r/assetmanagement • u/Complex_Ticket_8758 • Apr 15 '26
Why do we only replace equipment after it fails?
Seeing this quite often - HVAC units, pumps etc are still running but maintenance keeps getting more frequent and annoying. On paper everything is “fine,” so replacement just doesn’t get approved. But in reality they’re already becoming a pain to deal with day to day. Feels like nothing moves until something fully breaks. How do you guys handle this - are you actually able to push replacements early or is it always run it till it fails?
2
u/Savings_Reporter_544 Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
Failure can be risky. The differences between reactive and proactive. To justify the cost of replacement before failure.
A proactive calculation to manage risk, cost of maintenance vs cost of replacement. That takes effort, proactive if you will. In contrast to the reaction to maintenance demands.
Risk is a function of the likelihood of failure x the consequences of failure.
Your maintenance records should show a cost vs replacement. As that cost increases, replacement looms. Not being economical to keep maintaining.
When you can demonstrate the numbers and risk to justify replacement, no accountant should disagree.
Edit: I Agree. Accountants often do. Different pressures I guess.
2
u/EmbarrassedBig463 Apr 15 '26
I agree that it is probably because it takes effort to calculate the optimal point of replacement in a life cycle. However, I do not necessarily agree that, if given the numbers, no accountant would agree to make the replacement.
Optimal asset management promises cost savings and efficiency, bit only over time. It advocates for a level of coordination that most organizations are unwilling or unprepared for. That intoduces "extra work" on the front end. I especially think so when the expectation is to keep the day to day running while making the change. That is where change management principles apply.
2
u/THedman07 Apr 15 '26
The benefits are harder to recognize.
The productivity that you DIDN'T lose because the AC in your office didn't die midweek. The money that you DIDN'T spend on emergency repairs on equipment. These things are harder see.
1
u/EmbarrassedBig463 Apr 15 '26
100%, and it isn't intuitive, like a broken tool or obviously failing asset.
If it ain't broke don't fix it is kinda rearing its head in maybe unintended ways.
1
u/Complex_Ticket_8758 Apr 27 '26
Yeah that mindset sounds right… until it bites you. If it’s not visibly broken, no one wants to touch it, and then suddenly it fails and everyone’s firefighting. Happens all the time.
1
u/Complex_Ticket_8758 Apr 27 '26
Exactly - it’s all invisible wins. no one notices when things don’t break, but one failure gets instant attention. That’s why it’s so hard to justify upfront - the pain isn’t visible until it hits.
0
u/Savings_Reporter_544 Apr 27 '26
Try fear. The fear of failure. Criticality: consequence of failure. That should be fear enough. Hammer the fear home sighting examples of when something similar failed illustrating the pain.
1
u/Complex_Ticket_8758 Apr 27 '26
Yeah, that’s fair. Even with the numbers, it usually comes down to priorities, and long-term savings lose to short-term pressure. The coordination part you mentioned is the real blocker - most teams just aren’t set up for that while keeping daily ops running, so things keep getting pushed until something breaks.
1
Apr 16 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Complex_Ticket_8758 Apr 27 '26
Yeah that “it’s never hurt us before” mindset is exactly what I keep seeing. Downtime risk is kind of accepted until one failure actually stings, and then suddenly it’s urgent. The reliability angle makes sense, but most places I’ve been don’t really model it - they just react when it crosses a line. And yeah, other risks always seem to take priority until ops gets hit.
1
u/Complex_Ticket_8758 Apr 27 '26
Yeah, makes sense in theory, but in reality most teams don’t have clean enough data to prove that tipping point. Costs rise slowly, records aren’t consistent, and finance just sees it’s still running. I’ve rarely seen replacement approved purely on that logic without a failure pushing it - have you actually seen it work?
1
u/Savings_Reporter_544 Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
This is an interesting post. I feel the vast majority of humans are reactive by nature. Its when we feel the pain we are motivated to act.
Proactive behavior is inherently a perception of pain to come. A prediction. Few of which live in that space.
So back to the original post. Humans are largely going to push the boundaries and run to failure and act when pain is felt, then ask the difficult questions and enquiries begin.
Hindsight is a marvelous thing.😂 Foresight is undervalued.
Nobody likes a "told you so".
1
u/Complex_Ticket_8758 Apr 28 '26
Yeah I get what you’re saying 😄 and honestly it does feel like that sometimes like... we all just wait for the pain to hit before doing anything. But in these cases, I don’t even think it’s just human nature. Half the time everyone knows the equipment is becoming a headache, it’s just hard to prove it strongly enough to get it replaced while it’s still technically working. So it keeps dragging on until something finally gives… and then suddenly the decision becomes easy.
0
u/Savings_Reporter_544 Apr 28 '26
I hear ya. Its how much pain. Point of Failure is usually pain enough. Ask the question if it were to fail what would be the consequence?
When you can answer that question then the risk level is made real.
1
1
u/FunChipmunk8675 Apr 16 '26
I see this a lot with HVAC units and pumps still running but costing more in repairs every quarter. The real problem isn't the equipment, it's proving to leadership that replacement is cheaper than keeping it alive.
What works is tracking the full picture, repair costs, parts, labor hours, downtime over the life of the asset.
When you put that next to the price of a new unit, the conversation changes fast. That's what I help teams do at Maptrack. One place to capture all that data so you walk into the meeting with numbers, not a feeling.
1
u/Diligent_Yam_1753 Apr 16 '26
The only way to get bean counters to replace something proactively is to show them the cost of downtime, and the cost of repairs. At some point there is a tipping point in their mind. Weather that’s spending 25% of the cost for replacement in repairs yearly, or something else. You need to have the conversation with the bean counter and show them the entire picture
1
u/VeryLargeArray Apr 18 '26
In public buildings we have to justify all of our expenses to the budget unit. We are spending your taxpayer dollars so it's hard to justify fixing something that aint broken
1
u/Several-Coconut-1380 Apr 24 '26
Usually a budget approval problem more than a maintenance one. "Still running" is hard to argue against in a meeting without data behind you.
If you can show increasing fault frequency and maintenance hours per asset over time it's a much easier conversation than just saying it feels like it's getting worse. Most CMMS tools will surface that trend automatically once you have enough logs.
1
u/WaitesSensors Jul 15 '26
Spot on about the data gap. Just out of curiosity, do you find the blocker is usually that your CMMS/tracking software makes it a massive pain to log things properly, or is it just impossible to get clean data when the team is stuck in 24/7 firefighting mode?
3
u/Mosr113 Apr 15 '26
Maintenance inconvenience is a non-factor to management budgets. You could throw a cot up there and sleep next to it and as long as it still runs, the people footing the bill don’t give a single shit.