Why CAFM software is not worth it
It's a quick decision: CAFM systems are big, expensive, time-consuming, resource-eating and therefore quite often no longer used, once they are paid.
Keller software means that if the software was not even installed. And cemetery software, if it does.
So it is agreed by mutual agreement: CAFM software It's not worth it. Not for caretaker. And certainly not for facility managers.
And the management?
Managing Director, Executive Board, Dean or Mayor? They need that least of all, because they are supposed to conduct business and not monitor fire dampers or elevators - for operator responsibility, there are finally service providers (even if they deny this permanently). They have indeed assured in conversation that everything is good. And the boss is not liable. How great...
Who needs something like that?
But why then do so many CAFM software provider with even more modules a much bigger fanfare? Are they bored?
Apparently. After all, relocations can be carried out for a very long time without module relocation management: packing crates, placing trucks in front of the door, packing crates, placing trucks in front of the next door, unloading crates, unpacking - and half have disappeared. This ultimately helps in the argument against the tax office in the context of the next tax audit and is therefore very welcome.
Or energy management. Who will need it today? Techem has been counting heat consumption for some time, Esso has always been fuel oil and financial accounting the gray hair, which fails with the ever increasing age anyway. Whether there is a correlation between expenses and tasks, at most, shows up when someone gives up in FiBu.
But rarely happens, so it is not relevant to the operation.
Maintenance by breakdown. How nice...
The topic of space management is also popular with such software solutions. And above all, these grandiose acclaimed enemy differentiations called "breathing cleaning" or "cleaning on demand"! The jaucht the Spüli only when needed on the linoleum.
And the carpet is only sucked, if a sufficient saturation of the high-pile carpeting with ashes, crumbs and new gray hair is achieved by sufficient visit in the boardroom. As if the minimum wage cleaning staff had elevated to luxury goods. Simply ridiculous.
Also popular: the maintenance. Of course, it is massively overestimated.
After all, even a computer with some software does not change the fact that something breaks down only when it's broken. And then you notice first that it is broken: "Maintanance by breakdown" is finally displayed reliably just in time. So software is completely useless here too. Admittedly, the advisor's voices rise and declare their mantra of predictive maintenance. The correct translation "algorithm-based glass-ball reading" is probably too long for these little minds.
This would prove once and for all: CAFM software is completely useless. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of time. And anyway nobody can handle it. Which finally invalidates the argument of usability (how do you pronounce that?). Is not too short, right?
Better buy a new Porsche for the money saved. It's more fun than CAFM software.
And he also fools away over the less hair becoming hair.
Or was there something else ...?
Hmmm - you'll probably wonder if CAFM not even has good sides.
And: What is CAFM software anyway? What does CAFM cost? And what's in it?
Granted, something comes to my mind. I'll put that together briefly. On my personal "CAFM list". Further down.
All the best
We are sorry that you did not like this post so much.
How can we improve that?