Maintenance simulator

Share the simulator story before loading the interactive model.

Use this overview to brief leadership, procurement, and partner teams on what the tool models and when to deploy it.

Every scenario, slider, and metric is designed around maintenance accountability. Review the copy here when you need to reference the simulator without initiating the script bundle.

Scenarios address backlog survival, stabilization, and resilient investment.

Sliders track budget commitment and preventive coverage share.

Metrics report on reliability, burnout risk, and harm propagation.

Launch the simulator Return to the homepage

Link this page anywhere you need the simulator narrative without the runtime dependency.

scenario context slider guidance metric definitions

Why an overview exists

Offer decision makers a lightweight companion to the interactive model.

The overview keeps procurement, legal, and leadership teams looped in even when they cannot run the simulator. Share it when you need to cite the mechanics without shipping scripts.

Summarize each scenario’s story and the qualitative shifts it highlights.
Outline slider ranges so sponsors understand what “fully funded” means.
Show how reliability, burnout, and harm scores react before testing interactions.

Model a scenario Read maintenance-as-strategy notes

Scenario reference

Every scenario aligns with a distinct maintenance maturity level.

Use these descriptions verbatim in briefs when stakeholders need the simulator context without the UI.

Deferred backlog

Crews stretch to keep core systems barely online. Reliability starts at 48, burnout at 74, and harm at 68 before any funding changes.

Stabilize critical assets

Targeted funds shore up critical components and hire rotating coverage. Reliability begins at 48 but benefits from +8 adjustments when budgets and coverage improve.

Resilience investment

Dedicated guilds and shared observability instruments keep teams ahead of failure. Adjustments push reliability +16 while driving burnout and harm down.

Slider reference

Budget levers stay within accountable ranges.

The simulator defaults to 85% monthly funding and 60% preventive coverage. Teams can adjust funding between 55% and 130% and coverage from 30% to 90% in 5% increments.

Monthly maintenance funding
Represents the percent of the recommended baseline budget that is secured this cycle.
Preventive coverage share
Shows how much of the funded work is dedicated to preventive and reliability-centered maintenance.

Metric definitions

Reliability, burnout, and harm scores keep the focus on people.

Each metric runs on a 0–100 scale with qualitative guidance for accessibility. Use the statements below when quoting simulator output in docs.

Reliability index: Higher scores mean more dependable care infrastructure. Scores below 55 trigger “critical” alerts.
Burnout risk: Lower numbers are better. Anything above 70 signals severe strain on maintenance crews.
Harm propagation: Tracks how failures cascade through care networks. Keeping it under 50 contains alerts.