Event Recap
RECAP | ROUNDTABLE | Should you be adopting a CMMS? A look at benefits and risks
This Roundtable: Should you be adopting a CMMS? A look at benefits and risks: CMMS Systems are being widely adopted by Data Center Operators globally. Widely accepted to aid with the smooth running of a critical facility, are there risks that are being overlooked?
The Uptime Institute Consultant leading the discussion – Leonid Shishlov – opened the Roundtable with a quick reminder of what is a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)
• CMMS is a software solution that centralizes maintenance information, facilitates processes, and automates some tasks to improve efficiency.
• CMMS is a center of an effective maintenance program. It tracks status and trends of all maintenance activities in the data center or across the entire portfolio.
• CMMS serves as repository for historical data and can be linked to different processes and procedures
• CMMS can be computerized…or not (MMS)
The discussion started with a look at the participants current experiences with CMMS within their facilities. A member that has Tier Certification Operational Sustainability Gold on 2 sites began. They have 33 sites in total and wanted to find a way of implementing the gold standard procedures across all the sites, and control this centrally. Their solution has been to write their own software which is currently under development. A participant from financial services was in a similar situation, their organisation is currently in the process of replacing their infrastructure management system, at the moment held on a combination of SharePoint, Flunk, and others. Looking at some of the challenges a member from a global colocation organisation stated that in the past he had implemented CMMS’s, but that they had all been rolled back and removed after not performing as expected. However now the organisation is looking into it again. One member that was able to confirm a current system in use shared that they are using Maximo and they are transitioning from using it in all offices globally to just the data centers.
The member who’s organisation is developing their own CMMS then volunteered more background for those on the call. One large mitigating factor behind the decision to go home grown was that no products currently on the market have been adapted for Turkish. They also have an established set of processes and procedures, both established historically and since undertaking the TCOS, and again no system on the market could accommodate them. It was also a commercial decision, if the CMMS is successful, they will be able to sell this to other, especially in the Turkish market that is also facing similar barriers. As the system is in the first phase all are interested in hearing more about it in a year.
Looking at the established system – Maximo from IBM – the member talked more about the procurement process. With a reminder that it was for both over 100 offices globally as well as the critical facilities, he confirmed that initially the organisation had looked into low-cost options, but the scalability wasn’t there. At first it was used for both CMMS and ticket monitoring/ticket control but now its only CMMS for asset and asset maintenance. The problems has arisen when working with 3rd party vendors. They either are unwilling to use Maximo or have their own system that they are not prepared to share the data from, and now that the organisation is also starting to use colocation more extra challenges has arisen. But there are benefits, especially it helped with track the equipment in the more remote and edge sites which aren’t maintained on a day-to-day basis. The information provided by the CMMS helped preserve the preventative maintenance policy of the organisation, as well as using “end of life” scheduling to help with budgeting. It can also highlight problem items of equipment based on the amount of maintenance it had previously required.
The member the experience of implementing CMMS’s made the point that you only see the benefits if it is implemented correctly, and if it is it can help speed up digitization within the organisation, helping to eliminate printed procedures etc, and it can help reduce the human error factor in preventative maintenance schedules.
There were varied experiences with regards to length of time it takes to implement. One member estimated that to implement one at his organisation they had been looking at 2 years. However, the organisation that had implemented Maximo had a different experience. Their biggest delay was internal discussion, which took 6 months, the global roll-out was only 1 month. The important path to take is to make sure internally everyone knows what they expect from the system.
Looking at the main challenges, one that was mentioned was training. When they implemented the system across 11 sites there was a lot of people that needed to be trained on the CMMS. Unfortunately, the training program feel through, so the system was never used properly. One member is using a SaaS CMMS and, in this instance, it is very important to establish from the beginning who owns the data, and in particular ensure that at the end of the contract the organisation can take ownership of it.
In conclusion one of the contributing factors to the success or not of an implemented CMMS is the people behind it and using it. If the organisation isn’t clear what they expect from it, and those using it aren’t trained and prepared to take ownership of using it, the full benefits will not be realised.
