Maximo Open Forum

 View Only
  • 1.  Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 08-28-2023 17:08

    The concept is great, build an Inspection form, associate it with any number of assets by using a route.  You can then associate the route with a PM for scheduled inspections or associate the route directly with a work order for ad-hoc inspections.

    Data gathered in the work center inspection carries over to the asset's meter(s) and condition monitoring points.

    Use case examples:

    •       Using a route to report operating hours for mobile equipment meter based PMs
    •       Entering readings (gauge, characteristic meters) for condition monitoring point data

    Trouble is, I'm not able to successfully configure an end-to-end pilot where a PM fires the Route and I can initiate collection of the inspection results in WO Tracking.

    I've been testing in both MaS 8 and 7.6.1.2. Some features work in 7.6 and some in 8.6. Main issue is Inspection results are not generated for the Route Stops.

    Is there a minimum version/patch level that others have found success with routes and inspection forms, Steven?


    #WorkCenters

    ------------------------------
    Mack Parrott
    Projetech Inc.
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 08-29-2023 11:02

    The issue you're seeing is related to the system property mxe.app.workorder.StatusToCreateInspection that was added. Previously we created the inspection result as soon as it was applied to a WO. Now we make it a configurable setting of which statuses (a comma separated list) you want the inspection result to be generated in. Unfortunately, out of the box it's set to WAPPR and a PM is set to generate WO in typically WSCH or APPR so it causes it to not generate the inspection result. You need to update this system property to have all the statuses you want it to generate in and then it will for new records. Existing records you need to go back to a previous status and change it again to get it to generate. 

    Another useful system property that is not directly relevant to this but important to call out is mxe.app.inspection.UpdatePendingResults. With PMs this is especially important because you may generate PMs month in advance. In the past if you then had revised the inspection form after WOs were generated, all those existing WOs were stuck with the old inspection form revision. Now as long as it's still in a PENDING status (users haven't worked the inspection) it will automatically use the latest revision instead when this is enabled.



    ------------------------------
    Steven Shull
    IBM
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 08-29-2023 11:54

    Thank you Steven - in further testing, I found another system property that needed to be updated from its default to achieve my desired outcome of batch inspections for the route - mxe.app.workorder.InspectionBatchRecord.

    I really like what I'm seeing with this functionality, looking forward to see how it plays on mobile devices. 



    ------------------------------
    Mack Parrott
    Projetech Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 08-30-2023 13:19

    Hi Mack,

    The mxe.app.workorder.InspectionBatchRecord System Property was created to provide the option to stop generating the InspectionResult records with "PARENTWO" as the ReferenceObject.  That record is what defines a "Batch" Inspection.  In the original design, the PARENTWO record was always created which generated a lot of confusion for users who were only entering Inspection Forms on WOs because 2 InspectionResult records were created for every WO.  The original design also generated the PARENTWO for the WO at the top of the WO Hierarchy which caused a whole bunch of other issues.

    The design was changed sometime last year so that the PARENTWO record, if generated, is always generated at the lowest level WO so that no "Batch" would ever include an InspectionResult record for more than WO or Task.  With that design, the PARENTWO record really only makes much sense when the WO has related MultiAssetLocCI records with Inspection Forms.

    When that property was added, the Default Value was set to stop generating the PARENTWO records altogether.  Presumably, the logic for that was that Maximo Mobile did not support "Batch" Inspections".  I believe it finally does with 8.10.

    With all the changes that were made to the original design, many bugs were introduced in the process for populating the Parent field on the InspectionResult record and the creation of the PARENTWO InspectionResult record, if applicable.  I believe most of the issues have been fixed in the latest IFixes for 7.6.1.2 and 7.6.1.3 but have not had a chance to fully retest everything.  My point though is that you should be sure to have the latest IFixes applied before you spend too much time testing "Batch Inspections".

    Thanks.



    ------------------------------
    Julio Hernandez
    Ergonare, Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 09-12-2023 15:02
    Edited by Mack Parrott 09-12-2023 15:30

    Now testing in MaS 8.6, I find that you have to first assign the inspection work order before results can be recorded.  Was hoping to find a System Property to switch that off.

    Has anyone found a workaround for this 'feature'?



    ------------------------------
    Mack Parrott
    Projetech Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 08-30-2023 13:08

    Hi Steven,

    I submitted a Support Case (TS009480819) last year complaining about InspectionResult records not being created for PM WOs with the default "WO Status" value of WSCH and about the default value for the mxe.app.workorder.StatusToCreateInspection being set to "WAPPR".  I pointed out that when new System Properties are added, the Default Value has historically been set to maintain the behavior that was in place before the System Property was added and suggested that the Default Value should be set to "WAPPR, WMATL, APPR, WSCH, INPRG, COMP".  Development said it was working as designed and refused to have an APAR created.  Perhaps you would have better luck convincing them to change the Default Value.

    I also pointed out that the logic for adding the System Property in the first place was to allow users to delay the creation of the InspectionResult record to be closer to when the work is likely to be done.  As such, WAPPR is the first Status I would remove from the list.

    Thanks.



    ------------------------------
    Julio Hernandez
    Ergonare, Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 09-05-2023 09:41

    Hi Mark, 

    In our current Maximo implementation we are using the same method as you described. On paper it works great until we deployed to production where with large amounts of data has become very very slow and almost unusable. Have you seen any issues with perforamce when trying this set up? we are currently on 7.6.1.2 . Or if anyone else has seen performance issues around Routes, Inspection Forms, and Workorders? 

    ------------------------------
    David Nielsen
    ------------------------------



    ------------------------------
    David Nielsen
    Southern Company
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 09-13-2023 09:18

    David,

    We are just getting going with inspections so I don't have personal experience with large data sets but I did come across a good technical presentation on inspection forms with a few slides on "performance guidelines and best practices".

    Have a look at MaxTEACH: Maximo Inspections Deep Dive and Roadmap by Stephen Hume of BPD Zenith.

    https://www.bpdzenith.com/maxtech



    ------------------------------
    Mack Parrott
    Projetech Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Using Routes and Inspection forms

    Posted 09-22-2023 12:52

    What FP level are you? We had that same issue until we moved up to 7.6.1.2 with FP28 and those issues went away. Also the Deepdive resource mentioned is excellent and sets you in the right direction but you will have to struggle with the SQL. 



    ------------------------------
    Scott Guzman
    NASA JSC
    ------------------------------