When maintenance teams move from spreadsheets or an old CMMS into a new one, the software is rarely the real problem. Most projects get stuck on data: what to move, how to clean it, who owns it, and how to make sure it works in the new system. Many teams only realize the gaps after go-live, when technicians cannot find assets, parts, or work history.
A new CMMS is often part of a bigger push to standardize processes, move to mobile, and report better to management. If the data migration is rushed, the new system feels harder than the old one, adoption drops, and trust in reports collapses.
This article walks through common CMMS data migration pitfalls and how you can avoid them with simple, practical steps.
Why is CMMS data migration tricky?
Moving CMMS data is not like copying files from one folder to another. Every table, field, and code has meaning for planners, technicians, stores, and finance. Small mistakes in mappings or codes can create big headaches later in work scheduling, stock control, and reporting.
When you plan the migration as a maintenance project instead of just an IT task, the success rate goes up. Involving planners, supervisors, and storekeepers early helps you protect existing knowledge and design data that actually supports the way work happens on the shop floor.
- Different structures between systems – Your old CMMS or spreadsheets may store assets, locations, and parts in a very different structure to the new system. Direct “copy-paste” fails.
- Hidden business rules – Status codes, naming styles, and numbering often carry rules that are not written anywhere. People know them from habit.
- Tight timelines – Management wants the new CMMS live quickly, so data work gets squeezed, tested less, and problems appear only after go-live.
- Multiple data owners – Maintenance, operations, purchasing, and finance all have a piece of the data. Getting agreement on standards takes effort.
CMMS data migration pitfalls: what can go wrong during implementation?
Even well-planned CMMS implementations can run into serious trouble when data migration risks are overlooked. CMMS data migration pitfalls often stay hidden until users start logging work, searching for assets, or pulling reports in the live system. This section explores where these risks usually appear and why they happen, so you can prepare your team to avoid disruptions, rework, and loss of trust after go-live.
Pitfall 1: Moving poor-quality data into the new CMMS
Many teams export data from the old system and import almost “as is” into the new one. If the source data is full of duplicate assets, wrong codes, missing fields, or outdated equipment, those same issues show up in the new CMMS. The system then feels messy from day one.
Cleaning data takes time and discipline, but it is the only way to get reliable work orders, reports, and spare parts control later. You do not have to fix everything, but you should agree what “good enough” looks like before go-live.
- Duplicate assets and locations – The same pump, line, or building appears several times with small name changes. Merge duplicates and keep one master record.
- Missing key fields – Asset criticality, location, manufacturer, model, and serial number are often blank. Decide which fields must be filled before migration and which can be completed in phases.
- Old or retired equipment – Many systems still hold assets removed years ago. Archive or mark them as decommissioned instead of loading them as active.
- Incorrect codes – Fault codes, cause codes, and status codes can be misused or outdated. Map old codes to a cleaner, limited list in the new CMMS.
Pitfall 2: No clear data model or standards
Some teams start migration without first deciding how assets, locations, routes, and parts should be structured in the new CMMS. They move data into default fields and “adjust later,” but later never comes. The result is inconsistent hierarchies, long drop-downs, and confusion for users.
A simple, well-thought data model is like a map of your plant inside the CMMS. It should be easy for a technician to move from site to line to asset, and for planners to roll up work and cost by area.
- Inconsistent naming – Assets are named differently across plants or departments. Set clear rules: order of plant, line, equipment type, and number.
- Weak asset hierarchy – Assets and locations are mixed, or levels are skipped. Agree on a standard hierarchy (site → area → line → functional group → asset).
- No code standards – Work type, priority, and failure codes grow randomly. Design short, clear code lists with input from planners and key technicians.
- No link between assets and spares – BOMs (bills of materials) are missing or not linked. Define how assets should connect to spare parts in the store.
Pitfall 3: Migrating “everything” instead of the right data
It is tempting to migrate all history, all assets, and all open and closed work orders into the new CMMS. This feels safe, but it slows down the project and clutters the new system with years of low-value records. Not all data is equally useful for daily decisions.
Smart teams decide what to migrate, what to archive in a separate file, and what to leave behind. This reduces effort, improves performance, and makes the CMMS easier to use.
- Too much work order history – Ten years of history may not be necessary for daily planning. Often, two to three years is enough, with older data stored in reports or exports.
- Low-value assets – Very small tools or low-risk items can be grouped instead of tracked one-by-one. This reduces asset count and admin work.
- Obsolete spare parts – Old, unused parts fill the item master. Only load active stock, and keep a separate list of obsolete or one-time items.
