IBM Asset & Facilities Management Your destination for peer and expert insights to help unlock the power of data with AI and Asset & Facilities Management to advance your digital reinvention. Join / Log in
I've recently moved into the hospitality industry looking at asset management of building facilities assets. I noticed that a general practice for setting up the asset hierarchy structure in Maximo or any CMMS, the tendency is at the package unit level instead of at the maintainable item level. Example you will see air handling unit (AHU) which comprises of the motor driving a fan through a belt and having cooling coils with a control valve and sensors. In Maximo, the AHU will be the final asset. Any breakdown of the AHU due to the motor will be recorded under AHU. Although there will be a failure code that can record the failure mode is at the motor, I can see that this can be challenging to calculate MTBFs for motor which is the normal practice I'm used to.Could anyone share your practices of asset structure used in building industry and experiences?
Hi,I would say that it depends on how far your organization is willing to go into the data analysis. And different strategies can be used.In your case, depending on the level of "Failure code" you have, you might be able to track it down easily.But again, it's also linked to the level of maturity your organization is at.Whoever is filling the WO, are they trained to fill it to the level of details you want?My point is, if you change the level of hierarchy to go as detailed as the motor, will the tradesperson use the motor to create the WO or will he/she still use the AHU.And even more, same question applied if the WO (or SR) is trigged by a client instead of the tradesperson. It comes down to your workflow.I won't lie, for the time I've worked in building industry, it all comes down to the willingness of the people you're working with.In my case, people had been doing it for many years, and didn't want to change anything.Which I get it, and there were many other priorities, therefore nothing was changed on the asset hierarchy structure.We improved other things instead!