CAFMX · Resources

CAFM Software Selection Checklist
for facility management teams
compare software against your operating needs

Use a 12-point checklist to compare facility management software through practical demonstrations, documented evidence and agreed acceptance criteria. Record gaps before choosing a vendor.

CAFM Software Selection Checklist — Core Contents
  • Portfolio structure
  • Asset register
  • Preventive maintenance
  • Reactive work orders
  • Technician workflow
  • AMC and contract tracking
CAFMXResourcesEvidenceReview
Resource Guide

Review Each Requirement

Use a 12-point checklist to compare facility management software through practical demonstrations, documented evidence and agreed acceptance criteria. Record gaps before choosing a vendor.

01

Portfolio structure

Can you represent clients, sites, service scope and ownership without duplicating records?

02

Asset register

Can you import and maintain asset IDs, locations, categories and service history?

03

Preventive maintenance

Can you schedule tasks, manage recurrence and review missed or overdue work?

04

Reactive work orders

Can you demonstrate assignment, priority, escalation, completion and approval?

05

Technician workflow

Can field teams use the proposed workflow on their actual devices and connectivity?

06

AMC and contract tracking

Can you track service obligations, coverage, expiry and renewal responsibilities?

CAFM Software Selection Checklist

Unlock the 12-Point Checklist

Use the Resource with Your Team

Use a 12-point checklist to compare facility management software through practical demonstrations, documented evidence and agreed acceptance criteria. Record gaps before choosing a vendor.

Your details stay in this page and are not submitted automatically. After unlocking, you can choose to email Quantbit through your email application.

Access the Resource

No server submission is connected to this standalone page.

FAQ

CAFM Software Selection Checklist Questions

Practical answers for your facility management team.

Use your own weights and acceptance criteria. Mark an item complete only after reviewing suitable evidence or testing the required scenario.
It is a buyer evaluation checklist. Use a CAFMX demonstration to confirm the scope of each requirement.
Use Print / Save PDF after unlocking the checklist. The checked items and notes are included in the printable copy.
An operator’s identity may be anonymised to protect customer confidentiality or comply with the agreed publication permissions. Anonymisation should not remove the need for reliable evidence: the underlying project scope, implementation record and reported outcomes still need to be verified. The operator should approve the account and the details that may be disclosed. For this page, the approved operator information and publication permissions remain pending.
The facility types, geography and service coverage have not yet been confirmed through approved operator information. The completed account should describe the facilities included in the project and explain any important exclusions. It should also distinguish the initial pilot scope from later rollout stages. Until those details are verified, this page should not imply that the deployment covered particular branches, offices, data centres or other banking facilities.
A verified site count has not been supplied, so this page does not claim a deployment size. The completed case study should state the number of sites included, the period covered and whether the count refers to a pilot, a rollout stage or the final operating scope. Supporting records should use a consistent definition of a site. This context helps readers assess whether the example is relevant to their own portfolio.
The implemented modules and workflows must be confirmed from approved project records before publication. The account should distinguish functions that were deployed and used from functions that were configured but not adopted, planned for a later stage or outside the project scope. Any integrations or custom work should be described accurately. Readers should use the verified implementation scope as context rather than assuming that every proposed CAFMX capability was part of the project.
Compare results using consistent metric definitions and clearly stated measurement periods. Explain the records used, the population or sample measured and any changes in service scope, staffing or reporting that could affect the comparison. Separate measured results from estimates and operator observations. If the available data does not support a reliable comparison, describe the limitation rather than publishing a percentage improvement that cannot be substantiated.
A case study can help another operator understand the approach and the conditions behind an outcome, but it does not guarantee the same result. Performance depends on the starting position, implementation scope, data quality, user adoption and operating practices. Readers should compare these conditions with their own situation and validate assumptions through a bounded pilot. Any business case should use the operator’s own costs, records and acceptance criteria.
The completed account needs an approved operator profile, a clear description of the operating challenge, the implemented scope and a documented rollout timeline. It also needs source records for any reported outcomes, agreed measurement definitions and permission to publish the selected details. A responsible reviewer should validate the narrative and figures before release. Until those inputs are available, the page should remain an outline with its pending sections clearly identified.

Plan Your Facility Management Workflow with CAFMX

Bring your operating scope, current process and questions to a discussion with Quantbit.

Unlock the 12-Point Checklist →WhatsApp Our Team📞 +91 96655 98341