Planned or Programmed Maintenance versus Emergency Maintenance

I advocate a combination of Programmed Maintenance and Delayed Maintenance. Deciding where and when to apply these approaches may be impossible for a board. There will always be emergencies for boards, management and maintenance to deal with. It should be preferred to replace emergencies with anticipatory action.  In other words, I prefer more programmed maintenance and less delayed maintenance.

Some might call this "proactive" behavior, but that word has been overused and requires a definition here. Proactive behavior by individuals refers to anticipatory, change-oriented and self-initiated behavior as a response to situations. Proactive behavior requires acting in advance of a future situation, rather than reacting after that situation has occurred. It means taking control and making things happen rather than adjusting to a situation or waiting for something to happen. Proactive individuals and groups do not need to be asked to act, nor may they require detailed instructions.

I could have also entitled this post "Look Before You Leap" versus "He Who Hesitates is Lost". These two idioms summarize the problem faced by boards. Owners may choose the idiom of choice to criticize any board action, or boards may paraphrase these to justify action taken or not taken. Of course, both can't be correct, or can they?  How long can maintenance be delayed while serious problems are avoided? Are we gambling? Do we feel lucky? I suppose we could ask Dirty Harry:

Delayed Maintenance

Previous boards have stated an overwhelming preference for delaying some maintenance as long as possible in the interests of saving money and growing reserves.   It seems there is a preference to be a reaction to events. Are there advantages to this approach? Here are a few pros and cons.

Pros of Delayed Maintenance:

1. Delaying will defer the spending of money. 
2. Delaying may create lower current fee levels, as financial requirements are passed to future owners at the time maintenance occurs.
3. Deferred spending will create larger than expected bank balances. This may be only a facade of better finances and might be deceptive. 
4. Allows the board to pick and choose projects, etc. 
5. Allows the board to micro-manage most aspects of maintenance and capital spending. Provides boards with more power and decision making opportunity. Some boards or board members may prefer this. 
6. Allows the board to select winners and losers in the association. Some boards or board members may prefer this.
7. The planning workload of the board may be reduced. Frequent and regular surveys and inspections of infrastructure is replaced by owner complaints, observations of management and maintenance workers.
8. "Out of sight, out of mind" might become the method of choice. 

Cons of Delayed Maintenance:

1. Delaying maintenance defers the day that money will be spent. Bank balances may temporarily grow, but so too will maintenance obligations for the association. Spending is only delayed; it cannot be eliminated while simultaneously maintain the association.
2. Delaying will create a backlog of issues to be resolved at some time in the future. These are passed to future boards. This may create a minefield for future boards. 
3. Delaying may create large future fee requirements if current fees are held too low by deferring maintenance and reserve funding. 
4. Delaying requires better financial, project management and cost accounting controls.
5. Delaying may create more breakdowns and stress boards and create upset owners.  
6. Delaying may create more emergency situations because the operative approach is "Don't fix it if it isn't broken." In other words, wait until it breaks and then allocate the resources. 
7. A higher skill level on the part of boards is required to avoid delaying too long or beyond the point of no return. Who really knows what that point is? 
8. Delaying too long will overwhelm the board, management and workers with a myriad of priority tasks. 
9. Delaying may overwhelm contractors and maintenance workers with emergency situations. 
10. Delaying may create unusual spending requirements. 

The Programmed Alternative

The association has since 2010 had a reserve study and/or an update. The studies provide extensive lists of overall infrastructure conditions, recommended projects and timetables to deal with infrastructure decay, and a funding program. The reserve studies are a tool to facilitate proactivity by the board and planned maintenance activities. 

The approach advocated by the reserve study and by the experts is a programmed approach to capital projects in which funds are collected via fees, saved and then spent in a timed, programmed method so as to maintain the infrastructure of the association. 

Pros of Programmed Maintenance and Projects:

1. Replaces complaint based management with planned maintenance. 
2. Requires frequent and thorough infrastructure condition surveys. This creates a more informed board and redirects board activities from reactive to proactive. 
3. Creates a more fair system in which owner complaints are no longer the major driving force and planned management becomes the driving force. 
4. Reduces breakdowns and emergencies as "Don't fix it if it isn't broken" is replaced by "lifecycle planning."
5. Smooths finances and provides alternatives to the board most years. "Emergency" is replaced by "planned priorities."
6. Does not create future traps and minefields to ensnare future boards. 

Cons of Programmed Maintenance and Projects:

1. May accelerate projects resulting in the spending of money a year or more earlier than absolutely necessary.
2. Requires frequent, thorough and accurate surveys of all aspects of infrastructure. 
3. Creating those condition reports requires a much higher involvement by boards and management. 

A Realistic Approach

I advocate a combination of Programmed Maintenance and Delayed Maintenance. There will always be emergencies for boards, management and maintenance to deal with. It should be preferred to replace emergencies with anticipatory action.

I am of the opinion that the only way to prudently apply a delayed approach is to do annual surveys and create condition reports. At BLMH this did not happen for a variety of reasons. To do this requires "feet on the street" and annual report updates. It requires frequent board discussions. It requires people on the board who are willing to do this. It can be a lot of work.

It also requires boards which are willing to appropriately spend the money that is being collected as reserves. Should we only replace entry doors after they fail, or streets after they become minefields, or garage floors after they become gravel or roofs after they leak? I think not.