No thanks, I don't need to be in the know.
Type your search

It might hurt, but it’s time to say goodbye to outdated technology

Nov 28, 2017
Reading Time:
Total Shares

When LA Metro purchased the M3 system in the early 2000s, management made a logical decision to take an enterprise approach to asset management where all divisions utilize a single maintenance management system (rail, bus, facilities, and MOW). The goal of enterprise asset management (EAM) systems of that era was to capture all maintenance data in a single system to provide management with a master repository for managing daily operations. After many years, however, it is now clear that, largely due to limitations in the M3 technology, your current systems have fallen short of fulfilling those goals.

In this section of the report, we highlight the key issues that your Maintenance divisions report about current maintenance processes and the M3 system, and the opportunities for improvement that a Next Generation system will provide.  

Current M3 System

After meeting with your divisions, the need to replace the M3 system is universally acknowledged. Highlighted below are the key high-level themes reported by your Maintenance staff about M3, along with relevant opportunities. (Later in this document, we provide a more detailed discussion of each maintenance division: rail, bus, wayside, and facilities).   

After many years of live operations with M3, the verdict is clear: Due to M3’s limitations, missing integrations with key operational systems, and the many workarounds (separate spreadsheets, etc.) that remain in use, LA Metro has fallen short of achieving many of its ultimate objectives.    

A key theme is echoed by your rail, facilities, and MOW divisions when discussing M3: they have struggled to use it because it was not designed for their line of business. As a result, you’ve expended significant staff resources entering and managing timekeeping, work orders, and materials transactions. On a daily basis, M3’s shortcomings result in lost productivity, operational costs increases, and the increased risk associated with incomplete data. Lastly, M3 has shown that it is not designed to support transit best-practice workflows, or the quickly evolving industry requirements related to FAST Act/MAP-21 (lifecycle asset management, State of Good Repair, etc.).


 
Marcelo Bravo has dedicated his entire career to rail and transit with over 25 years of experience in the industry. Previous responsibilities have included cradle to grave delivery of passenger rail cars, Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) software, and management consulting to transit authorities and railroads, in both North America and abroad. As the Trapeze Group Director of Rail Solutions, Bravo is in charge of the rail market strategy for North America, which encompasses the Trapeze Rail Enterprise range of offerings.
 
The latest in transit, delivered straight to your inbox.
Thanks
You are now subscribed to the Trapeze blog
If you like this blog you might also like
How EAM Can Improve a State’s Poor Asset Report Card Grade
Request a Live Demo
 
Let's get you on the mailing list