Every breakdown is a surprise, again
A client's building has a mix of systems: some recent, several over fifteen years old, a few on refrigerants that are becoming harder and more expensive to service as restrictions tighten. Each time an old system fails, the client asks whether to repair or replace, and each time the answer is a one-off quote under pressure. Their finance director asks you for a five-year view. You know most of the answer, but it would take a week to assemble.
The facts are there, but scattered
Your asset register knows models and install dates. Your F-gas records know refrigerant types and additions. Your job history knows breakdowns and repair costs. Your engineers know which units are tired. None of it is combined per client, and without that, replacement is discussed one breakdown at a time.
Clients also rarely ask for a plan until a finance director or a building sale forces the question. By then the conversation is urgent, and a plan built in a week from memory is weaker than one built steadily from the records you already keep.
- Install dates and refrigerant types are incomplete in the register.
- Repair costs are spread across many jobs.
- Engineers' condition assessments are in report text.
- Refrigerant availability and rules are discussed informally.
- Clients get repair quotes, not plans.
Which regulations affect a given refrigerant and when is for your certified engineers and the client's advisers. The planner records their assessment rather than making one.
The cost of no plan
Clients face large unplanned costs during breakdowns, often in summer, and make rushed decisions. Old systems are repaired repeatedly when replacement would have made more sense. Your team loses the chance to schedule replacement work in quieter months. And the conversation with the client stays reactive, which undervalues your knowledge of their building.
The replacement planner we build
- For each client, the planner combines asset data (model, install date, refrigerant, charge), F-gas history (additions, leaks) and job history (breakdowns, repair costs) per system.
- Engineers record a simple condition rating and notes per system on their next visit, in the app.
- Your team sets the priority rules: age, refrigerant, condition, repair spend and criticality of the area served. The planner applies them and ranks systems.
- Indicative replacement budgets are drawn from your price book for each system type, marked clearly as estimates pending survey.
- A phased plan per client is produced: which systems, in which year, why, and the evidence behind each.
- Plans update as new jobs and condition ratings arrive, and the client can see the latest version on request.
| Input | Held today | Held in the planner |
|---|---|---|
| Age and refrigerant | Partly in the register | Complete per system |
| Repair history | Scattered across jobs | Totalled per system |
| Condition | Report text | Rating with notes |
| Priority | Engineer's instinct | Your rules, applied consistently |
| Client view | One-off quotes | Phased plan with evidence |
Replacement as a planned project
Clients get a clear plan they can budget for and take to their board. Replacement jobs can be scheduled for quieter periods. Repair-or-replace decisions during breakdowns are easier, because the plan already has a view. And your account managers have a valuable, evidence-based conversation to offer, built from data you already hold.
Engineers also get a structured way to say what they already think. A condition rating recorded on each visit carries more weight in the plan than a remark to the facilities manager on the way out.
Signs your clients need replacement plans
- Clients ask repair-or-replace questions during breakdowns.
- Older refrigerant systems are repaired repeatedly.
- You could not produce a five-year view for a client quickly.
- Condition assessments are buried in report text.
- Replacement work arrives in the busiest months.