This is an archive of the Maximo Yahoo Community. The content of this pages may be a sometimes obsolete so please check post dates.
Thanks to the community owner Christopher Wanko for providing the content.
Ok. I am trying to gain an understanding of what is standard business protocol for ordering parts for a capital project. Currently, we create a separate asset # for the project itself and order all parts against this asset so that all $ hit the correct G/L. The problem with this is that the capital asset is in no way attached to the equipment asset # so all parts and labor are completely detached not to mention that all usage history is lost.
I have voiced my opposition to what appears to be, imo, a very primitive and half-assed way of handling these transactions, but have been told that our company/maintenance technicians do not want to see capital spend when pulling $ data from an asset. To me, the option should at least be there since the $ is coming from the same pocket regardless of what "bucket" it is allocated to. If my equipment is costing me X in repairs I care not from what bucket those funds came from (well, i care about my budget but my outlook should be for the "big picture" as well) I just want to properly identify when an asset needs to be replaced as I am still suffering a greater amount of unscheduled downtime regardless of whose budget the funds are coming from.
Currently, the option of accurately identifying total capital spend of a particular asset isnt even there. The only way to pull this data would be to identify all project asset #'s up front. So, my question is this: Do most companies handle capital spend this way - completely detached - or should I take some initiative to get this straightened out? If I should get this straightened out then what advice would you give me as to how to proceed accomplishing the task of keeping capital spend attached to the equipment's asset #?
Thanks in advance for your time
**I am sure this is understood, but our equipment #'s will have a different G/L than what our capital projects will have; which is why I have been required to set up separate Location/asset #'s for each individual capital project.
We use a WorkType of CAP for all capital spend and use a clone of Work Order as a Capital Management System. We want all cost to go into the Spend on an Asset, especially from a Greenfield perspective. That is what gives you an installed cost. That also allows you to run reports to get Maint Spend vs Capital Spend. There is no doubt that Maximo has lots of room for improvement on PM and Capital Management, but a lot of the functionality is already there. There is also the Financial App that allows you to set up budgets and attach workorders to a WBS so you can track that way.
Ron Bryant
IT Business Consultant
Plant Systems & Controls
Cargill
Linkedin Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ronaldbryant>
From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zeroxpectations@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 4:02 PM
To: maximo@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
Ok. I am trying to gain an understanding of what is standard business protocol for ordering parts for a capital project. Currently, we create a separate asset # for the project itself and order all parts against this asset so that all $ hit the correct G/L. The problem with this is that the capital asset is in no way attached to the equipment asset # so all parts and labor are completely detached not to mention that all usage history is lost.
I have voiced my opposition to what appears to be, imo, a very primitive and half-assed way of handling these transactions, but have been told that our company/maintenance technicians do not want to see capital spend when pulling $ data from an asset. To me, the option should at least be there since the $ is coming from the same pocket regardless of what "bucket" it is allocated to. If my equipment is costing me X in repairs I care not from what bucket those funds came from (well, i care about my budget but my outlook should be for the "big picture" as well) I just want to properly identify when an asset needs to be replaced as I am still suffering a greater amount of unscheduled downtime regardless of whose budget the funds are coming from.
Currently, the option of accurately identifying total capital spend of a particular asset isnt even there. The only way to pull this data would be to identify all project asset #'s up front. So, my question is this: Do most companies handle capital spend this way - completely detached - or should I take some initiative to get this straightened out? If I should get this straightened out then what advice would you give me as to how to proceed accomplishing the task of keeping capital spend attached to the equipment's asset #?
Thanks in advance for your time
**I am sure this is understood, but our equipment #'s will have a different G/L than what our capital projects will have; which is why I have been required to set up separate Location/asset #'s for each individual capital project.
Very interesting having a cloned screen for capital - I'll keep that in the
back of my mind!
For me: I've seen a couple of scenarios, again assuming that the GL Account
on a capital work order is different from a standard, "operating" work
order.
1. Capital work order has no asset attached at all. If it has a
location, that location could be "CAPITAL" or could be the actual location
of the asset. This, of course, doesn't connect up the capital spend with
the maintenance spend, except at the location level.
2. The capital work order has the asset attached, but the GL account
has been over-ridden to go into the capital bucket. Good from the
perspective that you connect up both spends, but someone who knows what
they're doing has to over-ride the GL account. Consequently you end up
using the Conditional Interface to make this work, unless you have your GL
component security on (which IMHO is a good idea anyway).
In both scenarios, the work type is CAP as well.
Shannon
From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
ron_bryant@cargill.com
Sent: April-03-12 2:47 PM
To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
We use a WorkType of CAP for all capital spend and use a clone of Work Order
as a Capital Management System. We want all cost to go into the Spend on an
Asset, especially from a Greenfield perspective. That is what gives you an
installed cost. That also allows you to run reports to get Maint Spend vs
Capital Spend. There is no doubt that Maximo has lots of room for
improvement on PM and Capital Management, but a lot of the functionality is
already there. There is also the Financial App that allows you to set up
budgets and attach workorders to a WBS so you can track that way.
