# Determination of Benefits of the Application of CMMS Database Improvement Proposals
## 2 The Evaluation Methodology  
Another example of the application of the DQA methodology is the evaluation methodology for the ship's Planned Maintenance System database. The methodology was developed at the beginning of the research to establish firm rules for CMMS database assessment. All DQA assessment strategies [26] were considered when creating the methodology [30]:  
* The acquisition of new data;
* The standardization (or normalization);
* The acquisition of links;
* The integration of data and schemas;
* The trustworthiness of the source;
* The localization and correction of errors;
* The cost optimization. A tool called the Evaluation Methodology for Ship PMS [30] was developed and field tested to verify its functionality. It consists of the questionnaire with thirty questions divided into six groups: Machinery and Equipment, Jobs inside DB, Special jobs and Rules, DB Jobs general, Spare Parts, and Miscellaneous (Table 1). In front of each question, there is a field (mark) indicating the importance of the question for the quality of the database. The \"traffic light\" principle (R, Y, G) is used to determine the colors in the field and to describe the importance of the question; red mark has the highest importance, and the deficiencies revealed by these questions have a significant impact on the quality of maintenance. Any deficiencies uncovered by these questions should be taken seriously and corrected to improve the database and the quality of maintenance. The questions with the yellow mark are of medium importance. This group of questions has a lower impact on database quality, and the deficiencies revealed by these questions mainly impact user workload, while the impact on maintenance quality and reliability is negligible. The deficiencies revealed by these questions should be corrected due to unnecessary work of staff [31], which may cause aversion to the system. The questions should be answered with a mark from one to five. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Color** & **No.** & **Question** \\ \hline R & 1 & Are all machines and equipment recorded in the database? \\ \hline R & 2 & Are all items of equipment properly recorded and clearly identified \\  & & & according to their location on board and their marking? \\ \hline R & 3 & Are all required machines divided into subcomponents (smaller \\  & & subsystems) in a logical manner? \\ \hline Y & 4 & Does any machine or equipment have a greater number of subcomponents \\  & & than necessary? \\ \hline Y & 5 & Are machines or equipment listed more than once in the database or do \\  & & they have the same markings or names? \\ \hline Y & 6 & Are the manufacturer, type, and serial number data entered for all \\  & & relevant items? \\ \hline G & 7 & Do all entries for equipment and machinery have the same style, \\  & & abbreviations, and identifiers? \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The questionnaire. The marks should have the following meaning:  
Mark 1--Completely negative evaluation result;  
Mark 2--Predominantly negative evaluation;  
Mark 3--Predominantly positive evaluation with a significant number of irregularities;  
Mark 4--Predominantly positive evaluation with a small number of irregularities;  
Mark 5--Completely positive evaluation. Questions rated five and four are considered satisfactory and require no changes to the database. Questions rated four have room for improvement, but DB changes are not recommended (there will be no significant quality improvement). Questions rated three,