Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Chapter 2: CMMS at Airports There is only limited published information available at the time of this writing (both on the Internet and in print) that addresses airport-specific implementations of CMMS. Most of the available literature on CMMS evaluation and implementation, however, is general across industries, with much of the focus on plant maintenance management. Some of the more recent studies are focused on best practices and standards development for asset management. This leaves the airport operator without good guidance for the specific issues and implications of maintenance management for airports, such as regulatory issues concerning FAA regulations for Part 139 discrepancy maintenance and safety management requirements. There are some resources on maintenance and asset management from the (ACI-NA), Operations and Technical Affairs Committee. This committee meets twice a year at the ACI-NA Annual conference. There are additional efforts by ACI-NA within the Business Information Technology Committee, who also conducts conferences, including presentations focusing on asset and maintenance management. A new international family of standards was published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), superseding the British Standards Institute (BFI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 55 in January 2014 for asset management standards. The ISO 55000 family of standards is the first set of International Standards for Asset Management. It is comprised of: ⢠ISO 55000, which specifies an overview, concepts, and terminologies; ⢠ISO 55001, which defines the requirements for an asset management system; and ⢠ISO 55002, which provides an interpretation and implementation guide for the management system. Current State of the Industry The content presented in this section is based on survey data received from selected airports in the first phase of this project, as well as on the results from the case study research phase (see Appendix B for the case study reports). Pertinent findings from the case studies and the survey are summarized here to provide relevant information about current considerations in regard to evaluating and implementing a CMMS. Survey Results The goal of the survey was to build a foundation for the development of this CMMS Guidebook and the accompanying tool. The research was focused on the methods that airports currently use to successfully select and implement a CMMS, as well as their lessons learned from their experiences. The survey and the case studies collected data from airports of different types, sizes, and geographic diversity. The survey indicated a great maturity in CMMS implementations in use at airports. Many of those airports have incorporated not just asset maintenance functionality, but also FAA Part 139 inspections and reports, in addition to safety management system capabilities within their CMMS. Although asset management functionality has not yet been achieved very successfully in many CMMS implementations, 7
airports are, however, actively working towards asset management capabilities to effectively manage assets through their life cycle, from selection to end-of-life. Airport Profile The survey was sent to hub, origin & destination (OD), and general aviation (GA) airports; small, medium, and large airports; and airports located east and west of the Mississippi River. The sample was not representative and it comprised about 2% of the more than 5,000 airports open to the general public in the U.S. Thirty-four (34%) percent of the airports contacted responded to the survey. Figure 2-1, shows the airport breakdown by type, whereas Figure 2-2 provides the breakdown by size. Figure 2-1 Survey Respondent Airport Types Figure 2-2 Survey Respondent Airport Sizes Data from the survey provided the following results: ⢠Of the responding airports, about half had a CMMS or Asset Management System. Of the responding airports with a CMMS, 60% were large hub airports, indicating that budget and size are likely predictors of the feasibility of implementing a CMMS. Only about 7% of the responding large airports did not have a CMMS. ⢠Eighty-one percent (81%) of the responding airports that implemented a CMMS or Asset Management Systems were Hub airports. Nineteen percent (19%) of these airports that implemented a CMMS or Asset Management System were Destination airports. ⢠Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the Hub airports that reported implementing a CMMS or Asset Management System were of Large size. Thirty-two percent (32%) of the Hub airports that reported implementing a CMMS or Asset Management System were of Medium size. Nineteen percent (19%) of the Hub airports that reported implementing a CMMS or Asset Management System were of Small size. ⢠Ninety-three percent (93%) of the Large Hub airports reported implementing a CMMS. Seventy- eight percent (78%) of the Medium Hub airports and 31% of the Small Hub airports reported implementing a CMMS. Similar to the Small Hub airports, 29% of the Destination airports reported implementing a CMMS. ⢠Of the airports that reported implementing a CMMS or Asset Management System: 35% began their implementation in the last five (5) years; 26% of them started in the last five to ten (5-10) years; and 39% began their implementations more than ten (10) years ago. ⢠The types of software implemented varied. Costs, therefore, ranged from less than $100,000 to $2,000,000. The largest cost factor for many of the airports was identified as professional services. It has been noted by responding airports that in addition to the initial software licensing 8
