CMMS Software: Choosing a Maintenance System Your Team Will Use

A few years back, during my first week at a packaging plant, I walked into the maintenance office and saw a big monitor on the wall showing the dashboard from the plant’s CMMS software. There were green tiles everywhere. In addition, PM compliance was sitting in the high nineties. At first glance, it looked like a well run department.

Then I went out to the floor and asked a second shift mechanic where he had logged the bearing he just swapped on a case packer. Instead of pointing to a tablet, he reached into his back pocket and pulled out a spiral notebook.

In other words, that notebook, not the dashboard, was the real maintenance history of that line.

What That Notebook Taught Me

To be fair, the plant had not bought bad software. Rather, it had bought software nobody on the floor had a reason to touch. As a result, the license got renewed every year while PMs were “completed” by a planner clicking boxes on Friday afternoon. Consequently, every reliability decision we tried to make over the next several months ran straight into the same wall, because the data in the system was fiction.

Since then, I have been through three CMMS selections. Twice I was the person signing off, and once I was the guy who inherited somebody else’s choice and had to make it work. So if I could tell every maintenance manager and reliability leader one thing before they start shopping for CMMS software, it would be this: the best system on paper is worthless if your technicians work around it. In short, adoption is not something that happens after you pick a tool. Adoption is the main thing you are picking for.

Why So Many CMMS Software Projects Stall

Of course, you do not have to take my word for it, because the industry numbers are rough. Depending on the source, the failure rate vendors themselves acknowledge for CMMS implementations sits around 50 percent and can even run as high as 80 percent. Moreover, the same source points out that only 6 percent of companies say they use every function in their CMMS, and only 39 percent use it consistently to track maintenance tasks.

Similarly, eMaint, a vendor with every reason to make the picture look rosy, makes a point I agree with completely. Many organizations treat a CMMS rollout as a technology project and spend as long as a year making sure the software checks every box. In reality, however, these projects are more about preparation and change management than about technology.

What the Surveys Say

Likewise, Plant Engineering’s annual maintenance surveys tell a similar story from the user side. For instance, their 2022 survey found that most plants now run a CMMS or EAM, yet many of those systems are underused because they are outdated, no longer supported, or no longer reflect how work actually gets done.

The Common Root Cause

When I look back at the stalled implementations I have seen, nearly all of them share one root cause. Namely, the system was chosen by people who never close a work order. Typically, the selection committee was the plant manager, an IT lead, purchasing, and maybe the maintenance manager. Meanwhile, the person who would spend fifteen minutes a day inside the software, with grease on their hands and a line down, was not in the room.

Start With How Work Actually Moves Through Your Plant

Before you look at a single vendor website, first map your work order flow the way it really happens. In other words, map it as it happens, not the way the procedure binder says it happens.

To do this, grab a technician you trust, a planner, and an operator, and then walk through the last five breakdowns together. For each one, trace it step by step:

1. Who noticed the problem, and how did they tell someone?
2. Who decided it was urgent?
3. Who figured out what parts and skills were needed?
4. How did the tech find out about the job?
5. Where did the parts come from, and did they have to go hunting?
6. What got written down when the job was done, and where?
7. Did anyone ever look at that record again?

Find the Friction Points

Next, count the handoffs. Also, note every place paper shows up, every whiteboard, every text message, and every “I just yelled across the shop.” After all, those are your friction points, and those are exactly where a good CMMS earns its keep or gets ignored.

For example, I did this exercise at a food plant and found that operators were reporting problems to three different people depending on the shift. Admittedly, no system in the world fixes that on its own. However, once we saw it, we could write it into the requirements. Specifically, work requests had to be dead simple for operators, with no login headache and no training needed beyond a two minute walk through.

As a result, this map becomes your yardstick. So when a vendor shows you their beautiful scheduling board, you can ask how it handles step four on your list, the way your plant actually does it.

The Technician Test

Here is the part most buyers skip. Your technicians will judge the CMMS software in about a week, and they will base that judgment on one thing: does it make their day easier or harder?

Picture the Real Conditions

To begin with, picture the actual conditions. Imagine a tech wearing gloves, standing next to a running conveyor, in a basement pump room with no WiFi signal, holding a phone with a cracked screen. Under those conditions, can they pull up the asset, see its history, and close the job without walking back to the shop?

MaintainX describes this well. For instance, if a tech has to click ten times to find the right work order, or scroll through a hundred options to log a failure code, they will find a faster workaround. As a result, the CMMS becomes irrelevant.

