Computer aided facility management system
- Hours in the backlog
- 850
- Computed on this page from the inputs below
- Team capacity, hours a week
- 90
- Computed on this page from the inputs below
- Hours of new work arriving each week
- 113
- Computed on this page from the inputs below
- Hours a week the backlog grows (negative means it is shrinking)
- 22.5
- Computed on this page from the inputs below
Every figure on this page is computed from the inputs entered, by the method stated below it. Cafmlane publishes no benchmark cost per square foot, no target utilisation, no expected asset life and no building rule: the areas, the costs, the hours and the lives are yours, and the defaults are a worked example to replace with your own.
Email me this result
We will send you these figures and a link back to them. One email, nothing else unless you tick the box.
Every figure starts from one worked example (850). Type your own desk count, floor area, open work orders or replacement value over it and the answer moves as you type; nothing is stored and nothing is sent anywhere.
Download the Computer aided facility management system worked example (CSV)
A computer aided facility management system is often bought because the backlog feels out of control, and the useful first step is to find out whether it actually is. Enter the open work orders, the average hours each takes, the technicians available and their productive hours a week, and how many new work orders arrive each week. The sheet returns the hours sitting in the backlog, the team's weekly capacity, the hours of new work arriving, whether the backlog is growing or shrinking each week, the technicians needed just to hold it steady, and the number needed to hold it and clear it within a year. On the worked example the answer is uncomfortable and clear: 340 work orders at 2.5 hours is 850 hours, three technicians at 30 productive hours give 90 a week, 112.5 hours arrive, and the backlog grows by 22.5 hours every week. No amount of prioritising fixes that; it needs 3.75 technicians to stand still.
Growing or shrinking is the only question that matters first
If new work exceeds capacity, the backlog is not a scheduling problem and it will not respond to better software or a push. The sheet reports the weekly growth directly so the conversation starts in the right place.
Productive hours, not employed hours
Travel, briefing, parts collection and paperwork are real and they are not hours on the tools. Using employed hours makes capacity look about a third larger than it is, which is how a team that is under water looks merely disorganised.
Two different staffing answers
Holding the backlog steady takes 3.75 technicians on the worked example; holding it and clearing it inside a year takes 4.29. Those are different asks with different costs, and being explicit about which you are requesting makes it a decision rather than a plea.
Computer aided facility management system: what the person answering for the buildings asks first
What if the backlog is shrinking?
Then the growth figure comes out negative and the sheet says so, which is the good case. The remaining hours divided by your spare capacity tells you roughly how long clearing it will take.
How do I estimate average hours per work order?
Take a sample of recently completed jobs rather than a guess for the whole list. Two or three dozen is usually enough for the average to stop moving much.
Does the software reduce the backlog?
It makes the backlog visible and the scheduling better, which helps at the margin. It does not add hours, and on the worked example hours are exactly what is missing. That is worth knowing before a purchase is expected to fix it.