Smart Building Readiness Checklist for Facilities Teams

The global smart building market is projected to reach $548.5 billion by 2032, growing at 21.2% annually as commercial facilities adopt IoT-enabled maintenance and building automation technologies. Yet despite this explosive growth trajectory and documented energy savings of 20-30% from smart building implementations, 70% of digital transformation projects fail to meet their objectives—often because organisations rush into IoT sensor deployments without proper readiness assessment.

This comprehensive smart building readiness checklist provides facilities managers, operations directors, and technology leaders with a structured framework for evaluating whether your facility has the infrastructure, data foundation, organisational capabilities, and technology ecosystem required for successful IoT-enabled CMMS implementation. Rather than a binary ready-or-not assessment, this checklist helps you identify specific gaps, prioritise remediation efforts, and develop a phased roadmap aligned with your facility’s current maturity level while avoiding the common pitfalls that cause implementation failures.

Understanding the Four Dimensions of Smart Building Readiness

Smart building transformation succeeds when organisations evaluate readiness across four interconnected dimensions rather than focusing solely on technology infrastructure. Each dimension contributes essential foundations, and weaknesses in any area create implementation risks regardless of strengths elsewhere.

Network Infrastructure Dimension encompasses the physical and wireless connectivity required for IoT sensor deployment. According to research on building automation adoption, the installed base of IoT devices in commercial buildings currently stands at approximately 2 billion and is expected to grow to 4.12 billion by 2030. Supporting this growth requires WiFi coverage density and reliability, cellular signal availability for backup connectivity, power infrastructure for sensors and gateways, network bandwidth sufficient for real-time data transmission, and edge computing capabilities for local data processing. Buildings with comprehensive WiFi networks installed within the past five years typically meet baseline connectivity requirements, while older facilities may need targeted infrastructure investments in specific zones.

Data Foundation Dimension evaluates the digital asset management maturity that forms the basis for smart building analytics. Essential elements include a deployed CMMS with complete asset inventories, accurate equipment specifications and locations, established preventive maintenance schedules providing baseline performance data, historical work order records enabling trend analysis, and vendor documentation accessible in digital formats. Research shows that over 95% of data generated during design and construction is lost or underutilised, though this data proves crucial for effective facility maintenance and management. Facilities lacking this data foundation should prioritise CMMS implementation and data cleanup before pursuing IoT sensor deployments, as smart building technologies amplify existing data quality rather than compensating for its absence.

Organisational Capability Dimension assesses whether your team has the skills, processes, and change management capacity to leverage smart building technologies effectively. Critical factors include technical staff comfortable with digital tools and data-driven workflows, established data governance practices for sensor information management, executive sponsorship providing budget stability for typical 18-36 month implementation timelines, cross-functional collaboration between facilities, IT, and operations teams, and capacity to pilot new technologies without disrupting core maintenance operations. Studies on digital transformation success show organisations investing in culture change see 5.3x higher success rates than technology-only approaches, yet many smart building initiatives fail not from technology shortcomings but from organisational resistance, inadequate training, or absence of executive commitment through inevitable early-stage challenges.

Technology Ecosystem Dimension examines whether your existing systems can integrate with smart building platforms through open APIs and standard protocols. Key considerations include CMMS platforms supporting IoT sensor integration, building management systems using standard protocols like BACnet or Modbus, network infrastructure allowing secure device connectivity without compromising cybersecurity (critical given that 81% of organisations report IoT-related cyber incidents), data warehousing capabilities for long-term analytics, and vendor ecosystems committed to interoperability rather than proprietary lock-in. Facilities with modern cloud-based CMMS platforms typically achieve integration more easily than those with legacy on-premise systems requiring custom development.

Network Infrastructure Assessment Checklist

Start your readiness evaluation by auditing the physical and wireless infrastructure that will enable IoT sensor deployment and real-time data transmission. This assessment identifies connectivity gaps requiring remediation before sensor deployment begins.

WiFi Coverage Evaluation

Walk through your facility with a WiFi analyzer app to measure signal strength and network availability in key equipment locations. Document areas where signal strength falls below -70 dBm, as these zones will require additional access points or alternative connectivity solutions for reliable sensor operation. The United States commercial building automation market, currently valued at $21.23 billion in 2025 and forecast to reach $31.62 billion by 2030, demonstrates the significant infrastructure investments facilities are making to support connected device ecosystems. Pay particular attention to mechanical rooms, rooftop equipment areas, basement utility spaces, and parking structures where WiFi coverage often proves inadequate despite being critical for equipment monitoring.

