An elephant is a large animal and it is doubtful anyone would want to eat one. But the old proverb, with a little twist, has a similar paradox to implementing a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). Not developing the proper steps to implementation may lead a company to failure.

What is a failure code? Quite simply, it is a code that illustrates why an asset failed or the reason that the asset failed. Codes can be a number which is cross referenced to a list of actual code descriptions or more conveniently a series of alphanumeric characters that are a logical abbreviation of their descriptions. However, with modern database technology and available disk space, the full descriptions are increasingly being used instead of alphanumeric codes.

A whopping 94.7 percent of plant maintenance managers feel they are not using their computerized maintenance management software system to its maximum capability, according to the results of a national CMMS survey conducted for Reliable Plant magazine by educator, consultant and author Kris Bagadia. “I knew that it was going to be a high percentage. I didn’t know it was going to be that high,” says Bagadia.

Now that the best EAM/ CMMS application for your business has been selected, the deployment phase begins. But an EAM system is not a plug-and-play application. Will you miss out on some real operational savings? Will the data be clean enough to provide value in a production environment? Will processes be tailored to match the new system, or will they be optimized to improve business? Is the vendor knowledgeable about your specific industry or regulatory requirements?

The latest ARC Advisory Group study of the enterprise asset management (EAM/CMMS) software market profiles more than 80 maintenance application suppliers. This number of choices is enough to make any plant manager shudder. How can you pick the tool that is right for you? The tug-of-war between decision makers can make or break the success of an EAM/CMMS implementation. This article addresses the delicate balance of wants and needs, and how they apply in the application selection process.

Maintenance management is an around-the-clock challenge. Equipment failure can (and does) happen at inconvenient times–times when maintenance managers may be off-site and must rely on communication from technicians to convey problems and act efficiently. Mobile computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS) and applications provide live, synchronized status reports and other key features that can dramatically improve reaction time and efficiency.

The degree to which RCM analysis can contribute to profitability is directly variable with the quality and accuracy of the CMMS data on which the analysis is based. Because the technique is rigorous, its over-use will defeat the purpose and lead to cost overruns instead of savings. The way to optimize the RCM return is to apply the analysis strictly to the equipment and systems that will pay off from it, and to know this we must rely on the CMMS. This paper provides guidance for ensuring that the equipment data and history residing in a CMMS are complete and accurate; so that RCM analysis will be a success and positively impact a company’s bottom line, not hurt it.

The effectiveness of maintenance can make the difference between success and insolvency, between limping by financially and organizational excellence. Many companies and organizations consider their computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) and processes as catalysts for achieving a competitive advantage. Yet, good intentions are only part of the recipe for success.

Training for users of a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) is a multiple-phase process. There are three areas of training needs: basic training, application (CMMS) training, and internal training.