costs, budget should include training, annual maintenance, support, and license renewal fees. It should also be noted that the reported costs did not include internal staff costs. ⢠Most airports reported more than 100 users of the CMMS. One of the smaller airports responding to the survey reported more than 350 users of their CMMS. This is because of the varied airport functions incorporated into their CMMS. Evaluation The survey asked the airports to list and evaluate the CMMS in use. A total of 15 different CMMS software types were reported as implemented. Many different reasons, as listed below, were given for choosing particular software. The reasons are presented in order of ranked importance: ⢠General functionality and features ⢠Price ⢠Ease of use ⢠Compatibility with hardware/operating system ⢠Integration with other software ⢠Availability of local support ⢠Ease of implementation ⢠General reputation of software and software vendor ⢠Availability of training ⢠Employs latest technology ⢠Compatibility with previous CMMS and/or Asset Management software ⢠Other Under âOtherâ, these additional reasons were cited: ⢠GIS centric solution that worked well with the airportâs existing GIS ⢠Selection was influenced by or mandated by the airportâs prevailing authority (City or State government) ⢠Ease of incorporation with NOTAMS and CFR 139 regulations ⢠Flexibility to use for multiple departments (Facility, Security, Safety, and Transportation) ⢠Requirements for maintenance of pavement funded by the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Cost of the Implementation Almost half of the airports reporting that they implemented a CMMS or Asset Management System used only internal staff for the implementation. These airports also reported lower costs for the implementation, but did not report internal staff time as part of the cost. The remaining airports used a consultant, a vendor, or both. Interestingly, only 70% of the respondents reported that airport internal staff was involved in the implementation. Reported costs were typically higher when airports used consultants and vendors. About half of the reporting airports implemented the CMMS in a single phase; the others implemented CMMS over multiple phases. In great part, airports that reported a multi-phase implementation tended to have higher budgets, and they reported greater benefits from their CMMS. They also generally reported managing more types of assets. Note: No conclusion can be drawn about the relation of cost to multiple phases for airports that developed a custom CMMS because of the previously stated lack of data for internal staff cost. 9
The use of internal staff in implementation of a CMMS can delay other projects that the airport might deem critical. That should be considered in the decision to do the implementation with in-house staff or in getting some additional assistance in the implementation. Managed Assets All of the airports that have implemented a CMMS or Asset Management System reported managing the following facilities or pavement areas: ⢠Ramp Tower ⢠Administration Buildings ⢠Cargo ⢠Hangers ⢠Maintenance Facilities ⢠Aircraft Parking ⢠Ramp Are ⢠Roadways ⢠Runways ⢠Taxiways ⢠Bridges The following assets were maintained in the CMMS by some of the airports in the survey: ⢠Passenger Terminals ⢠HVAC ⢠Lighting ⢠Plumbing ⢠Electrical ⢠Baggage ⢠Parking Garages/Lots ⢠Signage ⢠Drainage ⢠Fuel Infrastructure ⢠Navaids ⢠Utilities ⢠Security ⢠People Mover Stations ⢠Tanks ⢠Communication ⢠Elevated Bridges ⢠Instruments ⢠Information Technology ⢠Electrical Car Charges ⢠Seawall ⢠Janitorial ⢠Assets ⢠Vertical Transportation ⢠Ground Service Equipment ⢠Boilers and Chillers ⢠Automated and Roll-up Doors ⢠Fire Suppression Systems ⢠Alarm Notifiers ⢠Landscape ⢠Buses for Rental Car Facilities and Employees ⢠Benefits from the Implementation After CMMS implementation, airports stated benefits to the airport as a result. More than half of the airports reported: ⢠Improved business intelligence / key performance indicators ⢠Improvements in equipment reliability ⢠Improved cost controls ⢠Improved spare parts control ⢠Reduction in labor costs ⢠Improvements in equipment availability ⢠Reduction in materials costs ⢠Reduction in other costs 10