Evaluate whether your existing WiFi network can support the additional device load from IoT sensors without degrading performance for existing users. A typical smart building deployment adds 50-200 connected devices per floor, with each sensor transmitting data every 5-15 minutes according to research on IoT device deployment patterns. Calculate total expected device count and compare against your network’s rated capacity, ensuring sufficient headroom for growth. Buildings with WiFi networks installed before 2018 may need capacity upgrades to support both existing users and IoT sensor networks simultaneously.

Cellular Connectivity Assessment

Document cellular signal availability throughout your facility using carrier-specific apps from major providers operating in your region. Cellular connectivity provides crucial backup for WiFi networks and enables sensor deployments in areas where WiFi installation proves impractical. Buildings with strong cellular signals can deploy cellular gateways that aggregate data from multiple sensors and transmit to cloud platforms without touching your corporate WiFi network, simplifying security compliance and avoiding the integration challenges that cause over 90% of sensor-generated data to remain unexploited due to technical fragmentation.

Evaluate whether your facility’s construction materials block cellular signals in interior spaces. Concrete structures, metal cladding, and underground levels frequently suffer from poor cellular reception requiring either signal boosters or alternative connectivity strategies. Test signal strength in mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, and below-grade utility tunnels where critical equipment often resides but cellular signals struggle to penetrate.

Power Infrastructure Availability

Inventory power outlet availability near equipment locations where sensors will be deployed. While many IoT sensors operate on batteries with multi-year lifespans, gateways aggregating sensor data require continuous power. Hardware costs for IoT implementation typically include sensors at $10-500 per device depending on complexity, and gateways ranging from $200-5,000 per unit, representing 30-40% of initial project expenses. Document locations where equipment monitoring is prioritised but power outlets do not exist within practical wiring distances. These gaps may require electrical work or alternative gateway placement strategies.

Evaluate whether your electrical infrastructure provides reliable power without frequent outages that would disrupt sensor gateways and data transmission. Review maintenance logs for power-related incidents in mechanical and utility spaces over the past year. Facilities with frequent power quality issues should address electrical infrastructure stability before deploying smart building technologies that depend on continuous connectivity.

Network Bandwidth and Latency

Measure actual network throughput and latency in equipment locations using speed test tools, as theoretical network specifications often differ from real-world performance. IoT sensors typically require modest bandwidth (10-100 kbps per device) but depend on consistent connectivity and low latency for real-time alerting. IoT platform licensing typically costs $1-5 per device monthly, with enterprise agreements available for larger deployments. Document areas where network congestion during peak hours creates latency exceeding 500 milliseconds, as these delays may impact time-sensitive notifications like equipment fault alerts.

Evaluate whether your network infrastructure includes quality-of-service configurations prioritising critical IoT traffic over less time-sensitive data. Smart building platforms benefit from network policies ensuring sensor data transmission and alert notifications receive priority during congestion events, preventing situations where maintenance alerts get delayed by routine file transfers or video streaming.

Data Foundation and CMMS Maturity Assessment

Smart building technologies amplify the value of existing asset data rather than compensating for its absence. Evaluate whether your current CMMS implementation provides the data foundation required for effective IoT sensor integration and analytics.

Asset Inventory Completeness

Review your CMMS asset database to determine what percentage of physical equipment has corresponding digital records with complete specifications. Organisations with comprehensive asset inventories (covering over 90% of equipment) can immediately correlate sensor data with asset records, enabling contextual analytics like comparing actual runtime against manufacturer specifications or triggering preventive maintenance based on accumulated operating hours. Research confirms that fragmented data and disconnected systems cause major challenges to building owners in facility operations, leaving facility managers without access to insights needed to effectively manage property.

Export your asset database and audit critical fields for completeness: equipment type and model, manufacturer and serial number, installation date and warranty status, location and parent system relationships, specifications like rated capacity and operating parameters. Assets missing these fields require data cleanup before smart building integration, as IoT platforms depend on this metadata to generate meaningful insights from sensor data. Learn more about building comprehensive asset management practices that support smart building readiness.

Preventive Maintenance Program Maturity

Evaluate whether your preventive maintenance program provides structured baseline data against which smart building analytics can be measured. Review what percentage of assets have established PM schedules with completion history spanning at least six months. This historical data enables comparisons like actual equipment performance versus expected degradation curves, helping identify whether sensor-detected anomalies represent genuine issues or normal operational variations.