My Two Minute Test

That is why, when I evaluate a system now, I run what I call the two minute test. Specifically, I hand a phone to a technician who has never seen the software and ask them to do four things:

• Scan a tag on a real machine and pull up its open work orders
• See the last three repairs on that asset
• Log labor time and a part used
• Close the job with a failure code and a short note

If they cannot get through it in about two minutes after a short demo, then that system goes to the bottom of my list, no matter how good the reporting looks.

Offline Mode and Technician Votes

Furthermore, offline capability matters more than vendors admit. Tractian puts it plainly: technicians must be able to access, update, and close tasks in the field, even offline, or else adoption will stall. Therefore, ask every vendor to put the phone in airplane mode during the demo and close a work order. Chances are, you will learn a lot from the faces in the room.

Equally important, put technicians on the selection team. Maintenance World lists involving technicians in CMMS selection as one of the core steps for getting buy in, and I would go even further. In fact, give your senior techs a real vote. After all, if the two most respected mechanics on your crew hate the system, everyone else will too.

Closeout Data Is Where Reliability Lives

Now I want to talk as a reliability person for a minute, because this is where I see the most expensive mistakes.

Put simply, a CMMS that only tracks whether jobs got done is a ticketing system. Granted, that has value, but it will not help you reduce failures. For that, you need good closeout data: what failed, how it failed, why it failed, and what was done about it.

Why Failure Modes Matter

Years ago, Reliabilityweb ran an article with a title that still stings: “Without Accurate Failure Data All You Have Is a Work Order Ticket System.” In it, the author argues that failure mode may be the most overlooked data element, since most CMMS products do not capture it. Yet it is exactly what lets you derive the right maintenance tactic, compare work order failures to your RCM analysis, and drill into your worst actors. Moreover, the same piece warns that you should not assume an out of the box CMMS has a decent failure analytic, if it has one at all.

Using ISO 14224 as a Guide

Meanwhile, the international reference point here is ISO 14224. Although it was written for oil and gas, the logic applies anywhere. Essentially, its core idea is to record every failure as a triplet: what was observed (the problem), why it happened (the cause), and what was done about it (the remedy).

What I Look For During Selection

With that in mind, here is what I check:

• Failure codes tied to asset class. For example, a pump should not offer the same code list as a conveyor, a PLC, or a CNC machine. In Maximo, a failure class is assigned to an asset type, so when a technician opens the failure report on a work order, they only see codes relevant to that asset. Likewise, whatever system you choose should do something similar.
• Separate fields, not free text. Notably, one common data problem is conflating failure mode, failure mechanism, and failure cause, which is described as the single most common data quality error in CMMS records. Therefore, keep them distinct in the system design.
• Short pick lists. Simply put, twelve good codes beat ninety codes nobody understands. Besides, you can always expand later.
• Mandatory, but fast. In other words, make the code required at closeout, but make it two taps, not a scavenger hunt.

A Lesson I Learned the Hard Way

Unfortunately, I learned this the hard way. At one site, we had a beautiful failure code hierarchy that an outside consultant built, with over a hundred codes per asset class. Within three months, however, nearly every closeout used “Other.” Consequently, the data was useless. So we cut the list down to the eight or ten codes that explained most of our downtime, and as a result, closeout quality jumped almost overnight.

Get Your Data Ready Before You Sign Anything

Ultimately, your new system will only be as good as what you feed into it. Although this sounds obvious, it is still the part every implementation underestimates.

For instance, Reliabilityweb describes a pattern I have seen firsthand. Companies believe an expensive new CMMS will solve all their problems, only to find six months later that they cannot run basic part searches or transactional reports. To prevent this, they recommend you cleanse, standardize, and enhance every item before migrating legacy data, according to standards you define upfront.

Similarly, OxMaint suggests spending 30 percent of your implementation timeline on data rather than on the software. In my experience, that is about right, and possibly a little light for older plants.

Three Things to Prepare First

Before demos, therefore, I want three things in decent shape:

An asset hierarchy. This means site, area, line, machine, and component. Also, agree on naming conventions now. Otherwise, if one person calls it “Line 3 Filler” and another calls it “F3,” your history splits in two. Do not forget newer equipment either, such as additive manufacturing systems, which often get left off the list.

A criticality ranking. After all, not every asset deserves the same attention. For example, a simple one to five ranking based on safety, production impact, and repair cost will drive your PM priorities and help you decide which assets to load first. If you run MES software, its downtime data is a good starting point for the production impact score.

