Its a great question and honestly glad you're thinking twice before just going ahead with it - I must say that instinct is right.
So here's my take after having been through this debate more times than I can count across different industries.
The short answer: don't do it. Keep CM.
What's being requested is categorisation, not a genuinely different work process - and Work Type is the wrong field for that job.
Here's why that matters. Work Type in Maximo isn't just a label - it drives status flows, SLA application, approval routing, cost reporting roll-ups, and in a lot of shops, ERP/SAP integration mappings. It answers the question "what kind of maintenance activity is this?" - not "what kind of asset is it being done on?" The moment you start encoding asset categories into Work Type, you've crossed two orthogonal dimensions of data into one field, and it creates a mess that compounds over time.
And trust me, once you open that door, it doesn't stop at four. You approve "Robot CM" today, and within six months someone's asking for "Robot PM," "Robot EM," "Robot Inspection"... multiply that by Facility, Auxiliary, Press, and whatever new asset classes come up next year, and you're staring at 40+ work types inside two years. I've inherited Maximo instances like that and it is genuinely painful to untangle.
What I'd suggest instead:
The asset classification already tells you it's a Robot or a Press - that data lives on the asset record and flows to the work order. So the reporting cut the team is asking for is literally already possible. A simple filter of Work Type = CM AND Asset Classification = Robot gives you "Robot Corrective Maintenance" as a report view without touching your Work Type config at all. Show them that in the reporting tool and I'd wager the request goes away on its own.
If the real need is something more specific - like different approval routing, or different SLA targets by asset type - those can all be handled without a new Work Type:
Routing → condition your workflow on Asset Classification. Route Robot CMs to the Robot Team Lead, Facility CMs to the Facilities supervisor. No new Work Type needed.
SLAs → Maximo SLA records can be conditioned on Asset Classification. Give Robot CMs a 4-hour response target and Auxiliary a 24-hour target, all still under the same CM Work Type.
Reporting/KPIs → Work Order Classification hierarchy is massively underused for exactly this. Build out Corrective > Mechanical > Robotics as a classification tree and you get rich categorisation without touching Work Types at all.
The only time I'd say a new Work Type is genuinely justified is if the new type has a fundamentally different process - different status flow, different costing rule, or a distinct regulatory classification. Ask yourself: does "Robot Corrective Maintenance" go through a different approval chain, get coded differently for accounting, or have a compliance obligation that plain CM doesn't? If the answer is no, it's a filter, not a new Work Type.
Some real-world context:
In automotive stamping plants I've seen , they run entire press and robotics operations on four work types - CM, PM, EM, INSP - full stop. The asset classification and a discipline field (Mechanical, Electrical, Controls) handle all the granularity the maintenance managers need for reporting. Adding "Press CM" would have broken their SAP maintenance activity type mapping with zero benefit.
In pharma/GMP environments it's even more critical - your validation documentation and SOPs reference Work Type for regulatory submissions. If you split CM into "Facility CM" and "Equipment CM," those docs technically need revalidation. The asset classification already captures what the work was done on; Work Type captures what kind of maintenance activity it was, which is what the auditor cares about.
Same story in healthcare - Joint Commission reporting, HTM compliance, biomedical vs. facilities work - all handled through asset classification and location hierarchy, not by multiplying work types.
One practical thing you could propose internally:
A simple Work Type governance rule: "A new Work Type is only created if it requires a different status flow, a different costing treatment, or a distinct regulatory classification. If the only reason is to filter by asset category, we use Asset Classification or WO Classification instead."
Put that in a one-pager, get sign-off from whoever owns the CMMS configuration, and you'll save yourself this conversation repeatedly going forward. Shops that don't do this end up with bloated Work Type lists that nobody fully understands and that make every upgrade and integration exercise more painful.
So to directly answer your question - no, this is not a good use case for asset-classification-specific Work Types. The underlying need is completely valid; the solution just needs to be pointed at the right field. Hope that helps!