I am interested in hearing what people feel and/or have experienced is the best way of capturing history from work that has been completed or from Inspections into a CMMS.
Either having the tradesmen who have completed the work enter the history themselves in to the CMMS or having a data entry person entering the data from the printed task lists filled out manually by tradesmen, with the view that it is easier for them to write the details and therefore increase their "tool time"

We implemented the use of Clerks for data entry tasks and save the technicians time for other tasks requiring their knowledge and abilities. Why wasting time from technicians in data entry when some of them type just just two fingers?

To help them learn to use the CMMS? closing maintenance orders will only teach them how to use the one or two transactions required to close an order. To expose the technicians to the CMMS have them responsible to search and print their maintenance orders, search the equipment online records for information on previous jobs or other equipment master data.

For us we find it more efficiently to hire clerks with habilities in document handling and computer data entry to close the orders and manage paperwork at the Planning Offices. They also help the Planners with purchasing requisitions creation freeing time to them for checking jobs at the field, planning meetings, or other functions requiring their knowledge or expertise.

Hire the correct person for the specific job.

My feelings are that the tradesman (technician/foreman etc.) should do the closing.
At least that way they learn to work with the CMMS and make full use of it.

Hiring a "slave"/clerk will only contribute to "it is not in my job description" discussion, and my "work is more important than yours" fights.

When I started working 16 years ago, I was amazed how many secretaries there were and how few computers.
Every "chief" , handling more than 15 subordinates, had at least a secretary and an runner-up secretary.

All these personal secretaries have been replaced by computers, introducing them again in a lower echelon and call the clerks does not look too smart.

Give the technician a computer and access to the CMMS!!
At least when he has to write his stuff in a public place (CMMS) you don't need to hire a detective to figure out the history of a piece of equipment by interviewing the most senior mechanic on site who has everything noted in a mysterious book that nobody has ever seen.

Most of these guys has the most advanced stuff at home, and pretend not knowing where the power button of the work computer is located

I see the value of increased tool time but nevertheless believe svanels view yields better results in the longer term.

If a tech never deals with a CMMS directly they'll never develop the skills necessary to review machine history, and take useful advantage of whatever other features may be present.

In my experience, those with minimal computer skills (the "two finger" crowd), and a low desire to use the CMMS start off doing only the bare minimum.

Techs with more computer skills and more desire to understand the CMMS work at that higher level, and enjoy the benefits.

Those in the middle ground who see how the CMMS can make aspects of their job easier gravitate towards those more skilled, and pick up things from them. Others who don't have the same level of drive and curiosity tend to stay put, and do only enough to finish their completions.