CAFM, IWMS or CMMS: which one fits

CMMS is centred on the work. CAFM is centred on the building. IWMS is the bundle, sold to organisations with a property portfolio. The categories overlap heavily and vendors move between them, so the labels matter less than what the software is organised around.

What each one is built around

• •CMMS: jobs, schedules, equipment, technicians, history. The unit is a piece of work.
• •CAFM: floor plans, space, occupancy, moves, and building services on top of them. The unit is a place.
• •IWMS: all of the above plus leases, property, capital projects and sustainability reporting. The unit is a portfolio.

The two questions that decide it

Answer these and the category usually falls out without a shortlist.

• •Does anybody in your organisation need to answer questions about space: who sits where, how full is it, what happens when this team grows?
• •Do you sign leases, run capital projects and report on a property portfolio to somebody outside facilities?

No to both: you need a CMMS, and buying more will cost you money and time for features nobody opens. Yes to the first: CAFM. Yes to both: IWMS is worth evaluating, and it is a much larger commitment than the first two.

The floor plan question is the real dividing line

If your work is about equipment, a floor plan is a nice picture. If your work is about people and space, the floor plan is the interface, and a product without one will be fought against every day. That single distinction predicts more successful purchases in this category than any feature comparison.

Beware the bundle you cannot name

An IWMS is usually sold on breadth. Before signing, name the three modules outside maintenance you will use in year one, and name the person who will use each. If you cannot fill in all three, you are buying a CMMS at four times the price with a longer implementation.

The practical middle path

Many organisations run a strong CMMS for the work and keep space in whatever the property team already uses, joined by nothing more than a shared building list. That is unfashionable and it works, because it lets each group have software built for their actual job.