Document whether your PM program captures quantitative measurements like vibration readings, temperature differentials, or fluid analysis results rather than relying solely on subjective inspection notes. Facilities with measurement-based PM programs transition more smoothly to condition-based monitoring using IoT sensors, as technicians already possess skills for interpreting quantitative performance data and understanding normal operating ranges.

Work Order History Quality

Review the completeness and consistency of work order documentation in your CMMS over the past year. Export a sample of completed work orders and evaluate whether technicians consistently document root causes, corrective actions taken, and parts consumed. Smart building analytics platforms use this historical failure data to identify patterns, predict emerging issues, and recommend proactive interventions, but these capabilities depend on structured documentation rather than free-text notes lacking detail.

Assess whether your work order system captures downtime duration and business impact for equipment failures. This information enables ROI calculations for smart building investments by quantifying the cost of unplanned downtime prevented through early fault detection. Research shows that shifting from reactive to proactive maintenance can reduce overall building maintenance costs by 10-30%, but facilities lacking downtime tracking cannot measure value delivered.

Data Governance and Quality Practices

Evaluate whether your organisation has established data governance practices ensuring asset information remains accurate as equipment gets added, modified, or retired. Review whether formal processes exist for updating CMMS records when equipment gets replaced, relocated, or decommissioned. Poor data governance creates sensor-to-asset mapping problems where IoT platforms transmit data for equipment that no longer exists or associate sensor readings with incorrect assets—contributing to the over 90% of sensor-generated data that remains unexploited due to organisational barriers.

Document whether designated personnel have responsibility for maintaining data quality rather than assuming accuracy happens automatically. Organisations with formal data stewardship roles typically maintain CMMS accuracy above 95%, while facilities relying on ad-hoc updates see accuracy decline below 70% within two years. Smart building success depends more on data governance discipline than technology sophistication.

Organisational Readiness and Change Management Capacity

Technology infrastructure readiness means little without organisational capability to adapt workflows, develop new skills, and sustain change through the inevitable challenges of digital transformation. Assess whether your team possesses the cultural and operational maturity required for smart building success.

Technical Staff Digital Literacy

Evaluate your maintenance team’s comfort level with digital tools and data-driven workflows. Interview technicians to understand whether they currently use mobile CMMS applications regularly, reference equipment specifications from digital databases, and make decisions based on quantitative performance data versus solely relying on experience and intuition. Teams already operating digitally transition more smoothly to smart building platforms, while those dependent on paper-based workflows require substantial change management investment.

Assess whether technical staff have capacity and willingness to learn new technologies without feeling overwhelmed by complexity. Pilot a simple IoT sensor deployment with a small group to observe adoption patterns and identify potential resistance. Early adopters who embrace sensor data and demonstrate value to peers can become change champions for broader rollout, while universal resistance signals the need for foundational training and culture work before pursuing smart building initiatives.

Executive Sponsorship and Budget Commitment

Document whether executive leadership understands smart building value propositions and commits to multi-year investment timelines required for successful implementation. IoT-enabled maintenance transformation typically requires 18-36 months from initial pilot to scaled deployment, with early phases demanding investment before demonstrating ROI. According to McKinsey research, IoT’s potential economic impact could be $4 trillion to $11 trillion annually by 2025, but realising this value requires executive champions willing to maintain support through the implementation journey versus expecting immediate returns.

Evaluate whether budget processes accommodate the recurring subscription costs typical of smart building platforms rather than solely supporting traditional capital equipment purchases. IoT platform licensing typically costs $1-5 per device monthly, with software spending on IoT predicted to reach $413 billion by 2025 according to IDC. Many organisations struggle with operational expense models requiring annual renewals, despite total-cost-of-ownership advantages compared to on-premise alternatives. Executive understanding of SaaS economics and willingness to commit multi-year operational budgets proves essential for smart building sustainability.

Cross-Functional Collaboration Capabilities

Assess whether your organisation demonstrates effective collaboration between facilities management, IT security, operations, and finance teams required for smart building success. Interview stakeholders from each function to understand whether formal processes exist for joint initiatives or whether departmental silos create friction. Smart building implementations demand IT involvement for network security (critical given 81% of organisations report IoT-related cyber incidents), operations input for workflow design, and finance partnership for business case development.

