Can a CMMS with AI Really Predict Asset Failures in Your Operation?

AI-Driven Asset Failure Prediction in Water Utilities: Realities and Limitations

In recent years, water utilities have increasingly explored artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies to predict equipment failures before they occur. While success stories abound in vendor marketing materials, utility directors must understand the real-world limitations and implementation challenges of these systems, particularly for vertical assets like pumps, motors, and treatment equipment.

The Promise vs. Reality

AI-driven failure prediction systems analyze data from sensors on critical equipment to identify patterns that precede breakdowns. When implemented effectively, they can deliver significant benefits. The City of Tulsa's wastewater treatment facility, for example, saved approximately $45,000 by preventing a major equipment failure during a six-month pilot program. This single prevented breakdown paid for roughly two years of their predictive maintenance service.

However, the journey from concept to reliable prediction is more complex than many vendors suggest. Here's what utility leaders should know:

Data Quality: The Foundation That Often Crumbles

The adage "garbage in, garbage out" applies forcefully to AI prediction systems. Many utilities find their historical data is sparse, inconsistent, or not in a usable format. Sensor readings might have gaps; failures might not have been logged with precise timestamps; or different pumps might measure different parameters.

For utilities with decades-old equipment and limited sensor infrastructure, this presents a significant hurdle. Insufficient data is a major limitation – if an AI model has few examples of prior failures or only limited sensor trends, its predictions will be unreliable. In fact, some types of failures are so rare (a pump might fail catastrophically only once in 10 years) that ML systems struggle to statistically learn these patterns.

The Complexity Challenge

Water and wastewater systems operate under highly variable conditions. Wastewater pump stations experience widely fluctuating flows and loads depending on time of day or weather events, which can confound predictive models.

One wastewater case study found it "extremely difficult" to get a clear indication for cleaning aeration equipment because of numerous influencing variables like pH, temperature, and time of day. This means an AI might struggle to distinguish whether a change in performance indicates a developing fault or just normal operational variation.

The Implementation Timeline Reality

Contrary to "plug-and-play" marketing claims, there is a substantial lead time to set up, integrate, and train these systems. You cannot simply deploy an ML model without data preparation and expect accurate predictions on day one.

Most utilities report needing 6-12 months of data gathering just to establish baseline equipment behavior. Achieving a high-confidence, reliable prediction system typically takes 1-2 years from project kickoff, depending on the complexity of assets and the frequency of failure events to learn from.

False Alarms and Missed Failures

Predictive models inevitably produce false positives (predicting failures that don't happen) and false negatives (missing actual failures). Early in deployment, false alarms are often frequent as the system learns. If not managed properly, this erodes trust – maintenance crews might start ignoring warnings (the "boy who cried wolf" effect).

No system achieves the 99% accuracy sometimes promised in marketing materials. A more realistic expectation is a significant reduction in unplanned outages (perhaps 50-70%), but not elimination of all failures.

Integration with Legacy Systems

Utilities often operate with decades-old equipment and software. Getting data out of these systems or adding sensors to old assets can be technically challenging. Data silos also pose problems: maintenance data might reside in a separate database from operations data.

Without extensive IT integration projects, the predictive maintenance tool might lack the full context needed to make accurate predictions, severely limiting its effectiveness.

The Workforce and Skills Gap

Introducing AI/ML into a traditionally mechanical/electrical maintenance department faces human challenges. Staff may distrust a "black box" algorithm or fear that AI will replace jobs. Additionally, existing technicians might lack experience interpreting data trends or understanding predictive algorithms.

Contrary to marketing claims that "the AI does it all," successful implementations require your seasoned operators and maintenance engineers to be deeply involved to train, validate, and guide the AI system. AI augments human decision-making; it doesn't replace the need for skilled personnel who understand why equipment might be failing.

Moving Forward Realistically

AI-driven asset failure prediction represents a significant advance in water utility operations, but it requires a clear-eyed view of its limitations. For utility leaders considering this technology:

1. Start with the basics: Ensure your asset registry, maintenance records, and sensor infrastructure are solid before adding AI.
2. Choose high-impact use cases: Target assets whose failure causes major disruptions or chronic issues that drive high costs.
3. Pilot before scaling: Begin with a limited implementation to learn and build organizational buy-in.
4. Invest in people and processes: Train staff and update procedures to incorporate predictive maintenance workflows.
5. Set realistic expectations: Understand that the technology will reduce, not eliminate, unexpected failures.

When approached with informed caution and realistic goals, AI-driven predictive maintenance can enhance water utility operations, even with its current limitations. The technology continues to evolve, and today's challenges will likely become more streamlined as industry standards develop and AI models become more tailored to water utility applications.

‍