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.
I have a client that is insisting that they create assets from what is typically a system. As an example, they have an asset called FURNACE 1. They would like to have 3 sub assets created; Combustion System, Refractory System, Furnace Control System. In my opinion these are a conglomeration of spare parts that make up the systems, not assets. How have you guys handled this type of situation?
I know many sites that have studied this problem and gone in different directions. Could be multiple answers but I have my preference.
I would setup another workshop with these users and in that forum ask for end game design. What report do they need to come out of Maximo.
I certainly agree with the value of System-Subsystem categorization which makes for great (report) analytics/graphics and ability to drilldown.
Possible approach:
�� Setup std Location hierarchy and asset registry, down to this furnace asset.
�� On work order screen add 2 new fields: System and Subsystem. Tell users (planners) to fill these in.
If there is a desire to track Failed Components too, then that could be 3rd field.
System fields could be crossovers (to Workorder).
W/br
Planschd@aol.com
Sent on the Sprint� Now Network from my BlackBerry�
-----Original Message-----
From: "mutss1" <mutss1@hotmail.com>
Sender: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 22:02:30
To: <MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MAXIMO List] Systems as Assets
I have a client that is insisting that they create assets from what is typically a system. As an example, they have an asset called FURNACE 1. They would like to have 3 sub assets created; Combustion System, Refractory System, Furnace Control System. In my opinion these are a conglomeration of spare parts that make up the systems, not assets. How have you guys handled this type of situation?
Hi,
I think what they want to do is what we do with some of our more complex and critical assets.
We have bottle fillers that are broken down into sub-assets or sub-assemblies. The simple breakdown is the filler, infeed, filler valve assembly, drive, outfeed. Then the filler valve assembly has each valve as an asset.
We do this because we want to track work to those sub-assets especially the filler valves. We actually have PMs for each filler valve so we can rebuild them on a schedule. It costs $36,000 to do the entire set so we don't want to do them all at the same time. Got to watch that bttom line.
It all depends on what they need to track.
But you also need to make certain they understand that the more levels to the asset hierarchy the more difficult it is to get the correct asset in the work order.
Our maintenance planners change the asset to the correct asset. Mostly because users don't take the time to look it up. Even though all of our assets have physical tags with the asset number.
Dave Bone
--- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com, "mutss1" <mutss1@...> wrote:
>
> I have a client that is insisting that they create assets from what is typically a system. As an example, they have an asset called FURNACE 1. They would like to have 3 sub assets created; Combustion System, Refractory System, Furnace Control System. In my opinion these are a conglomeration of spare parts that make up the systems, not assets. How have you guys handled this type of situation?
>