Operations and Maintenance as a Pillar of Sustainability in Advanced Societies: Technical, Economic, and Risk-Based Perspectives
Sustainability in advanced societies is often framed as a function of clean energy, low-carbon materials, and efficient design. While these are essential, they are incomplete without a robust Operations and Maintenance (O&M) discipline.
In practice, the long-term sustainability of infrastructure and industrial assets depends less on how they are built and more on how they are operated, monitored, preserved, and renewed across decades of service.
O&M is the mechanism that converts design intent into real performance, ensuring that assets remain safe, reliable, energy-efficient, and economically viable. Neglecting O&M does not merely increase repair costs it accelerates degradation, increases system losses, raises risk exposure, and can precipitate failure modes that force reconstruction or major replacement outcomes that are financially and environmentally expensive.
From an engineering viewpoint, sustainability can be expressed through measurable outcomes: availability of services, efficiency of resource consumption (energy, water, and materials), safety and environmental compliance, and lifecycle value preservation. O&M directly governs all four. In a modern city, for example, the sustainability of water distribution is not guaranteed by pipe installation alone it is governed by leakage control, pressure management, corrosion protection, pump efficiency, instrumentation calibration, and planned renewal.
Similarly, the sustainability of an electrical network is dependent on transformer health monitoring, protective relay coordination, cable testing regimes, thermal management, and timely replacement of aging components. In each case, O&M protects the “functional value” of the asset the ability to deliver the intended service at the required performance level and risk tolerance.
A central engineering principle that links O&M to sustainability is the lifecycle perspective. Lifecycle Cost (LCC) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) demonstrate why initial capital cost (CAPEX) is often a poor indicator of sustainability. LCC typically comprises initial design and construction costs, operational energy and consumables, preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, spare parts, overhaul and renewal, and costs associated with failure consequences such as downtime, safety incidents, environmental damage, and regulatory penalties.
When discounted over the asset life, operational and maintenance expenditures may exceed CAPEX for many asset classes especially in energy-intensive systems such as HVAC, pumping stations, industrial rotating equipment, and process plants. Therefore, a sustainability strategy that ignores O&M is structurally incomplete: it optimizes the “birth” of the asset but neglects its decades-long operational reality.
Reliability engineering provides the technical foundation for modern maintenance planning. At its core, reliability is the probability that an asset will perform its required function under stated conditions for a specified period. Maintainability is the ability to restore function in a defined time frame, and availability combines both. Reliability engineers use statistical and physical models of failure to predict degradation and design maintenance interventions.
One frequently cited conceptual model is the “bathtub curve,” which describes three failure regions: early-life failures (often due to installation defects or manufacturing issues), useful-life random failures, and wear-out failures due to aging and cumulative damage. While not universal, the model is useful to explain why “one-size-fits-all” maintenance is inefficient the correct strategy depends on the dominant failure mechanism.
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) are systematic methods used to identify how equipment can fail, the consequences of those failures, and which failures are most critical to prevent. Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is then used when failures occur to determine underlying causes (design weakness, operational misuse, lubrication errors, alignment issues, contamination, poor calibration, inadequate procedures) and implement corrective actions that prevent recurrence.
Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) formalizes the selection of maintenance tasks based on failure consequences and detectability. These methodologies support sustainability by shifting organizations from reactive repairs (which tend to waste resources and increase risk) toward planned interventions that reduce total environmental and economic burdens.
Maintenance strategies can be classified into corrective, preventive, predictive (condition-based), and proactive approaches. Corrective maintenance addresses failures after they occur. While sometimes rational for non-critical and low-cost items, excessive corrective maintenance is usually a sign of immaturity and is associated with higher downtime, greater secondary damage, and safety risk. Preventive maintenance schedules interventions at fixed intervals (time-based or usage-based).
This can control certain failure modes but may also lead to over-maintenance if tasks are performed unnecessarily. Predictive maintenance relies on measured condition indicators vibration analysis for rotating machinery, thermography for electrical systems, oil analysis for lubrication health, ultrasonic inspection for leak detection, and sensor-based monitoring for temperature, pressure, flow, and electrical signatures. Predictive maintenance improves sustainability by minimizing unplanned failures and reducing wasteful replacement of components that still have remaining useful life. Proactive maintenance goes further by eliminating root causes: improving filtration to reduce contamination, redesigning seals to prevent ingress, correcting misalignment, improving operating procedures, and training to reduce human error.
Risk-based maintenance (RBM) is especially important for critical assets and safety-sensitive industries. RBM prioritizes maintenance based on risk, typically conceptualized as probability of failure multiplied by consequence of failure. Consequences can include not only direct repair costs but also service interruption, safety incidents, environmental releases, reputational damage, and legal liabilities. For a pump supplying a hospital or a firewater system supporting industrial safety, the consequence of failure is extremely high therefore, inspection intervals, redundancy design, and monitoring intensity must be greater than for non-critical utilities.
In a sustainability context, RBM prevents catastrophic events that would require emergency reconstruction and high-carbon replacement activities. A well-maintained asset portfolio avoids “cliff-edge” degradation where small defects evolve into major structural or functional collapse.
The economic dimension of O&M is often underestimated by decision-makers who treat maintenance as an expense to be minimized. In advanced asset management, maintenance is treated as an investment that protects the productive capacity of the asset. Deferred maintenance is not “saved money” it is usually a liability that compounds over time.
