The document discusses developing a web-based system to organize building equipment documentation for maintenance. Key points: - Engineers, coordinators, and project assistants would input equipment info which would generate checklists and manuals. - General contractors and maintenance staff saw benefits but wanted integration with their current systems. - Mechanical contractors strongly supported the automated documentation process and online access to information. - Remaining questions address leveraging existing software versus a new standalone system, and using it for general submittal tracking.

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 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

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,
Response 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.

6. Interviewed: Dan Mcdowell,
Mechanical Contractor Leigh Setzer, Rod Childress,
Brandon Cobb, Shirley
Response 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.

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 Freeman
Response
• 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.

9. Building Maintenance
Documentation Process
Post-Value Proposition Interviews

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?