Barriers and successes in integrating maintenance methodologies

In recent times, many organizations have attempted to implement, almost simultaneously, some or several maintenance methodologies: TPM, RCM, risk-based maintenance, Lean, physical asset management, ISO 55000, predictive maintenance, CBM, among others. In theory, they all aim for the same thing: greater reliability, fewer failures, better use of capital, and increased safety.

In practice, the result is often very different:

• TPM programs that remain stuck at 5S and cleaning.
• RCM analyses that are never applied.
• Physical asset management systems that exist only on paper.
• Maintenance projects that are isolated pilots.

When you look closely at what is going wrong, patterns emerge that are not unique to any one methodology. These are cross-cutting barriers: behavioral, cultural, strategic, operational, technical, financial, and departmental.

In this article, we will look at these common barriers and the key success factors that help the entire ecosystem (TPM, RCM, asset management, Lean, ACR) function as a system rather than a collage of acronyms.

Behavioral and human barriers: “I don’t want to” and “I can’t”

When launching a TPM program, an RCM project, or an asset management initiative, the conversation begins with techniques. However, barriers soon arise that have little to do with procedures and much to do with people, who are responsible for executing and analyzing for effective decision-making.

Resistance to change and fear of the future

Among the most common behavioral barriers are:

• Rejection of proactive and innovative approaches (“this is how it’s always been done”).
• Difficulty working in cross-functional teams, mixing staff from different disciplines and departments: operations, maintenance, engineering, and finance.
• Lack of motivation to pursue challenging improvement goals.
• Fear of losing one’s job or power as tasks are automated or processes are digitized.

Any attempt to integrate maintenance approaches, techniques, and methodologies with greater digitization affects the usual way of carrying out activities. If people perceive change as a threat (more control, more auditing, more work without reward), the natural response is to resist.

Organizational culture that does not accompany

Added to this are human and cultural barriers:

• Difficulty aligning employees with organizational goals.
• Lack of professionalism and consistency between what is said and what is done.
• Rigid management styles, unwilling to listen.
• Low employee participation in decision-making.
• Skills gap that leaves many feeling left behind by technology.

In this context, each new methodology is seen as just another passing fad or trend, rather than a serious change of direction.

Strategic and organizational barriers: when management fails to integrate

The literature on the subject and experience agree: lack of leadership and change management is one of the most common causes of failure in improvement programs.

Programs without real backing

Among the most common strategic barriers are:

• Inability of the organization to drive fundamental cultural change.
• Lack of a vision that globally connects different maintenance methodologies integrated with the business strategy.
• Lack of vision regarding the complementarity of techniques and methods.
• Limited involvement of senior management: everything is delegated to the maintenance department.
• Poor internal communication about what is being done, why, and what is expected to be achieved.
• Middle managers’ lack of knowledge of the principles of these methodologies.

The end result is that each initiative is seen as an isolated project. TPM “is for production and maintenance,” RCM “is for the reliability engineer,” ISO 55000/55001 “is for the quality department,” and digital transformation “is for IT.” No one coordinates them.

Lack of focus and monitoring mechanisms

Other key organizational barriers:

• Risk of incomplete implementation of maintenance methodologies.
• Inadequate pace of implementation (either everything is changed at once, or it is postponed indefinitely), failure to understand that everything has its process.
• Too many improvement activities in parallel, without clear priorities or responsible parties.
• Reward systems that continue to reward only short-term production, not reliability or risk reduction.
• Lack of robust mechanisms to measure results: OEE, reliability indicators, return on assets, among others.

Without indicators and focus, it is very difficult to know whether a specific methodology is really adding value or simply consuming time and resources.

Operational barriers: the day-to-day that eats away at any methodology

On paper, adopting work approaches sounds excellent. In day-to-day plant operations, things get complicated.

Reactive “firefighting” mode operation

Among the most common operational barriers are:

• Normalized acceptance of high levels of defects and rework.
• Failure to comply with standard operating procedures.
• Little autonomy for operators/executors to take preventive action on equipment.
• Lack of checklists or clear standards for routine tasks.
• Constant emphasis on quick repairs, rather than prevention or root cause analysis.

In such an environment, it is almost impossible to maintain:

• The discipline of autonomous maintenance.
• Tasks defined by an RCM study.
• Investment plans for structured physical asset management.

In the short term, daily routine takes precedence over methodology.

Technical and technological barriers: without a foundation, sophistication is useless

The integration of modern approaches relies heavily on data, models, and technology. Here, clear technical barriers arise:

• Poor quality data.
• Little attention paid to improving equipment reliability from the design stage.
• Weak systems for assessing and managing reliability and risk.
• Aged or saturated physical infrastructure.
• CMMS/EAM underutilized due to lack of knowledge or poor configuration.
• Lack of tools to adequately measure production losses.
• Low flexibility of production systems in the face of configuration changes.
• Insufficient skills to use new diagnostic and analysis technologies.

