Equipment-centric, so it fits any plant.

Software written for one industry encodes that industry's assumptions: its equipment list, its intervals, its failure vocabulary. The moment your plant has something the template did not anticipate — an unusual line, a custom machine, a second site in a different sector — you are bending the tool or keeping a spreadsheet beside it.

Servisa starts one level lower. You define the equipment families, their technical attributes, their standard PM activities and their functional failure modes. The hierarchy has no depth limit and the coding system is yours. The result adapts to the plant instead of asking the plant to adapt to it — and because it is structured on ISO 14224, the reliability data stays comparable between sites even when the sectors differ.

The most common mistake in large industrial organisations is applying one maintenance strategy at the same level to all equipment. The better starting point is the business model, because it determines what a failure actually costs you.

A power plant is paid for readiness. If availability falls below the contracted threshold at the moment the grid needs it, the plant not only loses the payment but takes a penalty — so its strategy is time and availability driven, and MTBF on critical units is the number to move.

A component manufacturer supplying fixed orders to an assembler competes on production cost instead. Its maintenance strategy is cost driven, and the reporting that matters is spend per machine, spare consumption and man-hours. Same modules, different KPIs — and the plan, the forms and the intervals should follow that difference rather than ignore it.