Reactive Maintenance Trap

Why is Reactive Maintenance still so popular?

There is much talk about Preventive or Predictive Maintenance as target strategies for machine maintenance, highlighting a number of advantages of such approaches.

Access to knowledge on "How to implement Preventive Maintenance?" is almost universal – articles, case studies, training… AI.

Assuming that Preventive Maintenance is a desirable strategy and that we can gain knowledge on how to implement it, why do many companies still operate based on a reactive, emergency approach?

At the outset, I would like to clarify an important issue regarding the application of Reactive Maintenance. In asset management practice, there is a conscious assignment of a reactive strategy (RTF – Run To Failure) to a equipment due to its low criticality and having a business justification for such a decision. In this article, the reactive approach refers to the unconscious operation of devices/installations until a failure occurs - often against maintenance recommendations and causing negative business consequences.

The factors that I see as reasons for attachment to Reactive Maintenance can be divided into 2 groups: Obstacles and Magnets. Obstacles are circumstances that hinder moving beyond the current scheme but are relatively easy to identify. Magnets are often unconscious mechanisms that keep us in the current scheme, making it difficult to overcome the Obstacles. A metaphor for an Obstacle is a wall we want to climb. A Magnet is the gravity pulling us down.

The Obstacles that I most often observe or are reported during projects include:

1. gaps in systems and processes – CMMS/EAM,
2. staffing and competency shortages,
3. financial limitations for implementation,

while the most common Magnets I consider are:

4. reactive maintenance,
5. lack of Asset Management Policy and Strategy,
6. organizational culture rewarding ad-hoc actions.

Below you will read what each category means in practice and what actions can be taken to move beyond the reactive approach.

1. Gaps in systems and processes – CMMS/EAM

You have probably seen statistics stating that after implementing CMMS/EAM, failure rates decrease, planning increases, and the overall maintenance situation significantly improves (i.e., costs decrease). Please do not misunderstand me – I believe, and in many situations have indeed seen, that this happens. It does not stem directly from merely having a system, as the system itself is just a tool. When properly utilized, it brings profits; left in a corner - forgotten - it only incurs costs.

Utilizing a CMMS system means defining and standardizing processes, collecting data that can be analyzed and used for improvement in the long run. From the perspective of reactive/preventive maintenance, the lack of a planning tool nearly makes it impossible to move beyond reactive maintenance. For CMMS to drive preventive maintenance, a preventive plan should be defined within it, and data on failures and malfunctions should be stored and available for analysis. It is around CMMS/EAM that processes for creating preventive plans, scheduling, material logistics, and work execution are built. I often encounter situations where the lack of these processes, established communication paths, and procedures makes it so difficult to move beyond reactive maintenance.

Change in this area usually means investing in a CMMS system, although I increasingly encounter systems that are already installed (as it is difficult to say they are implemented). In such cases, the situation is usually simpler, as it requires surrounding the system with practical processes, feeding it with data, and training the team.

2. Staffing and competency shortages

One of the basic arguments I have heard in various projects is – "there is no one to do preventive maintenance because there are too many failures." In such organizations, usually everyone knows how to do reactive maintenance. Rephrasing the situation, it sounds like "there is no one to do preventive maintenance, but we all excel at fixing failures" or "there is no one to do preventive maintenance because no one requires us to do so." Of course, I am aware of the commonly occurring cost-saving programs in the industry and the shortages of technical staff, and these are also an Obstacle that hinders such changes, but let us look at the issue from another angle.

Assuming that through Preventive Maintenance we achieve lower failure rates which translates into greater availability of production systems, then functioning Preventive Maintenance should reduce the overall workload of the maintenance department or justify higher labor costs (additional resources).

Following this line of thought, someone might decide that starting tomorrow we are moving the entire UR to preventive maintenance and along the way laying off 5% of the staff because 'Preventive UR is cheaper.' Will it achieve low failure rates and available machines in 2 days (maybe 2 weeks)? Probably not. Why does this not happen, and how is such a change implemented?

Transferring the entire Maintenance team, e.g., 20 people, from reactive to preventive UR will not suddenly mean that preventive plans will be implemented, we will eliminate failures, and production systems will be available. This usually relates indirectly to point 1, which is the need for appropriate processes and supporting tools. Additionally, the technical system 'responds' to prevention with lower failure rates only after some time - usually showing many previously unknown problems along the way. Furthermore, planning and executing preventive work require different competencies and skills than continuously 'putting out fires.' It is worth emphasizing that these competencies are needed at all levels - managerial, specialist, and operational.

A proven approach to such changes is to implement them in small steps, starting from a pilot area (1-2 machines), moving to subsequent areas, and stabilizing the change in previous ones. A very useful tool at this stage is the Criticality Analysis, as it allows planning implementations in subsequent areas to achieve the greatest possible impact on risk reduction. The small steps tactic in this case allows, among other things, for the gradual transfer of Maintenance personnel from reactive to preventive actions by identifying and removing any obstacles along the way.

3. Financial constraints of implementation

Sometimes I encounter the statement that 'Preventive UR is cheaper,' and in many cases, it can indeed be. However, I know of cases where companies took this statement very literally, resulting in the implementation of Preventive Maintenance practically everywhere and in full scope (based on Owner Manuals). The effects were as you might expect - very high costs. Failure rates significantly dropped in some machines, while in others, they actually increased. Much depends on the quality of the preventive plan and the quality of execution. If the plan does not address actual failure modes or is executed incorrectly, then as a result of its execution, the failure rate may increase. In such a situation, we incur the costs of executing the plan (labor, services, spare parts, unavailability for production) and additionally the costs of failures.