Under these conditions, attempting to apply advanced RCM or predictive maintenance to a poor database and unstable processes leads to frustration: the technology appears not to work, when the problem is more fundamental. Therefore, most improvement actions should focus on training and support with consulting services.

Financial and departmental barriers: without resources or collaboration, there is no system

The economic dimension of change

The initial investment required to seriously integrate these methodologies is often underestimated:

• Additional resources at the outset (key personnel time, training, consulting, technology).
• Budget for pilot projects and for correcting detected problems.
• Motivation systems that reward results, not just hours worked.

If finance views activities solely as a cost, any crisis or budget deviation can cut off the oxygen to the program.

On the other hand, understanding the value that new approaches and technologies bring requires the organization to undergo a process of awareness that begins at the senior management level, extends to the financial area, and ends up consolidating at the operational level.

Silos between departments

Departmental barriers are particularly visible between production and maintenance, but also between maintenance, engineering, safety, and finance:

• Little real cooperation beyond rhetoric.
• Misaligned objectives (production measures tons, maintenance measures downtime, safety measures incidents).
• Lack of formal spaces where integrated decisions about assets are made.

Without breaking down these silos, talking about “comprehensive asset management” is just a slogan.

Common success factors: what always comes up when it works

The good news is that the same studies that describe the barriers also identify success factors that are common across approaches. These can be grouped into three categories: human, process, and organizational.

Human factors: leadership, teams, and participation

• Explicit and sustained commitment from senior management: Not only launching the program, but reviewing it, defending it, taking ownership of it, and linking it to business results.
• Multifunctional teamwork: Improvement teams where production, maintenance, engineering, safety, and quality share information and decisions.
• Active employee participation: Include front-line staff in identifying problems, proposing solutions, and validating standards.

Without this triangle (leadership, teams, participation), no program can be sustained. For example, in Root Cause Analysis, participation is key in the search for information.

Process factors: method, discipline, and data

• 5S and standardization as a basis: Order, cleanliness, and visualization to detect abnormalities.
• Realistic planning and scheduling: Set aside time for planned maintenance, failure analysis, and improvement projects.
• Systematic use of indicators (KPIs): OEE, MTBF, MTTR, backlog, risk, return on assets, not as a cosmetic report, but as a decision-making tool.
• Well-chosen pilot projects: Start with critical assets or areas, demonstrate results, learn, and scale up.
• Clear documentation of maintenance work: Checklists, procedures, lessons learned.

These practices act as glue between maintenance methodologies: the same standard that works for TPM is useful for RCM and asset management.

Organizational factors: strategy, culture, and support systems

• Align approaches and methodologies with business objectives: For example, translate “increase reliability” into concrete goals for OEE, regulatory compliance, incident reduction, etc.
• Drive a cultural shift toward continuous improvement: View problems as learning opportunities, not as individual blame.
• Invest in continuous training: Not only in maintenance techniques, but also in data analysis, project management, and soft skills.
• Benchmark and share best practices: Look at what other plants or companies are doing and adapt what is useful.
• Design consistent reward systems: That recognize teamwork, prevention, reliability, and sustained improvement.
• Employ good data management systems.
• Adapt methodologies to the realities of each organization.

Conclusions

The barriers mentioned are essentially the obstacles to any formal transformation in maintenance and asset management: resistance to change, insufficient leadership, lack of focus, weak processes, unfounded technology, and silos between areas.

The success factors are also universal: committed leadership, cross-functional teams, process discipline, intelligent use of data, and an organization that aligns rewards, culture, and strategy with asset reliability and value.

It is important to understand that many of these methodologies are complementary: they share more similarities than differences, especially in terms of their objectives regarding reliability, performance, and value creation in assets.

It is worth asking ourselves:

Do we have the human, process, and organizational conditions in place to ensure that any methodology we adopt has a future?

References

1. ManWinWin Software. Retos communes de la gestión del mantenimiento y cómo superarlos. https://www.manwinwin.com/es/retos-comunes-de-la-gestion-del-mantenimiento/
2. Torres, C. (2024). Retos en la implementación del mantenimiento basado en la condición. https://power-mi.com/es/content/retos-en-la-implementaci%C3%B3n-del-mantenimiento-basado-en-la-condici%C3%B3n
3. Turan, H., & Çaloğlu Büyükselçuk, E. (2025). Evaluation of the barriers to Maintenance 4.0 for the textile industry via Pythagorean fuzzy SWARA. Applied Sciences, 15(13), 7093. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137093
4. Wolska, M.; Gorewoda, T.; Roszak, M.; Gajda, L. (2023). “Implementation and Improvement of the Total Productive Maintenance Concept in an Organization”. Encyclopedia, 3(4), 1537–1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3040110