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:
Sent: Sun October 25, 2020 05:52 PM
From: User1971
Subject: Follow-up WOs: Why would we want to inherit the original WO's classification & description?
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've 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.
As a novice, I'm wondering:
Why would we assume that the user wants the follow-up WO to inherit the classification and description from the original WO?
- Why 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?
- Would the default-inheriting thing just encourage users to enter incorrect data?
- Also, it's surprising to me that the follow-up WO doesn't have a more obvious indicator that it is, in fact, 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.
(If the auto-inheriting thing is there to avoid nulls, then it seems like the cure might be worse than the disease.)
Thank you.
#Maximo
#AssetandFacilitiesManagement