Ron Bryant
IT Business Consultant
Plant Systems & Controls
Cargill
Linkedin Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ronaldbryant>
From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of zeroxpectations@yahoo.com <mailto:zeroxpectations%40yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 4:02 PM
To: maximo@yahoogroups.com <mailto:maximo%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
Ok. I am trying to gain an understanding of what is standard business
protocol for ordering parts for a capital project. Currently, we create a
separate asset # for the project itself and order all parts against this
asset so that all $ hit the correct G/L. The problem with this is that the
capital asset is in no way attached to the equipment asset # so all parts
and labor are completely detached not to mention that all usage history is
lost.
I have voiced my opposition to what appears to be, imo, a very primitive and
half-assed way of handling these transactions, but have been told that our
company/maintenance technicians do not want to see capital spend when
pulling $ data from an asset. To me, the option should at least be there
since the $ is coming from the same pocket regardless of what "bucket" it is
allocated to. If my equipment is costing me X in repairs I care not from
what bucket those funds came from (well, i care about my budget but my
outlook should be for the "big picture" as well) I just want to properly
identify when an asset needs to be replaced as I am still suffering a
greater amount of unscheduled downtime regardless of whose budget the funds
are coming from.
Currently, the option of accurately identifying total capital spend of a
particular asset isnt even there. The only way to pull this data would be to
identify all project asset #'s up front. So, my question is this: Do most
companies handle capital spend this way - completely detached - or should I
take some initiative to get this straightened out? If I should get this
straightened out then what advice would you give me as to how to proceed
accomplishing the task of keeping capital spend attached to the equipment's
asset #?
Thanks in advance for your time
**I am sure this is understood, but our equipment #'s will have a different
G/L than what our capital projects will have; which is why I have been
required to set up separate Location/asset #'s for each individual capital
project.
Hi,
I think this will work for you.
You create a location for the capital project using the capital project gl account. You can create a location hierarchy for complex projects.
Then create the assets using the final asset numbers you want in Maximo. If they want a capital asset number then add a field to the asset application for that and put that in.
You can use the work type CAP to track work to the assets as they are being built and installed. Or you could just use the location and gl account to track.
Once the assets are installed roll up your costs and then move them to the actual in production location. You now have all of your installation costs with the ability to track the installation costs based on the work order location and the PO gl account. Plus it will now collect any future work costs.
Dave Bone
--- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com, "Shannon Rotz" <shannonrotz@...> wrote:
>
> Very interesting having a cloned screen for capital - I'll keep that in the
> back of my mind!
>
>
>
> For me: I've seen a couple of scenarios, again assuming that the GL Account
> on a capital work order is different from a standard, "operating" work
> order.
>
>
>
> 1. Capital work order has no asset attached at all. If it has a
> location, that location could be "CAPITAL" or could be the actual location
> of the asset. This, of course, doesn't connect up the capital spend with
> the maintenance spend, except at the location level.
>
> 2. The capital work order has the asset attached, but the GL account
> has been over-ridden to go into the capital bucket. Good from the
> perspective that you connect up both spends, but someone who knows what
> they're doing has to over-ride the GL account. Consequently you end up
> using the Conditional Interface to make this work, unless you have your GL
> component security on (which IMHO is a good idea anyway).
>
>
>
> In both scenarios, the work type is CAP as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shannon
>
>
>
> From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> ron_bryant@...
> Sent: April-03-12 2:47 PM
> To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
>
>
>
>
>
> We use a WorkType of CAP for all capital spend and use a clone of Work Order
> as a Capital Management System. We want all cost to go into the Spend on an
> Asset, especially from a Greenfield perspective. That is what gives you an
> installed cost. That also allows you to run reports to get Maint Spend vs
> Capital Spend. There is no doubt that Maximo has lots of room for
> improvement on PM and Capital Management, but a lot of the functionality is
> already there. There is also the Financial App that allows you to set up
> budgets and attach workorders to a WBS so you can track that way.
>
> Ron Bryant
> IT Business Consultant
> Plant Systems & Controls
> Cargill
>
> Linkedin Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ronaldbryant>
>
> From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
> Of zeroxpectations@... <mailto:zeroxpectations%40yahoo.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 4:02 PM
> To: maximo@yahoogroups.com <mailto:maximo%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
>
> Ok. I am trying to gain an understanding of what is standard business
> protocol for ordering parts for a capital project. Currently, we create a
> separate asset # for the project itself and order all parts against this
> asset so that all $ hit the correct G/L. The problem with this is that the
> capital asset is in no way attached to the equipment asset # so all parts
> and labor are completely detached not to mention that all usage history is
> lost.
>
> I have voiced my opposition to what appears to be, imo, a very primitive and
> half-assed way of handling these transactions, but have been told that our
> company/maintenance technicians do not want to see capital spend when
> pulling $ data from an asset. To me, the option should at least be there
> since the $ is coming from the same pocket regardless of what "bucket" it is
> allocated to. If my equipment is costing me X in repairs I care not from
> what bucket those funds came from (well, i care about my budget but my
> outlook should be for the "big picture" as well) I just want to properly
> identify when an asset needs to be replaced as I am still suffering a
> greater amount of unscheduled downtime regardless of whose budget the funds
> are coming from.