Ease of Use & Features and Functions Airports rated the ease of use of their CMMS and the fit of the features and functions to the airport similarly. This suggests that there might be a correlation between the two. The majority of the results were midrange: satisfactory, good, or very good. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show the results in percentages (%). Figure 2-3 Ease of Use Figure 2-4 CMMS Fit for the Airport Lessons Learned Airports reported lessons learned from their implementations of CMMS in their survey responses. They can be grouped into three categories: ⢠Initial support and resources needed, for those comments that impact the budgeting, critical support, and initial strategies needed to get the CMMS program started, ⢠Planning, for those comments that impact the evaluation and procurement of the CMMS, and ⢠Configuration and ongoing maintenance support, for those that impact the implementation, configuration and longer-term maintenance and support for the CMMS. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 provide the lessons learned in regard to support resources, planning and procurements, and configuration and maintenance support, respectively. Initial Support and Resources Needed Budget support is critical. Strong executive management sponsorship is critical to the programâs success. Senior management, sponsors, and subject matter experts buy-in is essential. Buy-in and support from upper management is critical. Be prepared to invest the time and money initially to upload airport assets into the system. IT has to be dedicated to support software and hardware both during and after the implementation. Establish a partnership between stakeholders: sponsors, subject matter experts, and the airportâs technology services organization (IT). A collaboration between senior management, technology services, and the end users will help insure the 11
best results. Prepare user community for increased technology use. Hire a consultant to assist in justifying the cost of the software. Have open, clear, continuous communication with all stakeholders. Leave no one behind. Invest in immersion training for implementation team prior to requirements gathering workshops. Have business processes and resources in place before immersion training. Table 2-1 Lessons Learned â Support Resources The lessons learned cited from airports responding to the survey talk about support from management and collaboration among stakeholders as key to starting the CMMS program. Identifying program sponsors and selling executive management on the benefits can be key to finding the budget required for a CMMS implementation. Planning and Procurement Create a well-defined requirements document. Determine how you plan to use the systemâdevelop a use case. Focus on asset data structure with reporting in mind. Thoughtfully, map out an implementation plan that coincides with business process change management. Develop a communication plan for stakeholder community. Develop a strong implementation plan that meets the requirements of the airport. Create policies and procedures within the application to support your organizationâs processes. Verify data maintenance routines to meet records retention needs. Evaluate any new system thoroughly before procurement. Ensure the Business drives the procurement and implementation, and that it is not done by solely by IT. Knowing that you will be using the system for many years, ensure you have selected the right system for the long haul. It is difficult to switch software mid-stream if the right selection is not made initially. Make the implementation user friendly and ensure it will suit your usersâ individual needs. Carefully select data fields for the assets. Spend the time on a good implementation plan with buy-in and feedback from end users. Select a competent vendor/consultant partner committed to a successful implementation. Table 2-2 Lessons Learned â Planning & Procurement Requirements for a CMMS are developed during the planning phase of the project. While it is possible to embark on a CMMS implementation without adequate planning, many organizations find that the outcome is not what was expected. Establishing the airportâs specific requirements is key to achieving the hoped-for goals of CMMS implementation. 12
Configuration and Maintenance Support It is important to consider the needs of management, work control and technicians in the implementation. The software must be capable of being tailored for each, and the configuration should be adapted for ease of use by each group. Ensure that the implementation team has CMM/EAM implementation expertise - we hired a consultant to assist us. Include ongoing technical support in the procurement. Be prepared to dedicate personnel to maintain inventory control. Seize opportunities where CMMS can be leveraged into other areas of the enterprise. Dedicated personnel will be required to manage the system on a daily basis. Select a knowledgeable and competent vendor to assist with upgrades. User training is critical. Use your airportâs data for end-user training instead of using a generically configured system. It will help if the users are familiar with the assets and processes they are being trained on. Airports must be willing to invest the time required to administer the system in order to maximize its potential. Table 2-3 Configuration & Maintenance Support It should not be forgotten to plan the resources needed to maintain the system after it is implemented. That includes maintenance cost and staff to manage the application. Not just IT staff, but an airport should plan for system administrators to manage new users, new requirements definitions, including new assets, and system improvements. Case Studies Case study airports were chosen for their diversity, as well as for a successful CMMS implementation. Two of the airports have implemented IBM Maximo, a small and a large airport to illustrate the differences were chosen. Another large airport implemented Infor EAM. Two additional medium-sized airports were chosen: one developed