All Member Open Forum

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help

It sounds like your goal is to perform high level reliability analysis across multiple sites. Is your company currently using the existing asset failure class hierarchy? If not, this could be a simple way of achieving your objective. This would facilitate organization- wide analysis by "equipment type".  If this does not provide the level of detail you desire a second option would be to apply the asset classification functionality to existing assets. Asset classification is highly configurable for any use case. The benefit of both these options is that they would be non-intrusive to the end users.

The option of adding a prefix to existing asset numbers would require back-end intervention and could create issues in the reporting or end user functions.  

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help

Mark,

Based on my involvement in a number of migrations of legacy asset and work history data into Maximo, I suggest that you do not go the route of imbedding a code in a description field.  That method is susceptible to "loss of control" and could impact the performance of various queries.  There is a means of managing asset relationships / hierarchies in Maximo within the Location Hierarchy capabilities.  Generally you will have a Primary Location Hierarchy.  That was most likely established in your original migration to Maximo.  Given that there are issues with the Primary hierarchy at this point you have the capability to set up additional Location Systems.  Each Location or Asset can belong to multiple Location Systems.  You can then use those Locations Systems to better align your assets to the systems or functional groups that they support.

Good Luck, improving data is always an adventure!  

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help

Quick question out there for Maximo CMMS system users.   In an effort to drive improvements in our overall maintenance processes, i've started with the foundational elements.   Our asset hierarchy was set up under an older system and imported into Maximo about 15 years ago.   At the time there was no standard for structure numbering or naming conventions, so every plant took what they had the bridged it into the new system.   They tried to keep some of the old numbering system and adopt some of a new numbering system so as you work through the hierarchy tree, you find a switch between systems and therefore it is not easily recognizable when looking at an asset, which system, process or plant it belongs to.    This makes it extremely difficult to perform bad actor analysis on systems.   Any suggestions from the wider group on how you might have handled this in the past.   Note, starting over is not really an option as we are a highly regulated industry and must maintain historical documentation.   What are thought about imbedding a consistent hierarchy number in the first part of the asset description then pulling that in reports and sorting on the description field?   Open to suggestions, thanks in advance for your help