80% of CMMS Implementations fail
80% of CMMS Implementations fail is a term that can be found in many articles.Those failures can be described in many ways, e.g. where the budget overruns, where only 20% the software is eventually utilised (then sometimes regarded as a great success), or where the changing of the original to the planned business process simply failed. The reasons for the latter can be attributed to difficult selection processes, incomplete requirement identification and/or a lack of implementation management.
Rigid CMMS software
Rigid CMMS software with a lack of possible customisation can be a significant reason. Another factor is that the software does not have sufficient features, or in fact the opposite where it
has far too many features and is simply too difficult to operate. Failure to operate in a manner that suits the “way we do things”, means you have not achieved workforce and management commitment, and all efforts are on trying to use the new system in the same manner as the old, the result being shelfware and not software. But what if the software could operate in both old and new manners? Is that possible?
Possible solutions
Possible solutions can be found in CMMS software that offers modules as your system grows, therefore allowing continuous improvement. Many suggest that configuration or customisation of the system is the only way forward, but this can prove to be expensive, but not anymore.
The new solution
The new solution is in modern software creation technology. The first step is to consider software that has all the possible features you would ever want but has 80-90% of them turned off
or invisible. The second and more important requirement is that menus, screens, dialog boxes and wizards are flexible. Flexible means they can be configured, and even for different users, but take care, don’t abuse this capability. This allows a step-by-step process in moving from an existing duplicate system to a new improved system. Indeed in many cases it can be the opposite, i.e. a need to reduce the number of fields on the screen or better still screens in the process. In either case that’s continuous improvement, introducing a new field on the screen, month by month.
And the argument of web versus a network system is over. Do both with the one system.
