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.
A work order comes in for a water line break. In order to fix the line you need to remove the sidewalk. The water line is repaired but a follow up work order is created to repair the sidewalk. Assign a work type and failure code to the child work order.
One side of the argument is that it shouldn't be corrective because the sidewalk is not what failed. On the other side of the argument, the sidewalk is in an unusable and therefore failed and needs to be corrected.
I would love some feedback on this scenario. Industry standards would be good too.
I would shoot for simplicity in design. What's important is to manage the emergency dispatch function, but also track all labor actuals and the cause codes (failure/problem codes) on the top level work order. I would try to use Task records to define the detailed actions however. Exception is where vendor repair crews are involved and may need their own work order number. While doing this work also need to capture exact location, the "type of repair", asset condition (as-found, as-left), and identify any regulatory report reqmts. In the case of a water line break, it would also be clever to guestimate the amount of water lost and then assign a $$ value to this.
Note: there could be a temporary repair followed by a more permenant fix (- and separate/followon work order).
Tip: prebuilt JobPlans with intelligent names can have these steps ready to go.
Is there some some group asking for a separate work order?
--- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas" <tcoulomb@...> wrote:
>
> A work order comes in for a water line break. In order to fix the line you need to remove the sidewalk. The water line is repaired but a follow up work order is created to repair the sidewalk. Assign a work type and failure code to the child work order.
>
> One side of the argument is that it shouldn't be corrective because the sidewalk is not what failed. On the other side of the argument, the sidewalk is in an unusable and therefore failed and needs to be corrected.
> I would love some feedback on this scenario. Industry standards would be good too.
>
It is like instrument removal and replacement, insulation removal and
replacement, scaffold errect and removal it is a part of what was necessary
to do the original repair . . . I'm also assuming the sidewalk was
undermined due to the leak, otherwise wouldn't it make sense to push
through the replacement pipe under the walk without removal and doing the
tie-ins on either side? of course that depends on many other variables . . .
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Thomas <tcoulomb@scgov.net> wrote:
> **
>
>
> A work order comes in for a water line break. In order to fix the line you
> need to remove the sidewalk. The water line is repaired but a follow up
> work order is created to repair the sidewalk. Assign a work type and
> failure code to the child work order.
>
> One side of the argument is that it shouldn't be corrective because the
> sidewalk is not what failed. On the other side of the argument, the
> sidewalk is in an unusable and therefore failed and needs to be corrected.
> I would love some feedback on this scenario. Industry standards would be
> good too.
>
>
>
--
John C C Sullivan
Project Controls Professional Services, Inc.
jccspcps@gmail.com
775 315-0119
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS FEEL
FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM.
IN GOD WE TRUST!
The repair of a line break is done by utilities.
The repair of the sidewalk is at least managed(contracted or done in house) by Road and Bridge.
--- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com, "John" <planschd@...> wrote:
>
> I would shoot for simplicity in design. What's important is to manage the emergency dispatch function, but also track all labor actuals and the cause codes (failure/problem codes) on the top level work order. I would try to use Task records to define the detailed actions however. Exception is where vendor repair crews are involved and may need their own work order number. While doing this work also need to capture exact location, the "type of repair", asset condition (as-found, as-left), and identify any regulatory report reqmts. In the case of a water line break, it would also be clever to guestimate the amount of water lost and then assign a $$ value to this.
> Note: there could be a temporary repair followed by a more permenant fix (- and separate/followon work order).
> Tip: prebuilt JobPlans with intelligent names can have these steps ready to go.
>
> Is there some some group asking for a separate work order?
>
> --- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas" <tcoulomb@> wrote:
> >
> > A work order comes in for a water line break. In order to fix the line you need to remove the sidewalk. The water line is repaired but a follow up work order is created to repair the sidewalk. Assign a work type and failure code to the child work order.
> >
> > One side of the argument is that it shouldn't be corrective because the sidewalk is not what failed. On the other side of the argument, the sidewalk is in an unusable and therefore failed and needs to be corrected.