A cleaned spare parts list. Look for duplicate part numbers, vague descriptions like “bearing, misc,” and parts that have not moved in ten years. Then clean it before migration, not after. While you are at it, flag obsolete parts you may eventually reproduce through industrial 3D printing.

Fortunately, you do not need perfection on day one. Instead, load your critical assets first with accurate data, and afterward add the rest in waves.

CMMS or EAM? Be Honest About What You Need

Naturally, vendors will try to sell you up. Sometimes that is the right call; often, though, it is not.

Reliabilityweb lays out the difference well. A CMMS is built to manage a single location or offer limited multisite support, whereas an EAM system comes with extensive features for managing multiple sites and businesses. In addition, they note that if you are just looking to put in a preventive maintenance program, a CMMS may be your best choice.

My Rule of Thumb

Generally speaking, if you are a single site with fewer than fifty maintenance people and you do not need deep financial integration with your ERP for capital planning, then a well chosen CMMS will serve you better than a heavyweight EAM. As a result, you will get faster adoption, a shorter rollout, and fewer consultants on the payroll.

On the other hand, if you run multiple plants, need standardized reporting across them, and your finance team wants maintenance costs tied to asset lifecycle and depreciation, then an EAM starts to make sense. Even so, know that the technician experience in many enterprise systems lags behind the newer mobile focused tools. Consequently, you will need to work harder on adoption.

Run Demos on Your Scenarios, Not Theirs

Frankly, a vendor demo is theater. You get polished data, perfect assets, and a presenter who has clicked through the same flow five hundred times. For that reason, it tells you almost nothing about how the software will behave in your plant.

Send Your Own Scenarios

So take control of the demo. First, send vendors three to five real scenarios from your work order map a week in advance. Then ask them to walk through those live, using your terminology. Here are some I use:

1. An operator reports a leak on a hydraulic unit at 2 a.m. Show me how that request reaches the on call tech and how the tech closes it.
2. A PM on a critical compressor is overdue because the line could not be shut down. Show me how the planner reschedules it and how that shows up in compliance reporting.
3. A technician replaces a motor and uses a part that is not in stock. Show me what happens to inventory and how purchasing finds out.
4. I want a list of the top ten assets by downtime hours last quarter, broken down by failure cause. Build it in front of me.
5. A new hire starts Monday. Show me how long it takes to get them productive in the app.

In my experience, number four separates the serious systems from the pretty ones fast.

Talk to the Right References

Additionally, ask for reference calls with plants similar to yours in size and industry. And when you get them, ask to speak with a technician or a supervisor, not just the maintenance manager who picked the system. After all, the manager has a reason to defend the choice, while the tech will tell you the truth.

Likewise, G2’s buying guide makes a fair point about who belongs in the process. A CMMS selection team, they suggest, should include members of the maintenance team, executives, and managers from other departments that benefit from the software, such as accounting and logistics. I agree, as long as the maintenance floor still has the loudest voice.

Pilot Before You Commit Everything

Above all, never roll out to the whole plant at once. Instead, pick one area, ideally one with a mix of critical assets and a supervisor who is open to change, and then run a real pilot. Think of it the way engineers approach rapid prototyping: test small, learn fast, and only then scale up.

Also, set clear checkpoints. For example, Tractian recommends you select champions from each role: one technician, one supervisor, and one planner. That trio then becomes your early warning system. In particular, they will spot configuration problems, confusing screens, and missing codes long before the rest of the plant has to deal with them.

At the same time, watch the paper problem closely. OxMaint warns that teams that run paper and CMMS side by side for more than 60 days almost always see adoption slide back to paper. Indeed, I have watched this happen. Therefore, set a hard date when the old forms go away, and stick to it.

Supervisors Make or Break It

Here is something nobody tells you in the sales cycle: your supervisors will ultimately decide whether the new CMMS software lives or dies.

MicroMain puts it well. Supervisors, they explain, are often the bridge between leadership and technicians. So if supervisors use the CMMS consistently, technicians are more likely to follow. Conversely, if supervisors work around the system, adoption weakens quickly.

No Work Order, No Work

At my last plant, for instance, we had one simple rule: no work order, no work. Of course, emergency jobs got done first and were logged right after. Still, nothing was “done” until it was closed in the system. In addition, supervisors reviewed closeouts at the start of each shift. The goal was not to punish anyone but rather to catch missing codes and vague notes while the job was still fresh in the tech’s mind.

