Ahhh I see it now. It WO, W. This is a good case of avoiding letters that look like numbers of vice versa. This is why some letters are not on a car's license plate. Either way it does not matter and many companies do use WO, but just start their numbering from a value that start with anything other than < 999.
Original Message:
Sent: 03-17-2024 22:31
From: Peter Watkins
Subject: Work order autonumbering
Thanks a bunch @Craig Kokay, fortunately we don't have multiple sites .
But i do wish I had recommended just to go with the W rather than WO as a prefix. Might still have time before the upload.
------------------------------
Peter Watkins
Northern Asset Reliability Maintenance Solutions
Original Message:
Sent: 03-13-2024 19:40
From: Craig Kokay
Subject: Work order autonumbering
Good morning, Peter.
I've taken onboard Martin's comment which makes perfect sense, however, that's true only if:
- Your exporting to Excel
- Sorting the work orders in Excel based on the work order number.
What needs to be explored further is why do you feel that you have to change away from the default autoseed starting at 1,000.
There are typically two reasons:
- You have several sites and want to distinguish which one they're from.
- You just can't stand having short numbers.
Several sites
Let's say you have three sites (ignoring orgs) A, B, and C. By default, each will use the same autoseed and thus based solely on the number, one cannot tell which site the record is from. Some people are concerned that when referring to work order 1322, they don't know that is for A, B or C. For me I don't care, even for exporting or reporting as I always include the Site ID. So, what usually happens is that a prefix is assigned at site level A, B, or C. Solves the problem, job done. However, in your sample, you have used a W, most likely at the system level, which means that we're still back to the original issue of "I can't tell where the work order is from." Circular argument, eh?
BTW: The W is just used to annotate that whenever you say this you know that the record is a work order. "A" is for asset, "PM" is for PMs, "JP" for jobplans, well heck you could do this all over.
Back to the typical resolution where you have defined that W = work order, yet you still also need to distinguish which site it is from. You'd think that you would apply the prefix at the site level. Nope, most just change the autoseed value, so A starts at 100000000, B at 200000000, and C at 300000000.
It does work well, but do think through the number of work orders you are generating per year because, just like an odometer at some stage it will reach a higher number which Maximo will not like. People have also found it useful to prefix the tasks as per the screenshot too.
Summary of options
| Site A | Site B | Site C | Comment |
| No prefix | 1000 | 1001 | 1002 | Note seed will always increment by 1, so that will never be the same. |
| Prefix of W | W12345669 | W12345669 | W12345669 | |
| Prefix of W and different autoseed per site | W12345669 | W22345669 | W32345669 | |
| Prefix per site, same autoseed at org level | A1000 | B1001 | C1002 | Note seed will always increment by 1, so that will never be the same. |
| Prefix per site, same autoseed value at site level | A1000 | B1000 | C1000 | |
Too short numbers
Straight up, I don't care. A number is a number. However, as Martin said when sorting, interesting things tend to happen. To overcome that people have changed the autoseed to start at a large number like 10,000,000.
Short numbers are so easy to remember or say.
Too longer numbers
If you change the autoseed to start at large number like 10,000,000, that's a lot of zeros and the eye gets lazy or 'bored' because of the repetition. If you had 12,433,346, the eye has to read each number.
There is also the argument that having long number is harder to remember if you have to write (or the like) the number. It does after all have to be viewed, processed by the brain (without forgetting), then outputted via the hand using a pen or keyboard (ignoring the copy/paste).
End result
So, back to using your original seed of W0001 (which you cannot do, it will start a 1) and progressing that in Excel to W116706, the sorting in Excel, still produces the same sorting issue, as per the screenshot that has each column sorted in Excel.
In conclusion, you are better off starting with a large number and using a prefix if you need to identify that this is a work order as opposed to an asset.
------------------------------
Craig Kokay
Principal Consultant
COSOL
email: craig.kokay@cosol.global
#IBMChampion
Original Message:
Sent: 03-11-2024 19:12
From: Peter Watkins
Subject: Work order autonumbering
Hi, we have 2 options for autonumbering workorders on creation.
Option 1 will start at WO00001, Option 2 will start at WO1.
I am familiar with using Option 1 and have had no issues aside from having to remember how many zero's precede the final number.
Any experience/issues with Option 2 please
#WorkManagement
------------------------------
Peter Watkins
Northern Asset Reliability Maintenance Solutions
------------------------------