by Berend Booms, Associate Editor, Future of Assets
The phrase “failure is not an option” is often attributed to the Apollo 13 mission control team, where engineers and flight directors worked under immense pressure to bring a damaged spacecraft and its crew home safe. It is a phrase that speaks to a certain mindset: one where problems are not ignored, but confronted with discipline, creativity, and determination. This philosophy also surfaced when I recently spoke with Blake Parker, Director of Hydro Operations at Integrated Power Services (IPS).
In some contexts “failure is not an option” might sound dramatic, but in the environments Blake works in, it is simply a statement of reality. IPS is responsible for maintaining large rotating equipment and power generation systems that operate and serve entire communities. This is when experiencing failure is not just inconvenient or costly; it can interrupt essential services, place enormous pressure on the people responsible for restoring operations, and create risks that extend far beyond the assets themselves.
Understanding how leaders approach reliability in these environments is therefore instructive for anyone working in asset-intensive industries. While the assets may differ from industry to industry, the underlying challenges are often very similar. Aging assets, operational complexity, workforce challenges, and expectations around continuity of service delivery are realities that many organizations will struggle with. What makes Blake’s perspective so compelling to me is the path that shaped it.
A Career that Began Close to the Machines
Blake’s first role in his career was as a heavy equipment mechanic, which is how he developed a hands-on understanding of industrial systems and how to manage and maintain them properly. Early in his career he experienced a layoff that forced him to reconsider his direction. Instead of stepping away from the industry, he decided to deepen his commitment to it. He returned to school and earned a degree that allowed him to work as a mechanic millwright at a large chemical company. While working there he continued studying to earn a degree in industrial engineering.
That combination of practical experience and formal education led him to IPS, where he began in an entry level engineering role. Over time he moved through a wide range of functions including health and safety, quality management, shop operations, and field service leadership. Today he works on large hydropower projects, which is the kind of environment where reliability is not just a performance metric but a serious responsibility.
The different roles Blake held combine into his being a really interesting perspective. When he talks about reliability, he is not approaching the topic purely from an analytical or managerial perspective. He understands how engineering decisions translate into realities in workshops, in the field, and in front of customers waiting for systems to come back online. It is this perspective that has shaped his definition of reliability itself.
Reliability as the Absence of Surprises
In asset management, reliability is often framed through numbers. Uptime percentages, failure rates, and maintenance intervals become the language through which performance is measured. While these metrics are valuable, they do not fully capture the operational reality of industries that depend on continuous processes. Blake shares his own definition, which is, “reliable systems are those where surprises are minimized.”
The line of business IPS is in offers a perfect illustration for why that matters. Hydropower facilities operate continuously, often twenty-four hours a day, all year round. Planned maintenance outages have to be carefully scheduled and coordinated. When something fails unexpectedly, the consequences can be substantial, especially in large generators, as these are not components that can be replaced quickly. The machines are massive and often custom built, which means repairs and replacement parts can take months or even years.
Important to remember however is that the impact of failure is not limited to the asset itself. Unplanned outages place enormous pressure on the people responsible for resolving them. Maintenance teams may find themselves working long hours in demanding conditions, balancing urgency with safety and technical complexity.
I agree with Blake that reliability is something much broader than equipment performance. The earlier a problem can be identified, the more options an organization has to address it in a controlled way. Maintenance can be scheduled strategically, parts can be ordered and prepared ahead of time, and teams can approach the work with the time and resources needed to do it safely. Reliability, in that sense, becomes a discipline of foresight.
Detecting Problems Before They Become Failures
There are several tools that help make this kind of foresight increasingly achievable, such as vibration analysis, temperature monitoring, and partial discharge monitoring in high voltage electrical equipment.
Partial discharge monitoring is particularly valuable in large generators and motors. Over time, the insulation systems within electrical windings degrade. As deterioration progresses, small electrical discharges begin to occur inside the insulation - long before a catastrophic failure develops. By tracking these signals, engineers can begin to understand how quickly the insulation is deteriorating and estimate how much life remains in the system.
While predictions are never perfect, the insight is often sufficient to begin preparing for maintenance months in advance. Replacement coils and other components can be manufactured ahead of time and delivered to the site before the outage begins. The maintenance itself can be scheduled during periods when demand for electricity is lower. Effectively, instead of responding to a sudden failure, the team can execute a planned intervention that significantly reduces downtime and operational disruption. When organizations can see problems developing gradually, they remain in full control of their moment of maintenance.
