jan 7, 2026

Many facilities management teams begin with simple tools to track maintenance work. Spreadsheets, shared folders, or basic ticket logs often work when the number of buildings, assets, and requests is small. As organizations grow, these tools struggle to keep up. Information becomes fragmented, handoffs increase, and more time is spent coordinating work than completing it.

This is typically the point where teams begin evaluating work order systems. The challenge is not identifying options, but choosing a system that supports how the team actually works today and how it will need to work as operations continue to scale. A poor fit can introduce new process overhead and slow teams down at the moment complexity increases.

This article explains how to choose a work order system using a structured, decision-first approach. The focus is on long-term fit, operational efficiency, and sustainability rather than feature lists or vendor claims.

Step 1: Define what success looks like before evaluating tools

Before evaluating work order systems, it is important to define what improvement actually means for your facilities management team. As operations scale, issues often surface as a general sense that work is harder to manage, but those issues need to be translated into clear, operational outcomes to guide decision making.

Success should be described in terms of how work is requested, prioritized, tracked, and reviewed, not in terms of software features. Defining this up front creates a shared reference point and ensures that systems are evaluated based on whether they improve daily operations rather than how they appear in a demo.

Example: Translating common pain points into success criteria

The table below illustrates how facilities teams commonly reframe operational pain points into clearer definitions of success as their operations grow. This example is meant to show the thinking process, not prescribe requirements.

Area of operation	Current state (as-is)	Desired outcome (what “success” looks like)	Why this matters when choosing a system
Request intake	Requests arrive through multiple channels with inconsistent information	Requests arrive in a consistent format with required context	Systems should reduce follow-up work, not rely on manual clarification
Prioritization	Work is prioritized informally or reactively	Work is prioritized consistently based on agreed criteria	Tools must support prioritization without constant oversight
Response management	Response times vary depending on who submits the request	Response times are predictable and easier to manage	Systems should improve reliability, not just speed
Backlog visibility	Open work is tracked manually or across tools	All open and pending work is visible in one place	Visibility becomes critical as volume increases
Maintenance history	History is incomplete or difficult to access	Maintenance history is reliable and easy to review	Long-term decisions depend on accurate records
Administrative effort	Significant time spent tracking and reconciling information	Minimal overhead required to manage work orders	Tools should reduce coordination effort
Accountability	Ownership is unclear or changes informally	Responsibility is clearly defined at each stage	Systems should support clarity, not introduce ambiguity

Once success is defined in operational terms, the next step is to apply this thinking to your own environment.

Step 2: Align internal stakeholders around the work order process

As facilities operations scale, work order systems begin to affect more than just the maintenance team. Requests are submitted by staff or occupants, reviewed and prioritized by supervisors, executed by technicians, and often reviewed by management or operations leadership. If these groups are not aligned on how the process should work, selecting new software will not resolve underlying friction.

Before evaluating systems, it is important to explicitly identify who is involved in the work order process and what each group needs from it. This helps prevent choosing a system that optimizes one part of the workflow while creating challenges elsewhere.

Mapping stakeholders in the work order process

Stakeholder group	Role in the process	What they need from the system	Risk if not considered
Requesters	Submit maintenance issues	Simple intake and confirmation that requests were received	Low adoption or bypassing the system
Facilities managers or supervisors	Review and prioritize work	Clear visibility into requests, priorities, and workload	Manual triage and inconsistent prioritization
Technicians	Execute work orders	Clear scope, location, and access to relevant history	Rework, delays, or incomplete fixes
Leadership or operations	Review performance and trends	Reliable reporting and historical insight	Decisions based on incomplete or misleading data
IT or systems administrators	Support and maintain the system	Security, integrations, and manageable configuration	High support burden or stalled adoption

Alignment at this stage reduces the risk of selecting a work order system that works well for one group while introducing friction for others.

Step 3: Document how work orders are handled today

Before comparing work order systems, it is important to clearly understand how work orders are handled today. Many teams underestimate how much process already exists or assume that software alone will fix issues that are actually procedural.

Documenting the current state helps separate process problems from tooling limitations. It also creates a baseline that can be used to evaluate whether a new system would meaningfully improve operations or simply digitize existing inefficiencies.

The goal of this step is not to design the future process, but to capture how work actually flows today, including where information is lost, delayed, or manually reconciled.

How to document your current work order process

The table below shows an example of how facilities teams document their current work order process. Use it as a reference, then adapt the structure to accurately reflect how work orders are handled in your own organization today.

