Over the past 6 posts, I have focused on the evolution and potential future for FCAs, however, I have not said much about software, purposefully actually. Software plays such a major role in today’s best-in-class facility and asset management that I thought I should dedicate a stand-alone post (or in this case posts) to it as opposed to weaving it into the story.

Although Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) and Integrated Workplace Management Software (IWMS) play an important role, since this series focuses on FCAs, I will limit the discussion to Capital Asset Management Software (CAMS).

A big part of the shift from reports to data was tied to the emergence of CAMS systems into the market in the early 2000s. In the last two decades there have been some advancements in CAMS software, however, the evolution has been slower than I would have thought back then.

That being said, even today as we move away from pure data, and toward a data-informed story, software still has a major role to play. Every organization will have unique needs when it comes to a CAMS system. However, in our experience, there are three key areas of functionality that are universal in terms of helping an organization achieve their facility and asset management goals. A solid CAMS system will:

1. Allow you to easily gather good facility data;
2. Help you build prioritized, multiyear capital plans; and
3. Streamline the data management process.

Let’s explore the first of these key functionalities. As mentioned earlier in this series (and as you will hear me say many times if you ever have a conversation about facility asset management), consistent and defensible data is vital to any data-enabled story. If you cannot trust the data that you have, how can you feel confident in the story that you are trying to tell.

Your CAMS system should standardize as much of the FCA process as is reasonable. Taking care of the tasks that software does better than people, like remembering the Expected Useful Life (EUL) of elements, setting standard unit costs on which costing is based, and applying soft costs and regional factors. When CAMS relies on human data entry for these critical variables it creates an avenue for errors and inconsistency to creep in.

In one example, we were brought in to review an existing FCA dataset, where EULs were entered manually. In the dataset, there were 12 different EULs for the same type of windows ranging from 20 to 50 years, across an entire portfolio. This had a major influence on the forecast of future capital renewal needs. Those buildings where the windows were given and EUL of 50 years, had critical renewal money allocated twenty years too late, based on industry standards. Millions of dollars of forecasted needs for a critical building element were much farther into the future than would be reasonable.

Let your CAMS system take care of these routine aspects of Asset Management so that the professionals that are doing your FCAs can focus their experience and expertise on identifying and diagnosing issues/problems with your buildings, instead of having to remember the EUL of a specific type of roof.

Since this one post is getting a bit long, I will continue next week going over the last two key functions that you want to look our for when picking a CAMS software.

PLEASE ENGAGE US THROUGH COMMENTS

You may have noticed that we recently added a comments feature to our blog. We would love to engage in dialogue with you on any of our current and previous posts. Also, if there are any topics that you would like us to post on in the future, please leave a comment.