Admittedly, it took about six weeks before that review felt routine. After that, however, closeout quality took care of itself.

Show Technicians What They Get Back

Most CMMS rollouts sell the benefits to management, such as better reports, compliance tracking, and audit trails. Unfortunately, technicians hear that and think, “So I’m doing more paperwork so the office can make charts.”

So flip the pitch. In fact, the real benefit for a tech is having the machine’s whole history in their hand. That includes the last three repairs, what parts were used, notes from the guy who fixed it at 3 a.m. last month, photos, the manual, and even the torque spec.

For example, MicroMain notes that a CMMS is easier to adopt when technicians can quickly see asset history, job instructions, parts availability, priority, safety notes, and previous repair details. Similarly, FacilityBot suggests going a step further. Simple dashboards showing a technician’s own completed jobs, response time, or asset history contributions, they argue, create a sense of ownership that management reports never will.

Eventually, when a tech can stand in front of a machine and pull up the exact fix that worked last time, they stop seeing the CMMS as paperwork. Instead, they start seeing it as a tool, just like their multimeter.

Counting the Real Cost

Surprisingly, license pricing is the smallest part of what you will spend. Therefore, budget for these too:

• Implementation and configuration. This includes vendor services, consultant time, or your own internal hours.
• Data cleanup and migration. In many cases, this is the single biggest hidden cost.
• Hardware. For example, rugged phones or tablets, cases, and QR or barcode tags for every asset. Also, if those devices will touch the plant network, bring in your OT cybersecurity team early.
• Training time. In other words, hours your techs spend learning instead of turning wrenches.
• Ongoing administration. After go live, someone still has to own the system, maintain code lists, and fix bad data.

Watch the Licensing Model

Also, pay attention to how licensing works. Some vendors, for instance, charge for every user, including operators who only submit requests. So if you have two hundred operators who should be reporting problems, per seat pricing for requesters can push you toward locking them out. As a result, you lose one of the most valuable data sources you have. For this reason, ask specifically about free or low cost requester access.

Be Realistic About Payback

On the return side, likewise, be realistic. OxMaint argues that the fastest payback comes in plants where avoiding a single unplanned breakdown covers the entire first year cost. This is common in heavy industrial and process plants, where an hour of downtime runs past $10,000. That is true for many sites; however, it only holds if the data is good enough to actually prevent the breakdown. In contrast, a system full of “Other” codes will not save you anything.

Red Flags I Watch For

After enough selections, certain warning signs jump out at me right away:

• The vendor will not let your technicians try the mobile app before you sign.
• Every question about customization gets answered with “our professional services team can build that.”
• The failure code setup is an afterthought or locked to a generic list.
• References are only from managers, never from floor staff.
• Recent online reviews keep mentioning slow performance or a confusing mobile app. In fact, OxMaint advises that if around 30 percent of reviews from the past 18 months mention slow performance, confusing mobile screens, or technician resistance, that is a product problem no support call will fix after signing.
• Offline mode is still “on the roadmap.”
• The demo account has three perfect assets and nothing messy.

Individually, any one of these is worth a hard conversation. However, if I see two or more, I usually walk.

What Good Looks Like Six Months In

Before go live, set your success measures, so that you are not making them up afterward. These are the ones I track:

• Share of work orders closed from mobile. If most closeouts still happen at a desk at the end of the shift, then the data is being written from memory.
• Share of corrective work orders with a real failure code. That means not “Other” and not blank.
• PM compliance that you trust. To verify it, spot check closed PMs against what was actually done.
• Planned versus reactive work ratio. In particular, is it moving in the right direction?
• Backlog age. In other words, are jobs getting lost or getting done?
• The notebook count. Simply walk the floor and ask. If the spiral notebooks are gone, then you are winning.

Admittedly, that last one is not a formal KPI. Even so, it is the most honest one I know.

Final Thoughts

In the end, choosing CMMS software is not really a software decision. Rather, it is a decision about how your team will work every single day for the next five to ten years. For that reason, the feature list matters far less than whether a technician standing next to a broken machine at 2 a.m. finds the system useful.

So get your people involved early. Then map your real workflow, and clean your data before you migrate. Next, design closeout around the failure information your reliability program actually needs. Finally, pilot it small, back it with your supervisors, and give technicians something they value in return.

If you do that, the dashboard on the office wall will finally tell the truth about what is happening on the floor.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CMMS software?

