Modern asset management breaks down when systems stop talking, maps stop reflecting reality, and field data never becomes action.

‍

Most asset-intensive organizations already have the right systems in place.

‍

An enterprise asset management platform manages work and asset records.
A GIS platform manages spatial data and network models.
Field tools capture inspections, surveys, and observations.

‍

Individually, these systems work well. Yet operationally, many organizations still struggle with delayed decisions, conflicting data, and manual workarounds. The problem isn’t a lack of technology; it’s what happens between systems.

The Integration Gap

When these issues surface, integration is usually the first response. Data is synchronized, interfaces are built, and jobs are scheduled. Systems are technically connected. But over time, cracks appear.

‍

One-way synchronization creates drift. Updates made in one system don’t always make it back to the other. Teams begin to question which system holds the “real” truth. Trust shifts away from platforms and toward individuals who know how to reconcile discrepancies.

‍

We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly. It’s one of the reasons we built PowerSync, not simply to move data, but to keep asset and spatial systems aligned through bidirectional exchange. This idea of shared truth becomes foundational for everything that follows.

When Maps Stop Reflecting Reality

Even when data is technically synchronized, another problem emerges: context. Maps often show where assets are, but not what is happening to them. Asset status, condition, work history, and emerging issues frequently live outside the spatial view. As a result, maps become static references rather than operational tools.

‍

When planners, engineers, and field teams can’t see live operational data on the map, they stop using it to make decisions.

‍

This gap between spatial accuracy and operational relevance led us to MapEngine, a way to bring Maximo and GIS data together in a single operational map. Not as a visualization, but as a shared context where work, assets, and location intersect.

When Field Data Doesn’t Drive Action

Field data capture has become increasingly easy. Acting on that data has not. Survey responses, inspection results, and photos are often reviewed manually, forwarded by email, or re-entered into other systems. As volumes grow, this approach doesn’t scale. Important signals are delayed or missed entirely.

‍

What’s missing is a clear, governed path from observation to outcome.

‍

This is the gap that Workflows is designed to address, allowing organizations to orchestrate how incoming data is processed, assessed, and acted upon, without hard-coding business logic or relying on fragile custom scripts.

A Flow Problem, Not a Tooling Problem

These challenges like misaligned systems, disconnected maps, and stalled field data are not isolated. They compound.

‍

When asset and spatial data don’t share the same truth, maps lose relevance.
When maps lose relevance, field context is ignored.
When field data doesn’t flow, action slows.

‍

At its core, modern asset management depends on a simple chain:

‍

Data → Context → Action

‍

Break any link in that chain, and outcomes suffer regardless of how capable the underlying systems are.

Setting the Stage

This article introduces the problem space. The rest of the series explores how to address it in practice:

‍

• Part 2: Aligning Maximo and GIS in minutes, not months

• Part 3: Why operational context belongs on the map

• Part 4: Why captured data only delivers value when it drives action
  
  ‍

Together, these ideas reflect a simple principle: asset management works best when systems stop operating in silos and start supporting the way work actually happens.

‍