Stage of the process	How it works today	Tools or channels used	Common issues or friction points
Request submission	How maintenance issues are reported	Email, spreadsheets, shared folders, phone calls	Incomplete information, duplicate requests
Intake and review	How requests are received and reviewed	Individual inboxes, shared lists	Requests missed or delayed
Prioritization	How work is prioritized	Informal decisions, manual sorting	Inconsistent prioritization
Assignment	How work is assigned to technicians	Verbal instructions, emails, spreadsheets	Lack of clarity or accountability
Execution	How work is completed and documented	Paper notes, ad hoc updates	Work completed but not recorded
Status tracking	How progress is tracked	Manual updates, separate trackers	Limited real-time visibility
Completion and closeout	How work is marked complete	Informal confirmation, manual logs	Inaccurate or missing records
History and reporting	How past work is reviewed	Spreadsheets, shared drives	Hard to analyze trends or repeat issues

Capturing this information makes it easier to identify where existing tools no longer support the scale or complexity of operations and prepares the groundwork for evaluating potential improvements.

Step 4: Identify gaps between the current state and the desired state

Once the current work order process is documented and success criteria are defined, the next step is to compare the two. This comparison helps clarify where existing tools and processes no longer support how the team needs to operate as work volume and complexity increase.

Not all gaps point to a software problem. Some issues are procedural, such as unclear ownership or inconsistent intake. Others are structural, such as lack of shared visibility or unreliable maintenance history. Distinguishing between these types of gaps is critical. Choosing a system without this clarity often results in unnecessary complexity or tools that attempt to compensate for unresolved process issues.

The goal of this step is to identify which gaps genuinely require system support and which can be addressed through process changes.

Identifying gaps between current state and desired outcomes

The table below provides an example structure for comparing the current state documented in Step 3 with the success criteria defined in Step 1. Use this format to identify where gaps exist, what is causing them, and whether they should influence system selection.

Area of operation	Current state summary	Desired outcome	Gap identified	Primary cause
Request intake	Requests arrive through multiple channels with missing context	Requests arrive consistently with required information	Incomplete and inconsistent intake	Process and tooling
Prioritization	Work is prioritized manually and inconsistently	Work is prioritized using clear criteria	Unclear and reactive prioritization	Process
Assignment	Assignments handled informally	Clear and traceable assignment	Lack of accountability	Process
Status visibility	Progress tracked across separate tools	Real-time visibility into work status	Limited shared visibility	Tooling
Maintenance history	Records incomplete or hard to access	Reliable, searchable history	Inability to analyze past work	Tooling
Reporting	Reporting assembled manually	Consistent operational reporting	High administrative effort	Tooling and process

Identifying the primary cause of each gap helps determine whether a work order system should address the issue directly or whether changes to the underlying process are required first. This distinction keeps system evaluations focused and prevents overcorrecting with unnecessary functionality.

Step 5: Separate mandatory requirements from nice to have features

Once gaps between the current state and desired outcomes are clear, the next step is to determine which capabilities a work order system must support and which are optional. One of the most common mistakes at this stage is treating every possible feature as essential, which often leads to tools that are difficult to configure, maintain, and adopt.

Mandatory requirements should be defined by the success criteria established earlier and the gaps identified in the previous step. These requirements represent the minimum capabilities a system must provide to improve daily operations. Features that sound appealing but do not directly address these needs should be treated as optional, even if they are commonly highlighted in vendor materials.

This distinction helps keep evaluations focused on operational impact rather than feature breadth.

Separating essential requirements from optional features

The table below provides an example structure for distinguishing between mandatory requirements and nice to have features. Use this format to document which capabilities are critical for your facilities management team and which can be deprioritized during system evaluation.

Capability area	Requirement description	Why it is mandatory or optional	Classification
Request intake	Standardized submission with required information	Directly addresses inconsistent intake and missing context	Mandatory
Prioritization	Ability to apply clear priority criteria	Supports predictable response management	Mandatory
Assignment	Clear ownership and assignment tracking	Prevents work from being overlooked or duplicated	Mandatory
Status tracking	Visibility into work order progress	Enables shared understanding of backlog and workload	Mandatory
Maintenance history	Searchable record of past work	Supports troubleshooting and long-term planning	Mandatory
Advanced reporting	Custom dashboards and analytics	Useful for analysis but not required for daily operations	Optional
Deep customization	Extensive workflow customization options	Adds flexibility but increases setup and maintenance effort	Optional
Integrations	Connections to other enterprise systems	Valuable in some environments but not always essential	Optional

Clearly labeling requirements as mandatory or optional helps prevent feature-driven decision making and reduces the risk of selecting a system that introduces unnecessary complexity. This list can be refined further as systems are shortlisted, but establishing it early provides a strong filter for evaluation.