a custom solution; the other implemented Cityworks, a GIS centric system usually regarded as a solution for cities instead of for airports. The airports chosen were geographically diverse: located on the east coast, west coast, and in the countryâs midsection. The airports included two southern airports, a far north airport, a northwest airport, and a central airport. All except one were hub airports. The geographic diversity was considered to add both cultural and climate diversity to the case study effort. The airports selected for case studies were: ⢠Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport ⢠General Mitchell International Airport ⢠Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ⢠Southwest Florida International Airport ⢠Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport The case study reports are presented in Appendix B. No assessment on the suitability of a particular software is included in these reports. The success of the implementation of the CMMS at any airport does 13
not seem related to the particular software chosen, but on other factors including the successful definition of requirements, the airportâs support for the system, and the right resources on the implementation and maintenance team. The case study airports reported more significant benefits overall than the larger pool of airports. The only CMSS implementation that was expected, but not achieved, was a reduction in materials costs. Figure 2-5 shows the benefits achieved from CMMS implementation as reported by these airports. Figure 2-5 Case Study Airports CMMS Benefits Of particular interest to this Guidebook is the fact that three of the five case study airports used the CMMS across multiple departments utilizing workflow to automate processes. Part 139 reporting is automated in two of the airports, eliminating manual reporting and duplicate data entry and providing electronic records for FAA inspection through the CMMS. In two of the airports, some safety management system functions are also incorporated in the CMMS. One of the airports has integrated the airport GIS with CMMS. Four airports are using mobile tools. Compliance Requirements There are many regulatory requirements on U.S. airports from federal, state, and local governments. While state requirements vary across the U.S., federal requirements are imposed primarily by the FAA certification of airports, and secondarily by the requirement for grants received under the Airport Improvement Program funds. Additionally, there are compliance regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The costs of complying with these regulatory requirements impact both airport capital and operating costs. Maintenance records play a large part in compliance and reporting requirements to these agencies. These agencies (primarily the FAA) provide some funding for new regulatory initiatives, but ongoing compliance costs typically are the responsibility of the airport. Although not all regulations have impacts on maintenance of assets, the record keeping inherent in a CMMS can be leveraged to address many of these regulatory requirements. 14
The CMMS system can be a tool in the Part 139 compliance by providing maintenance records for the inspection reports. Two of the case study airports have achieved FAA approval of automated inspections reporting by integrating their CMMS systems that have other data needed for the reports. The automated inspections reports save time and provide accurate records to document the airportsâ compliance. An FAAâs anticipated circular will mandate airports to implement safety management systems (SMS). An SMS can also be integrated with a CMMS to provide maintenance data for assets involved in incidents. Again, some of the case study airports have already initiated workflow within their CMMS to assist in compliance with the airportâs risk management plan and the anticipated regulation. Airports considering an SMS implementation may want to include integration language in any SMS procurement. Budget and Business Case Implementing a CMMS can enable an airport to manage assets more efficiently, saving time and money. A well-researched business case can help persuade the budget-makers at the airport of the benefits of CMMS software and its utility for the airport. Many of the reasons that an airport might want a CMMS are not directly related to cost. A good strategy for a business analysis is to begin with a discussion of the role of the maintenance department and its responsibilities at the airport. Then it should be discussed where improvements can be made by implementation of a CMMS, such as: ⢠Increased efficiency of the maintenance work order response times ⢠Improved planned maintenance scheduling ⢠Optimized asset life by better preventive maintenance ⢠Administrative savings by elimination of manual processes ⢠Improvements in contractor and SLA management ⢠Longer asset life because of better maintenance ⢠Better reporting ⢠Better risk management ⢠Improved stock control ⢠Improved facility scheduling ⢠Fewer breakdowns because of better maintenance ⢠Reduction in overtime costs because of fewer breakdowns For each item in the list an airport should be specific about how the CMMS will help improve it. Included should be an assessment of the Impact that continuing âbusiness as usualâ will have, as a contrast to the outline of improvements that the CMMS implementation will give. In addition, a cost benefit analysis should include costs for the CMMS implementation and the savings expected from the implementation of CMMS software. The cost components should include: ⢠Infrastructure ⢠End-devices (including mobile devices) ⢠Software purchase ⢠License costs (whether per seat, concurrent users, or enterprise licensing) ⢠Ongoing support costs ⢠Annual or monthly subscription costs ⢠Data migration costs ⢠Configuration and customization of the software ⢠Internal staff costs for system administration and management ⢠Training costs 15
