1. Building Maintenance
Documentation Process
Initial 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
2. Building Maintenance
Documentation Process
Group 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
3. Engineer Interviewed: Ralph
Stingo
Response
• 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.
4. Engineer
Response
Negatives (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.
5. General Contractor Interviewed: Bill Raymond,
Baker Glasgow
Response
• 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
6. Mechanical Contractor Interviewed: Dan Mcdowell,
Leigh Setzer, Rod Childress,
Response 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:
7. Mechanical Contractor
Response
Negatives (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.
8. Building Maintenance Interviewed: Garden
Response 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.
10. Building Maintenance
Documentation Process
MEP 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.
11. Building Maintenance
Documentation Process
MEP 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.
12. Building Maintenance
Documentation 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
13. Building Maintenance
Documentation 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
14. Building Maintenance
Documentation Process
Still 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?
15. Product Survey
We surveyed 10 people ranging from Engineers to
Contractors to Maintenance personnel. The results
reflect a need for a product such as this in the
industry. Time savings, ease of use, central location,
and reducing paper consumption were just some of
the benefits mentioned.
