10 hours ago, al-yeti said:

Not that I know much about this , but isn't there a simple sort by date for part numbers that have been entered so it would ignore part numbers from old 

This fixes my problem

1 hour ago, PeterJames said:

This fixes my problem

I said It looked promising and I meant to have a look but ran out of time. I will check it out after school holidays to see if I can find an easier method.

I would seriously investigate looking at the way you setup your systems NOW and that’s not suggesting your current methods don’t work but from my own past experience it’s a long way back in the future. 
 

Aaron suggested treating items as assets, I should have thought to say the same but sometimes I make assumptions.

 

On 12/02/2022 at 10:49, PeterJames said:

To what purpose?

1. Every fault and service is recorded at asset level, so you can easily see the history of that item.

2. If faulty engineer can mark as such, system can suggest suitable replacement. Job goes back to the office with replacement part linked and can be invoiced or quoted. Asset is updated showing part swapped.

3. Firmware issues, you can search your entire client estate for any that are vulnerable.

 

loads more but I’m sure you get the gist 

In 1979 I started working for a Gentleman called Paul Miller, his company was called Sonic Alarms. Paul went on to open his own ARC call National Monitoring. Sonic alarms introduced bar codes to all its stock items which were scanned on service etc. It took me almost 20 years to catch on.

1 hour ago, alterEGO said:

1. Every fault and service is recorded at asset level, so you can easily see the history of that item.

2. If faulty engineer can mark as such, system can suggest suitable replacement. Job goes back to the office with replacement part linked and can be invoiced or quoted. Asset is updated showing part swapped.

3. Firmware issues, you can search your entire client estate for any that are vulnerable.

 

loads more but I’m sure you get the gist 

Hmm I get it but I am not sure that you do

2 hours ago, jb-eye said:

In 1979 I started working for a Gentleman called Paul Miller, his company was called Sonic Alarms. Paul went on to open his own ARC call National Monitoring. Sonic alarms introduced bar codes to all its stock items which were scanned on service etc. It took me almost 20 years to catch on.

 

I didn’t know you worked for sonic at one point.

 

I used to maintain a lot of their work around Altrincham, Hale Barns way.  The standard of the installations where some of the best I have ever seen.

5 hours ago, PeterJames said:

Hmm I get it but I am not sure that you do

Well, with a useful reply like that………. ?

1. Every fault and service is recorded at asset level, so you can easily see the history of that item.

I think its down to how often you need to analyse the assets. There are plenty of ways to find this information in the unlikely event that you need it. The PO's in cash can be searched. 

 

2. If faulty engineer can mark as such, system can suggest suitable replacement. Job goes back to the office with replacement part linked and can be invoiced or quoted. Asset is updated showing part swapped.

 

Our engineers carry van stock of most common parts, we dont lhave the time to feck around diagnosing faults on one visit to return with parts on a second visit. Its much more efficient to fix things in one visit. if we suspect its a part that the engineer does not carry in his van stock we will do our best to arrange its done after collecting said part from us first.

 

3. Firmware issues, you can search your entire client estate for any that are vulnerable.

 

How often you have firmware issues that are not found on installation or that cannot be done remotely? I know we have about 400 CCTV systems that we can remotely update if necasary, but I would bet good money that there are not more than three sites with the same firmware on their cameras as the next.  

 

Controlling stock is one thing, I see very little benefit to a live asset list.

 

We only give 12 months warranty despite what the manufacturers give. If it goes wrong three years after its installed we wont be going back for free. We may get a free replacement back from the manufacturer but it is unlikely to be the same camera.

 

We have very few comprehensive contracts, but the principle is the same, in fact it cost more to send an engineer twice than it does to supply a replacement camera FOC in most cases.

 

Hence my reply I get it, but I am not sure that anyone who has it does.

1 hour ago, PeterJames said:

1. Every fault and service is recorded at asset level, so you can easily see the history of that item.

I think its down to how often you need to analyse the assets. There are plenty of ways to find this information in the unlikely event that you need it. The PO's in cash can be searched. 

 

2. If faulty engineer can mark as such, system can suggest suitable replacement. Job goes back to the office with replacement part linked and can be invoiced or quoted. Asset is updated showing part swapped.

 

Our engineers carry van stock of most common parts, we dont lhave the time to feck around diagnosing faults on one visit to return with parts on a second visit. Its much more efficient to fix things in one visit. if we suspect its a part that the engineer does not carry in his van stock we will do our best to arrange its done after collecting said part from us first.

 

3. Firmware issues, you can search your entire client estate for any that are vulnerable.

 

How often you have firmware issues that are not found on installation or that cannot be done remotely? I know we have about 400 CCTV systems that we can remotely update if necasary, but I would bet good money that there are not more than three sites with the same firmware on their cameras as the next.  

 

Controlling stock is one thing, I see very little benefit to a live asset list.

 

We only give 12 months warranty despite what the manufacturers give. If it goes wrong three years after its installed we wont be going back for free. We may get a free replacement back from the manufacturer but it is unlikely to be the same camera.

 

We have very few comprehensive contracts, but the principle is the same, in fact it cost more to send an engineer twice than it does to supply a replacement camera FOC in most cases.

 

Hence my reply I get it, but I am not sure that anyone who has it does.

That’s how we used to work, and the model we have been moving away from. It’s fine, and I’m sure you can provide a good service as we have for a long time.

 

We are now trying to change to a platform based model, for which asset data is invaluable to us, maybe you don’t need it.

7 minutes ago, alterEGO said:

 

 

 asset data is invaluable to us

You havent convinced me that it is