If you run the Maintenance for several plants at the same CMMS, check if two equipment installed at different plants can or can not share the same equipment ID number. Nevertheless there is a separate field to enter the plant ID.

I advise to have different numbers. One easy way is setting the location codes by plant. Examples:
* Plant A use location codes with two digits, Plant B uses three digits: 10P001 vs 100P001
* Use one (?) space for plant ID within the location code: A100P001 vs B100P001
* Other method: Plant A uses dashes "-" as separators withing equipment ID, Plant B do not use separators (or use a different character as separator): 100-P-001 vs 100P001 vs 100/P/001.

We have two plants, and have separated the assets from my plant with a dot like .P-106B or .LV-10113

The older site use the numeric scheme with separation by dashes -.

Yes we do have a separation by site/plant as a separate field.
Make use of a classe / subclass system like
pumps --> centrifugal --> rotary --> reciprocating...

Svanels,
Definitely the CMMS should provide a field(s?) for equipment classification. But speaking of Equipment numbering, do you favor include there a code for the class?

I mean is enough for equipment number P-1238 or we shuold add a C for centrifugal, or D for Diapragm, etc...

I vote for just the equipment type (P) and leave classification / sub classification out of the equipment number.

I am not in favor to put too much intelligence in the code, the problem with P-1238 is that you could have P-1238A, P-1238B, ..C and D.

For a pumpstation with plunger pumps it is easy to reach at that level, so in the future this numbering scheme can give problems when expansion comes around.

I am not in favor also of putting physical locations in the ID code, generally there are a lot of options to put it somewhere else on the equipment form.
Maybe I have seen too much Process Flow Diagrams to be attracted to "intelligent codes".
As long as the workorders are punched in by a selected elite group, you can go away with it.
But if you opt for expansion of the users, which will vary from maintenance people, to operations, stores, engineers and accountants the KISS approach works best.

And they always will buy some dumb equipment that does not fit in the logic