📋 StandardsOctober 23, 2025

Your Preventive Maintenance Program Isn't ISO 14224 Compliant (And You Probably Don't Know It)

Most CMMS implementations violate ISO 14224 principles without anyone realizing it. Discover why identical assets have different maintenance schedules, what this means for compliance, and how to fix it systematically.

Your Preventive Maintenance Program Isn't ISO 14224 Compliant (And You Probably Don't Know It)

If your facility is serious about industrial reliability, you've likely heard of ISO 14224 - the standard for industrial-use reliability and maintainability information exchange.

It's not mandatory everywhere, but it's foundational in regulated industries, major capital projects, and any organization that takes asset data seriously. The standard defines how maintenance data should be structured, exchanged, and standardized so that your asset reliability information is consistent, auditable, and usable across teams, systems, and time.

Here's the problem: most CMMS implementations violate the spirit of ISO 14224 without anyone realizing it.

Specifically, they fail on one of the standard's core principles: consistency of maintenance strategy across identical asset populations.

ISO 14224 assumes that if you have multiple identical assets (same make, model, duty), they should have consistent maintenance strategies unless there's documented, justified reason for deviation.

Most facilities don't have that. They have something else entirely: maintenance programs that drifted organically, were never rationalized, and now exist as a tangled mess of legacy, migration artifacts, and local customization.

And nobody sees it because your CMMS isn't designed to show it.

The Hidden ISO 14224 Gap

Walk through any industrial facility and you'll find a pattern that ISO 14224 explicitly assumes shouldn't exist:

Identical assets with completely different maintenance schedules.

You probably have dozens of examples:

  • 17 identical DP-100 compressors scattered across four production areas, each with a different PM frequency
  • 12 reciprocal pumps that should all get the same preventive maintenance, but somehow 6 are on quarterly service, 4 on semi-annual, and 2 on an ad-hoc schedule nobody remembers creating
  • Twin centrifuges installed at the same time for the same duty, but one gets maintained every 6 months and the other every 12

This shouldn't happen according to ISO 14224. The standard assumes rational asset management: if two assets are identical, their maintenance should be identical unless there's documented reason (duty cycle difference, environment, criticality classification) for deviation.

But it does happen. Constantly. Here's why:

How Your CMMS Drifted Away From ISO 14224

The drift usually follows a predictable pattern:

1. Legacy Systems - You inherited a CMMS from a previous implementation or acquisition. Those assets had PM schedules that made sense at the time, in that context, for that version of the equipment.

2. Migrations - You migrated to a new CMMS (Maximo, SAP PM, Oracle EAM). Not all data migrated cleanly. Sometimes PM records duplicated. Sometimes they got partially mapped. Sometimes the old system's maintenance logic didn't translate directly into the new system's data model, so people worked around it with custom scheduling.

3. Organic Growth - New equipment gets added. New teams create PM schedules based on their preferences, their past experience, or whatever documentation they could find. Over time, you accumulate multiple "standards" for the same asset type.

4. No Visibility - Your CMMS stores PM schedules beautifully, but it doesn't easily show you all schedules for identical assets side-by-side. So nobody sees the inconsistency until someone specifically goes looking for it—which almost never happens because it's hours of manual data work.

The result: You have a CMMS that's technically functional but strategically non-compliant with ISO 14224 principles. Your asset data isn't consistent. Your maintenance strategy isn't rationalized. And auditors will notice.

Why This Matters (Beyond Standards Compliance)

ISO 14224 compliance isn't just box-checking. The standard exists because consistency matters:

For Compliance & Auditability

  • If you're in a regulated industry (pharma, food, medical devices, O&G), your maintenance program gets audited
  • Auditors expect to see documented, consistent maintenance strategies for identical assets
  • When they find 12 identical pumps with 8 different PM schedules, they flag it
  • Suddenly you're writing CAPs (Corrective Action Requests) explaining why your maintenance program doesn't match your own strategy

For Reliability

  • Some of your identical assets are over-maintained (unnecessary costs, spare parts waste, unnecessary downtime)
  • Some are under-maintained (higher failure risk, unplanned downtime, safety exposure)
  • You have no systematic way to know which is which because you've never compared them

For Cost

  • Over-maintenance on some assets, under-maintenance on others = money on the table
  • All the manual work trying to figure out "what should we really be doing?" = engineering time drain
  • Inability to easily standardize new assets = every new piece of equipment becomes a custom PM project

For Data Quality

  • ISO 14224 exists because asset data needs to be useful - shareable, consistent, auditable
  • When your PM data is all over the place, it's not useful. It's just... stored.

