Maximo Open Forum

(still on Maximo 7.6.0.8, so maybe this is different in newer versions?)

Why can't Tools be kitted the way that Items can?  Use-cases:

1) Maybe you buy for a new employee a new bag of tools -- let's say it includes a cordless drill, flashlight, 2 batteries, charger, the bag itself, etc.  If I were managing the inventory of spare tools, I might want to purchase, issue, and return that as a single unit.

2) Keys -- this comes up every once-in-a-while as a Maximo topic.  I think Keys should be handled as Rotating Tools, and it could probably work great. . .except it would be even better if you could bundle a bunch of keys into a ring, and issue & return the ring as a single unit.

You're right that kitting isn't available for Tools in 7.6, and unfortunately that hasn't changed in newer versions either. The fundamental difference comes down to how Maximo treats these record types - Items support assemblies and kits because they're tracked at the inventory level, while Tools are tracked individually as assets.

For your use cases, here's what I'd suggest:

For the tool bag scenario: Consider setting up the entire kit as a single rotating asset rather than individual tools. Create an asset record for "Cordless Drill Kit" that includes all components in the description/long description. You lose granular tracking of individual pieces, but you gain the ability to issue/return as one unit. The tradeoff is you can't separately track if just the charger breaks.

For the key ring situation: Your instinct about rotating tools is spot-on. I've seen this work well where each key ring becomes a single rotating asset. Document which keys are on the ring in the asset description or use classification attributes to track the key numbers. When keys get added or removed, update the asset record.

The alternative is treating these as Items instead of Tools, which would give you kitting capability. But then you lose the individual asset tracking that rotating tools provide. It really depends whether bundling or individual accountability matters more for your operation.

(still on Maximo 7.6.0.8, so maybe this is different in newer versions?)

Why can't Tools be kitted the way that Items can?  Use-cases:

1) Maybe you buy for a new employee a new bag of tools -- let's say it includes a cordless drill, flashlight, 2 batteries, charger, the bag itself, etc.  If I were managing the inventory of spare tools, I might want to purchase, issue, and return that as a single unit.

2) Keys -- this comes up every once-in-a-while as a Maximo topic.  I think Keys should be handled as Rotating Tools, and it could probably work great. . .except it would be even better if you could bundle a bunch of keys into a ring, and issue & return the ring as a single unit.

I agree. . .but why is it that way?  Tools are a view of Items.  Items have kitting ability, so it seems that Tools could have had kitting ability, but the designers went out of their way to disable that.  Why?  That is, is there a technical or financial transaction reason for taking away kitting ability for Tools, or did the designers simply think it didn't need it (and, therefore, if we submitted an RFE they might be persuaded to add it back)?

You're right that kitting isn't available for Tools in 7.6, and unfortunately that hasn't changed in newer versions either. The fundamental difference comes down to how Maximo treats these record types - Items support assemblies and kits because they're tracked at the inventory level, while Tools are tracked individually as assets.

For your use cases, here's what I'd suggest:

For the tool bag scenario: Consider setting up the entire kit as a single rotating asset rather than individual tools. Create an asset record for "Cordless Drill Kit" that includes all components in the description/long description. You lose granular tracking of individual pieces, but you gain the ability to issue/return as one unit. The tradeoff is you can't separately track if just the charger breaks.

For the key ring situation: Your instinct about rotating tools is spot-on. I've seen this work well where each key ring becomes a single rotating asset. Document which keys are on the ring in the asset description or use classification attributes to track the key numbers. When keys get added or removed, update the asset record.

The alternative is treating these as Items instead of Tools, which would give you kitting capability. But then you lose the individual asset tracking that rotating tools provide. It really depends whether bundling or individual accountability matters more for your operation.

(still on Maximo 7.6.0.8, so maybe this is different in newer versions?)

Why can't Tools be kitted the way that Items can?  Use-cases:

1) Maybe you buy for a new employee a new bag of tools -- let's say it includes a cordless drill, flashlight, 2 batteries, charger, the bag itself, etc.  If I were managing the inventory of spare tools, I might want to purchase, issue, and return that as a single unit.

2) Keys -- this comes up every once-in-a-while as a Maximo topic.  I think Keys should be handled as Rotating Tools, and it could probably work great. . .except it would be even better if you could bundle a bunch of keys into a ring, and issue & return the ring as a single unit.

