Common Pitfalls to Avoid During Maintenance Plan Migration

A McKinsey study found that nearly 70 percent of digital transformation initiatives fail. This is often due to poor planning, unclear migration strategies, and a lack of stakeholder alignment. The process of migrating maintenance plans is a critical step when transitioning to modern EAM or CMMS systems. This is especially true during SAP S/4HANA upgrades or shifts from IBM Maximo to HxGN EAM or Oracle EAM. However, this process is often riddled with pitfalls. These issues can derail productivity, inflate costs, and compromise regulatory compliance.

What Is a Maintenance Plan Migration?

Maintenance plan migration is the process of transferring existing PM schedules, asset hierarchies (FLOCs), and historical data from one system or format to another. This usually occurs during digital transformation projects, CMMS upgrades, or M&A integrations.

However, the task is not simply about moving data. It involves validating, cleaning, mapping, and sometimes redefining how maintenance is scheduled. If done incorrectly, there is a risk of carrying over outdated or redundant PMs, orphaned FLOCs, and incorrect maintenance intervals.

Pitfall #1: Skipping the Data Cleanse

One of the most common mistakes is migrating “as-is” without cleansing. According to ARC Advisory Group, poor data quality accounts for 40 percent of the effort in CMMS or EAM implementation projects, primarily due to incomplete or outdated preventive maintenance records. The absence of proper data cleansing often leads to inefficiencies being carried into the new system.

Pitfall #2: Overlooking Master Data Relationships

In systems such as SAP Plant Maintenance, maintenance plans are linked to master data. This includes task lists, measurement points, and technical object hierarchies. When these relationships are not carefully mapped during migration, the result is broken data connections. Consequently, PMs may fail during execution.

Pitfall #3: Underestimating Resource Constraints

Migration to certain EAM platforms often involves reconfiguring workforce schedules, shifts, and planning cycles. A lack of early consideration for these factors may lead to resource overloading or scheduling gaps. Fortunately, visualization tools can help mitigate this by showing how migrated plans interact with existing calendars and technician capacity.

Pitfall #4: Ignoring End-User Feedback

Maintenance technicians and planners who use the system daily often hold key knowledge about workarounds or legacy practices not captured in the data. The exclusion of these users from the migration planning process leads to a loss of institutional knowledge and an increased training burden after migration.

Making Migration Work

To avoid these pitfalls:

• Perform a deep audit of your maintenance plans pre-migration
• Use visualization to identify overlaps, gaps, and conflicts in the existing PMs
• Leverage digital twin technology to test migrated plans before go-live
• Establish a feedback loop with technicians and planners

Conclusion

The migration of maintenance plans involves more than a technical task. It serves as a strategic opportunity for organizations. When executed properly, it enables smoother digital transformation and stronger alignment with modern EAM platforms. In addition, it leads to greater reliability in preventive maintenance. With tools that support visualization and intelligent mapping, businesses can transform maintenance migration into a driver of performance and value rather than a source of risk.