assessment

Reliability Maturity Assessment & Action Plan

An interactive self-assessment that measures reliability maturity across people, processes, spare parts, condition monitoring, and analytics, produces structured scores, and captures a prioritized action plan for pilots to close capability gaps.

Interactive Tool

Reliability Maturity Assessment & Action Plan

Purpose

This short assessment helps teams identify and prioritize reliability capability gaps so you can design focused pilot experiments that reduce unplanned downtime and maintenance cost. Answer each item using the scale, then use the action plan section to capture prioritized pilots for the highest-impact gaps.

How to use it

Rate each statement honestly: 1 = Rarely / Not in place, 5 = Fully in place and sustained.
Optionally calculate the average score for each category (the form includes fields where you can enter category averages).
Map average scores to maturity bands (guidance below) and capture up to three pilot actions in the Action Plan section.

Maturity band guidance (suggested)

Band 1 — Reactive (avg ~1.0–1.9): Maintenance is mostly reactive; frequent unplanned downtime.
Band 2 — Developing (avg ~2.0–2.9): Some planned work; inconsistent processes and limited monitoring.
Band 3 — Established (avg ~3.0–3.9): Standard work exists; preventive maintenance and routine metrics are in place.
Band 4 — Advanced (avg ~4.0–4.4): Condition monitoring, spares optimization, and analytics inform decisions; sustained improvements occur.
Band 5 — Optimized (avg ~4.5–5.0): Reliability is embedded; predictive capabilities drive minimal unplanned downtime and continuous learning.

Use the Action Plan to convert gaps into short, testable pilots (who, what, when, measure).

Clear roles and ownership for reliability (defined responsibilities for operators, reliability engineers, and maintenance)

1 = No roles defined; 5 = Clear ownership and RACI followed

1.0 10.0

Competency and training program for maintenance and operators (regular training, skills matrix, certification)

1 = No formal program; 5 = Structured training and verified competency

1.0 10.0

Improvement culture (frontline ownership of reliability problems, Kaizen, and learned experiments)

1 = Rare improvement activity; 5 = Continuous frontline-driven improvement

1.0 10.0

Standard work and documented maintenance procedures (PMs, LOTO, drawings)

1 = Little or no documentation; 5 = Standard work used and maintained

1.0 10.0

Maintenance planning, scheduling and backlog control (planned work ratio, backlog management)

1 = Mostly unplanned work; 5 = Planned and scheduled work with controlled backlog

1.0 10.0

Problem solving and root cause analysis (consistent use of RCA and corrective actions)

1 = Superficial fixes; 5 = Systematic RCA and sustained countermeasures

1.0 10.0

Spare parts strategy and criticality management (identified critical spares, stocking policy)

1 = No critical spares plan; 5 = Optimized critical spares with min-max policies

1.0 10.0

Inventory accuracy and availability (counts, lead times, supplier relationships)

1 = Poor accuracy and long untracked lead times; 5 = High accuracy and reliable supply

1.0 10.0

Cost-aware spares management (obsolescence, slow-movers, consignment where appropriate)

1 = High carrying cost and obsolescence; 5 = Balanced cost and service levels

1.0 10.0

Condition monitoring and inspections (routinely collected vibration, oil analysis, thermography, visual checks)

1 = No routine monitoring; 5 = Broad, routine condition monitoring with follow-up

1.0 10.0

Use of predictive monitoring tools (vibration analytics, PdM tools)

1 = Little or no predictive tools; 5 = Integrated predictive tools with alerts

1.0 10.0

Alerts translate into planned actions (alerts have ownership and work is scheduled)

1 = Alerts ignored; 5 = Alerts reliably converted into planned work

1.0 10.0

Data quality and availability (CMMS, sensors, event logs are accurate and accessible)

1 = Fragmented or poor data; 5 = Reliable data feeds and well-structured records

1.0 10.0

Relevant KPIs and dashboards (OEE, MTTR, MTBF, planned work %) are tracked and used)

1 = No consistent KPIs; 5 = KPIs used for decision-making and continuous improvement

1.0 10.0

Analytics support decision-making (root-cause insights, failure modes, reliability modeling)

1 = Little analytic insight; 5 = Analytics guide investments and pilot selection

1.0 10.0

Leadership commitment and strategy for reliability (budget, targets, governance)

1 = No explicit strategy; 5 = Clear strategy and visible leadership support

1.0 10.0

Regular review cadence (leadership and cross-functional review of reliability metrics)

1 = No review; 5 = Regular structured reviews with actions

1.0 10.0

People & Culture - average score (enter calculated average 1.0–5.0)

Optional: enter the average of the People & Culture scale items

Processes - average score (enter calculated average 1.0–5.0)

Optional: enter the average of the Processes & Procedures scale items

Spares & Logistics - average score (enter calculated average 1.0–5.0)

Optional: enter the average of the Spare Parts scale items

Condition Monitoring - average score (enter calculated average 1.0–5.0)

Optional: enter the average of the Monitoring scale items

Data & Analytics - average score (enter calculated average 1.0–5.0)

Optional: enter the average of the Analytics scale items

Leadership & Governance - average score (enter calculated average 1.0–5.0)

Optional: enter the average of the Leadership scale items

Overall maturity band (select the band that best matches your averages)

Select a band based on your category averages and the guidance above.

Top 3 capability gaps (briefly list the highest-impact gaps you observed)

Example: 'No condition monitoring on critical pumps; poor spare parts availability; no RCA discipline.'

Pilot 1 — Gap / focus area

Describe the gap this pilot will address

Pilot 1 — Root cause hypothesis

List the likely root causes the pilot will test

Pilot 1 — Proposed experiment or pilot

Describe the pilot (scope, minimal viable test, sample equipment, methods)

Pilot 1 — Owner

Who will lead the pilot?

Pilot 1 — Timeframe

Suggested duration (e.g., 8 weeks)

Pilot 1 — Success metric(s)

How will you measure pilot success? (e.g., MTTR down 25%, unplanned downtime reduced by X hrs)

Pilot 1 — Priority

Select priority

Pilot 2 — Gap / focus area

Pilot 2 — Root cause hypothesis

Pilot 2 — Proposed experiment or pilot

Pilot 2 — Owner

Pilot 2 — Timeframe

Pilot 2 — Success metric(s)

Pilot 2 — Priority

Pilot 3 — Gap / focus area

Pilot 3 — Root cause hypothesis

Pilot 3 — Proposed experiment or pilot

Pilot 3 — Owner

Pilot 3 — Timeframe

Pilot 3 — Success metric(s)

Pilot 3 — Priority

Next steps /notes

Capture meeting notes, decisions, or links to related resources (CMMS, SOPs, project charters)

You can explore this tool now. Sign in or create an account to save your responses and return to them later.

Make this tool part of your work

Save a personal copy, bring it to your team, or tailor the questions and workflow to fit what you are hungry to improve.

Member customization and team collaboration are coming soon.

Discuss Ask the Librarian

Discussion

Comments and conversation will live here.

Reliability Maturity Assessment & Action Plan