Comments on: Debate: IWMS Implementation Pitfall

By: Michel Theriault

Michel Theriault — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:14:16 +0000

There are certain realities with implementing an IWMS / CAFM / CMMS system. Here is the process in a nutshell:

1. Don’t use an FM consultant connected with software vendors to make the software decision. Use them (or the vendor directly) only for implementation after the selection is made.

2. Spend time understanding your business requirements first – if you understand what you are trying to accomplish and what you really need you will be in a position to decide on a system (instead of worrying about the software features first)

3. Start looking for a system that fits your needs (not the other way around – if you customize anything, it should be your processes, not the software!)

4. Spend the time to implement it right. Use Change Management, involve your staff and get their input, change your processes to match the new tool, populate it with accurate data from the start, train everyone, etc. And be prepared to change things after you’ve implemented and everyone has learned more about how to work with the new system.

5. Implement in stages. Start with one building or portfolio, start with PM first, then add Corrective and Demand, for instance. Involve your best people. Show results and demonstrate the benefit. Then, implement the rest, building on success.

6. Re-train as needed.

7. Do an audit after 6 months or so. Check with all the stakeholders and staff. What works, what doesn’t. Do a Quality Assurance test on the data and process. Listen to your staff, they know best about what’s working. Make changes and adjustments.

8. Use the information (not just data) from the system to show it’s value and make decisions. Maintenance decisions, occupancy decisions, capital replacement decisions, staffing and resourcing decisions, etc. If you don’t use what you put into the system, people will stop bothering with it and you will be back where you started (go to step #1)

Check out http://blog.fminsight.com/category/asset-lifecycle-and-maintenance for my blogs on FM Systems.

Michel.

By: Community Forum

Community Forum — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:01:28 +0000

[...] One of my all time favorites is the debate on IWMS Implementation Pitfall: http://www.iwmsnews.com/2009/03/debate-iwms-implementation-pitfall/. [...]

By: Steven Hanks

Steven Hanks — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:59:46 +0000

In addition to the comment of Bernard Hoefsmit I also fully agree that organizations want to buy an IWMS mostly because their current processes are ineffective / inefficient. However instead of re-evaluating these processes they expect the IWMS solution to match processes that cause organizations to buy a solution in the first place!

By: hoefsmit

hoefsmit — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:41:48 +0000

Most organizations believe they are unique and try hard to fit current processes in a new system. Organizations end up with a highly customized (configured) solution which will be expensive to maintain. To Kim’s point, COTS IWMS solutions provide a large percentage of out of box functionality. It is the job of a good consultant to work with an organization and help the organization understand and adapt to a new, better way of executing their tasks as intended by the IWMS solution. Only then will the value of IWMS be accomplished.

By: Kim MacLeod

Kim MacLeod — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:36:11 +0000

I have seen a disturbing trend with consultants selling and supporting “COTS” commercial off the shelf solutions. Many of these consultants are inexperienced and don’t have the knowledge or depth to support the product. Many times these consultants don’t even have a basic understanding of the capabilities of the system they are implementing. A sure sign of this is a consultant who sells a system and try’s to tell the client it won’t do what they want without a custom solution from the consultant to supplement the system. I find most of the “COTS” solutions will do 85%-90% of what most clients needs are.

By: Don Wood

Don Wood — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:13:33 +0000

My Opinion:
This is a great example of why planning, scope agreement, project work plan, a project charter, and communication are so important. The consultant should have a project work plan that tapers down hours after the go-live date. It is important for the consultant(s) to remain engaged after go-live for support but the team should begin ramping down. The client should be fully aware of the work plan and be kept apprised of the project status compared to the plan.

Part of the scope and project plan should include knowledge transfer and training. If the consultant and the client are not working together to transfer the knowledge, train, and understand the new business processes then there is a problem. The consultant should incorporate this into the project plan, but it is also the responsibility of the client to accept ownership of the new system and processes. If the client doesn’t take ownership the consultants will likely need to stay engaged.

By: Steven Hanks

Steven Hanks — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:46:33 +0000

Evan,

A thorough project plan is obviously very important however I’ve come accross quite some cases in which customers are focused on initial purchase / implementation costs. What I could advice extend your horizon to 3 or 5 years. This might cause you to reconsider which vendor your prefer…

By: Evan Kontos

Evan Kontos — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:33:46 +0000

In our experience many IWMS/CAFM consultants and companies that develop these solutions always paint a much rosier picture of the implementation and integration costs than is true. We have found that some of our competitors end up going back and asking for change orders and supplemental funds due to unforeseen circumstances and items beyond their control. A thorough project plan would help to control this.

We also find that clients seem to downplay the importance of assessments and project plans as well as go-live assistance and thorough training in order to curb costs as opposed to scaling back the scope of the project so the projects are doomed to failure before they begin.