The Risk of Underestimating Complexity
Even with better monitoring tools, many organizations still underestimate the complexity of the systems they operate. “Oftentimes, failures begin with decisions that appear logical when viewed in isolation,” explains Blake.
He recalls an example involving a large compressor powered by a ten thousand horsepower motor. After twenty-five years of reliable service, the organization decided to increase production by installing a larger motor that would run at a higher speed. This decision was supported by engineering calculations indicating that the compressor could handle the change. What the analysis did not fully consider was the accumulated fatigue within the asset after decades of operation.
“The compressor broke down within nine months, rendering it unable to operate and requiring extensive repairs for approximately six months,” Blake shares. “While the decision to increase production was well intentioned and taken in earnest, it underestimated how the realities of aging assets interact with theoretical design limits.”
For me, Blake’s example is a clear reminder that industrial assets do not operate in ideal conditions. They operate within processes shaped by history, wear, and the countless small deviations that build up over time. Changes that appear reasonable on paper can interact with those realities in ways that are difficult to anticipate.
Beware The Temptation to Defer Maintenance
Extending maintenance intervals for assets that have performed reliably for many years is another common pitfall. When budgets are tight and failures have been rare, it can be tempting to assume that maintenance schedules can be pushed further without consequence.
“It’s really crucial to approach these decisions with caution,” Blake warns, “because reliability rarely declines in a steady or predictable way.” Instead, assets often reach a point where performance begins to deteriorate rapidly. Once that decline begins, restoring reliability can take years of sustained effort. “This is really similar to our personal health,” Blake says. “Neglecting care for a long period cannot be reversed quickly, regardless of how much effort is applied afterward.” I think Blake is spot-on: short term savings achieved by reducing maintenance can introduce long term risk that is far more costly to address later.
Reliability Ultimately Depends on People
While a lot of the work Blake does revolves around complex machinery, he emphasizes that reliability programs ultimately depend on people. Field technicians often operate in demanding environments where they must solve problems quickly and communicate directly with customers who are expecting operations to resume sooner rather than later. In those moments, the relationship between leadership and the field becomes critical.
“Communication should be frequent, even when things appear to be going well. If leaders only engage when problems arise, they miss valuable insights and opportunities to strengthen the team,” Blake explains. Structured communication systems help maintain that connection at IPS. Daily updates, safety discussions, and regular team calls ensure that information moves consistently across the organization. “The most important aspect of communication is responsiveness,” Blake stresses. “When team members reach out to you, whether that’s for support or to talk – it's got to be a priority for you to respond.”
Supporting your team builds confidence, and confidence changes how people approach complex problems. Technicians who feel supported are more comfortable communicating openly and more likely to propose solutions. That confidence also carries over to interactions with customers, who often judge the success of a job not only by the outcome but also by the professionalism and composure of the team performing the work.
Leading Through Focus and Recognition
Blake practices a style of leadership that I really admire, which he describes it as servant leadership. The idea is straightforward: leaders should focus on removing the obstacles that prevent others from doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. That can involve ensuring that technicians have the right tools and training, adjusting schedules to better support field work, or creating an environment where people feel comfortable discussing problems without fear of blame.
Recognition also plays an important role in enabling and empowering your team. When recognizing people for what they’ve done, specific feedback is far more meaningful than general praise. When leaders acknowledge exactly what someone did well and why it mattered, they reinforce behavior that strengthens the organization. In Blake’s experience, when safety, quality, and respect for people remain consistent priorities, productivity tends to follow naturally.
Failure is Always Possible, But Quitting Guarantees It
My favorite part of talking to Blake was when he shared a personal story that illustrates how this mindset extends beyond his professional work. Despite growing up with asthma and having little experience with endurance sports, he eventually trained for a half Ironman triathlon. “During the race, I struggled in the early stages of the swim and became convinced that I had missed the cutoff time required to continue,” he shares. “For a moment, I considered stopping; instead I decided to keep going.” When he crossed the finish line he discovered that he had actually made the cutoff by one minute. This experience reinforced a lesson that I think aligns really well with his professional philosophy: failure may occur, but quitting guarantees it.
This mindset applies well to both reliability and leadership. The goal is not perfection; the goal is preparation, persistence, and the steady discipline of doing the next right thing. In asset-intensive environments, where the assets we manage are of critical importance, that mindset may be the most valuable asset of all. When the stakes are high and the margin for error is small, the responsibility of leadership is clear.
Failure may not always be avoidable, but it should never be accepted as inevitable.