Organizations continue to invest heavily in asset management frameworks, systems, and data. Industry research consistently shows that these investments alone are not enough to deliver sustained reliability and performance. The differentiator is how people behave, make decisions, and take ownership within those systems.
In many cases, the technical solution is sound, but the organizational conditions required to sustain it are not. ReliabilityWeb industry research highlights that a culture of reliability directly supports workforce retention, operational discipline, and consistent execution. In an environment where skilled labor is increasingly scarce, cultural factors have become a material business risk rather than a soft consideration.
The business case for culture
The business case for a reliability culture is well established. High workforce turnover drives up costs, disrupts operational continuity, and increases safety risk. Replacing experienced frontline personnel is expensive, and the loss of operational knowledge often has a direct impact on reliability and risk exposure. Organizations that embed quality, accountability, and ownership into daily work consistently achieve fewer operational errors, deliver higher productivity, and execute their job functions with better safety outcomes.
Independent research from organizations such as Gartner and McKinsey further reinforces this link. A strong culture of quality and organizational health is associated with higher asset reliability, fewer safety incidents, and improved operational performance, particularly in high-risk and asset-intensive industries. In these environments, alignment, engagement, and organizational health are strongly correlated with performance. These outcomes demonstrate that reliability culture is not a soft topic. It is a foundational enabler of operational discipline, safety, and long-term asset performance.
Framework provides clarity
A reliability culture reflects how people think, decide, and act in their daily work. It influences how assets are operated, maintained, and improved; often more decisively than procedures, systems, or tools. Culture shapes what people do when no one is watching and when trade-offs between cost, risk, and performance must be made.
Asset management frameworks provide structure and clarity. Culture determines whether that structure is applied consistently and effectively. When reliability is culturally embedded, organizations experience stronger ownership, proactive behavior, improved cross-functional collaboration, and higher engagement. When culture is misaligned, even well-designed improvement initiatives struggle to gain traction. For this reason, change management and cultural awareness should be considered integral components of asset management and reliability programs, not supporting activities. They form the connective tissue between strategy and execution.
A maritime reliability journey
An international shipping company operating a fleet of gas tankers set out to enhance reliability in order to improve fleet availability. The organization employs people across more than 20 countries, with approximately 120 staff based onshore. The operational context included high safety standards, regulatory pressure, and a geographically dispersed workforce operating across ship and shore environments. From the outset, reliability improvement was approached as both a technical and organizational journey. Culture was recognized as a key driver for success and embedded into the overall approach.
The reliability improvement initiative was deliberately structured to address both the technical and human dimensions of asset management from the outset. Rather than treating culture as an abstract concept, it was positioned as a practical driver of long-term change.
The starting point was to clearly define organizational goals and explicitly link the reliability improvement effort to business outcomes such as fleet availability and operational continuity. This created focus and ensured that reliability was not viewed as a standalone technical exercise, but as a means to support strategic objectives.
In parallel, asset management fundamentals were reviewed and strengthened using the MaxGrip APM Framework, focusing on asset management competencies across reliability, maintenance and management. At the same time, deliberate attention was given to how these fundamentals were understood and applied across the organization, in other words: change management. A workshop with key stakeholders was used to surface prevailing beliefs, behaviors, and ways of working that influenced daily decision-making. The session helped identify what should be stopped, continued, or started to better support reliable operations.
This approach recognized that sustainable improvement requires alignment at three levels: the organization, teams, and individuals. By connecting the “why” of the change to both organizational goals and day-to-day operational challenges, the program created a shared understanding of what reliability means in practice.
Insights from this work were then used to shape the change management strategy throughout the reliability improvement program. Culture and change management were applied as a guiding layer and a separate workstream throughout the initiative informing leadership behavior, communication, and engagement. This ensured that technical improvements were reinforced by consistent expectations and behaviors, increasing the likelihood of lasting change.
Conclusion
Asset management excellence is not achieved through frameworks alone. Sustainable reliability requires aligned leadership, clear communication, and a culture that reinforces disciplined ways of working. This maritime case demonstrates that when culture is treated as an integral success factor—rather than a separate topic—organizations can challenge assumptions, align teams, and unlock lasting performance improvements. When reliability becomes part of how people think and act every day, it evolves from an initiative into a durable competitive advantage.