> > I would love some feedback on this scenario. Industry standards would be good too.
> >
>
The last water client I worked with, we did this same scenario using follow up work orders. The follow-up work order, gets a work type of CM, but a classification identifying it as a Landscaping \ Sidewalk Repair.
It is still correcting an issue, so it's corrective maintenance, it was caused by the repair work on the line break, so it's a follow up, and it's classified as a side walk repair so it can be filtered out of CM vs PM scenarios if desired.
--- Sean Clark-McCarthy
From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:01 PM
To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MAXIMO List] Re: Hypothetical Utility Scenario
The repair of a line break is done by utilities.
The repair of the sidewalk is at least managed(contracted or done in house) by Road and Bridge.
--- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com<mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>, "John" <planschd@...<mailto:planschd@...>> wrote:
>
> I would shoot for simplicity in design. What's important is to manage the emergency dispatch function, but also track all labor actuals and the cause codes (failure/problem codes) on the top level work order. I would try to use Task records to define the detailed actions however. Exception is where vendor repair crews are involved and may need their own work order number. While doing this work also need to capture exact location, the "type of repair", asset condition (as-found, as-left), and identify any regulatory report reqmts. In the case of a water line break, it would also be clever to guestimate the amount of water lost and then assign a $$ value to this.
> Note: there could be a temporary repair followed by a more permenant fix (- and separate/followon work order).
> Tip: prebuilt JobPlans with intelligent names can have these steps ready to go.
>
> Is there some some group asking for a separate work order?
>
> --- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com<mailto:MAXIMO%40yahoogroups.com>, "Thomas" <tcoulomb@> wrote:
> >
> > A work order comes in for a water line break. In order to fix the line you need to remove the sidewalk. The water line is repaired but a follow up work order is created to repair the sidewalk. Assign a work type and failure code to the child work order.
> >
> > One side of the argument is that it shouldn't be corrective because the sidewalk is not what failed. On the other side of the argument, the sidewalk is in an unusable and therefore failed and needs to be corrected.
> > I would love some feedback on this scenario. Industry standards would be good too.
> >
>
At our utility, the work order for replacing concrete/asphalt/vegetation/ disturbed from an excavation, is a child work order of the excavation work order. This way all costs for that project can easily be rolled up to the parent. The work type is non repair, these are ancillary issues when thinking about tracking data on your infrastructure. My 2 cents.
From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:52 AM
To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MAXIMO List] Hypothetical Utility Scenario
A work order comes in for a water line break. In order to fix the line you need to remove the sidewalk. The water line is repaired but a follow up work order is created to repair the sidewalk. Assign a work type and failure code to the child work order.
One side of the argument is that it shouldn't be corrective because the sidewalk is not what failed. On the other side of the argument, the sidewalk is in an unusable and therefore failed and needs to be corrected.
I would love some feedback on this scenario. Industry standards would be good too.
I tend to agree with Lance as the best practice. One word of caution here - don't confuse follow-up work orders with child work orders. They are very different animals in Maximo. I believe what you want is a child so the costs roll up.
Bill Murphy
v7.1.1.6 / Cal v7.1
--- In MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com, "Lampert, Lance R." <lance.lampert@...> wrote:
>
> At our utility, the work order for replacing concrete/asphalt/vegetation/ disturbed from an excavation, is a child work order of the excavation work order. This way all costs for that project can easily be rolled up to the parent. The work type is non repair, these are ancillary issues when thinking about tracking data on your infrastructure. My 2 cents.
>
> From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:52 AM
> To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MAXIMO List] Hypothetical Utility Scenario
>
>
>
> A work order comes in for a water line break. In order to fix the line you need to remove the sidewalk. The water line is repaired but a follow up work order is created to repair the sidewalk. Assign a work type and failure code to the child work order.
>
> One side of the argument is that it shouldn't be corrective because the sidewalk is not what failed. On the other side of the argument, the sidewalk is in an unusable and therefore failed and needs to be corrected.
> I would love some feedback on this scenario. Industry standards would be good too.
>
>
>
>
>