Views: 16
Summary – When unexpected outages cripple operations, reactive maintenance leads to unpredictable downtime, cost overruns, and growing technical debt. Strategic choices must rest on a rigorous evaluation of criticality, RTO/RPO, and business impact to classify assets as run-to-failure versus preventive and predictive maintenance, while integrating observability, runbooks, and post-mortems. Solution: establish a hybrid governance framework anchored in criticality scoring and documented procedures to optimize total cost of ownership and control risks.
When faced with technical uncertainties, some organizations choose purely reactive maintenance, intervening only after a failure is detected. While this approach minimizes planning and upfront costs, it often proves unsuitable for critical assets whose failure can paralyze business operations.
The key question is not to choose systematically between reactive and preventive, but to determine for each component the acceptable risk level and recovery objectives. In this article, we present a structured decision framework—integrating RTO/RPO, business criticality, and observability mechanisms—to guide IT governance choices.
Understanding Reactive IT Maintenance
Reactive maintenance occurs only after a failure has occurred, with no predefined schedule for operations. It differs from preventive and predictive approaches by the absence of regular checks and continuous monitoring.
Definition and Characteristics of Reactive Maintenance
Reactive maintenance, sometimes called corrective maintenance, is triggered as soon as an incident is reported by users or support systems. It relies on no verification schedule or leading indicators, reducing initial setup. In practice, the IT team switches to emergency mode upon ticket receipt, must diagnose the failure, and intervene in real time to restore service, often using a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for tracking and coordination.
This model may seem attractive for non-critical or easily replaceable resources, as it involves no planned downtime or significant investment in CMMS software. However, the lack of proactive alerts generates a risk of unexpected—and sometimes prolonged—downtime, with an impact that is hard to gauge in advance. Business operations may then suffer sudden interruptions, disrupting the value chain.
At the strategic level, reactive maintenance aligns with a run-to-failure logic: an asset is used until it fails, then repaired or replaced. This method can be documented and validated through clear governance. The success of this strategy depends on precisely defining the permissible scopes and replacement resources.
Types of Reactive Interventions
In the field, three forms of reactive maintenance coexist. First, emergency interventions are triggered for critical incidents that threaten operational continuity or data security. The IT team drops all other tasks to restore service.
Next are “breakdown” treatments, where the failure is unanticipated and requires a standard ticket. Resolution may take time, involve external experts, and incur higher hourly rates due to time pressure.
Finally, run-to-failure applies to assets whose failure is planned and considered part of normal operation. A prearranged replacement or workaround is in place to limit downtime, provided criticality criteria remain low.
Positioning Within the Maintenance Ecosystem
Reactive maintenance occupies a specific place in a holistic strategy where preventive maintenance schedules patches, tests, and checks, while predictive maintenance uses signals (metrics, logs, trends) to anticipate issues. Combining these approaches lets you adjust monitoring levels according to service criticality.
In an asset lifecycle, the choice of intervention mode depends on total cost of ownership, business criticality, and risk tolerance. Secondary equipment or test environments can be managed in run-to-failure, whereas critical APIs, production databases, and payment services demand a more rigorous strategy.
Example: A logistics provider decided to treat its staging server in run-to-failure mode, replacing it in a “hot swap” slot as soon as a failure was detected. This approach reduced operational complexity in that environment by 75% while maintaining a recovery time under 12 hours, showing that a leaner plan can remain controlled when backed by clear procedures.
Limitations and Hidden Costs of Reactive Maintenance
Unpredictable interruptions create major business impacts and costs that are difficult to budget. Corrective maintenance often leads to cost spikes without visibility into the annual total.
Unpredictable Downtime and Business Impacts
An unplanned outage exposes a company to immediate productivity loss and a degraded user experience. Operational teams cannot perform their tasks, billing or production processes stall, and the supply chain can be affected.
In sensitive sectors (finance, healthcare, e-commerce), even a minor incident can lead to contractual penalties or regulatory sanctions. Without internal SLAs on RTO/RPO, impact forecasting is difficult, weakening the organization’s stance with clients and partners.
The domino effect can ultimately cost several times more than an annual preventive maintenance budget that once seemed minimal. This cost variability complicates financial management and may jeopardize the IT roadmap.
Operational Overruns and Penalty Risks
During a serious incident, engaging experts on short notice incurs premium rates and expedited response fees. Billable hours can be 30% to 50% higher than standard services, inflating the final invoice.
Without spare parts inventory or support contracts with SLAs, replenishment lead times can be lengthy, extending downtime. Every extra hour weighs on operational results, often without a clear forecast of daily labor costs.
Example: An SME experienced a failure of its internal API, handled reactively. Bringing in external specialists required an urgent site visit, generating an unplanned CHF 40,000 cost for less than 24 hours of downtime. This expense highlighted the importance of agile support mechanisms rather than relying solely on ticket-based interventions.
