CAFM and TGA - gut feeling vs. meaningful investment strategy
In my previous career I have some points of contact with CAFM both in my studies of business engineering and subsequently in my work for a facility service provider with a focus on technical building equipment. And the insights that I gained here allow me to have a differentiated look at CAFM solutions.
Just for maintenance management too bad?
My former employer was the CAFM software used exclusively for maintenance management. We were able to support a CAFM application with regard to documentation quality, documentation security and planning reliability both in the technical systems we have set up and in our customers' existing systems.
Since the documentation requirement was an essential secondary obligation of the owed service to our clients, the monitoring by the CAFM system provided significantly more security here.
Strategy and scenario
It is also very helpful to be able to map the complexity of the systems in their high degree of networking in the CAFM system. Working with paper and using Excel spreadsheets is simply not practical and efficient after a certain complexity.
But despite the diverse and good experiences I've had with CAFM, my insights into these systems have not been as profound as they are today, as I see the true depth of possibilities through working on and with IMSWARE.
Currently, the situation is as follows: On the one hand, the strategic decision to implement CAFM software is, in most cases, the right one. But I would also say that the comprehensive possibilities of such software are often not transparent to the operating user and must be actively approached.
Because it is regrettable for the users of a CAFM system to use a powerful tool without exhausting it, and therefore to rob itself of many advantages.
Investment & ROI
With comprehensive options, I also mean the gain in security in liability issues: The CAFM system audit-proof stored documentation of maintenance and security checks Facility Manager created for themselves and their company in property or personal injury increased legal certainty.
The option for evaluations, histories and benchmarks of a CAFM software support the supervisor in his task to ensure the long-term operation of the building services. This is especially true because potential critical phases can be detected early and thus avoided, and the risk of downtime of relevant equipment is reduced.
Another benefit is that the investment policy can be made much more meaningful: The already mentioned evaluations, histories and benchmarks also allow the user to decide strategically to invest cleverly instead of from the gut. This protects the budget, uses it economically and ensures a rapid ROI of the technical investment. So the system pays itself almost by itself.
It should be remembered, however, that a CAFM system only makes sense from a certain size, with the critical mass not being absolutely quantifiable. Rather, it depends on the amount and complexity of the properties to be managed, the number of employees and service providers involved and the complexity of the services to be provided. Also in evaluating this point, the ROI - in this case, the CAFM system itself - proves to be a helpful indicator.
And that leads to a paradoxical realization: For a single office building like that of the IMS, a CAFM software like IMSWARE is actually too big. Of course, she nevertheless plays out her many advantages. And we like to benefit from them.
We are sorry that you did not like this post so much.
How can we improve that?