The Uptime Institute Consultant leading the discussion – Leonid Shishlov – opened the Roundtable with a quick reminder of what is a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)
• CMMS is a software solution that centralizes maintenance information, facilitates processes, and automates some tasks to improve efficiency.
• CMMS is a center of an effective maintenance program. It tracks status and trends of all maintenance activities in the data center or across the entire portfolio.
• CMMS serves as repository for historical data and can be linked to different processes and procedures
• CMMS can be computerized…or not (MMS)
The discussion started with a look at the participants current experiences with CMMS within their facilities. A member that has Tier Certification Operational Sustainability Gold on 2 sites began. They have 33 sites in total and wanted to find a way of implementing the gold standard procedures across all the sites, and control this centrally. Their solution has been to write their own software which is currently under development. A participant from financial services was in a similar situation, their organisation is currently in the process of replacing their infrastructure management system, at the moment held on a combination of SharePoint, Flunk, and others. Looking at some of the challenges a member from a global colocation organisation stated that in the past he had implemented CMMS’s, but that they had all been rolled back and removed after not performing as expected. However now the organisation is looking into it again. One member that was able to confirm a current system in use shared that they are using Maximo and they are transitioning from using it in all offices globally to just the data centers.
The member who’s organisation is developing their own CMMS then volunteered more background for those on the call. One large mitigating factor behind the decision to go home grown was that no products currently on the market have been adapted for Turkish. They also have an established set of processes and procedures, both established historically and since undertaking the TCOS, and again no system on the market could accommodate them. It was also a commercial decision, if the CMMS is successful, they will be able to sell this to other, especially in the Turkish market that is also facing similar barriers. As the system is in the first phase all are interested in hearing more about it in a year.
Looking at the established system – Maximo from IBM – the member talked more about the procurement process. With a reminder that it was for both over 100 offices globally as well as the critical facilities, he confirmed that initially the organisation had looked into low-cost options, but the scalability wasn’t there. At first it was used for both CMMS and ticket monitoring/ticket control but now its only CMMS for asset and asset maintenance. The problems has arisen when working with 3rd party vendors. They either are unwilling to use Maximo or have their own system that they are not prepared to share the data from, and now that the organisation is also starting to use colocation more extra challenges has arisen. But there are benefits, especially it helped with track the equipment in the more remote and edge sites which aren’t maintained on a day-to-day basis. The information provided by the CMMS helped preserve the preventative maintenance policy of the organisation, as well as using “end of life” scheduling to help with budgeting. It can also highlight problem items of equipment based on the amount of maintenance it had previously required.
The member the experience of implementing CMMS’s made the point that you only see the benefits if it is implemented correctly, and if it is it can help speed up digitization within the organisation, helping to eliminate printed procedures etc, and it can help reduce the human error factor in preventative maintenance schedules.
There were varied experiences with regards to length of time it takes to implement. One member estimated that to implement one at his organisation they had been looking at 2 years. However, the organisation that had implemented Maximo had a different experience. Their biggest delay was internal discussion, which took 6 months, the global roll-out was only 1 month. The important path to take is to make sure internally everyone knows what they expect from the system.
Looking at the main challenges, one that was mentioned was training. When they implemented the system across 11 sites there was a lot of people that needed to be trained on the CMMS. Unfortunately, the training program feel through, so the system was never used properly. One member is using a SaaS CMMS and, in this instance, it is very important to establish from the beginning who owns the data, and in particular ensure that at the end of the contract the organisation can take ownership of it.
In conclusion one of the contributing factors to the success or not of an implemented CMMS is the people behind it and using it. If the organisation isn’t clear what they expect from it, and those using it aren’t trained and prepared to take ownership of using it, the full benefits will not be realised.
Request an evaluation to view this report
Apply for a four-week evaluation of Uptime Intelligence; the leading source of research, insight and data-driven analysis focused on digital infrastructure.
Already have access? Log in here
Posting comments is not available for Network Guests