Why does deferred maintenance matter, anyway?
After all, buildings have operated for decades and even centuries in less-then-ideal conditions. Despite a few complaints from occupants and the occasional visitor about leaky plumbing, drafty doors and windows, water-stained ceilings, or peeling paint, many buildings seem to operate just fine.
Well, many organizations could use another reminder about the perils of ignoring deferred maintenance. And given the nation’s current economic crisis, that “hands off, blinders on” approach to deferred maintenance is about to face a stiff test.
Companies looking to cut costs often look to maintenance and engineering departments, especially the funds budgeted for deferred maintenance. Top-level executives often view this budget line item as expendable, preferring to redirect scarce funds to more immediate problems.
The problem with this approach is that not only does the original problem not go away (that roof doesn’t stop leaking on its own) it gets worse the longer it sits unattended. So as that unrepaired roof continues to leak, it damages more roof components, ceiling tiles, walls, etc. And there’s a financial toll from that attitude that too few executives take into account: A repair that would have cost X last year will cost 20X five years from now, when top management deems it worthy of their attention — or when a crisis forces them to find the funds quickly.
Given the current state of the economy, it’s not popular to get stubborn or territorial about budget cuts. But when it comes to deferred maintenance, defending funding isn’t just defending the maintenance departments. It’s defending the organization’s bottom line.
Managers have a duty to point out that cutting funding for deferred maintenance is perhaps the most fiscally irresponsible move any organization can make.