By Berend Booms, Associate Editor, Future of Assets
Most industrial environments operate across several layers, each shaping how work is carried out in practice. On the surface, things are usually presentable and ticking over nicely. Below the surface lingers a quiet tension, the kind that is hard to catch in a KPI or present on a dashboard, but that shapes outcomes all the same. Operations teams are focused on working with the assets effectively, maintenance teams are focused on keeping assets up and running, reliability teams on keeping them running consistently, and safety teams on everyone doing this in the safest way possible. Each function performs its role with intent and discipline, yet often not in alignment with one another.
Over time, slowly but surely, that misalignment starts to eat away at the value these functions create. It’s difficult to point to just one single root cause, rather it builds up across small moments that accumulate over time: a work order that got postponed because parts were not in stock, a recurring issue that keeps getting resolved in isolation without addressing the underlying cause, a safety measure that is executed to technical perfection, but not fully embedded into how the work gets done in practice. On their own, none of these moments are failures; together, they create a pattern that becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.
The Hidden Cost of Misalignment
This pattern is often described as ‘silos’: the fragmented way of working where different functions and departments begin to work alongside each other rather than with each other. This tendency is often framed as being an organizational flaw, while in reality, it is a natural consequence of how we structure responsibility. When we define roles and assign targets, we begin to optimize locally. This makes sense from a control perspective, but comes at the cost of connection and working from a shared understanding of the system we are part of.
Asset management in particular is a discipline that adds a lot of weight to this distinction. Assets do not operate within departmental boundaries; their value is directly tied to the combined effect of how they are run, maintained, and safeguarded. When those different perspectives begin to drift apart, the misalignment starts to surface at the asset level. Its reliability starts to fluctuate, efficiency becomes harder to sustain, output begins to falter, and over time, trust between the different teams that all work with the asset begins to erode.
When this happens, the dynamic around asset strategy begins to shift. Soon, the focus moves away from shared outcomes toward individual accountability in its narrowest form. Teams move away from discussing how “we” improve, to discussing “who” is at fault. This culture of blame and finger-pointing rarely, if ever, leads to success and meaningful progress in the way assets are managed.
I think it’s important to realize that most of these challenges are not rooted in a lack of competence or intent; they are shaped by a lack of connection. Ours is an industry that is brimming with data and information, but it is not always provided or interpreted in the right context. Business decisions are made without always being fully informed, nor are they made with full visibility. As a result, priorities may be clear on the individual or team level, but less so on the organizational level.
Why Collaboration Drives Asset Performance
What some of the organizations that consistently perform at a high level get right is that they have established an entirely different rhythm. There is still structure, still ownership, still accountability – KPIs are identified, targets are set and quotas are hit. Underlying this continuous performance is a strong sense of collaboration that runs through the way work is approached, embedded in how people think and act. Communication becomes more frequent, conversations begin earlier, expertise is brought in sooner, and decisions are shaped with a broader understanding of their impact, and a higher level of visibility to those impacted.
Collaboration in that sense is less about removing boundaries, and more about connecting them. Collaboration helps create the conditions where information flows more naturally and more directly, where perspectives are shared more commonly and more openly, and where decisions are driven by foresight rather than reaction.
On paper, this sounds really intuitive; in practice, it is not easy to establish. Part of the challenge lies in how success is defined. Asset management is a discipline that relies heavily on measurable outcomes: uptime, cost, performance, safety metrics – all of these provide both clarity and direction. Collaboration, by contrast, is far less tangible; it does not sit neatly within a KPI framework, it’s not easily captured in any sort of metric, and it’s hard to quantify to those expected to deliver on it. At the same time, the absence of collaboration is what undermines the metrics we have come to rely on most.
The tension this creates from a business perspective is difficult to navigate. Collaboration is widely recognized as essential, yet rarely managed with the same level of intent as other performance drivers. I have seen organizations attempt to address this through process: introducing standardized workflows, implementing governance structures, and working with coordination mechanisms that are aimed at bringing teams together around shared objectives. There is a lot of value in these efforts, particularly when they are supported by systems that act as a single source of truth and as a reference point so that information is easily and widely accessible, across functions. But structure alone does not create collaboration.
Making Collaboration Operational: Leadership, Culture, and Long-Term Performance
The real difference maker is on the people side of the business. How people relate to the work and to each other largely determines how well they collaborate. The kind of questions that are asked, the willingness to involve and listen to others, and the realization that success is rarely achieved by a single function are all indicators of the level of collaboration that will drive real business outcomes. It is also where leadership becomes decisive instead of directive, by leading by example. When leaders consistently reinforce shared objectives and shared commitment to these objectives, when they create space for dialogue and conversation, and when they recognize collaborative behavior as a key component of performance, this will start to reshape expectations. Over time, those expectations will grow to become part of how the organization operates.
This has a cumulative effect. Maintenance starts to be engaged before failures occur, not only after. Safety starts to be considered as part of how work is designed, not just as an audit checkbox. Operations becomes part of the conversations shaping long-term asset health, rather than focusing only on their daily targets. As a result, decision-making is more informed, trade-offs are made with greater awareness, risks are addressed earlier in their development, and – most importantly – there is a continuous feedback loop that keeps all functions aligned to the long-term objectives of the business.
It begs the question: if collaboration is fundamental to performance, how do we make sure we treat it with the level of intent it deserves? It’s a difficult question to answer, partly because it is so difficult to measure collaboration directly. I think we should start by recognizing the influence collaboration has more clearly: when collaboration improves, so do a lot of other key performance drivers. Communication becomes more transparent, handovers become more consistent, issues are resolved with greater regard for their impact and likelihood to recur, and the need for rework starts to decrease. These are not direct measures, but they are indicators of a system that is becoming more aligned.
Equally important is making collaboration visible. This can be done by highlighting and celebrating teams and individuals that work effectively across departments or locations, creating space for reflection and sharing lessons learned, and encouraging the exchange of perspectives. Leaders who lead by example reinforce the message that collaboration is not incidental, but integral to how work is done.
Ultimately, collaboration is not something that you can implement through a single initiative or capture in a single framework. It is built over time, through daily interactions, through the willingness to engage beyond the scope of one’s own role, through continuous positive reinforcement, and through the recognition that the quality of business outcomes is shaped by how well the system connects – rather than divides – us. In asset management, complexity is inherent and the consequences of misalignment and “getting it wrong” are very tangible – that’s why I think this connection is one of the most important capabilities we can develop.
Asset performance is rarely the result of individual excellence; it is a reflection of how well the system operates as a whole, and how effectively the people within that system work together. By fostering the alignment between individuals and teams, the impact each has extends beyond reliability or efficiency: it helps shape culture, it strengthens decision-making, and builds the kind of resilience that is required to navigate a landscape that is only growing in complexity.
Collaboration is not just a way of working or a trite wisdom. It is a reflection of how we collectively understand and shape business value as something that emerges through connection, through shared effort, and through the conversations that bring those elements together.