Stop Firefighting: Asset Management is a Mindset
Many organizations talk about Asset Management (understood as Technical Asset Management), but in practice, they still operate reactively. It is not a matter of tools (although they simplify many things), but rather a mindset about technical assets and risk. A proactive mindset changes priorities, decisions, and work culture.
"Firefighting" seems natural because failures are loud, urgent, and visible. However, the reactive model is costly: it generates chaos, increases service costs, and solidifies the wrong habits of the team. Instead of planning, the organization constantly reacts, and decisions are made under pressure. In such an environment, stability and predictability are hard to achieve, and investments in reliability are pushed to the back.
The primary motivator for change is the cost of reactive maintenance, which can be captured in reports, but this requires having the right data. Losses arise not only from downtimes but also from overtime, unplanned purchases, quality errors, and tensions between departments.
Asset Management is not just another procedure, but a change in perspective: from "repairing machines" to managing risk, value, and the lifecycle of technical assets. This shift requires conscious choices, as prevention and modernization are not as spectacular as a breakdown, yet they build long-term results. Without a change in mindset, even the best tools will remain underutilized.
An important element of this change is organizational learning. In reactive maintenance, knowledge often stays in the heads of individual specialists, rather than in standards, procedures, and data. A proactive mindset promotes documenting decisions, analyzing failure causes, and continuous improvement of plans. This makes the organization less dependent on "irreplaceable" individuals and better prepared for personnel changes or technological developments.
The lack of this change is evident in tensions between departments. Production expects availability, finance pressures costs, and maintenance tries to "survive" in crisis mode. When the mindset remains reactive, the organization loses its ability to plan, and decisions regarding CAPEX and OPEX become random.
Start the change
A modern approach to maintenance begins with recognizing that most failures are not "random" events, but rather the result of previous decisions and neglect. This does not mean that every failure can be avoided, but that most can be predicted or their effects mitigated. Proactive organizations treat risk as a manageable parameter, not as "bad luck." In practice, this means managing by the criticality of equipment, clear priorities, and data-driven decisions. It also involves a change in understanding of responsibility: we do not seek blame after a failure, but manage causes before they become a problem. This approach builds trust and cohesion within the team.
The trap of reactive maintenance lies in the fact that the system rewards activity instead of effectiveness. The maintenance team is praised for quick repairs, not for reducing the number of failures. This requires a change in success metrics: instead of counting "heroic" interventions, the focus is on process stability, reducing downtimes, and consistency of preventive plans. When the indicators are well chosen, the team's mindset begins to change, as it sees the value in preventive work.
You can read more about the Reactive Maintenance Trap here: >>Reactive Maintenance Trap<<
In practice, this means jointly defining goals with production and other stakeholders. If management expects stable order fulfillment, maintenance should measure results not only by response time but also by the impact on the availability of key lines. If the goal is to reduce costs, it is not about "cutting everything," but about optimizing the scope of actions based on criticality and data. This approach builds a common language and facilitates investments in areas that genuinely improve results. It also requires knowledge and time.
Changing the mindset also requires moving from individual "heroic" actions to standards and processes. Well-defined roles, clear escalation rules, and periodic reviews of plans ensure that the organization does not rely on the knowledge of a few individuals. This is crucial in times of employee turnover and pressure for efficiency. It is worth emphasizing that at Operivo, the first step is always to understand the specifics of the organization: listening, diagnosis, and analysis of the actual way of working, and only then proposing solutions.
A proactive mindset also means consciously managing change. Transitioning from reactive to planned mode often causes resistance: "we've always done it this way" or "we don't have time for prevention." Here, quick, visible results that demonstrate the value of the new approach are important. A well-planned pilot and clear financial benefits can overcome skepticism.
It is also worth remembering the asset life cycle. The main difference between Maintenance and Asset Management is thinking about technical systems from need, through design, operation, to modernization or decommissioning. This ensures that decisions are coherent, and maintenance does not operate in isolation from investments and development plans. Where such a perspective exists, it is easier to build a multi-year budget, secure competencies, and avoid obvious risks. This translates into stability, safety, and greater predictability of costs.
Summary
- Reactive Maintenance rewards activity but does not build stability.
- Asset Management is the perspective of the entire asset life cycle and managing risk and value, not just operational repairs.
- A proactive mindset requires different KPIs and conscious priorities.
Transitioning from "firefighting" to Asset Management is a change in the way technical work is viewed. It does not start with the system, but with decisions about what is truly important. When an organization understands that prevention is an investment in stability, space opens up for tools, standards, data, and long-term decisions. This mindset builds an advantage, not just a temporary calming of the situation.
The best signal of maturity is the moment when failures cease to be the "norm" and become exceptions requiring analysis instead of heroic actions. Then the organization begins to truly manage value, rather than just reacting to losses.
If you want to check whether Reactive Maintenance still dominates in your organization, Operivo can help diagnose and identify the first steps for change.
Related services:
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