Maximo

Maximo

Come for answers, stay for best practices. All we're missing is you.

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

  • 1.  Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Tue March 16, 2021 04:05 PM
    Hi All,

    In our current configuration, the only statuses changes available from WMATL are INPRG, CAN, WCOMP and COMP. I am told that we cannot config Maximo to allow a status change from WMATL to WSCH. In my mind, the process should be the following (based on our current design):

    WAPPR - INPLN (APPR) - WMATL (skipped if not relevant) - WSCH - SCHED - INPROG - WCOMP - COMP

    The current flow causes issues when the work order enters our scheduling software as in progress (INPRG), when it should be waiting to be scheduled (WSCH), once the parts arrive on site.

     
    This seems to be by design (default):

    From WSCH (synonym of APPR)
    In Progress
    Waiting on Material
    Completed
    Waiting on Plant Cond (synonym of APPR)
    Waiting on Approval
    Closed

    From WMATL (synonym of APPR)
    In Progress
    Waiting on Material
    Completed
    Waiting on Plant Cond (synonym of APPR)
    Waiting on Approval
    Closed

    I find it odd that you can go from WSCH to WMATL but not the other way. Shouldn't you wait till all materials are on hand before scheduling work?

    Any input is greatly appreciated...even if I'm out to lunch here!

    Thanks!

    ------------------------------
    Shawn St.Amand
    ------------------------------

    #AssetandFacilitiesManagement
    #Maximo


  • 2.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Tue March 16, 2021 04:28 PM
    Edited by System Admin Wed March 22, 2023 11:51 AM
    Shawn,

    You didn't indicate what work type this is specific to, but in general WMATL would be used for Corrective Maintenance (ideally materials for the scope of Preventive Maintenance are always on hand or in stock), and WSCH is geared toward the PM side (per IBM).

    In theory you wouldn't use those two statuses on the same Work Order.

    ------------------------------
    Tim Ferrill
    Solutions Consultant
    Intelligent Technology Solutions
    tferrill@webuildits.com
    www.webuildits.com
    @tferrill/@webuildits
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Tue March 16, 2021 04:38 PM
    We are using those statuses to alert the planners when all material is in so they can schedule it. We are just investigating functionality to change the work order automatically when the last part comes in, (if not in stock already) so the planner gets an auto-email to advise all parts are in and go ahead and schedule.
     
    Gerry Sylvester
    Manager, Supply Management
    VANCOUVER AIRPORT AUTHORITY
     





  • 4.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Tue March 16, 2021 04:42 PM
    Sorry, this would be for Corrective WO's.

    This is a typical scenario.
    • Service request is entered that identifies an issue
    • The SR is reviewed and converted to a Work Order (WAPPR)
    • The WO is approve and goes to planning (INPLN)
    • The job requires materials (or services) that are not on hand (WMATL)
    • Parts arrive and WO can now be put in the scheduling queue (WSCH)
    • WO is scheduled (SCHD)
    • WO is in progress (INPRG)
    • Work is field completed (WCOMP)
    • WO is reviewed (closeout comments, etc.) and set to COMP
    • System closes WO in 90 days (CLOSED)


    ------------------------------
    Shawn St.Amand
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Tue March 16, 2021 04:44 PM
    @Shawn St.Amand So again, this deviates from IBM's intent with the WSCH status. Your best bet is probably to create a synonym to INPRG as an alternative to WSCH.​

    @Gerry Sylvester Automating this is a different beast than making the change in the UI. With an Automation Script you could override the validation on the field and force it to a particular status regardless of the rules. That said this does alter the intent of the status, and could ultimately cause other issues (status changes often do other things behind the scenes) so handle with care.​

    ------------------------------
    Tim Ferrill
    Solutions Consultant
    Intelligent Technology Solutions
    tferrill@webuildits.com
    www.webuildits.com
    @tferrill/@webuildits
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Tue March 16, 2021 05:52 PM
    Thank you Tim and Gerry for your input.

    ------------------------------
    Shawn St.Amand
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Wed March 17, 2021 08:31 AM
    Edited by System Admin Wed March 22, 2023 11:55 AM
    Howdy!

