Short answer
Aim for the middle ground: one routine per site (or per site + task-type), scoped to the work one person does on one visit — not a separate routine for every piece of equipment, and not a single giant routine covering your whole estate. For a park, that usually means one weekly "[Park name] check" that bundles the play equipment, the outdoor gym, and (if the same person does it on the same day) the bin emptying into one visit — a "work package". Split into separate routines only when a different person, a different day, or a genuinely different frequency is involved.
Detail
When you start building routines it's tempting to go to one of two extremes, and both cause pain later:
Too granular — a routine per item, or per sub-area. Splitting "Earnham Outdoor Gym" and "Earnham Play Area" into two separate routines means two things to manage, two things to assign, and two entries cluttering the list — for what is really one person doing one walk-round on one day. If the same person does the same inspection on the same day, that's one routine, not two.
Too broad — one routine for the whole estate. The opposite mistake is a single "All play equipment across all parks" routine. That bundles unrelated visits into one giant thing that can't be assigned or scheduled sensibly per site, and it becomes unwieldy the moment you have a dozen parks.
The sweet spot is the site-level "work package". Picture the operative's actual day: they drive to a park, and while they're there they check the play equipment, check the outdoor gym, and empty the bins. That whole visit is naturally one routine — e.g. a weekly "Earnham — play, gym & bins" — with the individual inspections/jobs as its sub-tasks. Some councils bundle exactly like this; it maps the routine to a real visit rather than to an abstract equipment category.
Ask three questions to decide where to draw the line:
- Same person? If different people do different parts, they can be different routines (or different sub-task assignees).
- Same day / frequency? A weekly play check and a monthly tree check on the same site are different routines — you can't mix frequencies in one routine.
- Same site / visit? Work done together on one trip belongs together.
Once you've got the grouping right, put the sub-tasks — not the routine — in front of the people doing the work: assign the sub-tasks, and set them on a consistent (e.g. Simple) checklist so you get one clean report across the whole estate.
Watch-outs
- You can't mix frequencies in one routine. A weekly play check and a quarterly deep inspection on the same park are two routines. Grouping is for work that shares a cadence.
- Assign the sub-tasks, not the routine. However you group, the routine (parent) is just a container — assign the individual sub-tasks so they show on the doer's mobile list. See What's the bulk-select workflow for creating a routine over many assets?.
- Different day patterns on the same round are still separate routines — that's a related but distinct decision. See I have several routines for the same round on different days — should I consolidate them?.
- Adding an asset to a live routine isn't self-serve yet — so if a site's equipment changes often, factor that in (send us the asset + routine links and we'll add it). See Can I add a new asset to a routine I've already created?.
- For RoSPA/insurer traceability, keep play equipment as per-item inspections within the routine (each swing/slide has its own inspection history), rather than a single park-level pass/fail — see How do I set up daily pre-use vehicle and plant (machinery) checks? and the area-sweep alternative.
Related
- What's the bulk-select workflow for creating a routine over many assets?
- I have several routines for the same round on different days — should I consolidate them?
- How should I name routines when I have several covering the same physical area on different days?
- How granular should my asset register be — when do I split a complex asset into individual components?