Building maintenance and mobile work management system
The technician receives a history of the equipment and a job assignment at the facility. He records the work, parts and remaining defects on site so that the office does not have to re-assemble the report.
Planned need and known equipment disruption do not reach a timely task with the required working condition. Maintenance is delayed or visit does not eliminate a problem that could have been properly prepared to be addressed.
How the solution works
- The need for the device is turned into a ready-made maintenance task.
- The technician does the work on the spot and provides the facts necessary for his verification.
- The accepted result updates the device's history, and the unfinished part gets the next action.
Key challenges
- Maintenance is driven by breakdowns
- Tasks of the works are obtained through several channels
- Device data is missing or unreliable
- Spare parts not linked to equipment and works
- Energy and condition signals do not initiate works
- Technicians completing post-work reports
Solution capabilities
Installation and Maintenance Rule
A specific unit includes location, history and service need.
Work Preparation
The query, failure or scheduled term turns into one task. Examines the specialist's competence, object access and required parts.
Technician's on-site work
The technician sees the relevant instruction and data needed for a specific job on the phone. Measurements are recorded with units, and photos and documents are assigned to the same check.
No-connection operation
The required information is prepared for offline work. Once the connection is restored, records are transmitted without duplicates and inconsistencies in the changed task are raised.
Acceptance of the outcome
The parts performed, the parts used and returned, and the remaining restriction are checked. The unfinished work has another action and the story is updated according to the confirmed fact.
Business context
- Maintenance is driven by breakdowns
- Planned need and known equipment disruption do not reach a timely task with the required working condition. Maintenance is delayed or visit does not eliminate a problem that could have been properly prepared to be addressed.
- Tasks of the works are obtained through several channels
- The technician is asked to do the work through several channels without being tied to an already accepted task and contractual liability. The work is duplicated, omitted or assigned without checking other obligations of the technician.
- Device data is missing or unreliable
- The task specifies a room or common device, but lacks a specific unit, a relevant instruction, and a previous working relationship. The technician additionally searches for information or relies on an assumption appropriate for another device.
- Spare parts not linked to equipment and works
- The total balance is checked for some, but not the specific reservation, location and delivery for the technician's visit. The specialist arrives without the required set, and the extra trip increases the cost of the service.
- Energy and condition signals do not initiate works
- A significant equipment signal is not associated with a specific unit and an agreed reaction or many repetitions creates unnecessary tasks. The team does not notice an important need or devotes time to messages that do not require separate work.
- Technicians completing post-work reports
- After the visit, measurements, used parts and verification results are restored from memory or free notes. In the absence of documentation, the administration must once again contact the technician or client.
- Technician arrives ready for specific job
- It is important for the building client that the problem is addressed with as little disruption as possible. The equipment history, parts and work tasks help prepare for the visit. The locally recorded result allows for a faster explanation of what has been done and whether additional work is needed.
Core features
- Installation and Maintenance Rule
- Work Preparation
- Technician's on-site work
- No-connection operation
- Acceptance of the outcome
Key integrations
- Sources of property and technical documents
- The facility, its purpose and the maintenance requirements that apply.
- Customer requests and contract data
- Accepted need, service limit and authorized access conditions.
- Parts and Procurement Management
- Proper balance, reservation, transfer and confirmation of consumption.
- Technician workspace
- The task accepted, the actual result, and the supplement required.
- Building Automation Sources
- A technical event has been chosen with its relevance where such data is useful for the job.
- Maintenance Work System
- Task of the specific installation, criteria for verification and result validated by the reviewer.
- Source of technical documentation
- Relevant instruction and proper scheme for a specific unit.
- Management of parts and supplies
- Reserved and actually used or returned parts with an acceptance response.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Re-work caused by unprepared visit
12–36%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of manual data entry and handover work can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Additional visits and their travel and working hours are counted for the confirmed reasons.
Post-visit report work
16–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 40-70% of information searches and repeated cross-checks can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
The technician's filling in and the administrator's additional adjustment for the same type of work is measured.
Part of negative feedback on a technician's visit
4–15%Decreasing
Indicative assumption: 15-30% of negative reviews relate to an unexplained result of a technician's visit. The decision could reduce this portion by 25-50%. This is a scenario of potential; the assumptions need to be verified by feedback collected by the company.
When a company starts collecting reviews, negative feedback about the technician's visit is counted from all assessments received on the topic. The same method of assessment applies before and after installation and similar customer groups are compared. Without initial data, the actual change is not determined.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- The detail in the warehouse is, but for a visit assigned to the technician it is not reserved and at that time is used for other work.
- The client message and automation signal on the same device create two independent technician tasks.
- The administrator has to call the technician after the visit to find out what part is actually mounted.
- The report includes a photograph and signature, but lacks the measurement that makes a specific technical work.
Implementation requirements
Object data, required measurements and parts lists are prepared. The technician must be able to register the work without a permanent Internet connection. When logged in, the records are transferred to the proper task, and the unfinished work is assigned to the responsible principal.