It’s 7:40 on a Monday morning. One of the two lifts in a 120-lot residential tower has stopped between floors, a resident has emailed photos of water pooling in the basement car park, and the building manager’s inbox already holds a dozen “is anyone looking at this?” messages. None of it was on the plan for the day, because for a lot of buildings there isn’t really a plan for the day. There’s just the next breakdown.
That is reactive maintenance, and most buildings run on more of it than anyone would like to admit. The question owners, committees and facility managers keep asking is simple: would planning ahead actually cost less, or does it just move the spend around?
Quick answer: Yes. Over the life of a building, planned maintenance is almost always cheaper than reactive maintenance. The US Department of Energy’s operations and maintenance guide puts the saving of a preventive program over run-to-failure at 12–18% on average — before counting the after-hours call-outs, collateral damage and shortened asset life that breakdowns bring. In Australia, the cost of skipping the plan shows up in insurance claims: a single failed flexi hose now averages a $30,000 claim. The goal isn’t zero reactive work; it’s making breakdowns the exception rather than the operating model.
Reactive maintenance (also called breakdown or run-to-failure maintenance) means fixing things after they fail. A pump trips, a resident reports a leak, a door closer snaps — and a work order is raised in response.
Planned maintenance means the work is scheduled before anything fails. The most common form in buildings is planned preventative maintenance (PPM): servicing assets at set intervals (monthly fire system checks, quarterly HVAC filter changes, annual backflow testing) based on time, usage or manufacturer guidance. A step further is predictive maintenance, which uses condition data — vibration, temperature, run hours from a building management system — to service equipment just before it is likely to fail.
In practice, every building runs a mix. The real question is the ratio, and which one is driving the week.
There’s no single Australian study that compares planned and reactive maintenance head to head. The clearest answer comes from putting the long-running US benchmark next to what Australian insurance data shows about the cost of breakdowns.
| Evidence | Source | What it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Preventive maintenance saves 12–18% on average versus reactive | US Department of Energy, 2004 | The direct saving from planning ahead |
| More than 55% of maintenance in an average facility is still reactive | US Department of Energy, 2004 | Most buildings have room to improve |
| 1 in 10 home insurance claims in 2025 came from failed flexi hoses, averaging $30,000 in 2026 | Suncorp, May 2026 | A $20 part left unchecked becomes a five-figure bill |
| Escape of liquid made up 19% of claims, with building damage averaging $30,418 | Budget Direct, 2026 | Water damage is common and expensive |
| Water damage was the most frequent strata insurance claim, 2016–2020 | Deakin University for the SCA, June 2021 | Strata buildings feel this most |
The most-cited evidence comes from the US Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program. Its O&M Best Practices Guide reports that a preventive maintenance program saves 12% to 18% on average compared with a reactive one, and that predictive maintenance saves a further 8% to 12% over preventive. (US Department of Energy FEMP, July 2004). The same guide notes that more than 55% of maintenance resources and activities in an average facility are still reactive. (US Department of Energy FEMP, July 2004).
You will also see the claim that reactive maintenance costs “three to five times more” than planned maintenance. Treat that one with care. A 2026 review traced the figure back to a 2001 pump-industry trade article and found the phrase doesn’t appear in any edition of the DOE guide; the DOE’s own example figures imply a direct-cost gap closer to 1.4 to 1. (Reliability Magazine, July 2026).
Australian figures tell the other half of the story: what it costs when maintenance doesn’t happen. Water is the clearest example. Suncorp reports that one in ten home insurance claims in 2025 was caused by a failed flexi hose, that the average claim has risen to $30,000 in 2026, and that 6% of claims topped $100,000. It also found 60% of homeowners have never had their flexi hoses inspected. (Suncorp, May 2026).
Budget Direct’s claims data points the same way: escape of liquid made up 19% of its claims between July 2024 and May 2026, with building damage averaging $30,418 per claim. (Budget Direct, 2026).
In strata, research commissioned by the Strata Community Association found water damage was the most frequent cause of strata insurance claims between 2016 and 2020, costing $362 million over the period, with burst pipes adding another $160 million. (Deakin University for the Strata Community Association, June 2021). Many of those failures are exactly what a scheduled inspection is designed to catch.
