HxGN EAM (formerly Infor EAM) is a configurable enterprise asset management platform. The solution was acquired by Hexagon from Infor in late 2021.
N/A
ServiceMax
Score 7.9 out of 10
N/A
ServiceMax’s mission is to help customers with asset-centric field service management software. ServiceMax’s mobile apps and cloud-based software provide an overview of assets to field service teams. By optimizing field service operations, customers across all industries can better manage the complexities of service, support faster growth and run more profitable, outcome-centric businesses.
EAM is a very capable application without necessarily making it a complex tool to use. The nice thing with EAM is that, thanks to its configuration capabilities, it can be implemented in a multi-stage manner where users can start simple and then later (and over time) expand the usage as they learn or better understand its full potential.
Small deployments, where you have some specific need for ServiceMax and absolutely need offline capabilities, and are willing to deal with the problems. Otherwise, you may be better off looking at the built-in Work Orders and field service module that Salesforce is now providing. Their app is direct competition for ServiceMax and integrates much better with cases and knowledge articles.
EAM is overall simple to use, especially since the UI and individual forms can be configured per user group with simple clicks by a system administrator.
The user support is better than average when comparing it to other software vendors we use. Normally they reply very quickly, but there is also a tendency to even reply too fast without fully analyzing or understanding the whole underlying problem. However, when we ask support to escalate something to the development team, this is done quickly as well.
HxGN EAM is relatively comparable. Much of the software solutions for large enterprise businesses offer relatively comparable features and functionality. For example, integration with our organization's asset management strategy. The set-up of the asset management is organization-specific depending on the type of assets. At our organization, it was primarily equipment and buildings. HxGN EAM stacked up well against the other major solutions such as SAP EAM, IBM Maximo, etc. It may be best to include it as part of the options assessed for a solution to consider.
ServiceMax has an offline capability, and also integrates with our Salesforce side of business. At the time, Salesforce did not have a field service application so we could not consider it, but if we could now, we would probably go with that instead. ServiceMax is also expensive. But at the time, ServiceMax was the only offering out there that integrated with Salesforce, had mobile offline capability, and could operate at the scale we needed.
Infor EAM works as well as the data contained. Management has to be dedicated to a change in culture and everyone must buy into this.
Infor EAM is very useful in exposing shoddy maintenance practices, or poor reaction to required maintenance. A company cannot be afraid to let the system work for them, and take the necessary actions to improve maintenance practices to prolong the life of their investments.
The only negative, is as mentioned above, Infor has the capabilities with KPIs and custom reports to easily identify unacceptable maintenance practices.
ROI for ServiceMax is mostly dependent on how in depth the organization wants the software. Our ROI is expected within the second year of operation due to the complexity of integration and the initial training requirements for in-house programmers.
Inventory control ROI is expected within year three or four due to the number of technicians and creating the foundation of information to import into ServiceMax. Expectations are the front end programming will be complete and our programmers will be better acquainted with the modules and architecture to make the inventory integration smoother than the initial integration.
Our organization has been working with ServiceMax for ten months and beginning to incorporate the financials to the work orders. This process has not been as seamless as once projected and the root causes are under investigation. It appears the original fields available to track time between employees were not in depth nor segregated sufficiently for granularity.