⢠Consulting costs While the costs of the CMMS implementation are possible to estimate, it is sometimes difficult to get good estimates for configuration, data migration and customization costs. Assigning dollar values to benefits is even more difficult. The benefits are often intangible and provide efficiencies that are difficult to quantify. In addition, the benefits are often improvements in capabilities that have no direct cost benefit, but provide the ability to better manage the airport and its assets. For example, a calculation on the time that can be saved through elimination of redundant data entry and automation of manual steps can be quantified, but the improvement in an airport executiveâs ability to gauge performance through the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is not. To calculate a return on investment, these values will need to be determined. That is commonly done by taking the your reduction in maintenance costs, subtracting the cost of your CMMS and dividing the result by the cost of your CMMS. The reduction in maintenance costs might include: ⢠Any quantifiable savings based on extending asset life ⢠Resource efficiencies due to decreased downtime ⢠Energy usage improvements due to proper maintenance ⢠More efficient scheduling of work force ⢠Less waste in inventory A business case should state the business objectives for a CMMS implementation, summarize the costs and benefits, give recommendations and explain the criteria for them, and provide the next steps towards the goal. The analysis might conclude with steps and benefits beyond the initial implementation of a CMMS, including automation of work processes with an integrated CMMS. Citing examples of other airportsâ improvements might also be effective. System Integrations A general definition of systems integration is to combine elements (data or processes) of one system with elements of another system. The result is an enhanced system with subsystems (the original systems) that provide improved functionality over the original independent systems. Integration of a CMMS with other systems should be undertaken as part of a phased approach to implementation. It is important to get the CMMS up and running, configured properly and stable before integrating it to other systems. This approach simplifies troubleshooting of problems that might arise during each phase. An airport can realize benefits by sharing information between a CMMS and other airport systems. Systems integrations can provide additional functionality and eliminate redundant processes. Some benefits of systems integrations might include: ⢠Time savings by elimination of redundant data entry into multiple systems ⢠More accurate data by eliminating errors caused by redundant data entry ⢠Better information by the accumulation of additional data ⢠Streamlining of workflow by allowing processes to continue between systems 16
⢠Improve capabilities of the independent systems ⢠Eliminate unnecessary paper flow ⢠Decrease the average time it takes to execute standard processes ⢠Streamline and improve reporting processes ⢠Improve the ability to audit data through verification from multiple sources ⢠Reduction in resources to process data ⢠Reduction in time to process data ⢠Increased confidence in data received ⢠Potential reduction in time to report data ⢠Improvement in ease of reporting data ⢠Improved accuracy in financial analyses and reporting There are two standard approaches to systems integration. The first is to execute a system that interfaces directly with other airport systems. Often large software packages, including CMMS software, will have interfaces already built for other kinds of software that are usually interfaced with the CMMS, like financial, procurement, or scheduling packages. This can be convenient, even though it adds to the cost of the CMMS. A vendor-supplied interface has the additional benefit that the vendor is responsible for updating the interface when the software package versions change. A second approach to systems integration is to implement a central storage for data that interfaces independently to each system. Often, airports implement a centralized data store to consolidate data collected by administrative and operational systems at the airport for sharing and analysis. To take advantage of the available large amount of data, it can be stored in a central storage location. Sometimes that central storage location is an Airport Operational Database (AODB). The AODB is a source for the collection, storage, and distribution of key airside and terminal information across an airport. Data in the AODB can then be used to feed other systems that require the same data, as well as provide business intelligence for airport executives and managers. An AODB can be used to store data from unrelated systems, as shown in the system block diagram in Figure 2-6. Figure 2-6 Airport Operational Database Figure 2-6 illustrates only a few of the systems that could be integrated with a CMMS. Additional beneficial integrations that might include: 17
