Creating Intelligent Maintenance through Co-design, Change Management, and Automation of the Data and Process Envelope

In this third article of our six-part series, we look at how we designed our development foundations before embarking on the creation of our second-generation Intelligent Maintenance (IM) system. If you haven’t read our first two articles, Planned Preventative Maintenance and the Evolution to Intelligent Maintenance and Building Data, Analytics, and Intelligent Maintenance , we highly recommend you do so first.

Let me start with a question: What is more important, creation or adoption?

When building new systems and processes in an existing business environment, there are essentially two general approaches we can adopt.

1. Build It and They Will Come Approach

This approach is based on the idea that a well-designed, fully developed product will naturally attract users due to its inherent value and features. The key characteristics include:

Development Focus: The platform is developed based on assumptions of user needs and requirements without direct input from end-users.

Pros:

• Faster to implement, as the development cycle does not require consultation phases.
• Initial development is streamlined, focusing solely on perceived needs and technological capabilities.

Cons:

• Risk of misalignment with actual user needs, leading to lower adoption rates.
• Potential for increased costs in post-launch modifications after feedback is eventually gathered.
• Lack of user ownership or emotional investment, which can affect usage intensity and buy-in.

2. Co-Creation Approach

In contrast, co-creation involves stakeholders (technicians, account managers, and customers) from the early stages of the platform's conception and development. This approach is characterised by:

Development Focus: Direct input from end-users shapes the development, ensuring the platform meets actual working needs and preferences.

Pros:

• High alignment with user expectations and needs, enhancing satisfaction and utility.
• Increased adoption rates due to user involvement in the design process, fostering a sense of ownership and commitment.
• Potential for innovative ideas and improvements that developers might not have considered independently.

Cons:

• Potentially slower to market due to the iterative process of gathering feedback and making adjustments.
• Could lead to higher upfront costs due to extended development phases involving multiple feedback loops.

Why Co-Design is Crucial for Effective and Inclusive Solutions

Research and case studies suggest that user engagement and participatory design practices tend to deliver higher success rates in technology adoption. Platforms developed with direct input from end-users are more likely to meet practical needs, enhancing sustained use. Co-creation facilitates a deeper understanding of the user's daily challenges and needs, building a stronger commitment to the platform's success among users.

Users are put in the driver’s seat, transforming the conversation from "It won’t work" to a "How can we" exploration, with those closest to the problems leading the discovery.

Moreover, co-creation aligns with modern Agile development practices, which emphasise user feedback and continuous improvement, leading to a better final product. This approach also builds trust and communication between the development team and the users, which is essential for ongoing platform evolution and maintenance.

While the "build it and they will come" approach might seem efficient initially, engaging users early and allowing them to co-create the platform is crucial when dealing with complex changes to long-established ways of working.

Why We Chose Co-Design for Intelligent Maintenance

We decided from the outset that co-design and co-creation would be the foundation of success across all aspects of our IM project, for two key reasons:

1. Developing an industry-changing system is only as successful as its adoption by our service delivery teams and the customers they serve.
2. Co-design involves stakeholders throughout the entire development process and beyond, remembering the old adage – development is never finished, and learning never stops.

·??????? Ensures solutions are holistic and user-centric.

·??????? Promotes cultural change and new working methodologies.

Addressing Common Concerns:

• Will this system replace me?
• Will my work be meaningful?
• Will I spend more time on paperwork than fixing or improving the system?
• Will I have more apps, more forms, more steps, and have to learn another system?

Our experience identified these concerns, allowing us to address key questions as part of the development process.

Change Management is Inherent in the Co-design Process

The co-design group identified that minimising the need for change management required building as much of the process as possible into the existing ERP system that runs our business—a system we all use every day.

An ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system is an integrated software platform that manages and streamlines various business processes across an organisation. It centralises data and workflows, enabling different departments to communicate and operate efficiently using a single database.

Key functions include: financial management, data analytics and reporting, supply chain management, human resources, customer relationship management, and most importantly in a building services context—maintenance, service, and project management. This includes maintenance planning, scheduling, and tracking, and it is used by everyone in the business, including our technicians on the ground.

The Automation of Data and Process Envelope

By integrating data directly into the ERP and connecting it to asset tasking and scheduling, we can automate certain maintenance steps and eliminate them from the physical technician’s workflow. The data can be analysed to create dynamic, on-demand tasks, essentially allowing the building to communicate its needs based on a prioritised, customer-centric basis. These tasks are then integrated into the physical workflows, allowing for full-service delivery reporting backed by data to demonstrate outcomes.

Technicians performing these dynamic tasks also provide feedback to the machine learning loops via the service reporting they already use, ensuring the system continues to optimise, predict faults, and provide remedies.

Connecting data and analytics to our ERP creates a seamless integration with the contracted maintenance plan and the technicians who execute it. This eliminates overlaps in the maintenance plan and fills gaps in services by inserting insights directly into the workflow. The system knows when maintenance is due and schedules it accordingly or can prioritise immediate responses using customer-specific settings. This reduces both upfront and long-term costs, minimises tenant disruptions, and extends the life and reliability of equipment.

