Vantomic Periodic Maintenance
Less unnecessary maintenance. More time for engineering.
Vantomic Periodic Maintenance continuously reviews your site's PMs, combining schedule, work-management and live historian data with technical guidance and maintenance history. It identifies opportunities to extend justified maintenance intervals, group related work and automate change-request preparation, with engineering approval retained.
Anthony Spadaro, CEO, delivers every demonstration live, using synthetic data.
The problem
Reviewing maintenance one item at a time is expensive.
Engineers and coordinators spend hours finding evidence, comparing guidance, checking schedules and writing change requests. Related tasks handled separately take the same equipment out of service again and again. And reviewing a few PMs at a time misses the opportunities sitting elsewhere in the program.
Not all maintenance is unnecessary, and not every interval should be extended. The value is in finding the changes that are justified — and getting them to an engineer ready to approve.
What it delivers
Three outcomes, one continuous review.
Reduce avoidable maintenance workload
Every PM on site is reviewed continuously, not a handful at a time. Where vendor specifications, guidance, plant records and condition history justify it, the tool recommends a lower performance frequency — a longer interval between performances. Fewer unnecessary performances, with the evidence attached. Not every PM qualifies, and approval is always an engineering decision.
Group related work to avoid future downtime
Using functional equipment groups (FEGs) and the schedule, it finds PMs that can be done together in one equipment-out-of-service window. One removal from service instead of several: less repeated setup, fewer clearances, less time with equipment unavailable. Proposals are for review — it never moves the schedule itself.
Give engineers time back
Evidence gathering, comparison against guidance, screening and PM change-request preparation are done for you. Engineers review a prepared recommendation and a drafted PMCR, and spend their time on the decision instead of recreating the paperwork.
How it works
From connected data to an approved decision.
01
Connected operational data
Primavera P6, work-management systems and live plant historian data, normally PI.
02
Technical and historical context
Vendor technical specifications, EPRI recommendations, internal plant documentation, past condition reports and as-found history.
03
Continuous sitewide review
Every site PM reviewed, evidence compared, interval opportunities evaluated and related work identified through functional equipment groups.
04
Prepared decisions and paperwork
Evidence-linked recommendations, coordinated-work proposals and drafted PM change requests.
05
Approval, then hand-off
Qualified engineers review and approve. Only approved PM change requests are pushed to your work-management system, such as E-strategy or similar tools. Nothing changes without approval.
Inside the workflow
The tools that make the review practical.
Individual PM review
Interval recommendation, evidence, status and screening results on one page. Outcomes include extend, keep, shorten, escalate to an engineer, protected, or insufficient evidence.
Weekly review reports
Candidates organised by shop, with filters and Excel and PDF export — set up around your own review cadence.
PM change requests, start to finish
Word and PDF drafts assembled from stored records: supporting history, justification and review routing. Repeatable, with no AI-written text. Once approved, they are pushed to your work-management system — no retyping.
Maintenance-window planning
Grouping opportunities and their trade-offs, laid out for review. Protected PMs are never deferred.
Component history and comparison
Work orders, condition reports, trends and documents per component, plus comparison of like equipment. Observations, not failure predictions.
Aura, the assistant
Read-only, access-filtered questions and answers over the available evidence, with links to the source passage. It declines what is outside its tools.
Confidence
Conservative by design. Engineers stay in charge.
Evidence supports a recommendation; it does not replace engineering judgement. Customer-specific restrictions and protected PM categories are configured and validated with your team.
- Deterministic rules perform every calculation — the AI never does the arithmetic.
- Recommendations link to their source passages, and cited passages are checked by software.
- Missing or conflicting information is flagged, not guessed: conflicts escalate to an engineer.
- Approval is tied to the exact recommendation version; if anything changes, it needs review again.
- Only approved change requests are sent on to your work-management system.
The business case
Built to show where the savings come from.
The software separates reviewed opportunities, potential opportunities and illustrative projections, with every assumption and rate source visible. An approved recommendation's estimated benefit is not counted as realized savings, and the same work is never counted twice.
Cost drivers you can evaluate
- Maintenance performances avoided where a longer interval is justified
- Repeated equipment removals and setup avoided by grouping work
- Engineering review time per PM
- Weekly screening effort for coordinators
- PM change-request drafting time
Who it is for
Maintenance managers, engineers, coordinators and plant leaders.
The demonstration workflow is built around nuclear preventive maintenance. Other generation operators — gas, coal, hydro, wind — can benefit too; fit depends on your processes, data and approval requirements, and we work that out with you.
Live demonstration
See how Vantomic finds maintenance and engineering-efficiency opportunities.
60 minutes with Anthony Spadaro, on synthetic data. No confidential plant data needed to request one.
- The sitewide review and the connected-data workflow
- An interval or grouping opportunity followed from evidence to engineering review
- A drafted PM change request
- How it could cut review effort and repeat downtime in your operation