When maintenance metrics mislead: How to spot and fix systemic reliability gaps

Key takeaways

• Plant visit uncovers chaos in the storeroom and a general lack of shared accountability across the maintenance organization.
• Don’t trust surface-level appearances; validate them with real behavior and floor-level audits.
• 90% PM compliance means little if you're scheduling less than 30% of your maintenance labor force.
• Create a culture that ditches the blame game and refuses to tolerate repetitive failures.

I walked into the maintenance shop and was immediately impressed. The floor shone, the shared tools were in labeled lockers, and everything from the cabinets to the whiteboards screamed “order.” It was the kind of place you’d put in a job recruiting brochure.

But as I always say, “The truth is in the details.” When I crossed the shop door boundary into the different production areas, the façade of a proactive maintenance group began to unravel.

When metrics lie: The illusion of maintenance success

The first red flag? Bearings and other components show signs of improper greasing. I spotted fittings where two—sometimes three—different colors of grease were clumped on the same zerk fitting. Mind you, this was a food plant where food-grade grease is required. Worse yet, grease was seeping past bearing seals. So much for the pride in maintenance ownership.

When asked about the metrics, the maintenance manager smiled and said, “We regularly hit 90% schedule compliance.” I returned the smile, but later dug a little deeper and found that they were only scheduling about 28% of their maintenance labor force. What about the rest of the team? I came to learn they are floating in a sea of reactive chaos.

To be clear, if you only schedule a quarter of your workforce, then achieving 90% schedule compliance is essentially gaming the system: it’s not a genuine win. Yet unknowingly, leadership touts the metric as a success story. Have you ever noticed that the metrics always seem to increase, but actual plant performance often doesn’t match?

A dry-erase board sat above the kitting area. The last kit listed was from February. It was now June. It turns out that the kitting was another round of smoke and mirrors to game the system. This time, it was for the “Best Plant” award within the corporation. Once the auditors left and the award was secured, kitting was abandoned. The facade had served its purpose.

The site shared a trend averaging 97% PM compliance for months on end, on paper. Supervisors in a meeting later shared that they consistently exceed the corporation’s 95% target. The harsh reality was that they were merely checking boxes, rather than preventing or reducing equipment failures. The equipment continued to fail. The PMs didn’t address the likely failure modes. No one was asking: “Are we doing the right work, or just doing work to meet the metric?”

The planners hadn’t been trained. They leaned heavily on tribal knowledge, which had been passed down, rather than the best practices approach. The published schedule listed corrective work and PMs for the next down day, but on the floor, it was just a list. No work packages. No prioritization. No clear instructions, only memory to guide them. Technicians assigned themselves to jobs.

In the storeroom, the manager shared that they strived to be “the epitome of customer service.” Yet, common parts were scattered across distant rows, often fifty yards or more apart. The naming of the parts was chaotic. Technicians had to cross-reference another site’s inventory to find a part.

Operators were understandably frustrated. The blame game was rampant. Maintenance was quick to point the finger at “operator error.” No one talked about the lack of standard work from the maintenance side. There were no visual checks, no clear guidance on equipment specifications, and no shared accountability. Remember that 70–84% of failures are self-induced, often from careless work habits.

I know many of you can share similar stories from your experiences. This isn’t about one plant. It’s about a pattern. Too often, senior leaders and corporate teams look at dashboard KPIs and assume all is well. Metrics look great, awards are sometimes handed out, and no one bothers to ask the more profound questions, especially when the plant performance doesn’t meet expectations.

Do you achieve high PM compliance, but are still experiencing failures? Dig deeper. When failures occur, the first question should be “Do we understand the root cause?” Then, physically verify that the corrective actions have been implemented. Create a culture that refuses to tolerate repetitive failures.

Do you have high schedule compliance? Contrast payroll hours against scheduled hours to determine the labor utilization.

Do you think you have a well-managed storeroom? Request to review the most recent cycle counts. Come in on the off-shifts and observe how long it takes for technicians to locate parts.

Leaders dig deeper to get past the shine and fix the system

Authentic leadership digs deeper, demands the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. To tear down facades, start by doing the following:

• Ensure that the metrics match the true behaviors. Field audits can be very telling and allow you to educate the team in the process.
• Validate that the PMs address the likely failure modes. I prefer that the technicians own the PM program, and that they get trained on effective PM optimization techniques. Not only do ineffective PMs cause poor equipment performance, but they also waste maintenance resources.
• Train your planners and follow up with several weeks of coaching at a minimum. I like to see competency scoring leveraged for development.
• Use the schedule to set expectations, with labor hours, priorities, and sequencing based on all of the available labor, not a fraction. A work schedule is more than a listing of items to hopefully complete.
• Use kitting as a tool to address avoidable delays in work execution, which impedes improved wrench times. If nothing else, kitting gives the technicians a head start.
• The storeroom is a critical partner for maintenance success. Fix the naming conventions across the enterprise. Group common items. Reduce travel and waiting-time waste.
• Build a partnership with operations and other stakeholders to share accountability. Remember, reliability is not a matter of maintenance solely, nor will you achieve it by playing the blame game. Review failures together and own the solutions as a team.

It’s past time to get real with driving improved asset reliability. If you’re in a leadership role and the metrics on your screen look too good to be true, they probably are. Recognize that the actual downtime cost is greater than ever, so even if your numbers are a few points higher, you are still in the same position. Don’t fall for the shine if the system underneath is broken.

Here’s my challenge to you—step beyond the facade. Question the numbers. Go to Gemba and walk the floor. Talk to the people doing the work. Then fix what matters.

And if you’re not sure where to start? Reach out. We’ve helped hundreds of plants rebuild from the inside out, and we can help you do the same.