A fixed-asset register and CMMS in one: why Cohiva Control combines them
Walk into most multi-site operators and you will find two systems doing two halves of the same job. A CMMS maintains the assets: work orders, preventive maintenance, inspections, parts. A fixed-asset register depreciates them for the books. The same pump, chiller or piece of plant is recorded in both, and someone reconciles the two every period. Cohiva Control’s premise is that this should be one record in one system. This page makes the case, and is honest about when keeping two tools is still right.
The cost of two systems
The split is not free. The asset is entered twice, once by maintenance and once by finance, so descriptions, costs and disposal dates can drift apart. When an asset is transferred, disposed or written off, two systems have to learn about it, usually via an export and a manual update. At year end someone reconciles the maintenance asset list against the depreciation register and chases the differences. None of this is hard, but it is recurring, error-prone work that exists only because the data lives in two places.
What “in one” looks like in Cohiva Control
In Cohiva Control an asset is created once. It carries hierarchy, condition, meters and lifecycle state, a stable QR-codeable ID that is never reused on transfer or disposal, and an append-only audit trail of every event. The maintenance team runs work orders on a server-enforced state machine, schedules preventive maintenance on time or meter intervals, and completes inspections that can raise a work order on a failed item.
The same record is the one the depreciation engine works on. It runs six methods, straight-line, diminishing value, double declining balance, units of production, sum of years digits and AASB 16 leases. Each monthly run is idempotent, writes to an append-only ledger and posts journals to Xero, QuickBooks, NetSuite or Cohiva Crunch. Money is a fixed-precision decimal rounded half up, never a floating point number, and depreciation never reduces book value below the residual value. Posting state is tracked separately from the immutable ledger row, so a failed post can be retried without corrupting the ledger.
The practical effect is that a disposal in maintenance is the same event the depreciation ledger sees, and the journal that hits your accounting system comes from the same asset record your technicians worked on. There is no second register to keep in step.
Where two separate tools still make sense
This is not a claim that one system beats two in every case. If your finance team needs the deepest standalone tax-depreciation treatments, a dedicated asset-accounting product may go further than an integrated ledger; Cohiva Control’s strength is integration, not out-specialising a finance-first tool. And if you only need to track what you own with no maintenance workflow, a focused asset register is simpler than a CMMS. Combining the two pays off most when you genuinely do both jobs and the reconciliation between them is real work.
Choosing for your operation
- Combine them in Cohiva Control if you run maintenance and depreciate assets, and the reconciliation between a CMMS and a register is recurring effort.
- Keep a dedicated asset-accounting tool if your finance team needs the deepest standalone tax-depreciation depth.
- Use a focused register if you only need asset tracking and no maintenance.
Part of the Cohiva platform
Cohiva Control is part of the Cohiva platform. Leisure operators often run it with Cohiva Complex, and finance teams connect it to Cohiva Crunch for the general ledger and consolidation. Explore the platform at www.cohiva.app.