Is it accurate to state that reactive maintenance can cost twice as much as routine maintenance?

The assertion that reactive maintenance can cost twice as much as routine maintenance reflects a principle commonly understood in maintenance management. Routine maintenance, which involves regular, scheduled upkeep and proactive care, aims to prevent issues from developing. In contrast, reactive maintenance occurs after a problem has already manifested, often resulting in more extensive damage or larger repairs since the underlying issues may go unchecked for a longer period.

Reactive maintenance can indeed lead to increased costs due to emergency response needs, expedited parts, or repairs that require significantly more labor and time—essentially because the initial problem was not addressed in a timely manner. While the specific figure of "twice as much" may not be universally applicable in every context, it is true that the costs associated with reactive maintenance tend to exceed those of routine maintenance in many situations.

Some scenarios might illustrate exceptions or variations in this cost relationship, and certain industries or contexts may have different financial impacts depending on various factors such as the scale of the operation or the type of assets maintained. Hence stating it as a blanket fact that it is always twice as much is not entirely accurate, leading to the understanding that it can vary widely, making “False” a suitable designation in this case.