FSM, CMMS and Facilities Management

Vendors in this space describe themselves interchangeably. The categories have distinct origins and the differences still show in the products.

CMMS

Computerised maintenance management system. Built for facilities and manufacturing: an asset register, preventive schedules, work orders, parts inventory, maintenance history.

Asset-centric. The organising unit is the equipment, and its history is the point.

Assumes internal maintenance staff in its classic form, though most modern products handle contractors.

Good at: the asset register, preventive scheduling, cost per asset, parts, compliance records.

Weaker at: dispatching external technicians, mobile field workflows, scheduling across many locations.

FSM

Field service management. Built for organisations sending technicians to customers: dispatch, scheduling, routing, mobile apps, time and parts capture, invoicing.

Work-centric. The organising unit is the job.

Assumes a workforce you schedule, which is the point of friction for restaurant operators who dispatch to contractors.

Good at: dispatch, routing, technician mobile experience, scheduling optimisation, billing.

Weaker at: long-run asset history, preventive programme design, cost per asset over years.

Facilities management platforms

Built for property and estate operations. Broader scope: leases, space, energy, projects, compliance, vendors, and maintenance among them.

Site-centric.

Good at: vendor management, multi-site visibility, compliance tracking, budgeting.

Weaker at: equipment-level depth and technician workflow.

What restaurant operators actually need

The requirement is a specific blend that none of the three delivers natively.

From CMMS: the asset register and equipment history. This is the foundation and it is the part most FSM products treat lightly.

From FSM: the work order lifecycle and a mobile experience good enough that a contractor will actually use it.

From facilities management: vendor agreements, multi-site reporting and compliance evidence.

Plus something none of them assume: the work is dispatched to third parties whose systems you do not control, and the site staff reporting faults are not technicians.

Products marketed specifically to restaurants generally start from the facilities management side and add equipment depth. Products marketed to service contractors start from FSM and are built for the vendor rather than the operator — which is worth noticing, because a vendor's platform serves the vendor's reporting needs, not yours.

The question that sorts products

Whose system of record is it?

If a contractor offers you access to their platform to see your work orders, that is their record. It covers their work only, it ends when the relationship ends, and you cannot get the history out in a useful form.

Keep your own record. Even a simple one. The asset history is the asset, and it must survive changing vendors.

What to require

Asset register with warranty and serial tracking. Non-negotiable.

Work orders linked to assets, so history accumulates in the right place.

Preventive scheduling with task lists, not just dates.

Multi-site reporting with cost per asset and per site.

A mobile flow a contractor will complete. Test this specifically. If it requires a login, an app install and eight fields, it will not be used and your close-out data will be empty.

Photograph capture, on report and on close.

Export. Full history, in a standard format, on demand.

Compliance document storage attached to assets, for inspection records.

What not to prioritise

Route optimisation, unless you employ technicians. It solves a problem you do not have.

Invoicing and quoting, which serve contractors.

Inventory management, unless you hold significant parts stock, which most restaurant groups do not.

Predictive analytics, which without sensors means analysis of your own work order history — useful, and not a product category.

Paying for the contractor-facing half of an FSM product is the most common mispurchase in this area, and the demonstrations are built around exactly those features.

A minimum requirement list

For an operator writing a specification, this is the short version.

Must have: asset register with serial, warranty and document storage; work orders linked to assets; preventive scheduling with task lists; contractor close-out without an account; site reporting without an account; photograph capture; multi-site cost reporting by asset and site; compliance document expiry tracking; full export.

Should have: mobile offline tolerance; site-completed checklist tasks; approval workflow with thresholds; vendor performance reporting; temperature monitoring integration.

Do not need: route optimisation; technician scheduling; quoting and invoicing; inventory management; customer management; predictive analytics.

The second list is what most demonstrations are built around, because the products were designed for service contractors. Recognising that during a demonstration saves a great deal of time.