Step 6: Evaluate work order systems based on long-term operational fit

With mandatory requirements clearly defined, the next step is to evaluate work order systems based on how well they fit your facilities operations over time. At this stage, it is tempting to focus on demonstrations, feature breadth, or polished interfaces. While these elements can be useful, they rarely reveal how a system will perform under day-to-day operational conditions.

Long-term operational fit is about how a system supports real workflows as volume, complexity, and expectations increase. This includes how easily the system can be configured to match existing processes, how much effort is required to maintain it, and how well it adapts as needs change. A system that looks powerful but requires constant oversight can quickly become a burden for teams already managing growing workloads.

Evaluating systems through this lens helps avoid tools that solve short-term problems while introducing long-term overhead.

Evaluating systems for operational fit and sustainability

The table below provides an example structure for evaluating work order systems beyond feature checklists. Use this format to assess whether each option supports your mandatory requirements in a way that is sustainable for your facilities management team.

Evaluation area	Key question to ask	What to look for	Warning signs
Workflow alignment	Does the system support how work orders actually flow today?	Configuration options that match existing processes	Heavy reliance on workarounds or customization
Setup and configuration	How much effort is required to get the system usable?	Clear setup paths and manageable configuration	Long setup timelines or dependence on external support
Ongoing administration	How much effort is needed to maintain the system?	Minimal ongoing management and clear ownership	Frequent adjustments or complex permissions
Adoption likelihood	Will all stakeholder groups realistically use this system?	Simple interaction for requesters and technicians	Training-heavy workflows or resistance from users
Scalability	Can the system handle increased volume and complexity?	Consistent performance as usage grows	Performance degradation or rigid structures
Data quality over time	Will the system help maintain reliable records?	Structured data and clear status tracking	Inconsistent data entry or reliance on free text
Change tolerance	Can the system adapt as processes evolve?	Flexible configuration without rework	Changes require significant reconfiguration

Evaluating systems against these criteria helps ensure that short-listed options not only meet current needs but also remain usable as operations continue to evolve. This step reduces the risk of selecting a system that appears capable in isolation but becomes difficult to sustain in practice.

Step 7: Validate the system against real workflows before committing

Before making a final decision, shortlisted work order systems should be validated against real workflows, not idealized demonstrations. At this stage, the goal is to confirm that a system supports how work actually happens in your facilities operations, using your terminology, data, and constraints.

Validation should focus on everyday scenarios rather than edge cases or advanced features. This includes how requests are submitted, how information is presented to technicians, and how supervisors track progress across active work. Systems that appear capable in theory often reveal friction when tested against realistic conditions.

Testing systems this way helps reduce the risk of selecting a tool that looks effective during evaluation but fails to hold up once adopted.

Validating systems using realistic work order scenarios

The table below provides an example structure for validating shortlisted systems using real operational scenarios. Use this format to walk through common situations and capture where each system supports or hinders actual workflows.

Validation scenario	What to test	What good support looks like	Common friction points
Submitting a request	Entering a typical maintenance request	Clear prompts and required context captured	Confusing fields or missing information
Reviewing new requests	Assessing incoming work orders	Requests are easy to review and prioritize	Manual sorting or unclear priorities
Assigning work	Assigning tasks to technicians	Ownership is clear and traceable	Ambiguous responsibility
Executing work	Accessing information in the field	Technicians can quickly see scope and location	Switching between tools or missing details
Updating status	Recording progress	Status updates are simple and consistent	Inconsistent or skipped updates
Closing work orders	Completing and documenting work	Completion is clearly recorded	Incomplete records or extra steps
Reviewing workload	Monitoring active and pending work	Clear visibility into backlog	Limited or delayed visibility
Reviewing history	Looking up past work	History is easy to find and understand	Fragmented or unreliable records

Validating systems against scenarios like these helps surface practical limitations early, before a decision is finalized. A system that performs well across everyday workflows is far more likely to succeed than one that only excels in curated demonstrations.

Making the final decision

Choosing a work order system is ultimately a decision about fit. Teams that take the time to define success, align stakeholders, and test systems against real workflows are far more likely to select tools that scale with operations rather than add friction. The goal is not to find the most feature-rich system, but to choose one that supports clarity, consistency, and adaptability as your facilities work continues to evolve.