Evaluate whether past technology initiatives succeeded through cross-functional collaboration or stalled due to departmental conflicts. Review lessons learned from CMMS implementation, building automation upgrades, or enterprise software deployments to identify collaboration patterns. Organisations with established governance structures for cross-functional projects typically navigate smart building complexity more successfully than those attempting facilities-led initiatives without broader stakeholder engagement. Explore strategies for managing CMMS change and adoption across departments.

Capacity for Piloting Without Disruption

Document whether your maintenance operations have sufficient capacity to pilot smart building technologies without compromising core responsibilities. Successful IoT deployments require dedicating staff time to sensor installation, data validation, workflow adaptation, and troubleshooting during initial months. Facilities operating at maximum capacity with no slack for experimentation should address workload challenges before pursuing smart building initiatives requiring sustained attention.

Assess your organisation’s tolerance for early-stage challenges typical of emerging technologies like occasional sensor failures, connectivity issues, or analytics platform bugs. Given that 70% of digital transformation projects fail to meet their goals—often due to premature cancellation when encountering normal implementation challenges—realistic expectations about early problems and executive patience through problem-solving prove more important than flawless technology selection.

Technology Ecosystem Compatibility Assessment

Evaluate whether your existing systems support integration with smart building platforms through open APIs, standard protocols, and interoperable architectures rather than proprietary closed ecosystems requiring extensive custom development.

CMMS Platform Integration Capabilities

Review whether your current CMMS supports REST APIs or webhooks enabling bidirectional data exchange with IoT sensor platforms. Modern cloud-based CMMS solutions like Infodeck’s platform typically include comprehensive APIs supporting sensor data import, automated work order creation from alerts, and asset data synchronisation. Legacy on-premise systems may lack integration capabilities entirely, requiring middleware development or platform replacement before smart building integration becomes practical.

Document the specific integration use cases your organisation needs to support, such as creating work orders automatically when sensors detect faults, updating asset records with actual runtime hours from meter readings, or displaying real-time sensor data within CMMS asset detail screens. Compare these requirements against your CMMS platform’s documented API capabilities to identify gaps requiring custom development or vendor evaluation and selection.

Building Management System Protocols

Assess whether your existing building automation and control systems use standard protocols like BACnet, Modbus, or LonWorks enabling third-party integration versus proprietary protocols requiring vendor-specific gateways. Buildings with standards-based BMS architectures integrate more easily with IoT sensor networks and analytics platforms, while proprietary systems create vendor lock-in and increase implementation complexity. Research shows that complex integration can be tricky, and thorough assessment of existing systems is critical to find potential conflicts and develop robust integration strategies.

Evaluate the age of your building management system and its manufacturer’s commitment to open standards and API development. BMS platforms installed before 2015 frequently lack modern integration capabilities, while recent systems from leading vendors increasingly emphasise interoperability. Document whether planned BMS upgrades align with smart building timelines, potentially enabling strategic system replacement supporting broader connected maintenance objectives. Learn about PropTech integration with facilities management systems.

Cybersecurity Requirements and IoT Device Policies

Review your organisation’s cybersecurity policies to understand requirements for connecting IoT devices to corporate networks. Many IT security teams restrict IoT sensors on production networks due to vulnerability concerns, requiring either dedicated sensor networks isolated from enterprise systems or rigorous device vetting processes before approval. Given that 81% of organisations report IoT-related cyber incidents, identify security requirements early to avoid late-stage objections derailing smart building pilots.

Evaluate whether your cybersecurity team has experience with IoT device management or whether smart building initiatives will introduce novel security challenges requiring policy development. Organisations with established IoT security frameworks typically approve sensor deployments more quickly, while those lacking IoT experience require extended evaluation periods and may impose restrictions complicating implementation.

Data Warehousing and Analytics Infrastructure

Assess whether your organisation has data warehousing capabilities supporting long-term sensor data retention and advanced analytics. While IoT platforms provide operational dashboards and alerting, strategic analytics like multi-year trend analysis or machine learning model development often require exporting sensor data to separate analytics environments. Document whether your organisation has data engineering resources capable of building these pipelines or whether sensor data will remain siloed within vendor platforms.

Evaluate your organisation’s data governance policies regarding sensor data ownership and portability. Establish whether contracts with smart building vendors permit data export in standard formats enabling analysis in third-party tools versus vendor platforms claiming exclusive data ownership. Organisations prioritising data portability maintain flexibility for future platform migrations and avoid vendor lock-in constraining long-term options.