CMMS stands for computerized maintenance management system. Essentially, it is software that manages work orders, preventive maintenance schedules, asset records, and spare parts. Unlike an EAM, it focuses on day to day maintenance operations rather than full lifecycle financial management. Read more: EAM and CMMS: Know the Difference (Reliabilityweb)

How long does a CMMS implementation take?

Generally, a focused rollout at a single site can go live in roughly 90 days when it is phased with clear checkpoints. However, larger or more complex plants often take longer, and data preparation usually takes more time than software setup. Read more: CMMS Implementation Guide: 90 Day Deployment Roadmap (OxMaint)

Why do CMMS implementations fail?

In most cases, they fail because of poor planning, weak change management, bad data migration, and low technician buy in. In other words, the software itself is rarely the main problem. Read more: What Makes CMMS Implementations Successful? (eMaint)

How do you get technicians to actually use a CMMS?

First, involve them in selection. Then choose a system with a simple mobile app, train on real equipment, and show them how asset history and repair notes make their job easier. Read more: 8 Tips for Getting Maintenance Technicians to Adopt CMMS Software (Maintenance World)

What failure codes should we use in our CMMS?

To start, use a short list tied to each asset class and structured around problem, cause, and remedy. For guidance, ISO 14224 is the most widely used reference for building that structure. Read more: Failure Codes: A Guide to the Basics (Limble)

Should we choose a CMMS or an EAM?

Typically, a CMMS fits single sites that need strong work order and PM management. On the other hand, an EAM makes more sense for multisite organizations that need lifecycle and financial integration. Read more: EAM and CMMS: Know the Difference (Reliabilityweb)

References

Industry Research and Surveys

1. ClickMaint. CMMS Implementation: Step by Step Guide. https://www.clickmaint.com/cmms-implementation
2. eMaint. What Makes CMMS Implementations Successful? https://www.emaint.com/works/cmms-implementation-success/
3. Plant Engineering. Jobs Are There for the Taking (2022 Maintenance Survey). https://www.plantengineering.com/jobs-are-there-for-the-taking/
4. G2. Best CMMS Software. https://www.g2.com/categories/cmms

Selection and Adoption Guides

5. MaintainX. The Ultimate CMMS Software Guide. https://www.getmaintainx.com/blog/what-is-cmms
6. Tractian. Complete CMMS Implementation Guide. https://tractian.com/en/blog/complete-guide-to-implement-cmms-successfully
7. Maintenance World. 8 Tips for Getting Maintenance Technicians to Adopt CMMS Software. https://maintenanceworld.com/2023/09/19/8-tips-for-getting-maintenance-technicians-to-adopt-cmms-software/
8. MicroMain. CMMS Adoption: Why Maintenance Teams Resist Software. https://micromain.com/cmms-adoption-resistance/
9. FacilityBot. CMMS User Adoption: The Ultimate Facilities Software Adoption Strategy. https://blog.facilitybot.co/blog/cmms-user-aoption-the-ultimate-adoption-strategy/
10. OxMaint. The Ultimate CMMS Buying Guide 2026. https://oxmaint.com/article/ultimate-cmms-buying-guide-2026-choose-maintenance-software
11. OxMaint. CMMS Implementation Guide: 90 Day Deployment Roadmap. https://oxmaint.com/article/cmms-implementation-guide-90-day-deployment-roadmap

Failure Data, Standards, and Asset Management

12. Reliabilityweb. Without Accurate Failure Data All You Have Is a Work Order Ticket System. https://reliabilityweb.com/articles/entry/without-accurate-failure-data-all-you-have-is-a-work-order-ticket-system
13. Reliabilityweb. The Key to Unlocking the Full Potential of Your CMMS. https://reliabilityweb.com/articles/entry/the_key_to_unlocking_the_full_potential_of_your_cmms
14. Reliabilityweb. EAM and CMMS: Know the Difference. https://reliabilityweb.com/articles/entry/eam-and-cmms-know-the-difference
15. Skyline. ISO 14224 Failure Code Reference. https://alskyline.com/tools/iso-14224-failure-codes
16. Maximo Mastery. How to Align Maximo’s Failure Hierarchy with ISO 14224. https://maximomastery.com/blog/2026/04/maximo-failure-hierarchy-iso-14224-alignment/
17. iFluids. ISO 14224 Reliability Data: Field Tested Asset Manager Guide. https://ifluids.com/standard/iso-14224-reliability-failure-data-guide/
18. Limble. Failure Codes: A Guide to the Basics. https://limble.com/learn/failure-codes