⢠Geographic information system (GIS) ⢠Operations inspections application ⢠Fueling system ⢠Financial software ⢠Purchase requisition system ⢠Lease management system ⢠Inventory system ⢠Security access system ⢠Facility management system ⢠Baggage handling system ⢠Payroll system ⢠Resource management system ⢠Gate management system ⢠Common use systems ⢠General ledger updates ⢠Human resources system ⢠Time and labor system ⢠Airfield lighting system ⢠Building management system ⢠Inspection application (to manage general and Part 139 inspections) ⢠Safety management system ⢠Scheduling system ⢠Property management system ⢠Pavement management system ⢠Other CMMS system ⢠Inventory control system ⢠Automatic vehicle identification system ⢠Computer-aided dispatch systems ⢠Electronic log books ⢠Incident management systems ⢠Any other system at airports that hold or use data about assets Data integrations with CMMS should use standards and best practices identified in the larger context of aviation data systems to facilitate data sharing between other systems and the CMMS. The data that is used by each system will need some translation from one system to another. An interface between the two systems will provide that translation. For example, seconds may be represented to one decimal place in a system requiring precise timekeeping; however in systems that do not require such precision, seconds may be represented as whole numbers. An interface control document should be developed that records the communications protocols, the data exchanged, and other relevant information about the communications between two systems. This interface control document will be needed as reference for any updates to the interfaces between the systems that are integrated. CMMS integrations can provide a more thorough, accurate, and automated maintenance management solution as has been demonstrated in some airports. Those airports have expanded the system capabilities of their CMMS to automate Part 139 inspections reports, procurements, safety reporting, and scheduling based on data from the CMMS. Additionally, as airportâs integration of its GIS with its CMMS can provide an ease of use for airport users of the CMMS that leads to greater use of the system by airport staff. It could be advantageous to integrate the CMMS with a property management system that is used to track airport rental space. Interface to the property management system can allow the airport to track maintenance of items for lessees. The integration might be particularly useful if done in conjunction with GIS integration, which would view the property management system data. Another potential integration for CMMS is an integrated document management solution to store operatorâs manuals and maintenance manuals for assets. In the case study reports in Appendix B, all the airports had integrated, or planned to integrate, other systems with their CMMS. Some of the airports have already extensive integrations. Part 139 report automation, GIS integration, requisition system integrations, scheduling system integrations, and safety incident reporting are among the airport-specific integrations cited in the case study reports. Centralized maintenance planners may be employed to optimize resourcing. If scheduling will be done in a third-party software, that can also be integrated with a CMMS. More efficiency between shops in the maintenance department, as well as within particular crews, can be achieved by using centralized 18
scheduling. Centralizing the reporting structure for the maintenance planners will make integration, standardizing of processes, and sharing resources between the shops essential. Hosted Solutions A hosted solution is a software delivery model in which software and associated data are centrally hosted in the cloud by independent software vendors or application service providers (ASPs). Hosted solutions are also referred to as Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). SaaS is typically accessed by users using a web browser or a client application that is installed on a local computer. SaaS has been a significant software deployment and delivery model for most of the leading enterprise software companies. CMMS software is available as hosted solution from a number of vendors. There are both advantages and disadvantage of using a hosted solution for CMMS. A hosted solution can provide a quick implementation of a full-featured CMMS with a low up-front cost. This is particularly advantageous to an airport needing most or all of the features of a CMMS, but with a smaller budget and small staff to support the software. And with a hosted solution, the airport does not have to procure and manage the hardware or the software. Many hosted CMMS solutions also offer mobile applications that run on smart phones and tablets. In marketing hosted solutions, vendors claim better reliability, better security, and better performance than airports can provide internally. That can