Implementation Roadmap Development and Prioritisation

After completing your readiness assessment across all dimensions, synthesise findings into a phased implementation roadmap addressing identified gaps while enabling incremental progress toward smart building capabilities.

Gap Remediation Priorities

Categorise identified readiness gaps into three priority tiers: foundation gaps requiring immediate remediation before smart building pilots begin, capability gaps addressable through parallel workstreams during implementation, and enhancement gaps representing future optimisations after core capabilities stabilise. Focus initial efforts on foundational elements like CMMS data quality, network infrastructure in priority equipment locations, and executive sponsorship rather than attempting comprehensive readiness across all dimensions simultaneously.

Develop specific remediation plans with assigned owners, completion timelines, and success metrics for each high-priority gap. For example, if asset inventory completeness stands at 60%, establish a goal of 90% completeness within six months with dedicated resources assigned to data cleanup. Track remediation progress using the same project management disciplines applied to technology implementations, recognising that organisational readiness often determines success more than technology choices—as evidenced by the 5.3x higher success rates organisations achieve when investing in culture change versus technology-only approaches.

Phased Deployment Strategy

Design a multi-phase implementation approach starting with limited pilot deployments demonstrating value before expanding to broader facility coverage. Phase 1 typically focuses on a single equipment category or facility zone where readiness scores highest and business impact from early fault detection proves most valuable, such as critical HVAC systems or production equipment prone to costly failures. Research by Verdantix shows organisations can achieve 20% annual energy savings through predictive energy insights with automated building controls.

Define specific success criteria and decision points for each phase, establishing what must be achieved before proceeding to the next stage. This disciplined approach prevents organisations from prematurely scaling technologies before validating their value and resolving implementation challenges in controlled environments. Each phase should demonstrate measurable operational improvements and ROI supporting continued investment in subsequent phases—critical given that 70% of digital transformation projects fail when organisations lack clear success metrics.

Quick Win Identification

Identify 2-3 high-impact, low-complexity use cases deliverable within 90 days to build organisational confidence and momentum. These quick wins should address genuine operational pain points while requiring minimal infrastructure investment or organisational change. Examples include temperature monitoring for refrigeration equipment at risk of product loss, vibration monitoring on ageing motors with frequent bearing failures, or water leak detection in areas prone to flooding. Research shows that properly implemented smart building technologies can reduce maintenance costs by 10-30% and energy costs by 20-38%.

Select quick win use cases based on equipment with existing CMMS records in good condition, locations with adequate WiFi or cellular connectivity requiring no infrastructure investment, and operational processes where sensor alerts integrate smoothly without requiring significant workflow changes. Success with these early deployments creates advocates for broader smart building initiatives while demonstrating practical value to sceptical stakeholders, helping overcome the cultural barriers that cause implementation failures.

Technology Vendor Selection Criteria

Develop vendor evaluation criteria emphasising integration capabilities, implementation support quality, and customer success track records rather than solely comparing feature lists. Prioritise vendors demonstrating successful deployments in facilities similar to yours regarding size, complexity, and industry sector. Request customer references you can contact directly to understand real-world implementation challenges and vendor responsiveness during problem resolution.

Evaluate whether vendors provide implementation services including sensor installation, network configuration, and workflow training versus solely selling technology requiring customer-led deployment. Organisations with limited internal IoT expertise typically achieve faster time-to-value partnering with vendors offering comprehensive implementation support, while technically sophisticated teams may prefer self-service platforms with lower costs but minimal vendor assistance. Consider total cost of ownership when evaluating vendors, as implementation and support costs often exceed initial technology licensing fees.

Scoring Your Smart Building Readiness

Apply a structured scoring methodology to quantify your facility’s readiness across each dimension and identify which areas require priority attention before smart building implementation begins.

Scoring Framework

Use a 0-4 scale for each dimension: 0 represents absent capabilities requiring fundamental work, 1 indicates initial/ad-hoc capabilities, 2 reflects repeatable processes with some gaps, 3 shows managed capabilities with metrics, and 4 represents optimised capabilities with continuous improvement. Score each dimension honestly based on current state rather than aspirational goals, as overestimating readiness leads to implementation failures when reality diverges from expectations—contributing to the 70% digital transformation failure rate affecting organisations across industries.

