Request a Demo
implementation pms maintenance

what are the risks of implementing a new pms system?

New pms system implementation risks typically come from data quality gaps, integration and change-management issues, and the resulting planned maintenance disruption.

How pms system implementation risks Is Applied

For Technical Managers and Marine Managers, the main risk is not the software itself, but how the planned maintenance process behaves during and after cutover. If equipment hierarchies, maintenance intervals, work order history, and approval workflows are not migrated and validated correctly, implementation challenges can quickly translate into missed tasks, incorrect priorities, and unreliable cost and downtime reporting. This is where pms risks often show up as operational uncertainty, reduced confidence in schedules, and extra manual effort to reconcile “system truth” versus “operational reality.”

  • Master data and asset hierarchy migration: wrong equipment mapping, duplicate assets, or missing critical fields can cause incorrect work order generation and broken planned maintenance coverage.
  • Planned maintenance logic and interval validation: maintenance templates, usage-based triggers, and vendor/manufacturer recommendations may be misconfigured, creating under-maintenance or over-maintenance conditions.
  • Integration and data flow gaps: incomplete interfaces for usage, spares, procurement, and document control can delay work execution and distort maintenance history; DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) overview provides a neutral reference model for structured risk handling in systems.
  • Change management and governance: unclear responsibilities for schedule ownership, approval steps, and data stewardship can lead to inconsistent execution across vessels and shore teams, increasing implementation challenges.
  • Cutover and parallel-run failure: if the organization cannot run the old and new planned maintenance processes in parallel long enough to validate outcomes, system confidence drops and corrective work increases.

Operational Impact

  1. Maintenance discipline and reliability risk: incorrect intervals or missing asset relationships can increase the likelihood of overdue tasks, unplanned breakdowns, and reduced equipment reliability for Technical Managers.
  2. Execution delays and cost control exposure: work orders may fail to route correctly to planning, stores, or procurement, leading to budget overruns, poor cost allocation, and reduced visibility for Marine Managers.
  3. Audit readiness and corrective action tracking gaps: inconsistent maintenance records and incomplete history can weaken evidence quality for internal reviews and external audits, increasing corrective action workload.

Important to know: Before go-live, require a structured validation pack that proves the planned maintenance logic end-to-end on a representative set of vessels and equipment, including master data checks, interval calculations, workflow approvals, and spares/procurement triggers, then use a time-boxed parallel-run to confirm that schedules and work order outcomes match operational expectations.

Written by Amy Brisker

The writer is a shipping operations or systems consultant with experience working across operations, procurement, maintenance, compliance, and finance teams in companies that manage vessels.

The content in the Questions & Answers section is provided by guest contributors. While we strive to review all submissions, we cannot guarantee their accuracy or take responsibility for the views expressed. Readers are advised to verify information independently.