Kits were designed for consumable parts where you want to track inventory stock in that kit format. On occasion, you can break it back into individual components if the kit is damaged or you need the items for a different purpose. Tools are never consumed and can be issued continuously across work orders. IE I used the hammer for WO 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. Maximo doesn't even require that the tool is tracked in a storeroom to be able to issue it to a work order. You can issue a tool that is not configured for any storerooms unlike items which must reside in a storeroom to be issued or get issued via direct issue from a PO receipt. 

Most companies ignore tracking tools in Maximo, assuming they are something like screw drivers, hammers, etc. that they expect the technician should have on them already. Or they are specialized tools that need to be tracked as rotating. Rotating would let you know which specific tool was utilized on the work order (in case there was a calibration issue for example) or to determine which one was issued to a person in case equipment goes missing or is damaged. Once something is rotating, you would not be able to put it in a kit either. 

The use case here (a checklist of tools an employee of a certain craft needs) is logical, but I'm not sure kits are the correct way to handle it. You need to break kits if something is missing/damaged and if something leaves the storeroom and potentially returns continuously (if tools are issued and returned daily for example) you would need some sort of inspection process to ensure everything was returned in a functional state. And I don't think you'd ever want to issue the tool kit to a WO, just to a person. Because all the items in the kit will likely never be used on a single work order. 

I agree. . .but why is it that way?  Tools are a view of Items.  Items have kitting ability, so it seems that Tools could have had kitting ability, but the designers went out of their way to disable that.  Why?  That is, is there a technical or financial transaction reason for taking away kitting ability for Tools, or did the designers simply think it didn't need it (and, therefore, if we submitted an RFE they might be persuaded to add it back)?

You're right that kitting isn't available for Tools in 7.6, and unfortunately that hasn't changed in newer versions either. The fundamental difference comes down to how Maximo treats these record types - Items support assemblies and kits because they're tracked at the inventory level, while Tools are tracked individually as assets.

For your use cases, here's what I'd suggest:

For the tool bag scenario: Consider setting up the entire kit as a single rotating asset rather than individual tools. Create an asset record for "Cordless Drill Kit" that includes all components in the description/long description. You lose granular tracking of individual pieces, but you gain the ability to issue/return as one unit. The tradeoff is you can't separately track if just the charger breaks.

For the key ring situation: Your instinct about rotating tools is spot-on. I've seen this work well where each key ring becomes a single rotating asset. Document which keys are on the ring in the asset description or use classification attributes to track the key numbers. When keys get added or removed, update the asset record.

The alternative is treating these as Items instead of Tools, which would give you kitting capability. But then you lose the individual asset tracking that rotating tools provide. It really depends whether bundling or individual accountability matters more for your operation.

(still on Maximo 7.6.0.8, so maybe this is different in newer versions?)

Why can't Tools be kitted the way that Items can?  Use-cases:

1) Maybe you buy for a new employee a new bag of tools -- let's say it includes a cordless drill, flashlight, 2 batteries, charger, the bag itself, etc.  If I were managing the inventory of spare tools, I might want to purchase, issue, and return that as a single unit.

2) Keys -- this comes up every once-in-a-while as a Maximo topic.  I think Keys should be handled as Rotating Tools, and it could probably work great. . .except it would be even better if you could bundle a bunch of keys into a ring, and issue & return the ring as a single unit.

>>Kits were designed for consumable parts where you want to track inventory stock in that kit format.
For a ring of keys, I definitely would want to track inventory in a kitted format.  For the bag of tools, maybe, maybe not.  I might want to buy the bag of tools as a single line item on a PR/PO, receive it into a logical "Maintenance Dept. Tools" storeroom, and immediately unkit it; or unkit it upon issuing to a Tech; or unkit it when the Tech reports that the flashlight that was in the kit was lost or damaged.

>>Tools are never consumed
Agreed, and I'm not proposing changing that.

>>Maximo doesn't even require that the tool is tracked in a storeroom to be able to issue it to a work order.
>>And I don't think you'd ever want to issue the tool kit to a WO, just to a person
For both of my use cases, I almost certainly would track it in a storeroom -- so even if it's not required, it is still an option -- so I'm fine there.  In both use cases, I would not be issuing to a Work Order.

>>Most companies ignore tracking tools in Maximo
Well, I have the feeling I'm going to want to.  It seems illogical to have a wonderful inventory system in Maximo yet have to track this stuff on spreadsheets.