Interpreting Your Score

Total scores of 12-16 across four dimensions indicate strong readiness supporting immediate smart building pilots with high success probability. Organisations should still start with limited deployments building confidence before scaling, but possess foundations for rapid expansion once initial use cases prove value. According to research on IoT implementation costs, organisations can achieve 10-30% reductions in maintenance costs and 20-38% energy savings, with ROI typically realised within 24-36 months for comprehensive deployments. Focus efforts on technology vendor selection and pilot use case identification rather than remediating fundamental gaps.

Scores of 8-11 suggest moderate readiness requiring targeted gap remediation in 1-2 dimensions before proceeding with smart building initiatives. Organisations should develop 3-6 month plans addressing specific weaknesses, such as CMMS data cleanup, network infrastructure investments in priority locations, or executive sponsorship development through business case refinement. Smart building pilots can proceed in parallel with remediation once foundation gaps are resolved, particularly for quick win use cases in high-readiness facility zones.

Scores below 8 indicate significant readiness gaps requiring fundamental capability development before pursuing smart building technologies. Organisations should focus on CMMS implementation and data foundation development, building digital literacy among technical staff, securing executive sponsorship, and establishing data governance practices. Attempting smart building deployments without these foundations typically results in failed pilots, wasted investments, and diminished organisational confidence in connected maintenance approaches—joining the 70% of transformation initiatives that fail to meet objectives.

Dimension-Specific Action Plans

Develop action plans addressing the lowest-scoring dimension first, as smart building success depends on balanced capability across all areas rather than excellence in isolated dimensions. For example, excellent network infrastructure provides minimal value if CMMS data quality remains poor, while strong organisational readiness cannot compensate for absence of physical connectivity enabling sensor deployment. Research confirms that over 90% of sensor-generated data remains unexploited due to technical fragmentation and organisational barriers between IT and operations teams.

Review readiness scores quarterly to track progress and adjust implementation timelines based on gap remediation success. Many organisations underestimate the effort required for foundational work like data cleanup or cultural change, requiring timeline extensions avoiding premature technology deployments before readiness improves sufficiently. Establish clear accountability for remediation efforts with assigned owners, specific completion dates, and measurable success criteria ensuring progress toward smart building readiness goals.

Conclusion: Strategic Readiness Enables Smart Building Success

The global smart building market’s projected growth to $548.5 billion by 2032 with 2 billion installed IoT devices expected to reach 4.12 billion by 2030 demonstrates the massive transformation underway in commercial facilities management. Yet despite documented benefits including 20-30% maintenance cost reductions and 70% energy savings over three years according to Deloitte research, 70% of digital transformation projects fail to meet their objectives—typically due to inadequate readiness assessment rather than technology shortcomings.

Smart building transformation represents strategic infrastructure investment requiring careful readiness assessment across network infrastructure, data foundations, organisational capabilities, and technology ecosystem compatibility. Organisations conducting comprehensive evaluations using structured checklists identify specific gaps requiring remediation, develop realistic implementation timelines aligned with current maturity levels, and avoid premature technology deployments destined to fail due to foundational weaknesses. Research confirms that organisations investing in culture change see 5.3x higher success rates than technology-only approaches, demonstrating that change management, executive sponsorship, and cultural adaptation often determine outcomes more than sensor accuracy or analytics platform features.

By assessing readiness honestly across all four dimensions, addressing gaps systematically through phased remediation plans, and starting with quick win pilots demonstrating measurable value within 90 days, facilities teams position their organisations for smart building success delivering operational improvements, cost reductions, and strategic competitive advantages through connected maintenance capabilities. The key is balancing technology sophistication with organisational readiness, ensuring your facility has the foundations necessary to leverage smart building investments effectively rather than joining the majority of transformation initiatives that fail to meet expectations.

Begin your smart building journey by completing this readiness assessment, scoring your facility across all four dimensions, identifying 2-3 quick win opportunities demonstrating early value, and developing a phased roadmap building capabilities incrementally while maintaining operational excellence in core maintenance functions.

Ready to evaluate how Infodeck’s IoT-enabled CMMS platform can support your smart building transformation? Our team helps organisations assess readiness, identify high-impact use cases, and implement connected maintenance capabilities aligned with your facility’s current maturity level. Explore our platform capabilities or schedule a personalised readiness consultation to discuss your specific facility challenges and implementation roadmap.