Every maintenance decision in a commercial building eventually reduces to one question: fix things when they break, or spend money so they break less often? The first approach is reactive maintenance; the second is planned preventative maintenance, usually shortened to PPM.
Neither is 'correct' on its own. Well-run buildings blend both deliberately — and badly run buildings drift into an expensive, accidental version of the reactive-only model.
The core difference
Reactive maintenance is triggered by events: something fails, someone reports it, a contractor attends and corrects it. Spend is unpredictable, attendance is often urgent, and each job carries diagnosis time and disruption.
Planned preventative maintenance is triggered by the calendar or by asset condition: servicing, inspection and component replacement scheduled in advance, at intervals informed by manufacturer guidance, usage and risk. Spend is predictable, work is done in controlled conditions, and small problems are caught while they are still small.
Where each approach fits
Assets that justify PPM
- Life-safety systems — fire alarms, emergency lighting, fire doors — where inspection cycles support statutory duties
- Plant with high failure consequences — boilers, AHUs, lifts, booster sets, where downtime is costly and parts have lead times
- Assets with strong wear patterns — gutters and drainage, mechanical door systems, pumps and motors
- Anything under warranty terms that require documented servicing
Work that stays reactive
- Genuinely unpredictable events — storm damage, vandalism, accidental damage, occupier-caused faults
- Low-consequence assets where run-to-failure is cheaper than scheduled attention
- Long-tail minor repairs in occupied space, best batched into periodic multi-trade visits
The cost logic
PPM converts unpredictable, premium-priced emergencies into predictable, budgetable work. The trade is not free — a planned programme has a standing cost, and over-servicing low-risk assets wastes money. The pattern most portfolios find is that targeted PPM on high-consequence assets pays for itself through fewer emergencies, longer asset life and less consequential damage, while low-risk assets are consciously left to run.
The honest failure mode is drift: buildings without a deliberate strategy end up reactive by default, then normalise the firefighting. Rising call-out counts, repeat failures on the same assets and budget overruns driven by out-of-hours rates are the usual symptoms.
Contractor implications
The two workstreams need slightly different things from contractors. PPM rewards businesses that are organised — scheduled attendance, consistent documentation, asset-level reporting. Reactive work rewards responsiveness and diagnostic skill. Many clients deliberately source contractors able to do both, so the business servicing the plant is the same one attending its failures.
Regency Contractors Network supports both sides: clients search vetted contractors by trade and area, review profiles and agree planned programmes or reactive cover directly. Our checklists for reactive maintenance and PPM cover the practical detail of each.
Frequently asked questions
- Should PPM or reactive maintenance take priority in a budget?
- Life-safety and statutory inspection cycles come first in any sensible budget. Beyond those, prioritise PPM on assets whose failure is expensive or disruptive, and accept reactive handling for low-consequence items.
- Does more PPM always mean less reactive spend?
- Up to a point. Well-targeted PPM reduces failures on the assets it covers, but over-servicing low-risk assets adds cost without meaningful benefit. The mix should follow asset risk, not a blanket ratio.