>
> Currently, the option of accurately identifying total capital spend of a
> particular asset isnt even there. The only way to pull this data would be to
> identify all project asset #'s up front. So, my question is this: Do most
> companies handle capital spend this way - completely detached - or should I
> take some initiative to get this straightened out? If I should get this
> straightened out then what advice would you give me as to how to proceed
> accomplishing the task of keeping capital spend attached to the equipment's
> asset #?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time
>
> **I am sure this is understood, but our equipment #'s will have a different
> G/L than what our capital projects will have; which is why I have been
> required to set up separate Location/asset #'s for each individual capital
> project.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Much better setup, Dave! I'll keep that one in mind for future - very
useful.
Shannon
From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
in2data
Sent: April-09-12 12:20 PM
To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
Hi,
I think this will work for you.
You create a location for the capital project using the capital project gl
account. You can create a location hierarchy for complex projects.
Then create the assets using the final asset numbers you want in Maximo. If
they want a capital asset number then add a field to the asset application
for that and put that in.
You can use the work type CAP to track work to the assets as they are being
built and installed. Or you could just use the location and gl account to
track.
Once the assets are installed roll up your costs and then move them to the
actual in production location. You now have all of your installation costs
with the ability to track the installation costs based on the work order
location and the PO gl account. Plus it will now collect any future work
costs.
Dave Bone
--- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com> , "Shannon
Rotz" <shannonrotz@...> wrote:
>
> Very interesting having a cloned screen for capital - I'll keep that in
the
> back of my mind!
>
>
>
> For me: I've seen a couple of scenarios, again assuming that the GL
Account
> on a capital work order is different from a standard, "operating" work
> order.
>
>
>
> 1. Capital work order has no asset attached at all. If it has a
> location, that location could be "CAPITAL" or could be the actual location
> of the asset. This, of course, doesn't connect up the capital spend with
> the maintenance spend, except at the location level.
>
> 2. The capital work order has the asset attached, but the GL account
> has been over-ridden to go into the capital bucket. Good from the
> perspective that you connect up both spends, but someone who knows what
> they're doing has to over-ride the GL account. Consequently you end up
> using the Conditional Interface to make this work, unless you have your GL
> component security on (which IMHO is a good idea anyway).
>
>
>
> In both scenarios, the work type is CAP as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shannon
>
>
>
> From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of
> ron_bryant@...
> Sent: April-03-12 2:47 PM
> To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
>
>
>
>
>
> We use a WorkType of CAP for all capital spend and use a clone of Work
Order
> as a Capital Management System. We want all cost to go into the Spend on
an
> Asset, especially from a Greenfield perspective. That is what gives you an
> installed cost. That also allows you to run reports to get Maint Spend vs
> Capital Spend. There is no doubt that Maximo has lots of room for
> improvement on PM and Capital Management, but a lot of the functionality
is
> already there. There is also the Financial App that allows you to set up
> budgets and attach workorders to a WBS so you can track that way.
>
> Ron Bryant
> IT Business Consultant
> Plant Systems & Controls
> Cargill
>
> Linkedin Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ronaldbryant>
>
> From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
> Of zeroxpectations@... <mailto:zeroxpectations%40yahoo.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 4:02 PM
> To: maximo@yahoogroups.com <mailto:maximo%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:maximo%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [MAXIMO List] TRACKING CAPITAL SPEND
>
> Ok. I am trying to gain an understanding of what is standard business
> protocol for ordering parts for a capital project. Currently, we create a
> separate asset # for the project itself and order all parts against this
> asset so that all $ hit the correct G/L. The problem with this is that the
> capital asset is in no way attached to the equipment asset # so all parts
> and labor are completely detached not to mention that all usage history is
> lost.
>
> I have voiced my opposition to what appears to be, imo, a very primitive
and
> half-assed way of handling these transactions, but have been told that our
> company/maintenance technicians do not want to see capital spend when
> pulling $ data from an asset. To me, the option should at least be there
> since the $ is coming from the same pocket regardless of what "bucket" it
is
> allocated to. If my equipment is costing me X in repairs I care not from
> what bucket those funds came from (well, i care about my budget but my
> outlook should be for the "big picture" as well) I just want to properly
> identify when an asset needs to be replaced as I am still suffering a
> greater amount of unscheduled downtime regardless of whose budget the
funds
> are coming from.
>
> Currently, the option of accurately identifying total capital spend of a
> particular asset isnt even there. The only way to pull this data would be
to
> identify all project asset #'s up front. So, my question is this: Do most
> companies handle capital spend this way - completely detached - or should
I
> take some initiative to get this straightened out? If I should get this
> straightened out then what advice would you give me as to how to proceed
> accomplishing the task of keeping capital spend attached to the
equipment's
> asset #?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time
>
> **I am sure this is understood, but our equipment #'s will have a
different
> G/L than what our capital projects will have; which is why I have been
> required to set up separate Location/asset #'s for each individual capital
> project.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>