Skip to content
Use case 14 · Maintenance / Service

Fire asset register and maintenance history

A workflow that holds the identity of each fire asset, ingests events against it, matches records and supports history verification and lifecycle reporting. The full service history of a single device — commissioning, every inspection, replacement and certificate — is one timeline with the source of each entry.

Runs standaloneUploads and manual entryAsset owner signs
Workflow 14 · demo runAwaiting sign-off

Asset ownerOver years, a building loses the provenance of its tests, replacements and certificates.

  1. Establish asset identityPlanner
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  2. Ingest eventsAutomated
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  3. Match recordsAutomated
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  4. Verify historyPlanner
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  5. Report lifecycleAsset owner
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
Stopped for the asset owner to sign
  • Who uses itAsset owner, maintenance planner, facilities manager
  • Lifecycle stageMaintenance / Service · also Operations
  • Buyer groupTrack D · Commissioning & Service
  • RequirementsBRD v0.1, sent as written
At a glance

What goes in, what comes out

Goes in
Asset identity
Historic records
Service events
Digital Asset & Maintenance HistoryFive steps · one approval gate Asset owner signs
Comes out
Lifecycle timeline
Certificate register
Maintenance plan
Audit export
What it does

Digital Asset & Maintenance History, step by step

Five steps, one decision point. The last step is a person, every time.

  1. 01
    Planner

    Establish asset identity

    Each device with a stable identity that survives a change of contractor.

  2. 02
    Automated

    Ingest events

    Commissioning, inspections, defects, replacements and certificates recorded against it.

  3. 03
    Automated

    Match records

    Historical documents reconciled to the assets they actually refer to.

  4. 04
    Planner

    Verify history

    Gaps and contradictions in the record surfaced rather than smoothed over.

    History complete and consistent?

    Yes Timeline verifiedNo The gap or contradiction is shown
  5. 05
    Asset owner

    Report lifecycle

    Current status, certificate register, maintenance plan and audit export.

  6. Output

    What lands at the end

    A per-asset lifecycle timeline, current status, a certificate register, a maintenance plan and an audit export.

Who’s involved

Asset ownerMaintenance plannerFacilities manager

What you get

  • Lifecycle timeline
  • Certificate register
  • Maintenance plan
  • Audit export

In the wireframe

One asset's timeline shows commissioning, every inspection, a replacement and its certificate, with the source of each record.

Use case diagram

Who does what, and who signs

Automated steps prepare the evidence. People make the calls.

Swipe to see the whole diagram

Use case diagram: Digital Asset & Maintenance History People: Asset owner, Maintenance planner, Facilities manager. Steps: 1 Establish asset identity; 2 Ingest events; 3 Match records; 4 Verify history; 5 Report lifecycle. Asset owner approves the final step. Digital Asset & Maintenance History«workflow, built with DeX»«inputs»01 Establish asset identity02 Ingest events03 Match records04 Verify history05 Report lifecycleMaintenance plannerFacilities managerAsset owner«approves»«documents»Asset identity, …
Automated step Done by a person Approval gate Takes part Leads to
What changes

Why this costs you time today

Over years, a building loses the provenance of its tests, replacements and certificates. Maintenance planning becomes guesswork and an audit request turns into an archaeology exercise across contractors who have since changed.

Task
Today
With this workflow
Provenance
Lost with each contractor change
A stable identity survives changes
An audit request
An archaeology exercise
One timeline, sources attached
Maintenance planning
Guesswork
Based on the verified history
The line we do not cross

What this software will not do

Life-safety work. These limits are written into the requirements, not added as a disclaimer.

Specific to this workflow

It does not validate that historical records are accurate. Where the history is contradictory or incomplete, it says so rather than presenting a tidy timeline that is not true.

It does not decide compliance

The software assembles evidence, retrieves source clauses and shows conflicts. It does not determine whether anything complies. A named engineer does.

It does not stand in for an authority

An approval recorded in the software never implies consent from an AHJ, Civil Defence, building control or a building surveyor.

Nothing leaves without a named reviewer

Every output carries who approved it. Anything unverified keeps a draft marker until someone signs it.

It does not do sealed engineering

Hydraulic network calculation, definitive sprinkler layout, sealed design, BIM geometry authoring and final cost estimates are all out of scope by design.

Your standards, not ours

NFPA, EN, BS, ISO, FM, UL, LPCB and Civil Defence appear in the requirements as examples. None is assumed to apply to your projects until you say so.

~1/10of traditional build time
~30%of traditional cost

That is a claim about how fast Colakin builds software with DeX, and it is supported by delivered projects. It is not a claim about what any of these fifteen workflows will save your business. The requirements deliberately leave that to a pilot, measured against your own baseline.

How an engagement runs

From a question to a pilot, in five steps

Nothing hidden behind a discovery call. Stop at step one and keep the document.

  1. 01

    You ask for the requirements document

    The full BRD for the workflow you care about, sent as written.

    Same day
  2. 02

    A ten-minute wireframe walkthrough

    A clickable prototype of that one workflow.

    10 minutes
  3. 03

    The Fire Fit Check

    Five questions: fit, hours lost, who approves spend, whether your documents can be shared, and timing.

    One call
  4. 04

    A scope built on your rules

    Your standards, your document formats, your approval gates.

    Within a week
  5. 05

    A pilot against your own baseline

    One workflow, your data, your engineers.

    Q1
Questions

Digital Asset & Maintenance History: questions

How long does it take to produce a device's full service history?
That is the case the workflow was specified for: one asset, one timeline, with the source document behind each entry. What it cannot do is invent history that was never recorded.
What about records from a previous contractor?
They can be ingested and matched to assets. Where matching is uncertain, the uncertainty is shown — the workflow does not quietly assign a record to the wrong device.
Does it replace our CAFM or FM system?
No. It is built around the fire asset history specifically, and is designed to work alongside whatever you already run.
Is the audit export usable as evidence?
It carries the source of each record, which is what an auditor asks for. Whether it satisfies a particular audit is between you and the auditor.
Next step

Ask for the Digital Asset & Maintenance History requirements document

The business requirements document as written, including what it refuses to do. No brochure, no drip sequence.

  • The requirements document, usually the same working day
  • A ten-minute wireframe walkthrough with the people who specified it
  • No claimed percentage saving — your pilot measures it

Request the document

One working day. A person replies, not a sequence.

We use this to reply, nothing else. No list, no newsletter.