Points to Consider when comparing Maximo to SAP EAM

1. In order to deploy SAP EAM, an organization must first implement SAP FM, MM and CO modules.
Maximo can be deployed standalone or selectively integrated with ERP and other systems through a variety
of supported methods including the Maximo Integration Framework. * FM = Funds Management, MM =
Materials Management, CO = Controlling.

2. SAP requires customization for such simple things as lengthening fields. For example, the Equipment
Field Length = 18 characters and the Equipment Short Description Field Length = 40 characters. Both
typically need to be lengthened, requiring customizations and complicating version control and upgrades.

3. Maximo has a graphical workflow designer. SAP requires tabular entry to depict workflows graphically.

4. IBM offers a robust work scheduling solution, Maximo Scheduler. SAP has the Multiresource Scheduling
product that does not offer as many features of Maximo Scheduler. SAP customers typically rely on
expensive solutions that require complex integration, such as Vesta PMM, Viziya WorkAlign Scheduler
and Pipeline Visual Work Scheduler for SAP.

5. To support calibration, the SAP Inspection Plan module must be heavily customized. Third party
customization manuals take 25 pages to describe the customization required to support a simple calibration
process. There is no support for SIP (Safety Instruments Procedures) and Non-conformances. SAP
typically recommends customers purchase a third party product, Blue Mountain Software. It is commonly
known that Blue Mountain does not scale very well.

6. Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) - Maximo O&G supports ISO 14224 failure coding to enable root
cause analysis. Both O&G and HSE support incident reporting, investigations, knowledge management
and solutions to support comprehensive RCM processes. Maximo provides functionality for categorizing
Problem, Cause and Remedy information and there are several business partners that have template
"configurations" that support different levels of RCM. For SAP, first you must customize SAP code
groups and codes per ISO 14224 to be able to integrate with third part RCM solutions. Third party
solutions include Meridium RCMO, Isograph Availability Workbench, Collaborit, and several others.
They are all expensive with Meridium being the most costly.

7. Configuration v. Customization. Although most customers believe ERP software should be flexible
enough to accommodate their business processes (which many companies believe represent their
uniqueness and competitive advantages), SAP customers are often forced to adjust their business processes
to accommodate SAP software. Maximo has a straight forward and highly configurable user interface that
allows for the flow of business processes. Training requirements are minimal.

8. Configuration Management – Maximo has an optional Asset Configuration Management (ACM) product
that is proven with an impressive install base in transportation and other industries where configuration
control of complex assets is paramount. SAP has no similar offering.

9. Rotable Items – Maximo supports repairable (rotable) asset management business processes from cradle to
grave. SAP is weak in this area, requiring extensive configuration, customization and training. Common
industry terms for repair and return are not used and users must be trained in complex inventory
management applications (even after requisite customization).

10. Managing asset warranty and associated claims – Maximo has robust warranty management functionality,
whereas warranty management in SAP is complex and weak. SAP requires extensive customization to
rival Maximo warranty management functionality.

11. Asset Condition Monitoring – Maximo has a straightforward method to capture and/or integrate condition
monitoring data to support condition-based maintenance (CBM) methodologies. To support CBM in SAP,
you must customize “Measuring Points and Counters” extensively.
12. SAP is rewriting their entire software suite for HANA. The user interface will change to Fiori, HTML5
applications. No new functionality is planned (as of this writing). The target is 3 years and will require
significant change management for existing customers.

13. Michael Porter, a Harvard Professor and Competitive Strategist, has written about and documented many
cases around competitive strategy that has become the standard for business school education on the topic.
He is famous for, among other things, the Five Forces Model. Within this model, I would like to draw
your attention to the Bargaining Power of Suppliers – highlighted in this slide with the yellow cicle. One
element related to Bargaining Power of Suppliers is called “Exit Barrier or Switching Costs”. In the
context of application consolidation, the “Exit Barrier” would represent the ability of a company to switch
from one software vendor to another. If this is easy to do, then the company would have the bargaining
power. If this is not easy to do, then the vendor would have the bargaining power. This dilemma is
happening all the time. Executives have to ask how much of their application environment should be
placed in the hands of their ERP Vendor before their bargaining power becomes unnecessarily
compromised.