That matters, because it reframes the argument. The direct price difference between a planned service and an emergency repair is real but modest. The case for planned maintenance is won on the costs that never appear on the repair invoice — and in Australia, those costs increasingly show up as insurance claims and excess payments.
Breakdowns don’t keep business hours. A blocked sewer line on a Saturday night or a failed hot water plant before a long weekend attracts call-out fees, after-hours labour rates and whatever parts the contractor has on the van — rather than the competitively quoted price you’d get for scheduled work.
The failed component is rarely the expensive part. A flexi hose behind a vanity costs around $20, but when it bursts in an apartment building the water travels through the ceilings below — and the average Australian flexi hose claim is now $30,000. (Suncorp, May 2026). An uncleared roof gutter becomes water ingress into a top-floor apartment, an insurance claim and an excess payment from the owners corporation.
Pumps, lifts, chillers and roof membranes that are run to failure tend to reach the end of their useful life earlier than those serviced on schedule. That pulls replacement costs forward into the capital works plan — often years before the fund was built up to meet them.
In Australia, many building systems aren’t optional to maintain. Fire protection systems are routinely serviced to AS 1851, the Australian Standard that sets monthly, six-monthly and yearly servicing tasks. (Standards Australia, AS 1851-2012). In Victoria, owners must maintain essential safety measures and prepare an Annual Essential Safety Measures Report, with fines possible for non-compliance. (Fire Rescue Victoria, September 2025). A building running purely reactively is, by definition, finding out about these systems when they fail — which is the worst possible time.
Every reactive job pulls a building manager or facility manager off whatever they had planned. Residents and tenants feel it too: repeat lift outages and slow repairs are what turn into complaints at the AGM and churn in commercial tenancies. None of this shows up in the maintenance budget, but all of it is real.
Very few buildings choose to run on breakdowns. They slide into it, usually for a handful of familiar reasons:
If your challenge is less about running the schedule and more about getting a maintenance budget approved, our guide on building a maintenance plan you can justify at levy time covers the committee and levy side in detail.
The simplest way to measure the balance is planned maintenance percentage (PMP): planned maintenance hours divided by total maintenance hours, multiplied by 100. Maintenance teams commonly treat 80% planned as good performance, with 85–90% considered excellent. (MaintainX, November 2025).
For most buildings, hours are hard to capture, so a practical proxy is work orders: tag every job as planned or reactive, and look at the split each month. If more than half of your jobs are reactive, you’re in the “average facility” territory the DOE describes — and there is meaningful money on the table.
You don’t need to transform everything at once. The buildings that make the shift successfully tend to follow the same sequence:
Planned maintenance isn’t about servicing everything on a calendar. For low-cost, non-critical items where failure causes no collateral damage or safety risk — a common-area light globe, a single bin-room door handle — running to failure is often the sensible choice. Scheduling a technician to check them would cost more than replacing them when they go.
The skill is drawing the line deliberately: critical, high-consequence assets go on the plan, low-consequence items are allowed to fail, and nothing important is left to chance by default.
Generally, yes. The US Department of Energy reports average savings of 12–18% for preventive programs over reactive ones. Australian insurance data shows where the bigger losses sit: water damage from unchecked items like flexi hoses now averages around $30,000 per claim.
There’s no single national figure, but insurance data gives a clear signal. Suncorp reports the average flexi hose failure claim reached $30,000 in 2026, and Budget Direct’s escape of liquid claims average $30,418 in building damage. In strata buildings, water damage is the most common insurance claim.
Reactive maintenance is repair work carried out after something fails or is reported faulty — a leak, a lift outage, a broken gate motor. It’s unavoidable to a degree, but buildings that rely on it as their main approach typically spend more and experience more disruption.
PPM is scheduled servicing of building assets at set intervals, based on time, usage or manufacturer guidance, to prevent failures before they happen. Examples include monthly fire system checks, quarterly HVAC servicing and annual roof and gutter inspections.
A common industry target is around 80% planned to 20% reactive, measured as planned maintenance percentage. Many buildings start well below that; the first step is simply tagging every work order so you can measure it.
Yes — for low-cost, non-critical items where failure carries no safety, compliance or collateral-damage risk. The key is choosing run-to-failure deliberately for those items rather than defaulting to it for everything.
Start with an accurate asset register, schedule compliance obligations first, set service frequencies for remaining assets, log every job as a work order, and use reactive job history to inform the capital works plan.