Autodesk FM
hesitation is *not* in my vocabularyThanks for the quick response.
I know this is sort of a fluff question... but, how would you say this
product will be generally classified?
AEC? Infrastructure? Collaboration? or will Building Asset Management be
it's own sort of show?
If you have any specific questions in regards to the products please do not
hesitate to ask.
-Brian Haines
Technical Marketing Manager
That's not a bad question at all. There are so many legitimate defintions of "FM" around that one must always clarify.
FM Desktop and the Building Asset Management portfolio are concerned about the operation or management of Buildings and their contents and systems. It lives in the Building Solutions Division, so I would pick "AEC" from your question.
One of the reasons we chose the Building Asset Management name for our FM initiative is to help distinguish it from the FM efforts in the Infrastructure division (which deal with things like utility networks and roadways). And as you might suspect, the Collaboration division talks about Facility Management when they consider managing and sharing all the documents related to the management of a portfolio of buildings.
Mark Evans
Senior Product Manager
AEC Division, Simulation Product Line
Autodesk, Inc.
FM Desktop and the Building Asset Management portfolio are concerned about the operation or management of Buildings and their contents and systems. It lives in the Building Solutions Division, so I would pick "AEC" from your question.
One of the reasons we chose the Building Asset Management name for our FM initiative is to help distinguish it from the FM efforts in the Infrastructure division (which deal with things like utility networks and roadways). And as you might suspect, the Collaboration division talks about Facility Management when they consider managing and sharing all the documents related to the management of a portfolio of buildings.
Mark Evans
Senior Product Manager
AEC Division, Simulation Product Line
Autodesk, Inc.
~nods~ it's one that I've been pondering...
Alright, that answers my question fairly well...
A couple years back when we went to re-review the 'CAFM' thing here, when we
were meeting with the other departments, I made an effort to distinctly say
AM/FM to help everyone keep in mind our different needs. I manage the
facilities and systems, but, the people with the money want to manage
assets.
Can't we do both? Or will we eventually end up having 3 different
programs when we're done? FM:systems to manage the assets (*AEC*) some sort
of inter/intra-net interface for *Collaboration*, and something like
building systems to manage the *Infrastructure*?
~sigh~ Why couldn't I have gone into architecture like my mother wanted?
wrote in message news:5076194@discussion.autodesk.com...
That's not a bad question at all. There are so many legitimate defintions
of "FM" around that one must always clarify.
FM Desktop and the Building Asset Management portfolio are concerned about
the operation or management of Buildings and their contents and systems. It
lives in the Building Solutions Division, so I would pick "AEC" from your
question.
One of the reasons we chose the Building Asset Management name for our FM
initiative is to help distinguish it from the FM efforts in the
Infrastructure division (which deal with things like utility networks and
roadways). And as you might suspect, the Collaboration division talks about
Facility Management when they consider managing and sharing all the
documents related to the management of a portfolio of buildings.
Alright, that answers my question fairly well...
A couple years back when we went to re-review the 'CAFM' thing here, when we
were meeting with the other departments, I made an effort to distinctly say
AM/FM to help everyone keep in mind our different needs. I manage the
facilities and systems, but, the people with the money want to manage
assets.
Can't we do both?
Or will we eventually end up having 3 different programs when we're done? FM:systems to manage the assets (*AEC*) some sort
of inter/intra-net interface for *Collaboration*, and something like
building systems to manage the *Infrastructure*?
~sigh~ Why couldn't I have gone into architecture like my mother wanted?
wrote in message news:5076194@discussion.autodesk.com...
That's not a bad question at all. There are so many legitimate defintions
of "FM" around that one must always clarify.
FM Desktop and the Building Asset Management portfolio are concerned about
the operation or management of Buildings and their contents and systems. It
lives in the Building Solutions Division, so I would pick "AEC" from your
question.
One of the reasons we chose the Building Asset Management name for our FM
initiative is to help distinguish it from the FM efforts in the
Infrastructure division (which deal with things like utility networks and
roadways). And as you might suspect, the Collaboration division talks about
Facility Management when they consider managing and sharing all the
documents related to the management of a portfolio of buildings.
Good question. It's hard to say how many "programs" a customer would ultimately need without looking at their specific requirements. A good solution would be flexible enough to allow a customer to pick the pieces they need and not have to get the ones they don't -- so multiple programs can be a positive thing. And a good solutions vendor would do their best to make them work well together, wouldn't they?
I can tell you that we are having lots of conversations with our counterparts in the collaboration and infrastructure divisions to address these issues. The answers are somtimes difficult and sometimes hard to achieve among differing priorities and release schedules. But we do have some pretty interesting ideas up our sleeves.
Mark Evans
Senior Product Manager
AEC Division, Simulation Product Line
Autodesk, Inc.
I can tell you that we are having lots of conversations with our counterparts in the collaboration and infrastructure divisions to address these issues. The answers are somtimes difficult and sometimes hard to achieve among differing priorities and release schedules. But we do have some pretty interesting ideas up our sleeves.
Mark Evans
Senior Product Manager
AEC Division, Simulation Product Line
Autodesk, Inc.
~nods~ that's the fun part... picking needed pieces *would* be the ideal
situation, as long as they work seamlessly with one another.
I realize there is a lot to work out with first prioritizing needs then
making things work.
well... you know where to find me if you ever want any more opinions on your
'interesting ideas'
wrote in message news:5076858@discussion.autodesk.com...
Good question. It's hard to say how many "programs" a customer would
ultimately need without looking at their specific requirements. A good
solution would be flexible enough to allow a customer to pick the pieces
they need and not have to get the ones they don't -- so multiple programs
can be a positive thing. And a good solutions vendor would do their best to
make them work well together, wouldn't they?
I can tell you that we are having lots of conversations with our
counterparts in the collaboration and infrastructure divisions to address
these issues. The answers are somtimes difficult and sometimes hard to
achieve among differing priorities and release schedules. But we do have
some pretty interesting ideas up our sleeves.
situation, as long as they work seamlessly with one another.
I realize there is a lot to work out with first prioritizing needs then
making things work.
well... you know where to find me if you ever want any more opinions on your
'interesting ideas'
wrote in message news:5076858@discussion.autodesk.com...
Good question. It's hard to say how many "programs" a customer would
ultimately need without looking at their specific requirements. A good
solution would be flexible enough to allow a customer to pick the pieces
they need and not have to get the ones they don't -- so multiple programs
can be a positive thing. And a good solutions vendor would do their best to
make them work well together, wouldn't they?
I can tell you that we are having lots of conversations with our
counterparts in the collaboration and infrastructure divisions to address
these issues. The answers are somtimes difficult and sometimes hard to
achieve among differing priorities and release schedules. But we do have
some pretty interesting ideas up our sleeves.