>>or to determine which one was issued to a person in case equipment goes missing or is damaged.

EXACTLY! If we have 20 identical drills, I need to know that WILSON broke his, and what we did about it.

>>Once something is rotating, you would not be able to put it in a kit either. 

Ouch, good point.  That too is a blocker. . .

It's a bit frustrating. . .all the functionality is there but turned off in certain ways.  For keys, it seems that in Maximo they should be tools, since they are non-consumable. I want to be able to kit them as rings; need to track how many of a particular key exist (thus inventory) but also track the issuance of each copy to specific people (like a rotable Asset).  For tools, there are occasions where kitting them make sense (like the example I provided, buying a bag of tools, something like this CRAFTSMAN V20 20-volt Max 6-Tool Power Tool Combo Kit with Soft Case (2-Batteries Included and Charger Included) CMCK601D2 at Lowes.com), would like to track how many we have, need to track where & who has each one, even track repairs against those tools possibly.  

Kits were designed for consumable parts where you want to track inventory stock in that kit format. On occasion, you can break it back into individual components if the kit is damaged or you need the items for a different purpose. Tools are never consumed and can be issued continuously across work orders. IE I used the hammer for WO 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. Maximo doesn't even require that the tool is tracked in a storeroom to be able to issue it to a work order. You can issue a tool that is not configured for any storerooms unlike items which must reside in a storeroom to be issued or get issued via direct issue from a PO receipt. 

Most companies ignore tracking tools in Maximo, assuming they are something like screw drivers, hammers, etc. that they expect the technician should have on them already. Or they are specialized tools that need to be tracked as rotating. Rotating would let you know which specific tool was utilized on the work order (in case there was a calibration issue for example) or to determine which one was issued to a person in case equipment goes missing or is damaged. Once something is rotating, you would not be able to put it in a kit either. 

The use case here (a checklist of tools an employee of a certain craft needs) is logical, but I'm not sure kits are the correct way to handle it. You need to break kits if something is missing/damaged and if something leaves the storeroom and potentially returns continuously (if tools are issued and returned daily for example) you would need some sort of inspection process to ensure everything was returned in a functional state. And I don't think you'd ever want to issue the tool kit to a WO, just to a person. Because all the items in the kit will likely never be used on a single work order. 

I agree. . .but why is it that way?  Tools are a view of Items.  Items have kitting ability, so it seems that Tools could have had kitting ability, but the designers went out of their way to disable that.  Why?  That is, is there a technical or financial transaction reason for taking away kitting ability for Tools, or did the designers simply think it didn't need it (and, therefore, if we submitted an RFE they might be persuaded to add it back)?

You're right that kitting isn't available for Tools in 7.6, and unfortunately that hasn't changed in newer versions either. The fundamental difference comes down to how Maximo treats these record types - Items support assemblies and kits because they're tracked at the inventory level, while Tools are tracked individually as assets.

For your use cases, here's what I'd suggest:

For the tool bag scenario: Consider setting up the entire kit as a single rotating asset rather than individual tools. Create an asset record for "Cordless Drill Kit" that includes all components in the description/long description. You lose granular tracking of individual pieces, but you gain the ability to issue/return as one unit. The tradeoff is you can't separately track if just the charger breaks.

For the key ring situation: Your instinct about rotating tools is spot-on. I've seen this work well where each key ring becomes a single rotating asset. Document which keys are on the ring in the asset description or use classification attributes to track the key numbers. When keys get added or removed, update the asset record.

The alternative is treating these as Items instead of Tools, which would give you kitting capability. But then you lose the individual asset tracking that rotating tools provide. It really depends whether bundling or individual accountability matters more for your operation.

(still on Maximo 7.6.0.8, so maybe this is different in newer versions?)

Why can't Tools be kitted the way that Items can?  Use-cases:

1) Maybe you buy for a new employee a new bag of tools -- let's say it includes a cordless drill, flashlight, 2 batteries, charger, the bag itself, etc.  If I were managing the inventory of spare tools, I might want to purchase, issue, and return that as a single unit.

2) Keys -- this comes up every once-in-a-while as a Maximo topic.  I think Keys should be handled as Rotating Tools, and it could probably work great. . .except it would be even better if you could bundle a bunch of keys into a ring, and issue & return the ring as a single unit.