Audit Your Own PM Program Against ISO 14224 Principles

Here's a practical framework to assess where your maintenance program stands relative to ISO 14224 compliance. You can do this yourself in about an hour:

Step 1: Asset Classification (ISO 14224 Requirement)

ISO 14224 requires that identical assets be classified consistently. Start here:

  1. Pick an asset category - Something you have multiples of (centrifugal pumps, electric motors, compressors, heat exchangers, whatever)

  2. Extract all instances - How many do you have of this asset type? Export from your CMMS.

  3. Filter for true duplicates - Same make, model, installed capacity. Assets that should genuinely have identical maintenance programs.

  4. Document the count - You should be able to answer: "We have 23 identical DP-100 centrifugal pumps across the facility"

ISO 14224 Compliance Check: Can you easily do this? If you're hunting through Excel spreadsheets for 2 hours, you're not ISO 14224 compliant. The standard assumes your asset data is structured well enough that you can quickly identify identical asset populations.

Step 2: Maintenance Strategy Consistency (ISO 14224 Core Principle)

Now look at the maintenance schedules:

  1. List all PM schedules for your identical assets - What's the frequency? What work is included? What are the procedures?

  2. Identify the variations - How many different PM schedules exist for what should be identical assets?

  3. Document the deltas - What's different? Time-based vs condition-based? Different frequencies? Different labor hours? Different spare parts?

  4. Tally the cost - Rough estimate: if you have 20 identical pumps and they're all on different maintenance schedules, what are you spending extra? Over-maintenance? Under-maintenance risk?

Expected Finding: Most facilities discover 3-6 different PM schedules for what should be a single standardized asset class.

ISO 14224 Compliance Check: The standard assumes documented reasons for deviation. Do you have documented reasons for why Pump A gets quarterly service and Pump B gets semi-annual service? Or did it just... happen? If you can't document it, you're not compliant.

Step 3: Maintenance History Recording (ISO 14224 Data Requirement)

ISO 14224 requires that maintenance history be recorded consistently - which means your baseline PM schedule needs to be rationalized first.

  1. Review your maintenance history for these identical assets - Are the actual work orders following the PM schedule?

  2. Check consistency - Did Pump A get its scheduled service 6 times last year as planned? Or 4 times? Or 8? Did Pump B follow a different pattern?

  3. Look for ad-hoc work - How much unscheduled maintenance are you doing? If you're not following your PM schedule, that's a data quality issue.

ISO 14224 Compliance Check: Maintenance history should reflect executed maintenance strategy. If your PMs say "quarterly service" but your work order history shows random maintenance, you have a compliance gap.

Step 4: Asset Criticality & Justification (ISO 14224 Context)

ISO 14224 acknowledges that not all identical assets get maintained the same way - but deviations need justification:

  1. Map criticality - Which of your identical assets are critical to production? Which have redundancy?

  2. Document duty cycle - Are some running 24/7 while others run part-time? Different environments? Higher loads?

  3. Record past failures - Do you have historical data on reliability differences that would justify different maintenance approaches?

  4. Evaluate design changes - Have some of these assets been retrofitted or modified from the baseline design?

ISO 14224 Compliance Check: Deviations from standard maintenance strategy should have documented justification in your asset data. If you can't point to specific technical reasons why Pump A needs more frequent service than Pump B, they should be on the same schedule.

Step 5: Calculate Your Compliance Gap

Add it up:

  • Asset Classification: Can you easily identify identical asset populations? (Yes/No)
  • Maintenance Strategy Consistency: Do identical assets have consistent PM schedules with documented deviations? (Yes/No)
  • Maintenance History Recording: Does your actual maintenance follow your documented PM strategy? (Yes/No)
  • Criticality Justification: Can you document why deviations from standard maintenance exist? (Yes/No)

If you answered "No" to 2 or more: You have a significant ISO 14224 compliance gap. Auditors would flag this. Your maintenance program isn't reflecting a rational asset strategy.

If you answered "No" to all 4: Your CMMS is storing data, but it's not actually supporting ISO 14224 principles. Your asset reliability information isn't structured, consistent, or auditable the way the standard expects.

What ISO 14224 Compliance Actually Enables

Here's the thing: ISO 14224 isn't just a compliance checkbox. When you're actually compliant with the standard, something powerful happens.

