Preventive vs Reactive Maintenance: What You Need to Know

Even though industrial maintenance is a critical function in any industrial or manufacturing environment, the way organizations approach it can vary drastically, from putting out fires as they come, to executing a well-thought-out plan to prevent issues before they arise.

Two common approaches that often come up in maintenance discussions: reactive maintenance and preventive maintenance. While the former is more of a default mode that occurs in the absence of planning, the latter serves as a foundation for building operational excellence and reliability.

For plant managers and executive decision-makers, understanding the difference is critical, not just for asset performance, but also for managing costs, ensuring safety, and shaping organizational culture.

What Is Reactive Maintenance?

Definition: Reactive maintenance refers to performing maintenance only after a piece of equipment has failed. It’s an unstructured, response-driven approach: fix it when it breaks.

This strategy is not guided by data or planning, it’s guided by urgency. Teams wait for failure, then respond as quickly as possible to minimize production losses. While it may seem cost-effective in the short term, it often leads to higher long-term costs, reduced equipment lifespan, and increased risk exposure.

Important Distinction: It’s Not Run-to-Failure

Reactive maintenance is often confused with Run-to-Failure (RTF), but they are not the same:

• A Run-to-Failure strategy is a deliberate strategy applied to non-critical, inexpensive assets where the cost of failure is lower than the cost of proactive maintenance.
• Reactive maintenance is typically unintentional, arising from a lack of resources, planning, or maturity in maintenance practices.

Typical Signs of a Reactive Maintenance Culture:

• No scheduled maintenance routines
• Frequent unplanned downtime
• Technicians always in firefighting mode
• Spare parts often missing or delayed
• Poor visibility into asset performance or failure history

Pros:

Seemingly low short-term costs (no upfront planning or resources)

Cost of Reactive Maintenance:

• High and unpredictable repair costs
• Increased unplanned downtime
• No delayed itme to act before failure (P/F curve)
• Higher safety and compliance risks
• Stress on personnel and resources

What Is Preventive Maintenance?

Preventive maintenance (PM) is a proactive, planned approach where maintenance tasks are performed at scheduled intervals to prevent equipment failures before they occur.

It is based on anticipated failure modes, manufacturer recommendations, and operational experience. Rather than waiting for a problem, PM aims to stop it before it starts.

“Preventive maintenance isn’t about doing more maintenance, it’s about doing the right task, at the right time.”

Benefits of Preventive Maintenance

• Reduced risk of unexpected breakdowns
• Extended asset lifespan
• Improved safety and compliance
• Increased operational efficiency
• Lower long-term maintenance costs
• Easier workload balancing for technicians
• Earlier identification of potential failure

 Potential Pitfalls:

• Over-maintenance if intervals aren’t optimized
• Ineffectiveness if failure modes aren’t well understood
• Requires planning, discipline, and workforce coordination
• May still require reactive work if PM isn’t optimized

When Each Strategy Makes Sense

When to Use a Preventive Maintenance Strategy :

Preventive maintenance should serve as the foundation of any maintenance program. While other strategies may be prioritized based on asset criticality and risk mitigation, PM remains the baseline approach.

It makes sense when:

• You want to avoid emergency repairs and production losses
• You’re on a budget: The cost of scheduled maintenance is lower than that of unexpected failures
• You want to create a proactive maintenance culture
• You’re aiming to improve asset reliability and reduce technician stress

When Reactive Maintenance Happens (Not When It Should Be Used):

Reactive maintenance usually appears in organizations where:

• There is no clear maintenance plan
• Equipment is maintained only when it breaks
• There’s insufficient data, visibility, or leadership support
• Spare parts, workforce, or systems are lacking
• Decisions are made under pressure, without risk assessment

Important Note: Reactive maintenance should never be a chosen strategy. It reflects a lack of organizational maturity and always leads to higher total cost of ownership.

Conclusion

In maintenance management, being reactive costs more than just money, it erodes reliability, safety, and employee morale. While reactive maintenance is sometimes unavoidable, it should never be the default.

Preventive maintenance is not just a maintenance approach that allows maintenance cost reduction, it’s a cultural shift to a proactive maintenance culture. It requires planning, discipline, and commitment, but the returns in uptime, safety, technician workload balancing, and cost-efficiency are undeniable.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Is reactive maintenance the same as Run-to-Failure (RTF)?

No. RTF is intentional and limited to specific cases. Reactive maintenance is usually unintentional and unstructured.

How often should I perform preventive maintenance?

It depends on the asset criticality, the risk associated with a breakdown, its usage, and known failure modes. Time-based or usage-based schedules can be optimized with historical data and failure analysis.

Do I need an APM to do preventive maintenance?

Not necessarily, but APM tools significantly improve scheduling, tracking, and KPI visibility, making preventive maintenance easier to manage at scale.

Is preventive maintenance the best strategy?

It’s often the best starting point. More advanced strategies like predictive maintenance may offer higher returns, but only after a strong preventive foundation is in place.

Raphael Tremblay,
Spartakus Technologies
[email protected]