Sometimes there is another scenario: failure rates decrease, availability increases, but there is no business effect. This usually occurs when the additional availability in the organization is not utilized because there is a lack of opportunities to 'sell' it. If the transition from reactive to preventive UR only incurs costs, then 'the business case does not add up.' Additional availability of production systems is not used for manufacturing, or the costs of additional technical availability exceed the margins achieved.

Financial constraints for implementing prevention or its optimization can be reduced, among other things, through the previously mentioned implementation of 'small steps' and utilizing criticality and failure analysis. Additionally, when changes in preventive maintenance involve significant costs, a business analysis of the specific case should be conducted. The analysis should consider the costs of executing preventive actions, reducing repair and machine downtime costs, and the impact of actions on incurred technical and operational risks. Often, it is this third category (risk) that makes decision-making essentially a formality.

4. Reactive Maintenance

Yes, this is not a mistake. A reactive approach to the machines and installations perpetuates itself. It is not so obvious, which is why I qualify this phenomenon as a magnet hindering the implementation of preventive maintenance. The lack of proper servicing of the technical system leads to the degradation of its technical condition, which in turn causes more frequent failures and malfunctions. In the next phase, the high priority of failures and limited resources (budget, maintenance team) mean that preventive actions are postponed and ultimately disappear from the priority list. A long-term reactive approach often becomes the root cause of obstacles related to the lack of time and resources for implementing a preventive approach.

Breaking this loop involves organizational effort and action through the previously mentioned "small steps". The first small step is to develop a preventive plan for the most critical machine with highest breakdown time. The next step is to schedule its execution – usually, for such equipment, Production is most willing to pass them to prevention hoping for improvement in the future. Such action should yield results in the form of a visible decrease in failure rates, recovery of downtime for repairs, and allow for reinvestment in further development of prevention. The results from the pilot program are usually an argument for further investments in Preventive Maintenance.

5. Lack of Asset Management Policy and Strategy

Another often unrecognized reason for adopting a reactive approach is treating the existing Asset Management Policy and/or Strategy as a "shelf document" and has no real impact on the functioning of Maintenance. Many organizations still lack such documents, which are not only good practices contained in standards like ISO55000 or PAS 55, but above all, clearly defined guidelines for Asset Management. Often, it is precisely in the Asset Management Policy that it is defined where and when a reactive approach is acceptable, and where Preventive/Predictive Maintenance is required. Meanwhile, documents like the SAMP - Strategic Asset Management Plan specify when and how individual initiatives will be implemented. Of course, they contain many more guidelines, but that is a topic for another article.
In short, it is the Asset Management Policy and Strategy that engage the highest levels of management in the decision that the reactive approach should be limited, and in its place, the organization should adopt Preventive Maintenance. This significantly facilitates the implementation of subsequent steps in preventive maintenance as it shortens discussions and decision-making processes.
 

6. Organizational culture rewarding ad-hoc actions

One of the least recognized "magnets" that makes it very difficult for organizations to move away from a reactive approach is the organization's culture. If for years the maintenance department's greatest heroes have been those who repaired breakdowns, worked ad-hoc overtime, and demonstrated almost magical skills in "acquiring" spare parts (often "from under the desk"), it is not surprising that the organization cultivates this way of functioning. I would not want to be misunderstood here – I have often seen dedication and resourcefulness that deserve recognition. The problem is that at the reward mechanism level, the reactive approach is very attractive, while Preventive Maintenance is not as spectacular unless we make it so.
Moving away from the reactive approach is associated with a cultural change in which reliability, consistency, and achieving long-term goals are highlighted and appreciated. Preventive Maintenance is not about one-time, heroic actions that everyone will notice immediately, but about investing in a goal that is long-term, and the actions that make up this goal are not easily noticeable in daily operations… unless we highlight them.
Among the basic methods supporting such changes is the development and implementation of a system for measuring the effectiveness of Maintenance based on KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). The important aspect of this system is that these actions should be consistently planned and executed from week to week and month to month, making them noticeable and allowing for tracking progress in achieving long-term goals. There should be clearly defined indicators related to Preventive Maintenance, such as:

1. 1. the level of scheduling preventive actions,
   2. % of planned actions completed,
   3. technical availability,
   4. the share of Preventive Maintenance in all Maintenance activities.

Another element influencing the organizational culture of Maintenance is the attitude of Management (at every level!) – it should pay attention to the progress made towards moving away from Reactive Maintenance. Public presentation and discussion of results, appreciating the good ones, and providing real support in improving the less favorable ones are critical during this change. Training of Maintenance Department staff often helps here (new skills and competencies should be introduced into the organization).

In summary, if your organization has been operating in a reactive approach for years and may have already experienced unsuccessful attempts to transition to Preventive Maintenance, it is worth considering the root causes. Perhaps it is not about recognized Obstacles, but about invisible everyday Magnets that cause Maintenance to continuously revert to fixing breakdowns despite launching further preventive projects.

I have presented here some of the most common Obstacles and Magnets that cause a reactive approach to persist, but if you have encountered others or have experience with those described above, I encourage you to share in the comments under >>LinkedIn post<<

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/operivo_prewencyjneur-reakcyjneur-utrzymanieruchu-activity-7400129442364248065-uDXr?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAqJw9kBBqg1SkNobcNVIJwKsLGQrOQhpag

If you have read this article and feel that your maintenance is stuck in a reactive approach and you want to change that, I encourage you to contact Operivo. We help companies organize Technical Asset Management from Maintenance Assessment to achieving goals.

Operivo Sp. z o.o.

Aleja Jana Pawła II 27

00-867 Warsaw

+48 533 373 200

europe@operivo.com

Copyright @ Operivo 2025

Privacy Policy