Your maintenance program becomes a asset reliability system instead of just a list of PM records:

Structured Asset Data

  • You know exactly which assets are identical and why
  • You can easily identify asset populations and their characteristics
  • New equipment can automatically inherit proven maintenance strategies instead of starting from scratch

Consistent Maintenance Strategy

  • Your identical assets actually get maintained identically (unless there's documented technical reason not to)
  • Your CMMS reflects your engineered maintenance philosophy, not legacy drift
  • Technicians follow rational, documented procedures instead of inherited inconsistency

Auditable Maintenance History

  • Your work orders show what was actually maintained, when, and by whom
  • You can prove that maintenance was performed according to strategy
  • When auditors ask "why did you service this asset on that schedule?" you have documented answers

Reliable Asset Reliability Data

  • You can actually track whether your maintenance strategy is working
  • You can measure mean time between failures, maintenance cost per asset, reliability improvement
  • You can make evidence-based decisions about maintenance optimization

Rationalized Costs

  • No more hidden over-maintenance or under-maintenance
  • Spare parts management aligns with actual maintenance strategy
  • Staffing and labor planning reflects documented requirements, not random variation

Knowledge Preservation

  • Maintenance strategy is documented and transferable, not locked in someone's head
  • New engineers can understand why equipment is maintained the way it is
  • Facility changes don't randomly break maintenance programs because the logic is recorded

How Proper PM Standardization Enables ISO 14224 Compliance

Here's what most facilities miss: you can't be ISO 14224 compliant without standardizing your preventive maintenance programs.

The standard assumes rationalized asset data. It assumes you can identify identical assets. It assumes maintenance strategies are documented and justified. It assumes your CMMS data is structured and consistent.

Most facilities can't do any of that right now because they lack visibility into their PM landscape.

Imagine if you could:

1. See All Identical Assets At Once

  • Filter to asset class: "Show me all DP-100 centrifugal pumps"
  • Immediately see every instance across all production areas
  • Identify that you have 23 of them when you thought you had 15

2. Compare PM Strategies Visually

  • See all 23 PM schedules side-by-side
  • Spot the variations instantly: which ones are quarterly? Semi-annual? Annual?
  • Understand the cost implications: over-maintenance on some, under-maintenance risk on others

3. Identify Documented Standards

  • What does the manufacturer recommend?
  • What does your asset criticality ranking suggest?
  • What do your past work orders show actually worked?
  • Compare against your current schedules to spot drift

4. Apply Standardization

  • Decide on the right PM schedule for your identical assets
  • Apply it to all 23 at once instead of updating them individually
  • Document your reasoning: manufacturer spec, criticality, operational history
  • One click replaces 2-8 hours of manual work

5. Maintain Consistency Forward

  • New identical assets automatically inherit the standardized schedule
  • PM programs stay rational instead of drifting again
  • Auditors see documented, consistent asset maintenance strategy

The result: Your CMMS finally supports ISO 14224 principles. Your asset reliability data is structured, consistent, and auditable. Your maintenance program reflects your engineered strategy instead of legacy chaos.

What Should You Do About This

If you're managing a CMMS system with hundreds of assets, here's a useful exercise:

  1. Pick an asset type - Something you have multiples of (pumps, motors, fans, compressors, whatever)

  2. Find all instances of that asset in your CMMS

  3. Export the PM schedules for each one

  4. Lay them side by side

Chances are pretty good you'll find exactly what we've described: identical assets with wildly different maintenance schedules, often with no clear reason why.

From there, you can assess:

  • Is this acceptable under ISO 14224 principles?
  • Is it costing you money through over- or under-maintenance?
  • Is it creating compliance risk in an audit?
  • Can you document justified reasons for the variation, or is it just legacy drift?

Because if any of those answers raise concerns, you need a systematic way to identify and fix these inconsistencies—a way that takes minutes instead of weeks, and that keeps your PM program synchronized and ISO 14224 compliant going forward.

The best time to rationalize your maintenance program was when you first implemented your CMMS. The second best time is now, before your next audit or equipment incident exposes the inconsistencies you have.

Your maintenance program should reflect your strategy, not your history. And ISO 14224 compliance requires exactly that.

Key Takeaways

  • ISO 14224 compliance requires consistent maintenance strategies for identical assets with documented justification for deviations
  • Most CMMS systems don't provide visibility into PM consistency across identical asset populations
  • This creates compliance risk, cost inefficiency, and reliability exposure
  • You can audit your own program using the ISO 14224 framework in this article
  • Systematic PM standardization enables compliance rather than requiring a complete overhaul
  • When rationalized, your CMMS becomes an asset reliability system instead of just a data storage tool

Ready to achieve ISO 14224 compliance for your preventive maintenance program? AssetStage's PM Optimization feature helps you identify PM inconsistencies across identical assets, standardize maintenance schedules systematically, and maintain compliance going forward. Learn more about PM Optimization or request a trial to see your PM compliance gaps in minutes.