Question 01
Completion ≠ confidence
Do you know your real PM completion?
Not the massaged board number. The useful view is what gets done, what gets deferred, and what gets closed without adding reliability value.
MaintainIQ guided walkthrough
Your CMMS can look green while engineering capacity leaks out.
This is the conversation MaintainIQ uses to help manufacturing leaders see whether their maintenance system is directing effort at risk, or quietly creating work that no longer pays back.
Opening line“We are not here to tell you your system is broken. We are here to find out whether the work in it still matches the reality of the plant.”
Start with the questions
Three numbers tell you where the conversation needs to go.
The aim is to get the prospect talking about the maintenance system they already trust, then gently test whether those numbers are telling the full story.
Question 02
Reactive pressure shows drift
Do you know how reactive you are?
If a small number of assets keep dragging engineers out of planned work, the PM library may not be aimed at the right failures.
Question 03
Backlog reveals load
Do you know what is sitting in backlog?
The backlog profile shows whether maintenance effort is controlled, delayed, duplicated, or being hidden in the wrong work categories.
Ask this“Which one of those three numbers do you trust least today?”
The green-board problem
High compliance can still hide low-value maintenance.
A site can complete a lot of planned work and still lose capacity if the PMs are duplicated, outdated, too frequent, or detached from failure history.
- OEM manuals copied into the CMMS without being translated into site-specific logic.
- Tasks kept alive because they have always existed, not because they reduce current risk.
- Engineers completing routine checks while the same asset keeps failing elsewhere.
GreenPM compliance
GreenAudit schedule
GreenWeekly board
But the shop floor says something else.
ReactiveSame assets repeatedly interrupting planned work.DuplicatedSeveral PMs checking the same failure mode at different frequencies.MissingKnown failure modes not covered by a useful task.DriftCMMS hierarchy no longer matching how the line actually runs.
Where the waste hides
The problem is usually inside the maintenance logic, not the effort level.
Manufacturing teams are rarely short of effort. They are short of a maintenance system that points that effort at the right risk.
Copied PMsTasks lifted from manuals without local failure-mode judgement.
Wrong frequencyDaily, weekly and monthly checks that no longer match failure patterns.
Weak hierarchyAssets and systems structured in ways that make reporting and ownership difficult.
PM refTaskIndicatorLikely action
PM-1042Inspect guarding and fastenersDuplicateValidate coverage elsewhere
PM-1187Check gearbox oil levelWrong frequencyAlign to failure history
PM-1261Clean sensor faceUsefulKeep and clarify standard
PM-1305General visual inspectionLow evidenceRewrite against failure mode
GAP-017Recurring conveyor stoppageNo PM logicCreate targeted task if justified
The diagnostic lens
Show the good, the bad and the ugly in a way leaders can act on.
The diagnostic should not feel like a consultancy mystery box. It should make the current maintenance system legible enough for Engineering, Operations and Finance to agree the next decision.
What is working and should not be disrupted.
Useful PMs, reliable asset families, clean data areas, and routines that genuinely control risk.
Where effort is probably not paying back.
Duplicated checks, vague task wording, poor frequencies, inconsistent priorities and unclear ownership.
Where the site is exposed.
Critical assets with weak coverage, repeated failures, hidden backlog, and CMMS structure that blocks action.
Positioning“The point is not to criticise the site. The point is to separate what deserves engineering time from what has simply accumulated over time.”
What the CMMS export can reveal
Start with data the site already has.
The entry point is evidence, not workshops. MaintainIQ reviews the CMMS export, asset list, PM history, work orders, backlog and available downtime data to build the first useful view.
- Planned versus reactive mix by asset, line or work category.
- Backlog profile and the work types consuming engineering time.
- Worst-performing assets and systems that deserve closer review.
- PM duplication, weak task wording and non-value task indicators.
Then bring in site reality
Dynamic RCM should fit modern manufacturing constraints.
The diagnostic gives direction. Shop-floor validation makes sure the answer matches how the line actually fails, how operators run it, and where Engineering loses time.
Traditional RCM can become a room exercise.
Long workshops, heavy documentation and too much time away from the line can make the method difficult for stretched sites to sustain.
01Documents and drawings reviewed away from production reality.
02Large group sessions are hard to schedule and easy to lose momentum on.
MaintainIQ keeps it closer to the asset.
Dynamic RCM uses line walks, engineer knowledge and operator reality to connect PM logic back to real failure modes.
01Walk the line, confirm asset hierarchy, and identify practical failure effects.
02Translate findings into PM actions that are clear enough to load into the CMMS.
From findings to action
The next step is scoped from evidence, not a generic package.
The demo should make this part feel commercially safe. MaintainIQ does not need to sell a large programme on the first call. The diagnostic creates a clear decision point.
Read the system.
CMMS export, asset list, work order history, PM library, backlog and downtime data where available.
Find the pain.
Rank waste, reliability exposure and asset areas where improvement effort is most likely to matter.
Check reality.
Use engineer and operator knowledge to confirm whether the data matches what happens on the line.
Build outputs.
Rewrite, remove, validate or add PMs only where the evidence and engineering judgement support it.
Commercial bridge“If the diagnostic shows a genuine opportunity, we scope the next piece of work around the actual volume and complexity. If it does not, you get a straight answer.”
Build trust by being clear
The diagnostic is a paid evidence step, not the whole project.
This distinction matters. It keeps the first commitment low-friction and prevents the prospect thinking they are buying a full PM rewrite before the data justifies it.
What it is
- CMMS data analysis and diagnostic report.
- Good, bad and ugly view of the current maintenance system.
- Key maintenance and reliability metrics.
- Pain-point identification and quick-win improvement plan.
- Recommended next steps based on evidence.
What it is not
- It is not a software replacement.
- It is not a full PM rewrite.
- It is not a full RCM programme.
- It is not a generic consultancy assessment.
- It keeps follow-on scope behind the conversation until evidence supports it.
Close the conversation
Find out what your maintenance system is costing you in capacity.
If the prospect recognises the problem, the right next step is not a large programme. It is a CMMS Diagnostic that proves where the waste, risk and opportunity actually sit.