Blynk’s Post

Most "predictive maintenance" is actually just an alert when a threshold gets crossed. That's condition-based monitoring, and it's genuinely useful. Real prediction answers a different question: not "is something wrong now" but "when will it fail." The catch: prediction needs a baseline of normal operation plus real failure history. Detection doesn't. That's why so many programs jump straight to prediction and stall, they're missing data they haven't collected yet. The payoff for getting there is real too. One furnace OEM avoided a $100,000 recall and cut support costs by tens of thousands a year, just from connected equipment data. Full breakdown here: https://lnkd.in/eu58PwnJ #PredictiveMaintenance #IoT #ConnectedEquipment

  • No alternative text description for this image

What surprised me in conversations this year: several service companies wanted the detection layer more than the prediction layer, at least to start. Their pain isn't "we can't forecast failures," it's "nobody is watching this equipment between visits." That doesn't make prediction less valuable. It does change the order you build in, and who you can help on day one.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories