Updated 21 September 2026

Software buying guide

Lockout/Tagout Software: Revisions and Approval Records

Lockout/tagout software can organize equipment-specific procedures, linked isolation records and the history of reviews and authorizations. Start by identifying which of those records your team needs to control. A searchable procedure, a recorded approval and the physical condition of equipment are distinct things; buying software does not establish that work is safe to begin. This guide compares documented product scope and provides a fictional record-review exercise for a vendor demo.

Jump to the 18 products

Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn

Official sources checked 21 September 2026. Product documentation and editorial demo questions; no hands-on product test or site-specific energy-control procedure.

TekmonAd

Explore its published safety, quality and maintenance workflows. Confirm modules and pricing in a scoped proposal.

Choose the LOTO software scope you need to demonstrate

Record scope	Buying question	Evidence to request
Procedure library	How is an equipment reference connected to a reviewed, effective procedure revision?	Version identity, owner, review decision, effective status and treatment of older copies.
Isolation and work records	How are individual records associated with equipment, people and the relevant work pack?	Persistent references, relationship history and visible incomplete or conflicting information.
Authorization and handover	Who can record, review or approve each state change in the configured workflow?	Role scope, attributable decisions, timestamps and a documented handover record.
Programme review	How can reviewers find missing evidence, changes and unresolved findings?	Review assignments, retained source files, follow-up status and a reproducible export.

Documented product scopes to investigate

These are different purchasing scopes, not evidence that the applications provide identical controls. The linked profiles retain their own evidence dates and commercial scope; their pricing or mobile fields do not establish an equivalent LOTO package. Ask for the exact applications, product version and configuration in each proposal.

Ordered by how closely our sources document this process, not by quality. Sponsored placements are labelled. How lists are ordered

Same rule for every product: tagged “Permit to Work”, “Permits to Work (PTW)”, “Control of Work”, “Industrial Safety”, “Safety Management” or “EHS Management”, with a sourced lockout/tagout or isolation capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. 18 qualify; the first 8 are shown, then the other 10.

Safetymint
Documented: Control-of-work linkage (conditional). Source: safetymint.com
Sitemate
Documented: Hot works permit system. Source: sitemate.com
Synergi Life (DNV)
Documented: Permit management. Source: dnv.com
Enablon
Documented: Permit, isolation and risk-assessment workflows (conditional). Source: wolterskluwer.com
Evotix
Documented: Enterprise permit, change and isolation modules. Source: evotix.com
IAMTech iPermit
IAMTech documents isolation certificates linked to permits, isolation-point records, lock-box and key-safe management, role-based permit approval and recorded signatures. Demonstrate linked records, the authority assigned to each role and the response to a changed attachment or missing review, and resolve the differing offline descriptions below before accepting a disconnected workflow. Source: iamtech.com
IsoMetrix
Documented: Control of work. Source: isometrix.com
Origami Risk
Documented: Process-safety and chemical-management scope (conditional). Source: origamirisk.com

Also meet the rule, in the same order (10)

Demo case: a procedure revision and an incomplete review pack

Use an isolated vendor demonstration environment with fictional equipment ASSET-L17. PROC-L17 revision 3 is the previously approved document in the example, and draft work pack PACK-L17 revision 1 references it. The demonstration contains administrative record labels only, with no energy sources, isolation actions or real equipment instructions.

A document owner proposes revision 4 to correct an equipment-description field and replace attachment ATT-L17. Keep revision 3 and its approval history intact. Show revision 4 as a draft with its author and change reason; identify PACK-L17 as potentially affected instead of silently replacing its referenced document. The responsible reviewer decides the impact under the organization's configured rules.

The reviewer expects supporting file EVID-L17, but the file is unavailable. Record the gap and its owner. A checked form field, missing attachment or newly uploaded file must not be presented as completed review in this exercise. Preserve what was requested and what remains unresolved.

Use a second test account whose approval role does not cover this fictional site. Ask the supplier to demonstrate that this account cannot approve the changed pack under the agreed role rules, while preserving whatever reading or drafting rights were intentionally assigned. Inspect the recorded decision and account identity; do not test a live work authorization.

