Maximo

Maximo-ICON.png

Maximo

Learn how to increase the operational efficiency of the assets you manage, and improve overall equipment effectiveness by using IoT data and AI.

Maximo-ICON.png

TRIRIGA

Reduce the operational costs of the facilities you manage, and create more engaging occupant experiences through the application of IoT data and AI.

Maximo-ICON.png

Engineering

Learn how IoT data and AI are being applied to transform the end-to-end engineering lifecycle.

Expand all | Collapse all

Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

  • 1.  Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted Sun October 25, 2020 05:53 PM
    Edited by User1971 Mon October 26, 2020 02:03 PM
    In Maximo 7.6.1.2:

    I can create a follow-up WO by going to Work Order Tracking --> More Actions --> Create --> Work Order.

    I noticed that the follow-up WO automatically inherits the original WO's classification and description.
    • And of course, it inherits the ASSETNUM from the original WO too.

    So, as a novice, I'm wondering:

    Is there a reason why we would want the follow-up WO to inherit the classification and description from the original WO?
    1. In what kinds of scenarios would we want to do the same kind of work to the same asset twice in a row? Wouldn't the original WO usually take care of the issue in the first place?
    2. Would the default-inheriting functionality encourage users to enter incorrect data?
    3. Also, I'm surprised that the follow-up WO doesn't have a more obvious indicator that it is a follow-up WO. The only indication I've found that it's a follow-up WO is the related records section — which doesn't explicitly state that the WO is a follow-up WO.


    There are probably some good explanations for the above. I just don't know what they are yet. :)
    And sorry if my first draft came off as a bit abrasive. I revised it.

    Thanks!



  • 2.  RE: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted Mon October 26, 2020 08:06 AM
    The WO classification is a good question. I don't have a great answer to this as I'm inclined to agree. Most of the WO fields aren't set automatically for this reason. They're mostly controlled via the WO2WO crossover domain so users can add/remove other attributes, but classstructureid isn't part of it. I assume because if you wanted it to copy over classstructureid you'd also want it to copy over specs which requires special logic that exists in the Java class. I'm not aware of any way to control this from a Maximo perspective, but you should be able to clear it out pretty easily by removing the classstructureid via an automation script. 

    There are a couple of different indicators that get set when a follow up record is created. As you mentioned, it creates a related record on both the original record (with a type of FOLLOWUP) and on the new record (with a type of ORIGINATOR back to the original WO). Maximo also sets on the new record the ORIGRECORDID & ORIGRECORDCLASS so you can see it that way as well.

    ------------------------------
    Steven Shull
    Director of Development
    Projetech Inc
    Cincinnati OH
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted Mon October 26, 2020 08:33 AM
    Edited by User1971 Mon October 26, 2020 08:34 AM
    It's strange. When I create a follow-up WO, it looks like pretty much everything gets copied to it from the originator. Even the WO specs.

    I wouldn't think the 'Create Work Order' action would be meant to duplicate a WO. There is a dedicated action for duplicating WOs.
    So I wonder why the 'Create Work Order' action is so duplicatey?
    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted Mon October 26, 2020 11:33 AM
    The tool does what it does.  As such when the use of classification was introduced lo the many years ago now, the idea was that whatever you were using for a classification of the original work, the follow-up work was related to that per-se: i.e. The reason fo rate follow up is a direct result of the maintenance work originally proscribed requires additional work. I believe this addresses your first question in item 1.

    Insofar as your second question: Wouldn't the original WO usually take care of the issue in the first place? One might assume so but it is easy to image a hundred different reasons why the original wo was never finished/ completed/ resolved/ or otherwise "fix" the issue requiring maintenance.  Perhaps a critical worker with the requisite skills became ill, a safety incident occurred on the job, inclement weather prevented completion, a tool for the job failed and the job site closed down, etc, etc ad nauseam. This is not a tool issue, but a human issue.

    Insofar as encouraging users to enter incorrect data, I do not believe so.  The idea of copy of as much data as is "out-of-the-box" is to encourage users to leverage that feature when follow-up work is needed and then asset them in the creation of said workorder.  Again entering of data good/ bad, right or wrong is a human issue not a tool issue. Manage the culture.