From the technicians’ point of view, nothing appears to change in how they plan, execute, and report on maintenance activities. However, behind the scenes, tasks are dynamically adjusted based on what has already been completed by the virtual technician and any additional insights identified by the analytics.

Urgent or immediate insights are sent to the technician’s service appointments like any other job, but with added troubleshooting data and likely resolution steps. This call resolution includes a feedback process, allowing technicians to directly inform the machine learning capabilities of the IM system.

The impact on technicians is minimal—there are no new tools or apps. Customers receive the same maintenance records, combining reports from both virtual and physical technicians. Account managers and customers benefit from the integrated information in the IM portal, enhancing overall effectiveness.

There is no managing or manipulation; it is a fully automated workflow system. This didn’t happen by itself—it was by design, and it was by co-design.

Overcoming Psychosomatic Concerns is Critical to Adoption and Ongoing Participation

At the beginning of this article, I posed the question: What is more important—creation or adoption?

In our experience, adoption should drive creation. Minimising the impact through the use of existing tools and apps is a good starting point. However, understanding our users’ psychosomatic concerns allowed us to address them as part of the IM induction process. The questions below were commonly raised in all our design groups:

• Will this system replace me? Jobs will not be lost. Instead, major shortages in qualified and experienced technicians will ease, allowing companies to grow. At Airmaster, our biggest constraint on growth is a lack of smart people, and this was not fully understood before.
• Will my work be meaningful? Technicians naturally enjoy solving problems and restoring systems to optimal performance. Roles will become more meaningful as high-repetition, low-value tasks are automated and performed virtually, leaving higher-value tasks to our technicians. Additionally, tasks can be measured and verified by data, resulting in evidence-based resolutions and superior outcomes that strengthen relationships with end users.
• Will I spend more time on paperwork than fixing or improving the system? Paperwork is a thing of the past. Removing task steps that have been completed virtually reduces the reporting burden. With the troubleshooting process already completed by the analytics engine, the time to resolution is significantly reduced. This also allows for the identification of spare parts and tools needed for the appointment. Having the issues and insights tied directly to the relevant assets pre-populates the call resolution report, allowing for more efficient measurement, verification, and optimisation. This flows into the reporting portal, record-keeping, invoicing, and other key business activities. Overall, productivity, accuracy, and transparency are improved, resulting in stronger relationships across the board.
• Will I have more apps, forms, steps, and need to learn another system? All IM functionality is part of our existing technology stack. While there is more information available, the functions and user inputs remain the same. The system also includes a feedback loop, ensuring continuous improvement.

Co-design Equals Co-ownership

Airmaster’s IM platform is the second iteration of Data-Driven Maintenance (DDM). The first iteration failed commercially due to added costs, but technically, it laid the foundation for a new approach. Engaging our key stakeholders through co-design allowed us to co-create a new, integrated approach where data and analytics drive our service delivery systems, without human intervention from initiation to execution.

By embedding IM feedback data into the technicians’ everyday reporting tools, we automate continuous improvement through machine learning. Our customer-facing portal and reporting systems are seamlessly updated, providing new metrics and KPIs to all stakeholders via the IM portal (more on this in part five of the series).

This time, we’ve solved the efficiency and productivity issues that were inherent in our first DDM rollout, and costs have reduced.

The results have been remarkable, with high adoption and satisfaction rates from our service teams. NPS survey scores have improved by 67%, and a strong sense of ownership has led to ongoing participation in the product and process evolution.

I hope you enjoyed reading this third instalment on analytics and Intelligent Maintenance. In my fourth post, I will discuss why dynamic workflows, prioritisation, and the positive feedback loop are the true game changers, not the analytics themselves.

About Airmaster

At Airmaster , our goal is to lead the way in integrated building services, combining HVAC&R, building automation, electrical, and fire systems to create smart buildings that are not only compliant with regulations but also optimised for energy and resource efficiency. We strive to ensure that our buildings are comfortable, functional, and tailored to support our clients in achieving their sustainability and operational goals.

Established in Melbourne in 1988, Airmaster has grown to a network of 17 branches across Australia and New Zealand. Our holistic approach to building services leverages advanced data-driven virtualisation to revolutionise how we work, delivering enhanced productivity and continuous service. This integrated model offers a more cost-effective solution than traditional methods, providing our clients with innovative, always-on support tailored to their needs.

About Noel Courtney

Noel Courtney established Airmaster 37 years ago, expanding it from its humble beginnings in Melbourne, Australia, into a nationally and internationally recognised integrated service provider. Today, Airmaster boasts 1,200 employees and 17 branches. In 2006, Noel developed the award-winning PlantPRO chiller plant optimisation system, and in 2014, he co-founded Bueno Analytics, further showcasing his innovative contributions to the industry.