Expand all | Collapse all

Alternative to Maximo Sites

  • 1.  Alternative to Maximo Sites

    Posted 7 days ago
    Edited by User1971 6 days ago

    I thought I'd share my organization's experience with Sites and the alternative approach we used. I'm not the main person who manages this stuff, but I'll do my best to describe what has been done anyway.

    My organization was guided to, and chose to not to use sites. Or should I say, all of our divisions use a single site.

    Reason: As far as we could tell, sites didn't offer the flexibility we needed.
    • We need to share many, if not all Maximo objects between all divisions. Examples:
      • Work Orders and SRs
      • Purchasing
      • Assets & Locations
      • Tools & Rotating Items
      • Inventory, Items, Storerooms, & Companies
        Pretty much everything. And I don't really remember the limitations that come with sites (the docs seem a bit light when I look back at them). I'm accustomed to our setup by now...and it's working well, so I don't actually need to think about this stuff very often.
    • Like most organizations, we use security groups (aligned with licensing to a degree) to manage who can access what: applications, actions, etc..
      Security isn't usually based on divisions (departments), it's based on the kind of position a user has:
      • Examples:
      • INTERNALRES (workers)
      • SACOORDINATORS (service area coordinators)
      • SELFSR
    • Other than the inherent hiding functionality that comes with security groups, we don't need to hide any parts of Maximo from anyone (i.e. hiding one division's records from another division). It's ok if all users can see all parts of Maximo.
    • We only need to restrict editing records for certain key Maximo objects. This restriction is based on divisions (departments).
    • We did this by creating custom DIVISION fields in many Maximo objects, including adding a DIVISION field to the PERSON table.
    • And we created global data restrictions for restricting who can edit records.


    Work Orders

    You can edit a Work Order (WO) if:
    • Your Security Group(s) allow you to edit WOs
    • At least 1 of the following is true:
      • The WO Status is WAPPR ("Waiting for Approval")
        • This allows cross-divisional WO creation, but restricts editing after the WO progresses beyond WAPPR
      • Your Person record's Division matches the WO Division
      • Your Labor or Crew has an assignment on the WO, or on a task of the WO
      • You are in a Person Group that currently owns, or ever owned, the WO (Owner Group)
      • You are in one of these Security Groups (MAX__, Business Support)

    You can edit an Asset if:
    • Your Security Group(s) allow you to edit Assets
    • Your Division matches the Asset Division
    • The Asset's source is not GIS (all GIS Assets are read-only -- their system of record is a separate system; integrated to Maximo)

    You can edit a Location if:
      • Your Security Group(s) allow you to edit Locations
      • Your Division matches the Location Division
      • The Location's source is not GIS (all GIS Locations are read-only -- their system of record is a separate system; integrated to Maximo)

        (We've got a couple more global data restrictions based on division that are in the works too -- like PMs.)

    It can get pretty interesting: staff can end up working in multiple divisions, on assets and locations from multiple divisions, as required. Example, the guy that maintains the pools for the recreation center division also drives snow plows for the roads division during snow storms. And a mechanic in the fleet division can work on fire trucks in the fire division. Or even on vehicles from outside companies/agencies. And those agencies buy our inventory items from us too. Also, WOs and SRs can get passed around between divisions.

    I've exaggerated some of those examples a bit, and haven't totally covered them in the above documentation. But I think it gives you an idea of the kind of flexibility that we needed.

    It's entirely possible that we misinterpreted site functionality/limitations. We fumbled through some of Maximo's complexities at first. If we did mix something up, it's far too late to go back now! :)

    In summary, we use division fields and global data restrictions instead of sites. And it seems to be working well for us. Hopefully someone finds this interesting or helpful. Or maybe it's a somewhat common approach?

  • 2.  RE: Alternative to Maximo Sites

    Posted 6 days ago

    I went and found the original specification around organizations and sites (their have been many enhancements since, including expanding security capabilities).  According to the doc an organization is "a legal entity within a big corporation that can have many sites/facilities. Each organization has a chart of accounts so that the sites in an organization can share them".  A Site "represents a facility, in our example, a power plant. An existing Maximo installation in a work location is analogous to a site. The equipments, work orders, job plans, safety plans, PMs etc will all be defined at thesite level. This ensures that each site has its own unique equipment, locations, storerooms etc. Except purchase agreements all other transactions/documents like work order creation, reservation, reorder, receiving, purchase order creation will be restricted within a site". 

    I think the original intent of site is, in its simplest form, the same as your division.  You can give everyone access to all sites.  Labor are at the org level, so they can do the multiple jobs.  And, if set up correctly, read or other limited access at the site(division) level can also be achieved via security groups.


    Steve Hauptman