Meeting notes - Brown and Caldwell - 12 Aug 2025
Date: 2025 08-August 12
Attendees
- Rich McGillis
- Chris Puccio
- Christopher Feichtner
- Benjamin Swain
- Chris Luss
- Clayton Bennett
- Monte Goins
- Krishna Bejjanki
History
- MP2 to Hexagon data dump
- Initial dump, and then organized and uploaded
- Rethinking of asset definitions - there was an unclear understanding of assets, positions, and systems.
Next steps
- More metadata (like voltage, size, geolocation)
- Adding undefined assets (like the cracking pipe gallery floor)
- Clarifying jargon, in terms of organization (asset vs system vs position)
- Transferred assets from MP2 might be misassigned to a hierarchy properly
Monte
- "The structure is good. The problem is unclear definition"
- We know for sure, some equipment is not identified, so the structure is incomplete.
- There is utility in trying to change existing positions.
Clayton:
- How can we define things in a way that is relatively referenceable, extensible, and less fragile?
- NFC and QR code tagging, etc. To reference a unique identifier for each asset / element.
Benjamin Swain:
- We have a client like this now.
Christopher F.
- Are subcomponents tracked as assets?
- How granular do you get?
- Ex: VFD, motor, as a part of a pump.
Monte:
- Individual assets like the VFD and Motor and pump are meant to roll up into a whole system, like a pump system
- Buy in a key issue.
Christopher P:
- Is the key problem around organization confusion?
Monte:
- No, the key problem with buy in has been inconsistent Android app updates for EAM Offline. This has caused confusion.
- At Stiles the PM's are more consistent
- Management changes.
- Monte wants to get us back into being familiar
Chris F:
- Has Hexagon been providing support for the EAM Offline App?
Monte:
- Yes
- The real problem has been the City not being able to push consistent updates, only when it is needed
- A version change at the will of the technician per tablet is causing inconsistency
- Andre Armstrong and Krishna Bejjanki can submit tickets for fixes.
- Identifying asset criticality (LoF vs CoF)
Benjamin:
- Does the city have an existing asset management plan?
- "Asset management maturity evaluation" is something we can too
- Guardrails
- What is the primary driver?
Chris Luss:
- We want to get ahead of the problem.
Chris F:
- Lof and CoF
- Strong analytical case for CIP
Bryan
- Grouping several project together that are related
- Put in to place a LoF and the rehab-replace logic
- Which assets are run-to-fail (replace)
- Versus a pump, which is tear down and rebuild, and you know when
- Rehab can qualify as CIP
- Failure modes and effects analysis - can be tracked with Hexagon
- Are you using Power BI?
Krish
- We have visuals within Hexagon
- We want to use Power BI
- Cognose report writing tool, for reactive work orders vs planned work orders
Monte
- Hexagon allows for easy integration with Power BI
Chris F
- Time spent per work order, is that being collected?
- Tracking criticality has big downstream effects.
Monte:
- No, our data is non-granular per ticket
- Formality vs vision
Chris F
- Move out of a reactive to a more proactive approach
Benjamin
- Fire fighting mode to a well-laid out plan
- Important with capital, but also in operations in maintenance
- Giving people in the field more tools to make a bigger difference
- It helps management know when you need more resources to reduce stress and problems
Rich - Asset handover process
- Is it typically a spreadsheet?
Clayton and Monte
- "None - no handover process" - Mike Brower
- Yes, it is a spreadsheet - Monte
- Often the PM's lack substance
Christopher P
- Set the expectations as non-optional.
Benjamin
- Short term versus the marathon
- Six months versus beyond a the year
Chris Luss:
- Hybrid - a working version and then improvement
Clayton
- Non brittle, extensible approaches