When the owner supplies EVID-L17, retain its source version and record the reviewer assessment separately from the upload. Prepare PACK-L17 revision 2 for review, with the proposed PROC-L17 revision 4 reference and the disposition of the earlier gap. The endpoint is a reviewable demonstration record, not an instruction to approve the procedure, remove controls or release equipment. Keep the original pack reproducible.

Keep document, evidence and authorization histories distinct

Fictional record	Change introduced	What the buyer should be able to inspect
ASSET-L17 / PROC-L17	Previously approved revision 3 → proposed revision 4	Stable equipment identity, changed description, attachment version, author, reason and separate draft/review states.
PACK-L17 revision 1	The linked procedure has a proposed correction	Original revision 3 reference and approval history remain reproducible; potential impact is visible.
EVID-L17	Expected supporting file unavailable → later supplied	Missing status, owner, source file and version, followed by an explicit reviewer assessment.
Reviewer test accounts	One account lacks approval authority for the example site	Configured role scope, attempted decision and correct treatment of permitted reading or drafting.
PACK-L17 revision 2	New review pack references proposed procedure revision 4	Changes, evidence disposition and review status remain distinct from any operational authorization.

Verify the product version and each offline action

The iPermit2.0 landing page distinguishes cached reading and queued notes or photos from actions requiring connectivity, including permit approval and isolation sign-off. Its 2026 brochure, page 9, uses broader wording about creating, reviewing and updating permits and isolations offline. Treat this difference as unresolved scope to clarify for the proposed version.

Ask every supplier to show the last synchronization time, the document revision visible on a disconnected device and what happens when another user changes the source record. Identify actions that are unavailable, queued or subject to renewed review. A mobile screen or downloaded PDF does not establish current authorization or completed synchronization.

Record the exact version, offline action matrix and reconciliation result in the proposal. For the wider test sequence, use the offline software comparison and digital permit-to-work guide.

Keep programme requirements and software evidence separate

For relevant US workplaces, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147 defines its scope and exclusions and addresses procedures, training and periodic inspections. It is not a universal rule for every industry or jurisdiction, and this guide does not determine applicability. Have the responsible specialist identify the requirements and review basis for your operation.

Translate those requirements into records and permissions the vendor must demonstrate. Keep training evidence, an assigned software role, a review decision and actual equipment status distinct. A QR code, digital signature, green dashboard or completed checklist does not by itself prove effective hazardous-energy control.

Use the management-of-change guide to evaluate how a reviewed change is connected to affected documents and tasks. Ask which links are configured, which are manual and who resolves failed updates.

The stages of an isolation sequence

The figure names the stages that most lockout and tagout procedures cover, so you can see which record a tool should hold at each one.

Overview only. The site's written procedure sets the actual steps, and the software holds records rather than performing them. Role names follow common US usage.

Text version of this diagram

Step 1. Prepare. Owner: Authorized employee. Procedure revision, equipment and energy sources identified. Then step 2.
Step 2. Notify affected employees. Owner: Affected employees. Who was told, and when. Then step 3.
Step 3. Shut down. Owner: Authorized employee. Time of the normal stop and who carried it out. Then step 4.
Step 4. Isolate. Owner: Authorized employee. Each energy-isolating device and its state. Then step 5.
Step 5. Lock and tag. Owner: Authorized employee. Lock and tag identity for each device, and its holder. Then step 6.
Step 6. Verify zero energy. Owner: Authorized employee. Stored energy dealt with; check method, person, time and result. Then step 7.
Step 7. Do the work. Owner: Authorized employee. Who is covered by which lock, including at shift change. Then step 8.
Step 8. Remove locks and tags. Owner: Authorized employee. Area-clear check, who removed each lock and any exception. Then step 9.
Step 9. Tell affected employees and restart. Owner: Affected employees. Notice given before equipment is re-energized. End of the sequence.

Feedback loops

From step 6 (Verify zero energy) back to step 4 (Isolate): Energy found: isolate again.

Six demonstrations before choosing lockout/tagout software

Resolve the equipment and procedure reference

Find fictional ASSET-L17 and PROC-L17 revision 3. Show document identity, effective status, owner and prior review. Open the same reference through the access method proposed for your users.

