Implementing an Enterprise-Wide MOC Procedure

Creating "one MOC process to rule them all" doesn’t mean forcing every site into an identical mold. It means enabling a common framework that respects local realities—and that requires the right platform. With FACILEX®, corporate leaders can confidently deploy a unified MOC strategy that adapts to every site, streamlines compliance, and provides enterprise-wide insight—all without custom code.
Implementing an Enterprise-Wide MOC Procedure

For organizations that operate multiple PSM-covered facilities, harmonizing safety processes across sites is more than an efficiency objective—it is a necessity. One of the most critical of these processes is Management of Change (MOC). Establishing a common MOC approach supports regulatory compliance, enables organizational learning, and simplifies enterprise-level reporting; however, achieving this level of consistency across diverse operations often requires management of change solutions and applications that can scale, standardize workflows, and provide centralized visibility.

The Vision: A Common MOC Procedure

At the corporate level, safety and engineering leaders often strive to develop a single, standardized MOC procedure that reflects corporate policies and satisfies OSHA 1910.119(l) and similar regulations worldwide. The intention is that this single process can be syndicated across all facilities, creating consistency in how changes are proposed, reviewed, approved, and verified.

But this vision quickly runs into the reality of operations on the ground.

The Challenge: Site-Specific Complexity

Each facility has its own unique:

  • Organizational structure
  • Approval workflows
  • Risk assessment practices
  • Scoping checklists
  • Data exchange requirements with on-premise maintenance, document control, and asset management platforms
  • Report formats for audits and regulatory compliance

Even something as seemingly simple as a risk matrix might be configured differently depending on the site’s local regulatory obligations or internal standards. As a result, a “one-size-fits-all” MOC software implementation is rarely effective. Most systems either become too rigid to be useful or require expensive and ongoing custom development for each site—driving up costs and dragging down adoption.

The Solution: A Configurable MOC Platform

This is where FACILEX® comes in.

Gateway Group’s FACILEX® MOC platform was built with the reality of multi-site complexity in mind. It offers a flexible framework that allows corporate leaders to define a common MOC procedure while enabling each facility to tailor the system configuration to meet local needs—all without additional programming.

FACILEX® provides:

  • Configurable lifecycles and forms for each site
  • Site-specific scoping checklists and risk matrices
  • Integration tools for connecting with existing on-prem systems
  • Role-based access control to handle complex organizational hierarchies
  • Standardized and site-specific reporting—all in the same platform
  • Multilingual support – all Microsoft supported languages

This flexibility means that MOC processes can be truly harmonized at the corporate level while remaining practically effective at the site level.

Aggregated Insights, Enterprise Visibility

One of the biggest benefits of adopting a platform like FACILEX® is its ability to aggregate data across all sites. This enables:

  • Enterprise-wide MOC metrics and KPIs
  • Identification of common risk trends
  • Faster rollouts of best practices and lessons learned
  • Simplified compliance audits across jurisdictions

It’s the best of both worlds: local effectiveness and global oversight.

Share:

More Posts

Workflow Is Not a Strategy: Why Management of Change Must Be Designed as a Lifecycle

Over the past two decades, many organizations have invested heavily in digital Management of Change (MOC) systems. Most of these systems share a common design philosophy: they treat MOC as a workflow—a predefined sequence of steps that moves a change request from initiation to approval and closure.
This approach is appealing to IT teams because workflows are easy to automate, measure, and control. However, it fundamentally misrepresents the nature of Management of Change.
MOC is not a linear process. It is a lifecycle-based business process that must adapt to technical complexity, organizational context, and evolving risk. When organizations attempt to force MOC into rigid workflow structures, they inadvertently create systems that are efficient in appearance but ineffective in practice.
To support modern process safety, MOC must be architected as a configurable lifecycle embedded within an integrated risk-based process safety framework—not as a static workflow engine.

Why Management of Change Must Be Rebuilt for Modern Industry

Management of Change (MOC) is one of the most critical controls in process safety management, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood. While regulatory frameworks such as OSHA 1910.119 define what must be addressed, they do not define how organizations should design, execute, and govern change in complex industrial environments.
Most MOC systems in use today were not designed for the realities of modern operations. They evolved from paper-based processes and early digital document management tools that prioritized compliance over risk intelligence, traceability, and integration.
To meet the demands of contemporary industrial operations, MOC must be fundamentally rethought—not as a form, a workflow, or a compliance exercise, but as a lifecycle-based business process embedded within an integrated process safety ecosystem.

AI Governance Starts Long Before AI Is Introduced

Artificial intelligence governance is often discussed as a new discipline—one that emerges only after AI tools are deployed. Policies are drafted, oversight committees formed, and ethical frameworks debated. While these steps are important, they miss a critical reality:
AI governance does not begin with AI. It begins with how information has been governed for years.

Automation Before AI: Lessons from Asset-Intensive Industries

As artificial intelligence gains momentum across industries, many organizations are eager to move directly from manual work to AI-enabled solutions. In asset-intensive and regulated environments, this leap often ends in frustration. The issue is not ambition, it is sequencing.
Organizations that succeed with AI consistently share one characteristic: they automated their information and business processes before attempting to make them intelligent. Those that skip this step discover that AI struggles to add value on top of fragmented, inconsistent, or poorly defined processes.