be the case if airports are not rigorous in their own technology performance. However, hosted solutions are generally located in data centers with the ability to provide the a level of service that will meet the most stringent performance and security requirements. When discussing a hosted CMMS solution with vendors, airports should not forget to involve the IT department, or a consultant to talk about the technical details. Itâs not just the features that matter. The details can make or break the implementation. For example: ⢠Are there redundant computing platforms co-located at data center? ⢠How will the vendor implement integrations of other systems with the CMMS? ⢠Are there different environments for production, development, training? ⢠Is there frontline user support 24/7? ⢠How often does the vendor do database back-ups? ⢠Do your users have unlimited connect time? ⢠What are the service level agreements for availability and performance? And what are the specific penalties for not meeting those SLAs? ⢠Who does the user and license administration? The biggest disadvantage of a hosted CMMS is the dependence on an Internet connection for access to the CMMS software and database. The retrieval time for data will be slower than if the CMMS were on servers at the airport, no matter how fast the airportâs Internet connection might be. In addition, there is always some possibility that the Internet connection will fail, or will become degraded, impacting the performance of the CMMS. Slow performance can greatly affect the acceptance of the CMMS application by users. It is important, when selecting a hosted CMMS, to discuss the vendorâs capability of integrating other applications with it. Some vendors provide good interfaces to allow integration with other airport systems. Airports 19
should identify the systems to be interfaced up front and ask if the vendor has interfaces to those systems. Custom Solutions versus Off-the-Shelf Software Some airports have developed custom solutions to CMMS. In great part, custom solutions arise organically, over time, without an understanding of the overall airport requirements for an enterprise-wide CMMS solution. These custom solutions have advantages and disadvantages. In the best cases, the custom-developed solution fits the airportâs needs because it was developed for very specific circumstances. The ability for an airport to develop custom software also implies a competence within the organization in software development, so the custom software may be very well integrated into both airport processes and other airport applications. A custom application as discussed in Case Study Report 5 in Appendix B, was driven by specific needs and is very well adapted to the airportâs processes. Building a complete full-featured CMMS from scratch is a large task. If that is the desired, needed solution, a custom CMMS is not likely to be the right choice. It is much more likely that customization of an off-the-shelf CMMS will be more economical. In other cases cited by surveyed airports without a CMMS, development of partial solutions using spreadsheets, checklists, and email contribute to their ability to manage assets. The transition to an off- the-shelf software can be aided by these efforts in that records of work and assets can often be imported directly into an off-the shelf system thereby retaining much of the history that is useful in determining life-cycle and predictive maintenance. The disadvantages of a custom solution are usually in the maintainability of the software because documentation, both at the system level and for the users, can be overlooked due to workload for the development team. Maintaining integrations with other applications can also be problematic when other applications are upgraded, requiring adaptation of the custom software. Another disadvantage of custom software, stemming from the usual lack of documentation, is the reliance on specific individuals for maintenance and support of the software. However, for airports without budget for a commercial CMMS, custom software can provide benefits that can also be accrued from an off-the-shelf software package. Future of CMMS The direct evolution of a CMMS for an airport is to apply the data that exists within that CMMS to promote life-cycle management of the airportâs assets. However, there are other trends to watch when evaluating and implementing a CMMS. If these fit the needs of the airport, it would be beneficial to plan for them when evaluating and implementing a CMMS. Some future trends include: ⢠Coupling of CMMS with asset on-board diagnostics as assets become more intelligent ⢠Integrations with systems to improve work flow and provide better situational awareness ⢠The need for reliable maintenance and facility data to achieve and maintain LEED and other sustainability certifications ⢠The use of CMMS tools to analyze which tasks, processes, or functions to outsource ⢠Mobile applications for CMMS. Work orders is the leading mobility application in use ⢠Better adoption of CMMS by newer workers who are more digitally savvy 20
⢠Business intelligence to evaluate performance, efficiencies and areas for improvement ⢠Better tracking and reporting ⢠Hosted solutions for smaller or budget-constrained airports ⢠Support for regulatory compliance with maintenance records 21
