Reactive maintenance, also known as “breakdown maintenance,” involves repairing equipment or facilities after they have failed or broken down. It’s a response-based approach where actions are taken after a problem occurs.

While proactive maintenance (involving regular, scheduled maintenance activities designed to prevent failures before they happen) is generally preferred for its long-term benefits, reactive maintenance does have certain advantages in specific contexts:

• Lower Initial Costs – There’s no need for the regular investment in maintenance checks and activities, which can reduce short-term expenses.
• Simplicity – For small operations or equipment with a low risk of failure and low repair costs, reactive maintenance can be simpler to manage without the need for scheduling regular maintenance checks.
• Flexibility – Resources are not tied up in maintenance activities until they are absolutely necessary, allowing for more flexibility in resource allocation.

It’s important to note, however, that these advantages may be offset by higher long-term costs and potential downtime.

In many cases, yes, reactive maintenance can be more costly in the long term when compared to proactive or Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) strategies. While it may appear to save money in the short term due to reduced maintenance activities, the costs associated with unexpected equipment failures can be significant.

Overall, while reactive maintenance may be suitable for certain low-priority or rarely used equipment, a balanced approach incorporating both proactive and reactive maintenance strategies is often most cost-effective and efficient for managing facilities and equipment. Triton Facilities Management can help evaluate your maintenance needs and develop a strategy that minimises risks and costs while maximising operational efficiency.

Reactive maintenance, or fixing equipment only when it fails, may seem less ideal compared to Planned Preventative Maintenance strategies. However, there are specific scenarios and types of businesses where reactive maintenance could be considered beneficial or more practical. These include:

Small Businesses with Limited Resources – Small businesses or startups with limited capital and fewer critical operations may opt for reactive maintenance to minimise upfront costs. The immediate need to conserve cash flow might outweigh the potential future savings from proactive maintenance.

Businesses with Low-Cost or Easily Replaceable Equipment – Companies that use equipment or machinery that is inexpensive and easily replaceable may find reactive maintenance more cost-effective. For these businesses, the cost of repairing or replacing a piece of equipment might be less than the investment required for regular maintenance.

Organisations with Highly Redundant Systems -Businesses that operate in environments with high redundancy in their equipment may tolerate reactive maintenance better. If one piece of equipment fails, others can take over without impacting operations significantly, allowing for repairs to be made without urgency.

Facilities with Infrequently Used Equipment -Facilities that have equipment that is rarely used, or used in non-critical applications, might not justify the cost of regular checks and maintenance. In these cases, waiting until a failure occurs to address issues could be a practical approach.

Businesses in Industries with Rapid Technological Changes – In sectors where technology evolves quickly, equipment might become obsolete before it fails or requires significant maintenance. For these businesses, investing heavily in maintaining cutting-edge technology might not be as beneficial, as equipment is likely to be replaced with newer models in the short to medium term.

It’s important to note that while reactive maintenance might be used strategically in these scenarios, it’s often part of a broader maintenance strategy. Many businesses will employ a mix of proactive and reactive maintenance to balance costs, efficiency, and reliability.