Building maintenance documentation

Building Maintenance Documentation

ProcessInitial Idea

The system would be a web based upload sight for equipment specification PDFs that are used to create OEM building manuals.

Project assistants would upload the files and organize them.

For turnover to the Building Owner, files could be printed out in a traditional OEM manner, a web site version could be hosted in the cloud, or a local site built.

A smartphone app would be created so that QR Codes on equipment could be scanned to access the PDFs


ProcessGroup Brainstorming Changes

Engineer's drawings and documents could be used to create an initial list of equipment names and preliminary submittals.

Coordinators could be leveraged to put files / information into the system.

Maintenance record tracking would be added to the system.

AutoDesk Navisworks Manage Models could be an alternate way to store / display the information

Engineer Response

Interviewed: Ralph Stingo

• The engineer that was interviewed thought the idea showed promise and liked a lot of the original idea.

Positives:

• He thought there was value in the how the software would be able to track and help maintain equipment.

• Thought the application would help save money by keeping the scheduled maintenance stay on track to prevent major failures.

• Liked how the application would help keep all of the information passed between people working on the project.

Negatives:

• He was not sure that all of the trades would see the value in using one more piece of software to track different parts of the project.

Engineer ResponseNegatives (cont.):

• Concerned Submittals would be missed without a system to inform the different trades about changes.

Improvements:

• Suggested we create some way to import information from systems like Prolog and Constructware.

• Have some method of showing if equipment has nonstandard parts included.

• Have a method of ordering parts from the equipment description page.

• Have the equipment screen send out alerts for scheduled maintenance.

General Contractor Response

Interviewed: Bill Raymond, Baker Glasgow

• The general contractor’s both noticed the benefit’s of the application but are currently using a product providing some of the same functions.

Positives:

• They liked the fact that some of the functions were automatic that were manual and time consuming in the current utility they were using.

• They liked being able to pass on the information collected since the start of a project to the building owners and building maintenance.

Negatives:

• They were not sure that the application would be enough to get them to leave the current application they use.

Improvements:

• Create a method to pass information back and forward to their current application and the new application.

Mechanical Contractor Response

Interviewed: Dan Mcdowell, Leigh Setzer, Rod Childress, Brandon Cobb, Shirley Manning

• The Mechanical Contractor ‘s were very interested in the application since it would cut a lot of work out at the end of the project and ensure all maintenance was performed during the warranty contract period.

Positives:

• They liked that some of the steps would be automated and would help reduce the labor cost setting up binders or CD’s.

• The fact that everything could be available online would take away the time searching for manuals online.

• They liked how equipment or parts could be searched for by name.

• They thought that the added features for servicing equipment would help them and the businesses they support provide the best support for equipment.

Negatives:

• Concerned the information on the site may not stay current.

Mechanical Contractor ResponseNegatives (cont.):

• Some equipment manufacturer’s will not provide information without contacting them.

Improvements

• Create a way to add old jobs to the system.• Create a way to link equipment to some sort of asset

database.

Building Maintenance Response

Interviewed: Garden Freeman

• The response from building maintenance was positive with interest in having access to so much of the information available online.Positives:

• Easy to get to the maintenance records.• Quick access to the information.

Improvements:

• Creating a link with the existing systems.


Process

Post-Value Proposition Interviews


ProcessMEP Engineers Input Equipment Info

Web Interface

CAD Software Tools

CAD Drawing Sweeper

If the engineer can input preliminary information about the equipment (designation and initial submittals), then system can

implement checklists.


ProcessMEP Coordinators Input / Modify

Equipment Information

Web Interfaces

CAD Software Tools

Coordinators already have to download product info to draw equipment for fabrication and coordination. If they can input this information when they are drawing and placing the equipment in the drawing, it can eliminate project

assistants from having to do it.


Process Project Manager / Project Assistants Confirm

And Organize All Submittals

Web Interface

Navisworks Manage

The web interface will allow for changing the equipment and information about the equipment. It will also allow for

organizing the equipment for display and printing


Process Building Owners / Building Maintenance

Web Interface

Smart Phone Apps

QR Codes On Equipment

The web interface will include maintenance records, comments about special items used, links to the specifications, links to the

manufacturer’s website and routine maintenance schedule


ProcessStill To Be Answered Implementation Questions

Should the system leverage existing products by tying together software already in use to handle different

parts of the process? Or should it be a new comprehensive standalone system?

Should this be used as a comprehensive submittal tracking system for the General Contractor?

Building maintenance documentation

Education

Transcript of Building maintenance documentation