My podcast and YouTube co-host Joe Kuhn has said frequently in our discussions that technology will not solve reliability problems. It can do amazing things, but it is not a substitute for disciplined problem solving and engaged leadership.

In another episode of maintenance myth busters, Joe challenges some of the assumptions that can derail reliability programs—from the belief that predictive maintenance can prevent every breakdown to the idea that standard work gets in the way of experienced technicians. We also look at why reliability improvements often shift maintenance work rather than eliminate it, why leadership is critical to sustaining change, and why the right reliability strategy depends on the problems a plant needs to solve first.

1. Predictive maintenance will eliminate breakdowns.

FALSE

Predictive maintenance can dramatically reduce unexpected failures, but it cannot eliminate them entirely. According to Kuhn, one of the biggest mistakes organizations make is assuming that finding equipment defects is the end of the process. 

Without investigating why the problem occurred, plants simply become better at discovering the same failures over and over again. "You've got to problem-solve that. Why did that happen? How do you prevent that from occurring?" Kuhn said.

Some failures are also intentional business decisions. Non-critical assets may be allowed to run to failure because replacement costs are low or redundant equipment is available.

The goal of predictive maintenance is not perfection. The goal is to reduce avoidable failures and understand which risks are worth managing and which are worth accepting.

2. Condition monitoring replaces maintenance technicians.

FALSE

As plants invest in more sensors and automated diagnostics, concerns occasionally arise that technology will eventually replace skilled tradespeople. Kuhn doesn't see it that way. Instead, he argues that successful reliability programs shift technicians toward higher-value work.

As emergency repairs decline, organizations often expand predictive maintenance routes, perform more follow-up inspections, and spend more time conducting root cause analysis. Rather than reducing headcount, reliability improvements frequently redirect maintenance labor toward preventing future failures.

In Kuhn's experience, most facilities are already understaffed and rely heavily on overtime or contractors to compensate for reactive maintenance. Improving reliability allows those resources to be used more efficiently—not eliminated.

"You’re shifting the work," Kuhn explained. "There's usually years and years' worth of work to do, even once you have a culture of condition monitoring and predictive maintenance.”

3. Standard procedures slow down experienced technicians.

FALSE

Experienced technicians sometimes view standard work as unnecessary documentation that limits their efficiency. Kuhn acknowledges that there may be a short learning curve. Whenever a new procedure is introduced, execution initially takes longer while technicians become familiar with the process and identify opportunities for improvement.

But that slowdown doesn't last. Once procedures are reviewed and refined based on actual field experience, standardized work reduces variation, improves quality, and often saves time for both experienced employees and new hires.

“It ends up being a time saver for everyone. So, I think this is false. It does not slow down experienced technicians when you zoom out just a little bit,” Kuhn says.

The key is treating procedures as living documents rather than static instructions, Kuhn says. Standard work should evolve as teams discover better methods.

4. Reliability programs fail because technicians resist change.

FALSE

One of Kuhn's strongest opinions of the episode centered on why reliability initiatives lose momentum. Where many organizations blame frontline resistance, Kuhn blames leadership.

Every facility experiences some resistance whenever new processes are introduced, but he argues that successful change depends on how consistently management communicates expectations, explains the reasons behind new initiatives, and follows through over time. "Management drives 100% of the failures that I've seen at plants," Kuhn says.

One practice Kuhn credits for sustaining engagement was a structured management "touch plan." Each month, every technician received a brief one-on-one conversation with a manager. Those conversations created opportunities to answer questions, reinforce priorities, and uncover concerns that rarely surfaced during group meetings.

Leadership visibility helped keep improvement efforts moving forward.

5. Every plant should follow the same reliability best practices.

TRUE

Reliability best practices are remarkably consistent across industries and across facilities. “However, the way you deploy them and the way you focus on them is going to be different at every single plant because the waste that's in your plant is different,” Kuhn says.

Precision maintenance, preventive maintenance, planning and scheduling, lubrication excellence, condition monitoring, and root cause analysis all remain fundamental building blocks of a mature maintenance program. What changes is the order in which plants prioritize them.

A facility struggling with lubrication contamination shouldn't begin by deploying sophisticated analytics. Another plant plagued by alignment issues may see the greatest return from improving precision maintenance before investing heavily in additional predictive technologies.

"The best practices are the same," Kuhn said. "It's the sequence that you put them in place that can change."

Effective reliability leaders use observations and key performance indicators to identify where waste exists, then deploy improvement efforts where they will produce the greatest operational impact.

There are no silver bullets

This game of reliability myth busters highlights how reliability doesn't depend on finding a single breakthrough technology, adopting one new process, or copying another organization's playbook.

Predictive maintenance works because people investigate failures instead of simply detecting them. Standard work succeeds because teams continually improve it. Best practices deliver results because they're applied to the right problems. And reliability initiatives endure because leaders consistently communicate and coach.

As Kuhn's reality check demonstrates, technology remains an essential part of modern maintenance, but sustainable reliability is ultimately built through disciplined execution and leadership.