A high PM compliance number does not prove the PM program is effective. MaintenanceAI reviews the work you already perform against failure history, task quality, frequency basis, duplication, and the evidence available in your CMMS so you can improve what technicians do, remove what does not earn its place, and close failure-mode gaps.
Start with the free Health Check See a PM review sample
No new CMMS required. Start with the PM master, work-order history, asset data, and approved technical information your team already owns.
Compliance measures whether scheduled work was completed. Optimization asks a different question: did the work meaningfully reduce risk, detect deterioration, restore condition, or prevent a credible failure?
Read: PM Compliance vs PM Effectiveness →
"Inspect conveyor" or "check motor" may satisfy a schedule without telling the technician what condition to inspect, how to judge it, or what to do when it is unacceptable.
Intervals often survive because they have always existed. A defensible frequency should be tied to an approved technical basis, observed deterioration, failure behavior, operating context, or documented engineering judgment.
PM programs grow over time. Tasks get added after failures, audits, or one-time events, but old work is rarely challenged. The result can be duplication, intrusive maintenance, and labor spent where risk reduction is weak.
The objective is not to cut PMs. The objective is to make the maintenance strategy technically stronger and operationally more efficient.
The task addresses a credible failure mode, is executable, and has a defensible frequency and acceptance standard.
Keep the intent but improve the task wording, method, inspection point, acceptance criteria, labor estimate, tools, or follow-up action.
Combine duplicated or overlapping work where one well-designed task can cover the same risk with less disruption.
Flag intervals that appear unsupported, too frequent, too infrequent, or inconsistent with available failure and condition evidence.
Where appropriate, move from intrusive time-based work toward inspection, condition monitoring, predictive methods, or another technically suitable strategy.
Add coverage where credible failure modes are exposed. Remove work only when the technical and business basis supports that decision.
Select the assets or production area that matter most. Use criticality, reactive burden, repeat failures, maintenance labor, and production consequence to focus the review.
Connect PM tasks, work orders, asset identifiers, and failure history so the review can compare preventive work with what is actually failing.
Determine whether existing PM tasks address credible deterioration and failure modes and identify important risks with weak or missing coverage.
Review task purpose, wording, method, frequency basis, acceptance criteria, duplication, labor burden, and whether findings create useful corrective action.
Convert vague PM language into technician-executable tasks with the required scope, method, safety information, acceptance criteria, and escalation path.
Return a structured disposition register and CMMS-ready output with evidence, confidence, unresolved technical requirements, and review status visible.
Up to approximately 25 assets. Designed for facilities that already have PMs but need to improve their technical quality, failure coverage, and maintenance burden.
Typical turnaround: about 10 to 15 business days after the agreed scope and usable technical information are available.
Not necessarily. Some programs contain too much low-value work while simultaneously missing important failure modes. A good review may delete, combine, rewrite, reschedule, convert, and add tasks in the same asset strategy.
PM optimization starts with an existing maintenance program and challenges whether those tasks are technically and operationally justified. RCM can be a deeper first-principles strategy-development process. Existing RCM or FMEA work can strengthen a PM optimization review.
MaintenanceAI can identify unsupported or questionable intervals and organize the evidence needed for a decision. Authoritative frequencies still depend on the failure mode, operating context, OEM guidance, engineering requirements, condition history, and approved site judgment.
No. The workflow is designed to work from approved exports and maintenance history from the system you already use. The output can then be structured for controlled review and CMMS implementation.
Use your maintenance history to decide which PMs are protecting the asset, which need to change, where failure-mode coverage is missing, and where technician time can be redirected toward higher-value work.
Start free Health Check Review sample PM output