Security, Technical Debt, and Silent Degradation
In reactive mode, security patches are often applied only after a vulnerability is exploited. This approach increases technical debt and exposes the system to undetected “gray” incidents in regular operations.
Silent degradation appears as a gradual performance decline, increased latency, or resource overconsumption. Without proactive monitoring, these drifts go unnoticed until they trigger a major incident.
Energy costs can also rise, since a stressed component runs less efficiently. At the scale of a data center or cloud cluster, these inefficiencies impact both the operating budget and carbon footprint.
Edana: strategic digital partner in Switzerland
We support companies and organizations in their digital transformation
Strategic Framework: Applying Run-to-Failure Wisely
Choosing run-to-failure is a governance decision that must be based on a rigorous assessment of criticality and recovery objectives. It requires clearly defined RTO/RPO and support resources aligned with the tolerated risk level.
Assessing Criticality and Business Impact
The first step is to map services and evaluate their contribution to revenue, production, or customer experience. This mapping distinguishes critical processes from secondary services.
Essential components (authentication, payment, ERP deployment, billing data flows) are assigned a high criticality level, requiring preventive or predictive coverage. Low-impact components may be run-to-failure candidates, provided there is a rapid replacement plan.
A scoring model based on financial impact and usage frequency gives a factual basis for decision-making. This score should be validated by an IT governance committee to secure stakeholder buy-in.
Defining RTO/RPO and Acceptable Risk Levels
Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPO) determine the maintenance strategy. An RTO of a few hours or an RPO near zero demands strong preventive mechanisms and often automated redundancy.
Conversely, an RTO of 24 hours and an RPO of 12 hours can be managed reactively, provided there are validated restore procedures and backups. The choice hinges on a cost-benefit analysis: strict RTO/RPO increase monitoring and testing expenses.
This definition must be approved by executive management, the CIO, and business leaders to reach consensus on acceptable risk levels and governance.
Criteria for Run-to-Failure Services
Several criteria help identify run-to-failure candidates: low business impact services, non-sensitive or regenerable data, and easily replaceable assets with simple workarounds.
Run-to-failure still requires a documented fallback plan: rollback procedures, automation scripts for rapid redeployment, and clearly assigned responsibilities in case of failure. This plan ensures the reactive strategy remains controlled.
Example: A training institution uses a non-critical in-house reporting tool. The team implemented a documented run-to-failure setup, with a backup environment activatable within 4 hours. This arrangement cut supervision costs while meeting an acceptable RTO for educational activities.
Progressing to Preventive and Predictive Strategies
Gradually integrating preventive and predictive maintenance mechanisms reduces risks without blowing the budget. This relies on the minimal implementation of observability tools, regular testing, and post-mortem procedures.
Implementing Observability and Alerting
Observability combines collecting metrics, structured logs, and distributed traces to provide a holistic view of service health. It feeds dashboards and alarms configured on critical thresholds.
Appropriate monitoring detects emerging anomalies (errors, latency, consumption spikes) before they trigger incidents. Alerts linked to runbooks guide teams through initial diagnostics and, if needed, escalation to emergency procedures.
Implementation can start with basic indicators (CPU, memory, error codes) and evolve toward incident-pattern and trend-based alerts.
Developing Preventive Maintenance Plans
Preventive maintenance relies on a schedule of patching, security audits, restore tests, and inventory reviews. It reduces technical debt and limits the frequency of major incidents.
A capacity planning process anticipates load growth and adjusts resources before saturation. Regular failover and recovery tests validate procedures and backup integrity.
This recurring investment pays off through fewer emergency interventions and stabilization of maintenance costs.
Fostering a Culture of Continuous Improvement and Post-Mortems
Every incident, even minor, undergoes a documented post-mortem to identify root causes and define corrective actions. This process turns every failure into a learning opportunity.
Lessons learned feed a backlog of prioritized enhancements, ranging from code refactoring to adding a specific threshold alert. The goal is to move from a “putting out fires” mindset to continuous optimization.
Cross-functional collaboration is crucial: the IT department, business project managers, and external providers participate in reviews, ensuring shared vision and collective commitment to risk reduction.
Steer IT Maintenance Aligned with Your Strategic Objectives
The choice between reactive, preventive, or predictive maintenance must fit within a clear governance framework, defining service criticality, RTO/RPO objectives, and required monitoring levels. A mixed strategy optimizes total cost of ownership while minimizing interruption risks.
To transition from reactive to a more controlled model, it is essential to adopt observability incrementally, establish runbooks, and systematize post-mortems. This pragmatic approach ensures a balance between foresight and flexibility.
Our experts are available to help you assess your assets, set priorities, and implement mechanisms tailored to your context. Benefit from customized support to align your IT maintenance with your performance and resilience goals.