    Two comments if I may... First, the WMATL, WPCOND and WSCH are all "designed" to be a result of some action in Maximo.  The WSCH is the default choice of preplanned work through the PM artifact.  WMATL is a function of ordering parts through the normal reservation process and as a result of backordered parts the WO is now not available for further 'life-cycle' processing (i.e. it cannot progress as it normally would from 'cradle-to-grave' or WAPPR to CLOSE.). Likewise the WPCOND is driven by Maximo's logic on asset availability.  You obviously cannot schedule work to be performed on the smelter whilst it is still full of molten steel for the foreseeable future.

    Secondly, The INPLN is a good idea but I would advise changing the underlying MAXVALUE to WAPPR.  Normally speaking, you would not have your work be approved whilst you are still planning.  Many organization go through a review process to ensure the spend bill you devise in your planning process is acceptable to the budget. If not, then it is sent back for REPLN(WAPPR).  This also affects your Estimate vs. Actuals.  If, whilst in the planning phase, you are also accruing costs (because you can when you are APPR, and APPR means you are agreeing with the spend pattern you have devised for that particular WO;) and yet still changing estimates, you may very well lose site of you original cost estimates for the work activities, and thus blurring your ability to gauge your planning effectiveness.

    ------------------------------
    Bradley K. Downing , MBA
    IBM Certified Adv. Deployment Prof. Maximo v7.6.1
    IBM
    Bakersfield CA
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Wed March 17, 2021 10:16 AM
    @Bradley Downing thank you for your input. You are preaching to the choir! That is the other change that I have been lobbying for, to make INPLN an unapproved status. I know that having an estimate before approval is a best practice but I also know many many organizations that approve the work based on a simple, "do we need to do it or not" decision. We are not ready to introduce that requirement into our workflow at this time but I do want to be able to capture the estimate at approval so that I can report on planner effectiveness. My understanding is that maximo basically capture two estimated values, an estimate at approval (WAPPR to APPR) and a rolling estimate, which is useful for adding missed materials/labor/services to the plan for when a WO is duplicated or converted into a job plan etc.

    Our original and current plan is to create WRESSOURCE as an alias of APPR to take the place of WMATL because we cannot get WMATL to act the way we need it too. The unfortunate part is that we lose some default functionality, one of which is automatic status change to WMATL when parts ore not on hand.

    Similar to what you said in regards to WPCOND "​You obviously cannot schedule work to be performed on the smelter whilst it is still full of molten steel for the foreseeable future," similarly you cannot schedule work when the parts haven't arrived (WMATL). When the parts do arrive, how do we let the Scheduler know, if we can't use WSCH? Maybe parts available status (PAVAIL) that is treated similar to WSCH by the planners...

    ------------------------------
    Shawn St.Amand
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Wed March 17, 2021 12:06 PM
    Shawn,

    If the original process is what you really want -- and I get it; we (unfortunately) don't plan ahead/rarely have a Work Order with Planned Materials, yet our flow of work would kind of tend to go:

    WO status changes to APPR
    technician goes to do the job, changes status to INPRG
    technician figures out he doesn't have the necessary parts, heads to the warehouse to try to find them, doesn't find them; should change status to WMATL
    parts get ordered, parts received, technician notified of receipt; he should change status to APPR -- but the software won't allow this change


    So, now that you've made me think about this, I think I've already solved a similar other situation we had, and could apply the same techniques here.  But I'll write this in terms of how to solve your use case:

    1) In the WOSTATUS domain, create a synonym of something WMATL can go to, e.g., WAPPR.  Let's call your synonym WTSCH.  Yeah, we basically want to mislead your user into choosing it, thinking it's WSCH.

    2) Create an Automation Script, Attribute Launch Point, on the status attribute:

    if interactive:
    
        if onadd or onupdate:
    
            if status == 'WTSCH':
    
                mbo.changeStatus('WSCH', MboConstants.NOACCESSCHECK | 
                  MboConstants.NOVALIDATION)​

    3) Create Conditional Expressions to make sure your WTSCH status is only available when the status is WMATL.  You'd need to do that on the WORKORDER and WOCHANGESTATUS objects.

    On WOCHANGESTATUS:
    :wostatus = 'WMATL'​


    On WORKORDER:

    :status = 'WMATL'









    ------------------------------
    Travis Herron
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Work Order statuses - Allowed changes

    Posted Wed March 17, 2021 11:03 AM
    Edited by System Admin Wed March 22, 2023 11:53 AM
    EDIT: Consider this post deleted.

    ------------------------------
    Travis Herron
    ------------------------------