Maximo Open Forum

 View Only

 Inspection form-execution modifications

  • Maximo Application Suite
Kasey Dixon's profile image
Kasey Dixon posted 02-13-2026 17:33

Hello, I'm looking to make a small modification to the Inspection app.

As shown above, the inspection lists both the "asset" value and the "location" value.

Starting the inspection and selecting the information drawer shows:


(You can see my testing label above; this is intentional and I'll be changing it back :P )

However, I would like to display both the asset and the location here:



However, after investigating the XML, I believe that that information is displayed as a part of this component:



Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything as to how to modify this component. Is it possible to do so? Is there another way I should be going about implementing this change?

Thank you for your time,

Kasey Dixon

Steven Shull's profile image
Steven Shull

You cannot modify the form-execution in a supported way beyond the attributes that are exposed. Since inspections are extremely dynamic in nature (the number of questions, the types of questions, conditional rules around the questions, validation on the questions, etc.) IBM has implemented that in a single control that dynamically generates the other control types at run time. 

That being said, because these controls are unique to Inspections and IBM didn't want someone to try and use them in other applications where they wouldn't work properly, the code for them exist in the Inspection application. If you download the source in 9.1 (since it shows the open-attachment-dialog option, I know you're on 9.1) you would be able to see these in the src->components folder. But every patch (even minor ones like 9.1.4 to 9.1.5) you would need to merge your changes in again. You can't just replace the file as that would lead to other problems. you'd actually need to add your change back into the newest version. And it's worth repeating that this type of customization would NOT be supported by IBM. You'd need to decide if it's worth the hassle.

I'd personally open this as an idea as I have heard similar things before from other customers. For example, some customers the assetnum is not the meaningful identifier but a custom field is and they'd like to surface that there. It seems like the description could be safely moved to another property on the control that a developer could control in a supported way.