- Open work that nobody will ever close – Old open work orders that are no longer relevant should be closed, cancelled, or summarised, not migrated as active.
Pitfall 4: Ignoring maintenance workflows during migration
Some migrations focus only on tables and fields, not on how maintenance work flows from request to completion to review. The new CMMS may have different status flows, approval steps, or planning screens. If data does not support these workflows, technicians struggle to log work, and planners find it hard to schedule.
When you design migration with workflows in mind, the new CMMS feels natural and reduces extra clicks and confusion.
- Status mismatches – Old status codes do not match new ones. Map each old status to a new status carefully so work does not get stuck in “limbo.”
- Missing links between work and assets – Some work history may not be correctly attached to assets. Fix links where possible so reliability analysis still works.
- No support for mobile use – Field names and forms that look fine on desktop can be painful on mobile. Review key screens with technicians who will use tablets or phones.
- Poorly planned approval rules – If approvals are stricter in the new CMMS, some migrated work may need new approvals. Plan this to avoid delays after go-live.
Pitfall 5: Weak testing, validation, and sign-off
Many teams run one test load with a small sample, fix a few errors, and then migrate everything. Without strong testing, hidden issues in codes, hierarchies, or references show up only in live use. Fixing them later is more expensive and frustrating.
Testing should be done with real users, not only project members. Planners, supervisors, and technicians should try their daily tasks with migrated data before go-live and confirm whether it works.
- Limited test data – Use full sets of assets, parts, and work orders from at least one real plant or line, not just small samples.
- No end-to-end tests – Run full scenarios: request raised → work planned → spare reserved → work done → time and parts booked → report generated.
- No user acceptance – Get written sign-off from key roles (maintenance manager, planner, store in-charge) that data is usable for their work.
- Skipping performance checks – Very large loads can slow the system. Check search speed, report generation, and mobile sync with realistic data volumes.
Pitfall 6: Forgetting training and change management around data
Data migration is not only about moving records; it often changes how people name assets, raise work, and close work orders. If you change structures and codes without explaining why and how, users will create shortcuts, free-text entries, or wrong codes, and the data will degrade again.
When people see how cleaner data makes their life easier, they are more willing to follow new rules. This needs plain language, good examples, and support during the first weeks of go-live.
- No data entry rules for users – Document simple rules: how to name new assets, what to fill in a work request, how to choose priorities and codes.
- No training for planners and supervisors – Show them how to use new hierarchies, filters, and reports so they feel the benefit of better data.
- No feedback loop – Set up a simple way for users to report wrong or missing data. Assign a small “data steward” group to fix issues regularly.
- No refresher sessions – Run follow-up training a few weeks after go-live, based on issues seen in real use.
Best practices checklist to avoid CMMS migration problems
A structured approach can turn CMMS data migration from a risky step into a strong foundation. You do not need complex tools for this; clear roles, simple rules, and some disciplined work are usually enough.
Use this checklist as a guiding sheet for your project:
- Define scope early – Decide what to migrate (assets, locations, parts, work history), what to archive, and what to drop. Document this in a simple scope sheet.
- Design your data model first – Agree on asset hierarchy, naming rules, and code lists with maintenance and operations leaders before you build migration scripts.
- Clean data in stages – Start with critical assets and high-value spares. Fix duplicates, fill key fields, and remove retired items before loading to the new CMMS.
- Pilot one area or plant – Run a full migration and test cycle on one line, plant, or building. Learn from it, adjust, then roll out to the rest.
- Involve real users – Include planners, supervisors, and technicians in reviews and testing. Their feedback will catch issues that project teams miss.
- Document and train – Prepare simple SOPs for data entry and maintenance workflows in the new CMMS. Train users before go-live and support them during the first months.
Summing it up
CMMS data migration is not just a technical step between two systems. It directly shapes how easily your team can plan work, respond to breakdowns, manage spare parts, and trust reports. Most migration problems come from rushed decisions, unclear data rules, weak testing, and limited user involvement. When these gaps show up after go-live, the new CMMS feels harder than the old one, and adoption drops fast.
Treating migration as a structured maintenance project changes the outcome. Cleaning data, setting clear standards, testing with real users, and training teams on new workflows helps you start with confidence instead of confusion. The time you invest before go-live saves months of correction later and gives your CMMS the strong base it needs to support growth.
If you are planning a CMMS upgrade or struggling with migration challenges, the TeroTAM team can guide you with a practical, step-by-step approach. Reach out to contact@terotam.com to discuss your requirements.