Propose a change without overwriting approval history

Create draft revision 4 with the corrected description and replacement attachment. Show the author, reason, affected PACK-L17 reference and the configured impact-review process.

Keep missing evidence visible

Mark EVID-L17 unavailable, assign its owner and inspect how that gap affects the agreed review workflow. Uploading the later file remains separate from reviewing and accepting its contents.

Test the agreed approval permissions

In the demonstration environment, use the account without site approval authority. Confirm that its rights match the agreed role design and that approval decisions identify the responsible account and record revision.

Compare cached and current records

Show last synchronization time and the procedure version on a disconnected device. Demonstrate the documented action limits and the treatment of a conflicting server update when connectivity returns.

Export a reviewable history

Export both PACK-L17 revisions, their document references, missing-file history, source versions and reviewer decisions. Identify any unavailable export or configuration dependency; do not record an unperformed test as passed.

Put the demonstrated record scope in the quote

Name the LOTO or isolation application, product version, sites, equipment population and procedure migration scope.

Specify role boundaries, approval configuration, contractors and any separate licensing for reviewers or field users.

Document revision handling, effective dates, superseded copies, attachment history and change-impact ownership.

Identify the exact permit, maintenance, document and training connections; include data mapping and failure handling.

Attach an action-by-action mobile/offline scope with synchronization, stale-copy and conflicting-update demonstrations.

Agree retention, export formats, access after contract end, configuration maintenance and the unresolved demo requirements.

Build a shortlist around records you can explain

Compare the listed profiles, then give each supplier the same fictional revision and review exercise. Record the named application, demonstrated behavior and remaining evidence gaps.

Compare the first listed profiles

Sources and limits of this guide

6 sources

Vendor documentation establishes published product scope, not a hands-on result, guaranteed safety outcome or entitlement in every package. The OSHA source supplies US programme context within its stated scope. All exercise records are fictional. This guide provides software evaluation questions; it does not prescribe isolation methods, physical verification steps, lock removal, equipment restoration or authorization to perform hazardous work.

Software categories to explore

Use this Process to define the work, then explore these software types. Confirm the exact workflow and module with each vendor.

See all software categories

Lockout/Tagout (LOTO): Paper to Digital Energy Isolation
Article on moving lockout/tagout from paper to digital.
Confined Space — definition, software & FAQs
Definition of a confined space.
Permit to Work Template (Hot Work + Confined Space)
Free template for a permit to work.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should lockout/tagout software manage?

Start with the required record scope: reviewed procedures, equipment references, linked isolation or work records, authorization history and programme-review evidence. Products cover different parts of this workflow. Ask for the exact application and demonstrate it with a changed document and an incomplete review pack.

Is LOTO software the same as permit-to-work software?

The scopes can be connected, but a permit form does not establish a controlled procedure library or isolation dependency management. Conversely, a searchable procedure library does not prove a complete work-authorization workflow. Demonstrate the required references and decisions in the quoted applications.

Does a digital approval prove equipment is safe?

No. A software record can show a decision, its author and the evidence linked to it. It does not independently establish the physical condition of equipment or replace the organization's site-specific controls and competent decisions. The guide's fictional exercise ends with records ready for review.

How should a revised procedure affect an existing work pack?

Keep the original reference and review history, identify the proposed change and show the configured impact-review process. The responsible reviewer determines the affected records and required decisions under the organization's rules. Do not silently overwrite earlier evidence or treat a new upload as approval.

Can LOTO approvals be completed offline?

Confirm each action for the proposed version. IAMTech's landing page places approval and isolation sign-off among connected actions, while its 2026 brochure describes broader offline work. The guide flags that discrepancy. Cached reading, queued data and a completed authorization must remain distinguishable.

Does purchasing software establish OSHA compliance?

No. OSHA 1910.147 has a defined scope, exclusions and programme requirements; applicability must be assessed for the workplace and activity. Software may organize relevant records, but a vendor statement, report template or electronic signature does not establish compliance or approval of a particular deployment.