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.
Hi all,
Thanks for the warm welcome to the group so far! I'm thankful for the responses I've gotten to my various questions.
On yet another front, we currently process transactions in Maximo through a piece of middle-ware and into our enterprise account system in a "chargeback"-style mechanism (not real-time on timecards like the rest of the org).
This is for various reasons, and is only meant as background information.
Our ability to charge back is determined at the work order level (no transactions should differ from the work order chargeback type). Currently, we're doing this through a custom field (workorder.wo5).
Our PM planner would also like to be able to define a chargeback type at the asset level. This is so someone creating a work order from a boiler would know that it always should be a chargeback work order. In some cases this would be defined, and in others it would be undefined.
My initial thinking is something along these lines:
* Create a default value for the workorder.wo5 field from the asset.[new asset cb flag] field; the work order could then have a new value placed into it if necessary.
* Similarly, make it so that labtrans / matusetrans.cbflag field defaults to the value that is in workorder.wo5 but could be overridden, again, if necessary for some reason.
Questions about this:
* Is this a good idea/approach from an industry standpoint? Is it desirable? Thoughts on why or why not?
* Is this sort of thing able to be accomplished through database configuration without the use of a product like rules manager?
Thanks in advance for your insights!
Sean Killeen
Systems Administrator | TSA Group
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
E: sean.killeen@jhuapl.edu<mailto:sean.killeen@jhuapl.edu> | P: 240.228.4841 | O: 13-N371