Condition-based maintenance sounds like the perfect answer to one of industry’s oldest problems: fixing machines too early or too late. Instead of fixing machines on fixed schedules, you only intervene when something is actually starting to go wrong. Sensors watch vibration, temperature, pressure, and wear. Alerts arrive early, failures get prevented, costs go down, and downtime drops.
On paper, it looks like the obvious choice. But once condition-based maintenance leaves PowerPoint slides and enters the field, things get messy fast. Sensors don’t behave perfectly, alerts pop up with no clear meaning, and technicians stop trusting what they see. What sounded promising on paper becomes tough to execute in the field.
In this blog, we will discover why CBM sounds great in theory, but the reality in the field does not match the expectations.
What is Condition-Based Maintenance?
Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) is a maintenance strategy where equipment is serviced based on its actual condition rather than on fixed time or usage schedules.
Sensors monitor indicators such as vibration, temperature, pressure, or wear. When measurements cross defined thresholds, maintenance is triggered.
The goal is to intervene only when deterioration begins, avoiding both unnecessary preventive work and unexpected failures.
How CBM Is Supposed to Work (in Theory)
|
Maintenance Approach |
Trigger for Action |
Typical Outcome |
|---|---|---|
|
Reactive Maintenance |
Failure occurs |
High downtime, unplanned cost |
|
Time-Based Maintenance |
Calendar or usage interval |
Predictable, but often inefficient |
|
Condition-Based Maintenance |
Asset condition indicators |
Fewer interventions, earlier fault detection |
What Condition-Based Maintenance Assumes?
Most CBM maintenance initiatives quietly rely on a few assumptions that don’t survive long in real operations!
-
Assumption #1: There will be reliable, continuous data from assets.
Sensors are expected to stream clean data all the time. In reality, connectivity drops, calibration drifts, and harsh environments distort asset condition monitoring signals.
-
Assumption #2: Operating conditions will always be stable.
Condition-based maintenance models assume consistent loads and usage. Real production brings changeovers, short runs, and operator differences that shift machine condition monitoring baselines.
-
Assumption #3: All failures are clear and visible.
CBM maintenance depends on limits that separate “normal” from “risky.” Many assets behave differently depending on how they’re used.
-
Assumption #4: Teams and processes are always aligned.
Engineering, IT, and maintenance are expected to interpret data the same way and act quickly. That alignment is rare at the start.
These assumptions look harmless at kickoff. Field conditions break most of them within weeks.
Condition-Based Maintenance Doesn’t Work For Field Service: Why?
Sensors don’t always behave the way they should.
Signals drop out, vibration probes slowly drift out of calibration, and temperature readings spike during heavy production runs. At the same time, environmental noise creeps into equipment condition-monitoring data, blurring the line between real faults and harmless anomalies.
Technicians start receiving CBM alerts that look serious, only for them to disappear an hour later. Others come back week after week without anything ever failing. Some warnings arrive too late, after damage has already begun.
Over time, manual workarounds begin to appear. Faulty sensors are quietly ignored. Readings are logged late or skipped altogether.
On top of that, planned workflows rarely match what actually happens on the field. Emergency jobs disrupt schedules, spare parts aren’t available when needed, and supervisors override CBM recommendations just to keep production running.
Slowly, condition-based maintenance stops feeling like a smart, predictive system and starts feeling like just another dashboard no one fully believes in.
Data Without Context: The Core Execution Problem
Condition-based maintenance generates a lot of data, but data alone does not make decisions easier.
The accuracy and performance of your sensors partly depends on the environment in which they are functioning. Harsh operating conditions can lead to malfunctioning or damaged sensors. For example, high heat and humidity can affect electronics, while corrosive chemicals can damage sensors and yield inaccurate readings.
A vibration spike might signal bearing wear, yet the same spike could just as easily come from a speed increase, a heavier product batch, or a temporary overload.
CBM maintenance systems often raise alerts without showing what changed operationally at that moment. There is no production context, no recent maintenance history, and no operator input attached to the signal.
False alarms begin to pile up, and teams gradually stop reacting to them. Real warnings blend into background noise.
When asset condition monitoring data arrives without context, it slows decisions instead of improving them, which is one of the main reasons CBM maintenance struggles in real environments.
People and Process Gaps in Condition-Based Maintenance
Technology usually takes most of the blame when condition-based maintenance programs struggle, yet people and process issues tend to cause far more damage in practice.
Many technicians are not trained to interpret vibration trends or condition curves, which means machine condition monitoring outputs are either misunderstood or not used at all. At the same time, maintenance teams are often reluctant to move away from time-based routines that feel familiar and predictable, especially when CBM maintenance signals appear abstract or uncertain.
Ownership creates another layer of friction. Sensors typically fall under engineering, networks under IT, and repairs under maintenance, leaving no single team accountable for CBM maintenance results from end to end.
Training adds further strain, as adoption slows dramatically when only a small group truly understands how the system works.
Keep in mind, training is another expense and involves pulling operators and other maintenance staff away from their normal operating duties. Training also involves getting everyone on board with the change and effectively managing the change
Practical Technology Constraints in Condition-Based Maintenance
The accuracy and performance of your sensors partly depends on the environment in which they are functioning.
Sensors behave very differently outside clean test conditions. Heat, dust, vibration, and moisture gradually reduce accuracy and reliability. Low-cost sensors drift quickly, while higher-grade sensors demand frequent calibration.
Integration also creates friction. CBM maintenance tools often struggle to sync cleanly with CMMS and ERP systems, leaving alerts trapped inside monitoring platforms instead of turning into real work orders.
Remote locations add another layer of difficulty. Wind farms, mines, and offshore facilities regularly lose connectivity, which means asset condition monitoring data arrives late or not at all.
Even well-designed CBM maintenance setups begin to fail when data reliability collapses.
Condition-Based Maintenance Falls Short for Field Work
Condition-based maintenance doesn’t fail because the idea is wrong. It fails because it’s treated as a quick win instead of an evolution. Data, workflows, and team habits need time to mature together.
What separates success from disappointment is execution, not theory. Condition data only creates value when insights turn into coordinated maintenance actions, not isolated alerts.
This is where AI-supported predictive maintenance platforms like Lena Software fit in. By combining asset history, operational data, and predictive insights with real maintenance workflows,
Lena helps teams move from dashboards to decisions, and from signals to action.
Explore AI-powered predictive maintenance with Lena Software today!