    Finally, there are lots of clients who will use color coding, priorities, work types, sub work types, classification, etc. to further segregate work.  How you choose to use Maximo is up to you.  The best thing about Maximo is: it is flexible and can meet your needs. (The worst thing about Maximo is: it is flexible and because it can be bent into a pretzel it will allow you to do things that perhaps you should not.) So... you can configure the UI to do a variety of things including putting a big flashy sign on the WO telling the user whatever you want.  Learn to embrace that flexibility.

    I am unsure of what you mean by the last statement in italics.  If you train and encourage your users to enter good data from the start, then duplication is a great thing.  Think about this:  we would still be using a hand written scrolls and the printing press would never have caught on, if we focus on the potential downside. Yes mistakes are made and propagated faster, but what is the risk and cost? Again that is a human thing not a tool thing.

    Hope this helps.


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

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted Tue October 27, 2020 10:52 AM
    Bradley makes a lot of good points - there are almost as many reasons out there as to why would like the outcome to be X as there showing why you don't want it to be X!  At least with Maximo you do have the choice

    One major bugbear we had was that follow on work orders duplicated the description and long description - this led to a lot of work orders with unchanged data - users knew if the fields were blank to complete them, if they were already populated it was sometimes "missed". 

    To manage this I have written a small automation script to clear these fields when a follow on WO is created and set a few fields like the work type.  I'm in the middle of testing to make sure it doesn't upset legitimate work generation, and am weighing up whether to remove all entries in the multi asset fields.  As it may in some circumstances be legitimate to keep them (I refer back to my first line) but we are yet to encounter one, as the issue is usually only with one of the locations referenced.

    Maybe the correct answer is to add the option to create a follow on work order at the multi-asset menu level, which would create a follow on referencing only that value.  This is of course why we test!  And test....

    ------------------------------
    Brian Williams
    Maximo System Administrator
    Ineos FPS
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted 26 days ago
    Regarding scenarios where the "original WO was never finished/ completed/ resolved/ or otherwise "fixed" the issue requiring maintenance":

    I'm wondering if using the Duplicate Work Order action would be a suitable choice for those scenarios. (The downside being, the relationship has to be created manually.)

    That way, if we used the Duplicate WO action for copying a WO, then we could configure Follow-up WOs to serve a different purpose: additional work required on the same asset, but the attributes/nature of work would be something else (not inherited/defaulted).

    Just a work-in-progress thought.
    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted 25 days ago
    All of this stems from Service Desk functionality based on Tickets, Service Request in Maximo, SR, Incident Problem in IBM Control Desk. The classification originates from the SR and is copied over to any of the work order class records - Work Order, Change, Release, Activity. 

    Now if you consider the SR --> Work Order to investigate the work --> a Change as a follow-up to the investigation --> Release as a follow-up to implement the change, it becomes easier to understand why the default position is to copy the Classification and Specification. WorkOrder, Change and Release are three classes of a work order.

    The classification and specification on a work order is there to carry information that is relevant to understanding the request or incident. We do, of course, use it for other purposes, and I can see a need to remove the classification (and specification) in a follow-up. I would suggest you raise an RFE to have the option to inherit or not the Classification in a follow-up work order from a work order. This would be a flag like INHERITCLASSFROMWO as that would then give flexibility depending on which WOCLASS record you were creating as a follow-up. 

    In answer to your third point a FOLLOWUP is just one type of relationship that you see in the Related Records table.

    The auto-inheriting thing is certainly not there to avoid nulls, there is no disease. Maximo design approach and detailed designs have been peer reviewed (by many others) for over 20 years, and they are also reviewed at different stages with Design Partners, who may be Business Partners or Clients.

    ------------------------------
    Andrew Jeffery
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?

    Posted 6 days ago
    Edited by User1971 6 days ago
    For what it's worth, there is also logic in the Anywhere WT JavaScript that populates follow-up WO fields automatically (from the originating WO).

    The logic seems to be independent of the crossover domain.

    • Asset
    • Location
    • Description
    • Work Type
    • Priority
    • Failure Code
    • Classification
    • Multi Assets
    • WO specifications



    Original Message