Where Does the Work Go? Managing WIP Documents in MOC Projects

When a Management of Change (MOC) is initiated, one of the first and most essential activities is collecting and assembling documents and data relevant to the change. All too often, MOC-related documents are scattered across email threads, personal drives, or temporary folders with little oversight. The result is fragmentation — and fragmentation in process safety management is a recipe for failure. The FACILEX® MOC solution tackles this challenge head-on with a comprehensive WIP folder structure built into each MOC project.
Where Does the Work Go? Managing WIP Documents in MOC Projects

When a Management of Change (MOC) is initiated, one of the first and most critical activities is gathering and organizing the documents and data associated with the change. This often includes P&IDs, datasheets, specifications, vendor manuals, control narratives, photos, calculations, procedures, and cost estimates—an extensive and evolving set of materials that becomes increasingly difficult to manage without management of change solutions and applications designed to centralize records and maintain traceability throughout the review process.

At this early stage, none of the information is “final.” It’s a Work in Process (WIP) — living documents that evolve with feedback, redlines, and approvals. Yet despite its fluidity, this content is foundational: decisions will be made from it, reviews will be based on it, and ultimately, it becomes part of the historical record of the facility.

So, here’s the question that every MOC team faces: Where does this WIP information go?

The WIP Dilemma: Organize or Fragment?

All too often, MOC-related documents are scattered across email threads, personal drives, or temporary folders with little oversight. This leads to several key issues:

  • No version control — people work off outdated or conflicting information.
  • No revision tracking — changes are made without context or review history.
  • No audit trail — you can’t demonstrate compliance or decisions during an incident or review.
  • No continuity — critical information may disappear once a project closes or an employee leaves.

The result is fragmentation — and fragmentation in process safety management is a recipe for failure.

What an MOC Platform Should Do

A robust MOC platform must do more than track approvals or assign actions. It must also:

  • Provide a structured digital location for WIP documentation from the outset of the MOC.
  • Support sharing, versioning, and redlining for collaboration.
  • Ensure that all WIP content is retained as part of the MOC history — not lost when the change is implemented.
  • Integrate with production document libraries to manage the transition from draft to approved.

In short, managing WIP documents effectively isn’t just a nice-to-have — it’s a core requirement for managing change with integrity and accountability.

FACILEX®: MOC with Built-In WIP Control

The FACILEX® MOC solution tackles this challenge head-on with a comprehensive WIP folder structure built into each MOC project. It offers:

  • Seamless document storage and retrieval
  • Secure version and revision tracking
  • Full lifecycle visibility of all supporting materials
  • Configurable workflows for document editing, approval, and finalization

By embedding WIP management into the MOC process, FACILEX® ensures that your project team can collaborate effectively — and your facility maintains a trusted, traceable record of every change.

Because in process safety, it’s not just about what you change — it’s about what you keep track of while you do.

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.