Scaling Predictive Maintenance at Vantage Foods
Vantage Foods piloted vibration monitoring on 12 critical motors for six months. The system detected four of five developing failures and produced 18% false positives; maintenance planners estimate the pilot avoided $85,000 in unplanned downtime. A full rollout covers 180 motors and 720 sensors: $310,000 capital, $60,000 annual subscription, and $22,000 annual technician time for false-positive investigations. Reliability engineering estimates full-site savings of $245,000 per year, not a linear scale-up from the pilot because the 12 pilot motors were the most critical. Finance requires payback within 24 months. The vendor offers a three-year contract with a 5% discount but will not accept unlimited liability. IT found the pilot sensors on the flat OT network with default passwords, no patching path, and vendor remote access always enabled. The reliability manager wants full rollout in 90 days; the CMMS vendor offers a $40,000-per-year handheld route-based program covering 120 motors. A phased 60-motor rollout would cost $110,000 capital and $22,000 annual subscription.
1. Evaluate the full-rollout business case. Calculate simple payback and show the sensitivity that matters.
Read the worked answer
Full rollout: capex $310,000; annual costs are $60,000 subscription + $22,000 false-positive technician time = $82,000. Estimated savings $245,000, so net benefit = $163,000 per year. Simple payback = $310,000 / $163,000 = 1.9 years, about 23 months, inside the 24-month hurdle but not by much. Three-year net = 3 × $245,000 − $310,000 − 3 × $82,000 = $179,000. Sensitivity: if savings are 20% lower at $196,000, net falls to $114,000 and payback rises to 2.7 years, failing finance. A false-positive rate above 18% or subscription growth would also break it. The pilot detected four of five failures on only 12 motors, and those were the most critical, so linear scaling is not justified. The case passes only under the optimistic savings assumption; it is not robust enough for a 90-day full commitment.
2. Recommend a rollout scope and sequence. Justify it against the 90-day demand.
Read the worked answer
Recommend a 60-motor phase in the highest-criticality areas: capex $110,000, subscription $22,000, technician time about $8,000, expected savings $95,000, net $65,000, payback 1.7 years. This preserves the finance case, limits exposure to $110,000, and creates a larger validation sample before 180 motors. Sequence: fix the security baseline, instrument 60 motors, run six months, compare actual avoided downtime against $95,000, then scale in two 60-motor waves. Do not accept the vendor's 90-day full rollout; 720 sensors cannot be installed, secured, and baselined that fast without repeating the pilot's security mistakes. Keep the $40,000-per-year CMMS route program as a fallback for lower-criticality motors; a hybrid is cheaper than putting sensors on every asset. The 90-day demand is a vendor deadline, not an engineering constraint.
3. Specify the security and contract conditions that must be met before any expansion, and the phase-gate metrics.
Read the worked answer
Security: segment the sensor network from the flat OT network; eliminate default passwords; use unique credentials and certificate-based device identity; provide a patching path or documented compensating controls for all devices; allow vendor remote access only through a jump host with MFA, time-bound sessions, and logging; require an SBOM and a vulnerability disclosure process; require incident notification within 24 hours. Contract: right to audit, data ownership and export, security addendum, liability not capped at fees for breach caused by vendor negligence, termination and transition assistance, and no auto-renewal without gate approval. Phase-gate metrics after six months: detection rate at least 80% on confirmed failures, false positives below 10%, sensor uptime at least 98%, patch compliance 100%, annualized avoided downtime at least $95,000, and zero critical findings. If any fail, stop expansion and renegotiate.