The compounding arises from accelerated deterioration, secondary damage, and the loss of planned control. Planned maintenance allows organizations to procure materials efficiently, schedule outages during low-demand periods, coordinate resources, and maintain stable service levels. Unplanned failures force emergency procurement at premium prices, increase overtime costs, create safety exposure during urgent work, and often require replacement of adjacent components due to collateral damage. Thus, maintaining assets in a functional state is not only a technical requirement but also a financial strategy that preserves long-term value.
O&M also directly influences environmental performance.
Energy efficiency is not static it degrades with fouling, wear, miscalibration, and poor control. A fan or pump operating with clogged filters, scaling, or worn impellers can consume substantially more energy for the same output. Control systems that drift out of calibration can lead to overcooling, overheating, or unnecessary cycling. In water systems, leakage control and pressure management reduce both water loss and energy usage, since pumping and treatment energy are embedded in every cubic meter delivered. In buildings, maintenance of envelopes, insulation integrity, and HVAC tuning reduces carbon emissions by lowering energy demand. Therefore, maintenance is a continuous environmental control function, not an afterthought.
Modern O&M is executed through planning systems and digital tools.
Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) and Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) platforms schedule tasks, control work orders, manage spare parts, and maintain asset history. Condition monitoring systems feed data into analytics that support predictive decisions. Digitalization, when implemented correctly, supports sustainability by improving decision quality: trends reveal emerging faults, historical data improves failure prediction, and standardized procedures reduce variability. However, digital tools do not replace engineering judgment they amplify it. A sustainable O&M program requires governance: clear maintenance strategies, competent engineering leadership, well-defined procedures, quality control, and continuous improvement.
Technical Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) provide a measurable bridge between O&M activity and sustainability outcomes.
Common KPIs include Mean Time between Failures (MTBF), Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), availability, maintenance cost as a percentage of replacement asset value, backlog size, schedule compliance, and ratio of preventive to corrective work. Energy-related KPIs include kWh per unit output (such as per cubic meter pumped), system efficiency indices, and leakage ratios. Reliability engineers interpret these KPIs to validate that the maintenance strategy is working. For example, a reduction in MTBF combined with rising corrective work indicates an aging asset or ineffective preventive tasks an increase in MTTR may indicate spare parts issues, inadequate procedures, or training gaps.
When interpreted properly, these indicators enable early intervention before failures become expensive.
Examples of how poor O&M can destroy assets and budgets are numerous and instructive. In rotating equipment systems, inadequate lubrication management leads to bearing failure, which can damage shafts, housings, and couplings. A failure that could have been prevented by oil analysis and routine inspection becomes a major overhaul, with downtime costs often exceeding repair costs.
In electrical systems, neglected thermal scanning and loose connections can lead to arcing faults or fires beyond equipment replacement, the organization faces service interruption, safety incidents, and potential regulatory action. In civil structures, blocked drainage and failed waterproofing accelerate corrosion of reinforcement and deterioration of concrete what begins as minor cracking can evolve into structural rehabilitation or replacement. In water networks, ignored leakage and corrosion lead to bursts, road collapses, service disruption, and social cost emergency repairs are substantially more expensive than planned renewal. In all cases, neglect converts predictable deterioration into high-consequence events, and the resulting reconstruction carries a large material and carbon footprint.
A rigorous maintenance plan is therefore an engineered system.
It begins with asset criticality classification, failure mode identification, and selection of tasks that are technically effective. Maintenance intervals are chosen based on degradation rates, failure probabilities, and detection capability. For wear-related failure mechanisms, periodic replacement may be optimal. For random failures where early detection is possible, condition-based monitoring is superior. For high-consequence systems, redundancy and fail-safe design must be integrated with maintenance procedures. Quality assurance processes must ensure that tasks are executed correctly: torque settings, alignment standards, calibration procedures, testing protocols, and documentation are not administrative details they are engineering controls. Training and competence management are equally critical, because human error is a common failure contributor. In this context, O&M aligns with engineering laws of cause and effect: systems degrade under stress, and control requires measurement, intervention, and feedback.
Sustainability in civilized communities ultimately depends on continuity:
continuous water supply, continuous power, continuous safe transport, continuous functional buildings, and continuous industrial output. O&M enables continuity by managing the physical reality of degradation. Economically, it reduces the lifecycle burden by preventing premature replacement and stabilizing operational costs.
Environmentally, it reduces emissions through efficiency preservation and avoids high-carbon reconstruction cycles.
Socially, it improves safety and service reliability. The maturity of a society can therefore be measured not only by what it builds, but by how well it maintains what it has built.
In conclusion, Operations and Maintenance is not a secondary function.
It is a primary pillar of sustainability and a core discipline of modern engineering management. Through lifecycle cost optimization, reliability engineering, risk-based prioritization, condition monitoring, and systematic planning, O&M preserves asset value and prevents the transition from manageable wear to catastrophic failure.
Organizations and communities that invest in engineered maintenance strategies achieve sustainable performance: they spend less over the lifecycle, reduce environmental impact, and protect critical services.
Those that neglect O&M face a predictable outcome: rising costs, declining reliability, increased risk, and eventual asset failure that may require reconstruction an outcome that is neither economically rational nor environmentally sustainable.
